Great Surprise Today

The friendliest place on the web for anyone with an interest in aquariums or fish keeping!
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Spazz67

Aquarium Advice Regular
Joined
Sep 1, 2008
Messages
93
Location
Kentucky
Our LFS called today and they got us a mated pair of clowns. Was 37.07 (including tax) a fair price for them? We watched them do what my wife calls the shimmie dance for about 20 min. We also got the fake rock that they seemed to be hosting. Our other clown went back to the LFS. I'll put pictures on here when they settle down.
 
Congrats. That sounds awesome. Yes not a bad price at all? Wat type of clowns, not true percs of course for that price?
 
They were sold as true percs, but my wife says their false. We'll post pics soon and see if their true or false.
 
I really doubt that they would be... not to worry though that is a great price for 2 of pretty much any clownfish. Thats why you got to be careful about some LFS cause a lot of people dont know what they are talking about a lot of the time. They wanna make a sale, If they arent im sure they are still gorgeous. :eek:
 
I found this article on About.com. Might be of some help.

We have heard some saltwater aquarists say that the difference between the True and False Percula Clown or Anemonefish is simply that the false species is tank-raised in captivity and has never seen the ocean. Hmmmm. So if this is the only reason these clownfish differ, and hypothetically you placed a "tank-raised" Percula into the ocean, does it miraculously become a True Percula Clownfish? What do you think?

Percula Clownfish, Clown Anemonefish
[SIZE=-1](Amphiprion percula)[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Photo by Rob Borycki[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Because of its name, Amphiprion percula, it is the True Percula Clownfish.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Typically orange in color with three white bars, with the middle bar having a forward-projecting bulge.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Has 10 (rarely 9) dorsal spines.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-2]Usually has jet black margins of varied widths around its white bars, often of which can be rather thick.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-2]Distribution of this species in nature: Northern Queensland and Melanesia (New Guinea, New Britain, New Ireland, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu).[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-1]False Percula, Ocellaris Clownfish[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1](Amphiprion ocellaris)[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-2]Photo by David Wade[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-2]Typically orange in color with three white bars, with the middle bar having a forward-projecting bulge.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-2]Has 11 (rarely 10) dorsal spines.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-2]The spinous (anterior) part of the dorsal fin is taller.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-2]May have no black margins present, but most often has thin, never thick black margins around its white bars.[/SIZE]
  • [SIZE=-2]Distribution of this species in nature: Andaman and Nicobar Islands (Andaman Sea), Indo-Malayan Archipelago, Philippines, northwestern Australia; coast of Southeast Asia northwards to the Ryukyu Islands.[/SIZE]
 
That's a bad article... the two pictures they show of the true perc are not both true percs! The first picture on the left is a false perc ([SIZE=-1]Amphiprion ocellaris)[/SIZE]. The second picture on the right is a true perc ([SIZE=-1]Amphiprion percula).
[/SIZE]
 
That's a bad article... the two pictures they show of the true perc are not both true percs! The first picture on the left is a false perc ([SIZE=-1]Amphiprion ocellaris)[/SIZE]. The second picture on the right is a true perc ([SIZE=-1]Amphiprion percula).[/SIZE]

Are you sure? I see an aweful lot of online stores with pics of true percs looking like the one on the left. That one in the first pic looks like a juvinile (true) starting to get more of its darker color around the bands. If you save the pic and zoom in, you can see what I am talking about. I'm in no way accusing that you are wrong. I just want to straighten this out.
 
Hard to tell, it could be just that it hasn't developed full coloration yet like you said. It looks more like an ocellaris than a percula in my opinion though.

Here is a good pic of the coloration of a percula.

http://www.nano-reef.com/fish/images/perculaclown1.jpg

I do see what you are saying about the black coloration on the left pic, Chisel. Hard to tell. I have some picture of my false percs in my gallery and you can see the black on them that kinda looks like the first picture.
 
It is hard to tell and like i said, I was not trying to say that Kurt is wrong. I was only trying to help Spazz out.
 
True percs have 10 droasl spines while false (Amphiprion ocellaris) have 11. The black margins are quite thin compared to Amphiprion percula.

Judging from those pics the top right is A. percula and the left pic is A. ocellaris.
 
Well, here's my two cents worth on finding (true) Nemo. I don't see a problem with the photos. The two A. perculas look correctly identified (though I'm no pomacentrid expert). I think there may be a little confusion on how wide the black lines should be. From the photos in several books I have by Gerry Allen (the ichthyologist who first noted that there were two different species involved), the lines when present in A. ocellaris are very narrow (except in a melanistic form from NW Australia, which lacks any orange between the white bars - the areas between the bars are entirely black). They do not have to be really broad to make it an A. percula.

