Pseudochromis coccinicado????? You sure LA?
- Thread starter tcmfish
- Start date
AquaKnight
Active member
I must say, it's been a while since I've entered something into google and it turn up zero results. Pseudochromis coccinicado just did...
AquaKnight
Active member
It's Pseudochromis coccinicauda as on Quality Marine...
Bret61081
Active member
Thats because most of the fish from LA comes from Quality! If you see where it says ships from LA, that means its straight from the wholesaler.
AquaKnight
Active member
:thumbsup:
29reef
It's all about the flow
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Taxonomy is ever changing. I wouldnt rely on google or fishbase for taxonomic purposes too much, because of the temporal aspect of taxonomy. In conjunction, IMO, KK is one of the most thorough detail-icians (is that a word? It is now) for taxonomic aspects in this trade that I would know. So, he wouldnt just make it up.
cee
New member
I bought what was susposed to be Cirrhilabrus katherinae from LiveAquaria's Diver's Den back in 2009. Turned out to be C. balteatus which is one of the less-attractive fairies IMO. I never said anything to LA but for what I paid for C. katherinae I've been pretty disappointed. Point of the story is that they are not always accurate with their IDs.
Dave
Dave
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
I wasnt implying that mistakes cant happen. They do, by everyone. I was commenting on the borderline accusation that this species name was "made up". As I said, taxonomy is changing all the time. And KK at LA is quite a pinnacle for it. For example, "lyretail anthias" are ofetn labelled, and mislabelled "Pseudanthias squammapinnis" out of bad habit. Yet, the taxonomy isnt so. Depending on their locale, they may be squammapinnis, or the may be Pseudanthias cheirospilos. KK has really been the only online retailer I have EVER seen make that distinction. Attention to detail. In this case, the fish may be misidentified by a snafu or communication glitch. Possibly. Or it could be 100% correct. Google wont resolve that.
Regardless, I wont speak for Live Aquaria, and have seen the fish in question, so my opinion is rather moot.
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Just out of curiosity, too, as Divers Den is WYSIWYG, if this fish was visually a different species ("less-attractive" as you compared to a katherinae), why did you buy it as such? Was it a juvenile? When you purchased it, did it appears exactly as a katherinae? Is it possible the fish you purchased was not the fish shipped? Im just curious.
cee
New member
I wasn't trying to imply that the name was "made up" but likely misidentified. Yes, we're all human. I suspect they go with the IDs their wholesaler and/or diver provide unless characteristics of the specimen dictate otherwise. The fish appeared very attractive in their picture but did not resemble the photo when it arrived. As far as my ability to ID it as C. katherinae, that is tough since I'm not an expert and that species, like many fairies, is highly variable. However, there was no red banding on the side as Kuiter cites. He looked almost identical to the C. balteatus in Kuiter's book and displays the orange/red "splotch" behind the pectorals when "flashing". He also possessed long ventral fins. Juvi; possibly although it was listed as a male, about 3", and was almost solid black fish with a bit of white on the belly and really no distinctive marks on his caudal, dorsal, or anal fins. Wrong fish; I doubt it as I don't recall them having other fairies on their site at the time of purchase. However, since not everything in their inventory is posted on their site, it is remotely possible.
Last edited:
jmaneyapanda
Commencing hatred
Yeah, I wasnt referring to you. But....the first posters claim the species they list it as cant be found "anywhere". So, misidentification? With what? Unless it was just a random typo (the person posting it had something else on their mind and completely mistyped), but I think the options are getting thin for that.
I will refer to the Kuiter books when I get home. Bear in mind though, that publication, too, isnt 100% up to date, although it is a great and thorough reference. It has been a number of years since publication. As for LADD, I doubt they "rely" on the wholesaler/diver in their listings for DD. They may utilize them, but if questionable, I would instead assume they confirm it. If the fish you got was questionable as to the ID, I assume it wouldve been researched, particularly with a "variable" group such as Cirrhilabrus, as you stated. On one order from them, I did recieve the entirely wrong fish (I ordered gobies and was sent clownfish). They quickly, and excessively, remedied the situation. That was, obviously a shipping error, which also, does occur, with everybody.
Regardless, as I mentioned, I am commenting completely on heresay, which makes everything Ive said completely unfounded. Just my speculative opinion.
