The Puffer Forum

There's a good reason to be skeptical. It is highly unlikely that two different species would mate in the wild. It's a little more different for fish since they release their gametes but there's ecological factors which should prevent this. Time of mating or mating location. Most gametes do not last too long in the water as there are tons of organisms that inhale them, it's delicacy time for them. There should also be behavioural and chemical signals which are involved in mating and help prevent cross breeding. If a mating like this occurs then both adults will have wasted their gametes and effectively reduced their fitness.

Then there's the whole issue of the sperm actually being able to fertilize the egg and the zygote being able to divide properly and survive. When the chromosomes don't align properly then mitosis is unable to occur normally. There will also be issues with protein production, etc.

IF it does happen then the species must be very closely related and live in close quarters. It would be very neat to study the breeding behaviours of these fishes and see if this is in fact possible (technically it could be)!

Puffer taxonomy is not the best in any case. Nominal GSPs are too widespread and too variable. If they survive a revision without breaking in multiple species I would be shocked. If they should turn out to relatively isolated variants, those at least will get split out. The genus Tetraodon itself is shaky.

LilGreenPuffer wrote:like the pustulaka

This term was coined semi-jokingly due to the number of people spotting baby "Pustulatus", paying the exorbanant price, and having them really turn out to be Fahakas when they get bigger. From the conversation with MartinHi (?) and Corvus, the thought was there is possibly a regional variant to the Fahaka species. There has never been any research and there is no proof.

Yes, what Dadof4 says.

The name was made up to describe the interesting fact that spotted absolutely T. pustulatus like fish developed T. lineatus stripes with age. Try a forum search for pustuhaka to get the entire story.

If there are any hybrids (some Monotrete "target group" species have been shown to hybridize in captivity) they are likely less common than the real species. Therefore, I highly doubt these pustuhakas are hybrids.

There are two likely explanations for the pustuhakas: Either adult pustulatus develop stripes or part of the T. pustulatus considered puffer population (up to the entire population) are a regional variant of T. lineatus with transitions to the standard forms.

Oops! Haha! I thought I remembered seeing someone post a picture of one, but I must have been mistaken. Thanks for the correction.

Corvus wrote: part of the T. pustulatus considered puffer population (up to the entire population) are a regional variant of T. lineatus with transitions to the standard forms.

I tend to agree with this thinking.
I think it's highly probable (and silly) that people are buying what is likely just a T. lineatus with an usual pattern for 10x more than a T. lineatus.

What do you guys think of this one?
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... p?t=300760

I'm confident that this puffer when it was young looked like this one:
ug.php/v/PufferPedia/Freshwater/T_Pustu ... _.jpg.html

Also see here:

Have a look here:

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... 15&page=12

and here:
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6986&p=71493&hilit= ... tus#p71493

and here:
http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... 15&page=13

Can someone clear this up for me?

Is the general consensus that the CR and fahaka are the same species and that indeed the CR as a species does not exist? It is simply a colour morph?

OR is the consensus that the CR is its own species however there are some fahakas that look similar and are sold as CRs for $$$.

Thanks

To me there is no such thing as a general consensus, because it appears that the definitions that separate the two possible species are not clearly known. The spot/lines character seems to be not reliable.

It seems to me that the Cross River has spots, whereas the Fahaka has lines (hence lineatus), so I think it could be possible for there to be a Fahaka that has reddish lines, and therefore is confused with a Cross River, but I would think an genuine Cross RIver would have spots only.
Would that be correct Corvus?

I have also seen fahakas with red spots within their lines.

pufferpuggirl wrote:It seems to me that the Cross River has spots, whereas the Fahaka has lines (hence lineatus), so I think it could be possible for there to be a Fahaka that has reddish lines, and therefore is confused with a Cross River, but I would think an genuine Cross RIver would have spots only.
Would that be correct Corvus?

No, at least not always. All the "T. pustulatus" I had the opportunity to follow (mostly by pictures) had spots first and ultimately developed lines. Please see the links above for more details, esp. viewtopic.php?f=4&t=6986&p=71493&hilit= ... tus#p71493

Ah, so it's one of those things where it seems easy to understand, but there is no clear-cut answer to the question. Are these fish cousins, like how Ceylons are similar to GSP's and Sabahensis?

Basic tenet of taxonomy for the puffer hobbyists: Nobody knows diddly about what constitutes a puffer species in reality. Corollary: Nobody know much about what constitutes a puffer genus either. Small relief: The family is fairly secure.

HTH