New Polypterus....yes....ANOTHER one!

[Fruitbat]

Here's a photo of my latest acquisition.....Polypterus palmas polli. I'm finally getting my 'collection' back into semi-decent shape!



Edited to reflect Toirtis' logical argument regarding taxonomy

[An t-iasg]

These Polypterus are pretty neat-looking! I was just at the hatchery the other day, and I saw a pretty big one. P. delhezi, I think. They also had a bunch of ropefish.

[medge00]

seriously, where do you get these guys? I've never seen em, and hey, I've been to my fair share of fish stores....

[Fruitbat]

I haunt my local stores and the three that I frequent the most know what I'm looking for and they know that if they get in the right ones that I'll buy 'em!! Polypterus have been my favorite fish ever since I kept my first one back in the mid-1970s but oddly enough this is the first Polypterus polli I've ever managed to get...even though they are fairly commonly imported.

[frshwaterfinatc]

Awesome fish, Fruitbat! How long do they get?

[Toirtis]

Polypterus palmas polli...please!

They are quite common in the trade, and by far one of my fave bichirs....they are very diurnally active and have a ton of personality. 12"-14" is typical, with females tending to become very pudgy.

Fat female:

[frshwaterfinatc]

Oh, wow. 8O

[Fruitbat]

Toirtis....

Depends on who you listen to. Frank Shafer in the Aqualog Polypterus book has this fish elevated to specific status as Polypterus polli and, at least for now, that's the nomenclature I've followed. In general, I tend to be a 'lumper' taxonomically but it seems that the 'splitters' are ruling the earth of late. Personally, I've always though of it as Polypterus palmas polli but I'm trying to go with the binomial that people will be most likely to see in the most current literature.

[Toirtis]

Frank Schafer has no basis for that, so it is simply incorrect...the current accepted taxonomy comes from the Hanssens, M.M., G.G.Teugels and D.F.E.Thys Van den Audenaerde paper. "Subspecies in the Polypterus palmas complex (Brachiopterygii; Polypteridae) from West and Central Africa." as published in Copeia in 1995.

[Fruitbat]

From the Aqualog Polypterus book:

The various species concepts current in systematic zoology have been (and still are) applied to the bichirs, and this has inevitably resulted in confusion regarding the taxonomic status of the individual forms - a problem that persists to the present day. And the individual advocates of the various species concepts are often implacably opposed. Even though the current author is not in agreement with some of the combinations of names and systematic placements at present generally accepted, these are followed here in the interest of stability. The classification used here is based on the following systematic works: POLL 1941, GOSSE 1988, and HANNSONS et al. 1995

In the course of these researches it transpired that 15 of the 18 scientifically described forms (17 Polypterus, 1 Erpetoichthys) represent valid species (14 Polypterus, 1 Erpetoichthys). Four additional forms from the genus Polypterus, distinguishable on the basis of coloration and morphology, require further study in order to establish their taxonomic status, and an additional species is currently being described by Ralf BRITZ. Subspecies, such as those that have been described for P. bichir, P. endlicheri, P. senegalus and P. palmas, are here regarded either as synonyms or as distinct species.

While I'm more inclined to see polli as a subspecies of palmas, I have to give Shafer credit for doing his research. He did manage to examine the type specimens of almost every taxonomically described species and subspecies of Polypterus, in addition to what appears to be a reasonably thorough sampling of live specimens of nearly every taxon. For the time being I'll stick with Shafer's nomenclature with the proviso that more data and more extensive analysis might cause my opinions to waver a bit. At any rate, since the Aqualog Polypterus book is the reference most likely to be available to the average bichir 'keeper', it seems only reasonable to use that nomenclature, at least for a while.

[Toirtis]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

At any rate, since the Aqualog Polypterus book is the reference most likely to be available to the average bichir 'keeper', it seems only reasonable to use that nomenclature, at least for a while.

But...1) At $100+, it isn't likely to be..."Jurassic Fishes" by Kodera et al is likely to remain the most common one, even after my book gets published; 2)If it isn't explicitly correct, why quote it?; 3)Out of 100s of references, including such things as fishbase, I have never seen anyone refer to P. palmas polli as P. polli prior to now, so the former would seem far more universally accepted than the latter.

[Fruitbat]

Toirtis.....

Good points, to be sure. I'm enough of a bichir fanatic (as you appear to be ) that I rushed out and bought the Aqualog Polypterus book as soon as it was available but the price tag is a bit prohibitive for the average fish keeper. I've found that to be true of almost all of the Aqualog series. You're certainly also correct when referring to the vast majority of resources calling this fish Polypterus palmas polli. Your points are persuasive enough that I'll modify this post to reflect your logic.

[krap101]

do they have teeth

[Fruitbat]

Yes....Polypterus are all predatory and some of them have a rather vicious set of teeth!

[Toirtis]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

Toirtis.....

Good points, to be sure. I'm enough of a bichir fanatic (as you appear to be )

Heh...you have no idea...I have 56 of them now representing 11 species (including E. calabaricus)...but I have been able to successfully spawn only two species so far.

[Fruitbat]

As of now I only have 11, representing 5 species (including E. calabaricus) but that will be changing relatively rapidly over time. I have some 'true' retropinnis coming in from Africa, hopefully fairly soon along with a couple of African Mudfish (Phractolaemus ansorgei) which I kept a specimen of a number of years ago but haven't seen for sale since.

[Toirtis]

Originally Posted by Fruitbat

a couple of African Mudfish (Phractolaemus ansorgei) which I kept a specimen of a number of years ago but haven't seen for sale since.

You lucky bugger....same here, and I have been looking for them pretty actively the past couple of years.

[medge00]

UNUSUAL FISH COLLECTORS UNITE!!!!!!

hehehe

[Fruitbat]

Toirtis...

If you're really interested in Phractolaemus then I can probably point you in the right direction. Rehoboth Aquatics is getting them in for a few of the keepers of 'oddball' fish. Email me or PM me here if you'd like to be in on the 'buy'. I turned the owner on to this fish a couple of weeks ago and there seems to be enough interest to justify him getting some. In fact, he may have already ordered some.

[Toirtis]

The thought is appreciated, and I would take advantage of it, but shipping up to Canada would be pretty ugly, I suspect.