Tiny clown, percula or ocellaris?
- Thread starter Chelsey
- Start date
55semireef
Moved On
I would say Ocellaris.
cokemanmark
In Memoriam
that is a nice clown
55semireef
Moved On
Elaborate on this please. When you say "by now," are you referring to the clown's size or coloration or what? How do you even know how old it is in the first place? Every individual is different.
I am with FFFrog, in that a fish almost 1 inch long, and with faint second and third stripes, could very well be juvenile A. percula. Misbars on A. ocellaris would be outlined in black by now. A. ocellaris would be pretty much done getting bars, A. percula just starting to .
Chelsey says the bars are coming in, indicating change. It's about the size/time for a percula to do that, from what I've read.
However, some very experienced folks have said A. ocellaris, so I could be wrong.
Chelsey says the bars are coming in, indicating change. It's about the size/time for a percula to do that, from what I've read.
However, some very experienced folks have said A. ocellaris, so I could be wrong.
JHardman
Premium Member
This is one of the more interesting ID's I have seen of late...
What makes it interesting (at least to me) is the picture on the fare right. That posture/motion is VERY VERY skunk like.
Take a look at my avatar and tell me if your fish looks more like a classic A. ocellaris/A. percula or like my avatar... My guess is that you will say it looks more like my avatar.
What makes it interesting (at least to me) is the picture on the fare right. That posture/motion is VERY VERY skunk like.
Take a look at my avatar and tell me if your fish looks more like a classic A. ocellaris/A. percula or like my avatar... My guess is that you will say it looks more like my avatar.
All,
How come nobody has brought up the fact that it simply is not possible to positively ID a fish from a fuzzy photograph? You can form an OPINION, but to say that it is 100% one thing or another is simply not possible. The idea that it is a tank-raised fish brings up a whole slew of developmental and genetic artifacts that cloud the answer.
Aside from good collection data on a wild fish, I find that there is only one reliable means to identify A. percula from A. ocellaris - The former's dorsal meristics are usually X-15, while the latter is usually XI-16, and the dorsal is a bit taller. The problem is that you usually need to have the fish in hand to see this - there if often a little stubby dorsal spine that is difficult to count, even from a clear photograph.
Jay Hemdal
p.s. - If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the fish is either A. percula, or has some sort of developmental issue (or is a hybrid).
How come nobody has brought up the fact that it simply is not possible to positively ID a fish from a fuzzy photograph? You can form an OPINION, but to say that it is 100% one thing or another is simply not possible. The idea that it is a tank-raised fish brings up a whole slew of developmental and genetic artifacts that cloud the answer.
Aside from good collection data on a wild fish, I find that there is only one reliable means to identify A. percula from A. ocellaris - The former's dorsal meristics are usually X-15, while the latter is usually XI-16, and the dorsal is a bit taller. The problem is that you usually need to have the fish in hand to see this - there if often a little stubby dorsal spine that is difficult to count, even from a clear photograph.
Jay Hemdal
p.s. - If I had to hazard a guess, I would say the fish is either A. percula, or has some sort of developmental issue (or is a hybrid).
