Rhinopias Owners ..
- Thread starter Mental1
- Start date
Hey Myerst-
You bring up some interesting points
There has been discussion that R eschmeryeri and R frondosa are potentially same species but dimorphic fish. Other thoughts are that R eschmeyeri is a R frondosa that has lost its frills.
While these points maybe true, a recent publication redescribes both species and identifies a number of specific morphological differences suggesting that these fish are truly separate. Also both male/female gamates have been found in R frondosa and R eschmeyeri- so the jury is still out, well until DNA methods are used to address these issues
So---the fish pictures above are cool and for now most consider these fish to be seperate
You bring up some interesting points
There has been discussion that R eschmeryeri and R frondosa are potentially same species but dimorphic fish. Other thoughts are that R eschmeyeri is a R frondosa that has lost its frills.
While these points maybe true, a recent publication redescribes both species and identifies a number of specific morphological differences suggesting that these fish are truly separate. Also both male/female gamates have been found in R frondosa and R eschmeyeri- so the jury is still out, well until DNA methods are used to address these issues
So---the fish pictures above are cool and for now most consider these fish to be seperate
strendo
Premium Member
Those are some great pics, thanks for everyone's condolences.
I think I'm going to make a non-photosynthetic display out of the tank. I want to do something different and my remaining Rhyno & Frogfish don't seem to like too much light anyway. I'll post some pics next week when some of the gregonians should come in.
I think I'm going to make a non-photosynthetic display out of the tank. I want to do something different and my remaining Rhyno & Frogfish don't seem to like too much light anyway. I'll post some pics next week when some of the gregonians should come in.
seahorsedreams
New member
I think they are going to end up as separate species. You never have to look at one of the common ones and try to figure out what it is. It either looks totally like an eschy or totally like a fronny. Maybe a species split, however moons ago? The aphanes facial porportions look different to me than the fronny and the eschy... like the face is longer.
Mental1
New member
Okay -- just chewed through the article and it states that the three species can be distinguished by their coloration. I was told different but decided to read. I must say that I cannot do the rest of the assessments! What is interesting is if you look at the pictures on page 1 of this thread, of your Frondosa and compare it to the head shot of mine -- the head of mine is a lot longer. And the measurements said the aphanes has the longer head -- by a mean of 1 cm -- or is it mm? No key on the table in the article.
sherri-
when these fish taxonomists decide on separating fish they tend to use visible identifiable features. Be it right or wrong (in fact- I'd say w/o DNA proof- its potentially wrong).
So besides coloration differences and pattern differences, they look at dorsal spines, and fin ray counts, #s of facial projections, etc anything to add more weight to their consideration that these are seperate features.
In that article which appears to be floating around, the descriptions discusses the main differences between all three of the common Rhinopias species and what to look forward, and yes as you mention-the body pattern and dorsal fins shape are key points, Next the head shape and lenth of head and finally the # of subocular projections.
Thats said- even if we remove the body pattern from the decision, to me your fish still looks like a R frondosa, as the head of R aphanes tends to be more elongated, w/ a longer snout (I ask you to look at this article- (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-11/hcs3/index.php) as it has one of the only R aphanes images that displays the elongated snout-(bottom two pictures).
On side view the head of your rhinopias has similar proportions to Renee and Gregs
Anyway- you still have a beautiful fish, and funny thing about fish taxonomists- i always wonder if -based on their evidence gathering- if they evaluated pygmy tribes from south america and looked at the Ugandan giants from Africa and determined these two be separate species as well.
when these fish taxonomists decide on separating fish they tend to use visible identifiable features. Be it right or wrong (in fact- I'd say w/o DNA proof- its potentially wrong).
So besides coloration differences and pattern differences, they look at dorsal spines, and fin ray counts, #s of facial projections, etc anything to add more weight to their consideration that these are seperate features.
In that article which appears to be floating around, the descriptions discusses the main differences between all three of the common Rhinopias species and what to look forward, and yes as you mention-the body pattern and dorsal fins shape are key points, Next the head shape and lenth of head and finally the # of subocular projections.
Thats said- even if we remove the body pattern from the decision, to me your fish still looks like a R frondosa, as the head of R aphanes tends to be more elongated, w/ a longer snout (I ask you to look at this article- (http://reefkeeping.com/issues/2002-11/hcs3/index.php) as it has one of the only R aphanes images that displays the elongated snout-(bottom two pictures).