Here's the key couplet (number 16) from Gerry's 1975 (2nd ed.) of "Anemonefishes", which was based on his PhD work on the group:

16a. Dorsal spines almost always XI (occasionally X); length of tallest dorsal spine 2.1 to 2.9 in head length; pectoral rays usually 17; area between bars usually pale except in melanistic specimens from northern Australia (northern Australia; Malayan-Indonesian region; eastern Indian Ocean; Philippines; So. China Sea; Ryukyus; southern Japan) .... ocellaris

16b. Dorsal spines IX or X (usually X); length of tallest dorsal spine 3.0-3.4 in head length; pectoral rays usually 16; areas between bars frequently blackish (New Caledonia; New Hebrides; Solomon Islands; New Guinea; Queensland) .... percula

The interesting thing to note is that he alludes to more overlap in characters than is usually acknowledged (particularly with regard to the black edging). I have several subsequent publications by Gerry, and aside from updating the names of localities (and clarifying "northern Australia" for A. ocellaris to "northwestern Australia") there is isn't a lot of change in the diagnoses. Well, that's except for his contribution to the 2001 FAO Species Identification Guide for the Western Central Pacific where I think the editors screwed up. (There are two illustrations for each species, a light variety and a dark variety illustration each for A. ocellaris, and a typical and "Melanesia variety" for A. percula. Unfortunately, they incorrectly re-used the light variety illustration of A. ocellaris as the illustration of typical A. percula!)

And now to throw the cat among the pigeons: I'm not sure whether these characters will work very well for captive bred fish, given the possible effects of inbreeding and possible trait selection by breeders. (There's now an astounding amount of variation in captive bred individuals of the related A. biaculeatus, presumably because breeders are selecting for various colour patterns.) Certainly I could imagine that the colour patterns may not be that representative in captive bred fish, and I doubt anyone has looked at the remaining characters to see if they are now more variable. (I've seen this in other captive bred species.) Moreover, given the difficulty in identifying the two species, it would not even surprise me if some of the captive bred individuals were hybrids between the two species because breeders did not correctly identify their brood stock.

Tony
 
Are you sure?

99.9% - the one on the left looks exactly like the O.Clown I have. Exactly. While the black bands are a little thicker, that doesn't make it a Percula.

I see an aweful lot of online stores with pics of true percs looking like the one on the left.

It doesn't surprise me... you can get more $ for true percs.
 
Ours look just like the picture on the left of the ones of the True Perc. My wife still says that they are false. We’ll try to get good enough pics to count the dorsal fins and post some. Swfanatic69, they both are beautiful and my family just loves the shimmy dance that they do, my wife thinks its cute. Thanks for all the advice so far. As I said any and all comments and advice are welcome.
 
Sorry to muddy the water - but I think it was pretty muddy already! I still think the left figure is a real A. percula (based on comparisons with the literature I have), but acknowledge this depends on whether it's a juvenile or not. However, the colour characters are not as clear cut as they might appear, and I think too much emphasis may have been placed on them. If you check out photos of wild caught (or photographed) individuals from known localities you can get an idea of how fuzzy the distinction is. For example, if you look at the wild fish on FishBase (Fish: Search FishBase), you can get an idea of how little difference there is in the width of the black edging in some individuals of the two species. (Please ignore the painting of "A. ocellaris" - it looks like it was intended to represent A. percula and got associated with the wrong account. I just queried FishBase about that.) The other thing to note (particularly in Jack Randall's photo-tank shots, where the fins are set in an upright position) is that the spiny dorsal height does seem to work okay, but you need to have fish side-by-side to appreciate the difference. It's worth a shot though if you can get your fish to sit still long enough for comparison!

In any case, a photo would be good - particularly one that allowed the spines to be counted (a little backlighting would help) and the fin height to be evaluated.

Tony
 
Yes - any vendor can be wrong. Shoot... I see DrFosterSmith sell corals sometimes that are misidentified!

I'm not discounting what Tony is saying by any means. He's saying you can't judge it based only on coloration, and I agree. Shoot... after reading that post and taking some shots of my clownfish and studying them, I now question what I have. The question I have is when you start and end counting dorsal spines! Towards the rear end of the fish, it gets a little tricky!

But generally... GENERALLY... the coloration that is shown in that left picture is normally associated with a false perc. I suppose it could be a variant, or just a juvenile that hasn't really grown into its stripes yet, but the majority of the time I think you're safe to assume that coloration is a false perc.

In the end... it really doesn't matter. They both are treated the same as far as food and living conditions go.
 
Last edited:
OK, that all seems fine by me - I'm only going on the literature I have access to, and don't have the aquarium experience with A. ocellaris that you guys have. (When I kept marines back in Australia in the 70s and 80s, A. percula was the common clownfish!) As for counting dorsal-fin spines, this can be difficult, particularly at the back of the fin where they may become relatively slender and easily confused with the segmented rays. Having the fins backlit can make a huge difference, though (even if the photo no longer shows much of the coloration). Also, a little experience with the species can make it much easier, as you can easily estimate where the spiny portion of the fin ends, even if you can't quite make it out. I often use x-rays as an aid when doing spine and ray counts in my research - in dottybacks it's often the start of the fin that's hard to make out (at least in species with very slender spines, such as Pseudoplesiops species). In any case, I'd be happy to help out with checking counts if anyone wants to post photos. I have a few preserved specimes of both species in our museum which I can refer to as an aid.

Tony
 
Back
Top Bottom