Difference between Halichoeres chrysotaenia and Halichoeres melanurus?

flfireman1

Wrasse aficionado
I thought I could tell the two species apart. I believed the melanurus had a more lined pattern of stripes on the body, while the Vroliks (Halichoeres chrysotaenia) pattern is almost made up of a series of dots.

However, alot of the infomation on the internet is misleading. They have both species labeled interchangeably. To make matters worse fishbase doesnt even list Halichoeres chrysotaenia.

Does anyone have any good articles or info that describes the two species? Or better yet, if you have any pics that show the actual difference between the two fish.
 
H. chrysotaenia is a moniker for H. melanurus.

It is listed by FishBase, but note the third column ("Valid Name"):

FishBase.org said:
Halichoeres chrysotaenia | (Bleeker, 1853) | Halichoeres melanurus | Labridae | Tail-spot wrasse

There is no difference.
 
Live Aquaria isn't always perfect.

Go look at the Dusky Wrasse. Species name is wrong in the text of the page, but correct in the page title. :)
 
Digging up from the deep. This is the question I am asking, so I post what I found here even if it is several years old.
Basically, the juveniles and females looks the same. Male patterns is different, including the body line on Melanurus and chain-link like on Chrysotaenia. Tail patterns is also different between the two. A short write up from Quality Marine explained it best. Possible that these are just local variance of the same species.
According to Fishbase.org H. chrysotaenia is a moniker for H. vrolikii, the Vrolik wrasse instead of Melanurus.

http://www.qualitymarine.com/News/Species-Spotlight/lookalike---melanurus-(07/02/14)
 
Last edited:
More information.
H. chrysotaenia and H. vrolikii, describe the same species. However, H. chrysotaenia type specimen is older, therefor it is the correct name for this species. Fishbase.org is wrong in this rare instance.
 
More information.
H. chrysotaenia and H. vrolikii, describe the same species. However, H. chrysotaenia type specimen is older, therefor it is the correct name for this species. Fishbase.org is wrong in this rare instance.

LA has it right, and fishbase has it wrong...that is surprising.
 
Back
Top