agreed, but thats not entirely what Im talking about. In an ecological sense, it is very costly (read- dangerous) for a male to sport intense bright coloration. It draws attention to them, from both mates, and predators. So, in fish where the coloration may alter based on reproductive status, it seems quite logical to me, that a male wont be flamboyant unless he has a need to (to breed). Otherwise, hes drawing attention for no reason. Certainly, nuptial colors are indicative of breeding, but they are VERY short term (minutes) and are typically associated with actual courting and spawning. However, if a fish has no intentions, nor ability to breed, why keep the prominent male colors (as it is such a danger)? As Im mentioned, this is a common occurrence in birds. Males very regularly shed their breeding plumage for whats called "eclipse plumage" in non breeding times, and often look just like females. Does this make them females? No, juts in drag (hehe). Seriously, though, is it possible that these fish are internally and morphologically males, and just do not display the bright coloration of the males because there is not an appropriate breeding scenario?