On side view the head of your rhinopias has similar proportions to Renee and Gregs
Anyway- you still have a beautiful fish, and funny thing about fish taxonomists- i always wonder if -based on their evidence gathering- if they evaluated pygmy tribes from south america and looked at the Ugandan giants from Africa and determined these two be separate species as well.
Mental1
New member
Hi Frank ..
The interesting thing about the fish pictured in that article is that the pattern is not the maze type pattern! I guess head shape is relative-- the face on that fish is long but mine looks long compared to the upturned and shorter snout of Renee and Greg's fish. I am not concerned what he is for any reason other than curiosity. As you know my LFS and his supplier insist that he is an aphanes. I did not have time to look but I am curious about the one versus two black spots on the dorsal fin. It's been a busy week but perhaps I will look tonight and see what I find. Also, if I can count the projections under the jaw, that seems to be another identifier. What confuses me in the article is that it looks like the numbers overlap but perhaps I am missing what the two numbers refer to. Any thoughts?
The interesting thing about the fish pictured in that article is that the pattern is not the maze type pattern! I guess head shape is relative-- the face on that fish is long but mine looks long compared to the upturned and shorter snout of Renee and Greg's fish. I am not concerned what he is for any reason other than curiosity. As you know my LFS and his supplier insist that he is an aphanes. I did not have time to look but I am curious about the one versus two black spots on the dorsal fin. It's been a busy week but perhaps I will look tonight and see what I find. Also, if I can count the projections under the jaw, that seems to be another identifier. What confuses me in the article is that it looks like the numbers overlap but perhaps I am missing what the two numbers refer to. Any thoughts?
seahorsedreams
New member
Wait now, I'm confused. Yours looks like a fronny to me... were we questioning it being something else?
Mental1
New member
Renee -- he was sold to me as an aphanes and we have had a discussion going back and forth between the LFS, his supplier and Frank. The above mentioned article was given to me as part of the proof that mine is an aphanes and it is not based on just on the color pattern. So at this point I am just curious to see what he really is but some of the measurements are impossible to do on a live fish! And -- what if he meets some of the criteria but not all? Like I said -- at this point I am just curious.
seahorsedreams
New member
Actually, I was looking at the wrong pic thinking it was yours. Do you have any side on shots of yours? I apologize if we've gone over this before... I have a sinus thing.
seahorsedreams
New member
OMG! I was totally looking at it... sorry *blush*
How about when the light come on, I take a pic of the fronny with a profile positioned just like yours and I'll lay them on top of each other. Maybe then we can see how they differ. How big was yours again? Full grown?
How about when the light come on, I take a pic of the fronny with a profile positioned just like yours and I'll lay them on top of each other. Maybe then we can see how they differ. How big was yours again? Full grown?
Last edited:
namxas
Things With Stings R Us!
Sherri,
FWIW, i'd have to say your fish is a frondosa, hands-down.
as Renee and i have been finding out in our "scorp adventure", they're probably the most mis-ID'd family of fishes i've ever come across, even more so than anglers. many of them are similar-looking, altho IMHO, the Rhinopias are one of the easier genuses to ID. in this case, i'd have to go with pattern and snout morphology.
i think any R. aphanes coming into the hobby here in the US would be a fluke, and would command a pretty steep price (as if Rhinos are cheap!), assuming it was correctly ID'd all the way down the chain of sellers.
well...we can always dream, can't we?
FWIW, i'd have to say your fish is a frondosa, hands-down.
as Renee and i have been finding out in our "scorp adventure", they're probably the most mis-ID'd family of fishes i've ever come across, even more so than anglers. many of them are similar-looking, altho IMHO, the Rhinopias are one of the easier genuses to ID. in this case, i'd have to go with pattern and snout morphology.
i think any R. aphanes coming into the hobby here in the US would be a fluke, and would command a pretty steep price (as if Rhinos are cheap!), assuming it was correctly ID'd all the way down the chain of sellers.
well...we can always dream, can't we?
Mental1
New member
The curious thing is that the actual supplier is also a marine biologist in his own right and he is sending all of his fish in as aphanes. I had heard they were rare and expensive too. I am just curious how many of the criteria that I can tell from looking at him -- does he meet? Why does this supplier insist that he is an aphanes? Personally. I am not concerned any more but I am curious to test it out. I can't tell just from looking at them -- I am not that good. Yours looks like it has a shorter snout and more upturned. Mine is about 8 inches long Renee -- he is fully grown as far as I can tell. When I look at the article that Frank attached -- the fish looks like it actually has a lot more protuberances but IIRC the article said the aphanes had less. So Greg -- I think you are right -- who knows????
