New Angelfish- strange morph...
- Thread starter jmaneyapanda
- Start date
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Really?! That is really surprising. I could understand some base coloration variation, but something as functionally and behaviorally significant as ocelli and eyespots being variant is quite impressive. I cant recall any pics of a true xanthometopon without the ocelli.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
As per the true coloration, it is very "bland". The blue is striking, but the yellow is almost nonexistant, except if you really study the fish, and look closely at the fins and eyes. Overall it is a very ashy grey/tan.
copps
Premium Member
The ocelli will develop... remember that this fish is still developing adult coloration... it will come...
yukonblizzard
New member
What ever it is, its pretty interesting, even if just a color morph.
Danorth and I believe Triggerfreak had adult Bluefaces that lacked the ocelli. I will do a search to see if I can find some pictures.
Danorth and I believe Triggerfreak had adult Bluefaces that lacked the ocelli. I will do a search to see if I can find some pictures.
I disagree. I think it would be showing already. Most fish this far in the coloration seem to have the ocelli already. Look at this pic, but disregard the name:
And this pic:
AuroraDrvr
New member
I believe Danorth on here, ha(s/d) a Blueface that lacks the ocelli that was in full adult coloring. I think the lack of an ocelli and the color variation are not dependent features, meaning there are separate reasons why the ocelli is gone, and why the coloration is morphed.
Edit: Got beat by Yukon.
Edit: Got beat by Yukon.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Id have to agree with tcm, about the ocelli. There is not even the slightest inclinition of one. The entire dorsal in ghostly white. I would be quite surprised if an ocelli develops, especially since the rest of the body appears quite matured towards the adult morphology.
The stage of development has me quite confused on this fish. First and foremost, this species, along with navarchus angels, seems to be a quick developer in my opinion. I have seen TINY adults colored fish, maybe with a little juvenile colors. However, the true juvenile colors seem to be most prevalent of the tiny juveniles (1-2"). Perhaps this is because of collection practices, rather then nature, but I have rarely seen large juvenile colored fish (as compared to other pomacanthids, such as imperators, which seem to have rather enormous juvenile clored fish). However, the development of this fish appears to be quite developed on the body (with little to no evidence of barring), while the face seems quite premature. Everythings seems all outta wack. As seen in the pics above, even the juvniles with obvious barring have an almost complete yellow face mask, whereas this fish has either an obscured mask (by washed colors), or unusual development.
The stage of development has me quite confused on this fish. First and foremost, this species, along with navarchus angels, seems to be a quick developer in my opinion. I have seen TINY adults colored fish, maybe with a little juvenile colors. However, the true juvenile colors seem to be most prevalent of the tiny juveniles (1-2"). Perhaps this is because of collection practices, rather then nature, but I have rarely seen large juvenile colored fish (as compared to other pomacanthids, such as imperators, which seem to have rather enormous juvenile clored fish). However, the development of this fish appears to be quite developed on the body (with little to no evidence of barring), while the face seems quite premature. Everythings seems all outta wack. As seen in the pics above, even the juvniles with obvious barring have an almost complete yellow face mask, whereas this fish has either an obscured mask (by washed colors), or unusual development.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
I dont understand what you mean by "not dependant". Do you mean that it is not a natural occuriong event (such as color morphing, or locale differnces), or some other meaning?
yukonblizzard
New member
Found it!
This is a post Dan had made about a month ago, hopefully he doesnt mind me sharing it here.
In the first picture you can see the spot developing, but as an adult it is not present.
This is a post Dan had made about a month ago, hopefully he doesnt mind me sharing it here.
2 years ago @ 3":
Yesterday @ 6.5"-7":
In the first picture you can see the spot developing, but as an adult it is not present.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Now THAT is bizarre. I really wonder what would cause it to be there when young, but disappear into adulthood, when the species as a whole retains it into adulthood. I wouldve thought that the absence would be constant.
yukonblizzard
New member
Thats exactly what I was thinking.
AuroraDrvr
New member
The reason why there is no dorsal spot is not the same reason why the fish is lacking almost all its yellow pigmentation. What ever the cause of either.
Or atleast that's my off-the-wall guess.
Perhaps it's a regional thing. Don't red sea C. auriga's lose their spot too?
Thanks for finding that. I knew not all of them had it. But I did not know that it did have an ocelli when it was younger and lost it with age. And I think it is safe to say it is not due to captivity because of how common this fish is and the tons of people who have them with ocelli.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Do the aurigas lose it, or just lack it? I thought it was the latter. I, too, wondered if it was regional, but you'd think you wouldve seen a LOT more of them without if it were. Especially since my fish, at least, is purportedly from Bali, not some exotic, random locale (ie- Sumatra).
I would've liked to see the progression of danorth's fish. I find it amazingly unusual that this fish would develop the ocelli from the juvenile colors, to then just lose it into adulthood. That doesnt make any sense. I wonder if the juvenile pic is misplaced.
Sorry to get off topic but I checked C. auriga in Scott Michael's Angels and butterfly book and the Red Sea auriga has some different coloration too. There is a distinct line between the yellow then dark color then the white. Where in typical C. auriga there is much less dark region and the yellow blends with the white with no distinct line. This is difference in regional coloration, but with the blueface the only thing different is the ocelli, no other coloration.
Similar threads
