[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
>Dave Whittaker said....
>> By the way, the photograph of the specimen of C. cobitis
>> described by Robert does not entirely resemble that which
>> appears in Baensch Atlas II under the same name. Anyone
>> surprised? To be fair, taxonomic features no doubt take
>> precedence over appearance when it comes to determining species.
> Have you seen the piece by Petru Banarescu, 1986. A review of the species
> of Crossocheilus, Epalzeorhynchos (sic), and Paracrossocheilus (Pisces,
>Cyprinidae). Travaux Du Meseum d Histoire Naturelle "Grigore Antipa". v. 28,
>141-161. In examining specimens and pix on the west coast (U.S.), I peg the
>more common non-SAE as Paracrossocheilus vittatus... tho we do have 'the real
>thing' here as well.
> Anyhow if you can't the above ref. and would like a copy (if Coke (tm)
>doesn't have me locked up already), I'll send a copy along with a xerograph
>of a pop. pc. I penned for the hobby mag.s on the ish of who's who and
Thanks for the reference Bob. I will check it out next week.
>Re the apparent diff. twixt Robert and Hans, they may well be the same
>fish species as far as I can tell.
Maybe. It's just that the picture in Baensch shows a fish of more or
less uniform coloration, and in Robert's photo the fish appears to
have a black lateral line and a white belly. The spot at the base
of the caudel fin is there in both pictures.
ac554 at FreeNet_Carleton.ca