fish identification

[JasonE]

Thought it would be interesting to start a thread on fish identification. Many people seem to have trouble with this, especially when it comes to wrasses and anthias.
Most books are unreliable, as are many web pages. I'd like to see a thread where we narrow down identification specifics, what to look for and why, as well as discuss reliable identification resources.
Maybe someone would like to post a pic of a fish they have that they can't identify, and we can go through the process.

 

[prattreef]

Fantastic idea Jason.

 

[KathyC]

I second that!
How about we start with the wrasse Macropharyngodon bipartitus in both the male & female coloration and the juvenile form?

This is apparently the female. I'm having a difficult time getting a pic of the male, who is colored so differently. Does anyone have one?

 

[prattreef]

Here's a not particularly good or flattering pic. of a male...the only one I could find on-line. Anyone want to scan the one from the Kuiter wrasse book?http://www.aquanet.de/objimages/20050215120058698-hauptbild-10012005115718606.jpg

 

[reefman]

how about ids on these

 

[DevIouS]

 

[ShaunW]

To all:

Please be patient with Jason's responses. Since he run's GA he cannot all the time answer questions as quickly as most. BUT, his answers will be the most accurate and informative that anyone could ask for due to all his years of experience within the aquarium hobby.

I'm psyched to follow this thread, .

 

[DevIouS]

My pic was a reply to Kathy's.
:fish:

I should have mentioned that..

 

[lfsmarineguy]

I think Jasons intent was to start a group discussion on the particulars of IDing certain fish, not to start an antique road show for your fish pics. I think a lot of the difficulty in properly IDing fish is that they can vary so greatly even within their own species. Depending on location the same fish can look significantly different. I also think that people, in general, tend to hold fish too strictly to what they are "supposed" to look like. The slightest variation and "that's not the same fish....the picture has 37 spots on its side and mine only has 36...." Thanks to ORA I think the false percula should be the poster fish for variations within a species.

 

[JasonE]

Jared's right. I think this would be great as a group discussion. We could always start another thread to simply ID pictures of peoples fish.
Here, I though it would be more interesting to discuss fish identification, and how to go about it.
I'll start with two things that I think people should consider as they ID fish.
First and foremost : Where did the fish come from? This could answer your question almost immediately. Many similar looking fish have very separate locations. As an example, Pseudanthias squamipinnis only comes from the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. If you have a similar looking fish that came from, say, Bali or the Philipinnes, then you don't have a true squami, so you can cross that off your list of potential species, without looking at any photos.

Second: Totally disregard the common name it was sold to you as.

Also consider that many fish can only be identified down to species through meristics, so you may only get to genus and not be able to go further.

Oh, and books. Just because the photo is in a book with a specific name attributed to it does not make it correct. Many books, and Fishbase use pictures of the dead holotype ,which, for our purposes are relatively unhelpful.
Some books worth splashing out on, IMO, are the fantastic Kuiter series, as well as the new Atlas by Kuiter and Debelius. These alone will go a long way in helping you to ID fish.

 

[KathyC]

I was trying to identify a wrasse that I would like to purchase. My difficulty is in trying to ID the fish that I'd originally seen in a pic while visiting Randy at Pratt.
I must have looked at 500+ pics on the web yesterday (pics of live swimming fish on the databases available to laymen) and found conflicting information. Then I resorted by going to my LFS and actually looking through the Kuiter & Debelius book.
In the Kuiter book I found the fish listed as Macropharyngodon Cyanoguttatus in the male coloration (I believe) which is a turquoise and green pattern of swirls and lines.
Randy believes the fish I am looking for is a Macropharyngodon Bipartitus (pictured in my post above, thought I think that is the female). I can't say I entirely agree after seeing the pic of the male.

I think part of the problem in trying to ID fish is the material we often find shows only the male or female version of the fish and these can be very different in appearance, add to that the differences in the juvenile form of some of them. And as you stated Jason, some of the materials we find for reference are not reliable.

How do I go about reliably identifying this fish past what I have done already?

 

[House of Laughter]

kathy,

As Jason mentioned, the only scientific way is through meristics (I don't proport I have known that word before this thread - thanks Jason).

The problem is that there are so many variants now showing up in different regions not otherwise found etc. Solarensis is a prime example - yes, it's a fairy wrasse, but so much has to do with it's genetic track and where it is now. perhaps a DNA history would help, but you know how that will work out.

What I think will be helpful in this thread is a defined methodology for id'ing fish posted in the 1st post - when I needed a fish ID, I went to fellow reefers who eventually were able to ID the fish via the Kuiter wrasse book, BUT I also got the very same positive ID from our resident link guru Deanos - that being said perhaps an overview on "how to effectively ID a fish" could be posted and then we could all follow as a practice, not science?

House

 

[prattreef]

Kathy,
This is what I'm talking about. From the Kuiter Wrasse book pg 141.

M. bipartitus Male:

 

[KathyC]

Thanks Randy, wish I'd looked at the page # yesterday..I'll see if I pass a LFS today that has the book and take a look again.
Pretty fish

 

[prattreef]

phew!!!!

 

[tosiek]

Very interesting thread. Would help a ton of people who are interested in self IDing their fish or knowing a little bit more about the process. One thing i have been seeing is that web based taxonomy websites don't explain enough about the differences or about the fish and list just the name and region (if your lucky). Not enough help for those who can't or don't want to spend the $$$ on fish ID books and look through pictures which don't help much most of the time. Also alot of books or websites listing with pictures group 3-4 species under one species name which confuses even more. Its like saying Here are the poeple from brooklyn and they are all the same, but there are a bunch of sub divisions of different parts of brooklyn, and u can find big differences sometimes between two blocks which are next to each other.

I always liked the "Ask Randy" method since he is a walking encyclopedia about everything related to aquatics. Too bad he won't fit on the bookshelf :bagfish:. :teeth:

 

[tosiek]

Kathy just remember there were 3-4 species that looked similar but had different sizes and from different parts.

 

[jhale]

I always liked the "Ask Randy" method since he is a walking encyclopedia about everything related to aquatics. Too bad he won't fit on the bookshelf

Tony you can always build a large enough bookshelf :Hydrogen:

 

[prattreef]

Actually, Jason is the encyclopedia , I'm more like the pocket guide

Mods, is there anyway we can clean this thread up -maybe pull out the leopard wrasse part and make it into its own thread and just leave the posts relevant to Jason's original intent? This is a great idea and it has already been hijacked in several directions.

 

[KathyC]

That is exactly what I was thinking JH.

The store I stopped in today didn't have the Kuiter book, they had Burgess and in there it was the M. bipartitus. And thank you Randy for the PM with the link to Sanjays pic. I'll definitely be looking for this fish!