The Puffer Forum

I agree PP and Liz.

I must say, the puffer in the pics from that site is gorgeous!

Believe me, w/GSPs we are duped often when it comes to ID! Especially the sites that claim there are 2 of them--a FW & a BW, one of which they call the T fluviatilis (really the Ceylon puffer).

Its not unusual for a fish to exhibit different adult coloration. And that seems to be the case with the GSP as a species. However, there is also variation within a species and with the GSP, that variation appears considerable. What is unknown at this point is whether the variation is geographic and whether populations have become isolated and evolved locally distinct color patterns - which may even be adaptive to their particular environmental conditions, predators, etc. Slight color differences of the magnitude we see for GSPs are not enough, alone, IMO, to split the species or even to name subspecies. But if there were other differences, like different numbers of fin rays, teeth, gill rakers, internal anatomy, egg morphology, etc., then there could be a case for splitting the species into subspecies. Its a tricky business when the differences are gradual and not distinctly separate, because at which point along a range of variation do you draw the line and call one a subspecies? One more example of how the more we know, the less we really know....

I think a good example of what Swell said is T.sabahensis. look almost identical to the GSP, except its color patterns are a bit different, and is only found in a certain region of malaysia. other then that there isnt too much known about t.sabahensis, that i've been able to find.

Good point John!

T. sabahensis was described recently (Dekkers, 1975) and I'm not familiar with the species justification. These things are not "fixed in stone" and someday, with more study, someone could make a case for it to be a subspecies of T. nigroviridis. Then again, sometimes the isolation is considered sufficient for separate species designation.

There are nearly identical freshwater fish in North America and Europe that would not be considered separate species if they occurred together in the same country, but their isolation and distance is sufficient for separate species designation.

lisalisa, your replies to my post posted Fri Jun 23, 2006 10:33 a.m. are excellent.

lisalisa wrote:

puffer_puff wrote: Explain to me, then, if you can, why exactly the site would separate this one species into two threads when every single other thread (aside from the pinned and informational ones up at the top) is species-specific!

I didn't say the site split the species into 2 threads (although a very easy mistake to make). I said that your puffer is an adult GSP, not the puffer in the 2nd thread.

Your final sentence here implies that the puffer in the second thread is a different puffer species from that in the first thread, which is the T. nigroviridis.

lisalisa wrote:

puffer_puff wrote:We should assume the site is being consistent in this basic way (grouping all posts and pictures about and of the same puffers together).

I don't think this assumption is necessary, especially considering the second group of pics has no species name. For all we know, the second thread could be pics of the same species.

I concede that they could be, but stress that this would not be consistent with any of the rest of the threads on that board of the forum.

Pufferpunk wrote:OK, I was able to open that link but don't see the pics you are referring to. Many GSPs look different from each other, have more or less spots, large or small spots or even elongated spots. Did your GSP ever have the green on it's head? Again, not exactly a deciding factor if it was sick, as the green it apparent in healthy fish.

Here are my adults:
...
As you can see, they look very different from the more common juvie pics we usually see.

Mine did not have the green (the patch to which you are referring) on its head, even when I first acquired it. Although I agree that your adults look different from the juveniles, I do not think that your adults look very similar to my adult or the adult on the site to which I provided a reference.

Liz wrote:That one looks different from his puffer because it has rings, which I haven't seen in a nigroviridis.

That is one of my points of support, if I must make them explicit. However, I am considering the body patterns and colouration only as one feature of importance. The body shape and positioning of the eyes are others. All three of these attributes may be highly variable within a species

Phaedrus wrote:They do look like the pictures of his puffer, but i'm not convinced it's a different species altogether. More likely a pattern variation that may be distinct to a certain region.

As I wrote above, I'm less concerned about the pattern that of the totality of attributes. If the pattern of variation may be distinct to a certain region, so may other attributes, one of which may be the ability to reproduce with geographically distant members of what is (or was previously considered to be) the same species. And the ability to reproduce and produce fertile offspring with con-specifics is one way (and as far as I know the most accepted way to define what a species is. A horse and a donkey can produce a mule, but since the mule is sterile, it is not a new species. Were the mule able to produce offspring, it would be its own species. My specimen is, however, deceased, so we cannot even consider using this method of testing for fertile offspring, even were the puffer in the right circumstances (willingness, suitability of environment, presence of potential mate, etc.) to mate and have offspring.

Phaedrus wrote:Without a translation of the site it's hard to know what they are claiming it to be. But the fact that it's directly below the nigroviridis leads me to think it may be a question of variation rather than difference.

Let me, then, attempt to make a translation, although I wish that someone that speaks the particular Asian language in question would speak up.

Using Altavista's Babelfish, the use and results of which I admit are problematic, the translation of the Asian common name (at least as it appears on this site) of T. nigroviridis into
Traditional Chinese - "golden baby"
Simplified Chinese - "golden baby"
Japanese - "gold <untranslated>".

The translation of what it reads in the heading of the thread (and possible species in question) is
Traditional Chinese - "Greatly strange gold still not accurate systematic name"
Simplified Chinese - "Greatly strange golden Shang?? cut □"
Japanese - "Furthermore the large mysterious gold non definite ardently <untranslated> name"

In the Traditional Chinese translation, I take "still not accurate systematic name" to mean "still not agreed-upon scientific/Latin name [for this species]."

As you can see, an additional problem is that the site's contents can be translated into both Chinese and Japanese.

I think that one must consider, in addition to other arguments I have made, how often the Asian fish trade is ahead of ours.

I think that ChesapeakeSwellfish's post of Sat Jun 24, 2006 11:23 a.m. is excellent, and in the answers to the issues he addressed lie the answers to the questions raised in our discussion.

One large problem cannot be surmounted is as follows. Some of you may have seen one or more T. nigroviridis adults, but only a few photographs of my puffer. You cannot say there isn't loss of data when viewing a photograph. Think about the difference between looking at a photograph and observing a specimen over two weeks. Conversely, I have seen my puffer and one T. nigroviridis adult, but do not have the experience of seeing others, except through photographs.

It is very possible it's a seperate species. To me, they look very distinct, but without some scientific reference we have no real way of knowing. There is still very little solid information regarding puffers. At most, we can call this instance an anomaly.

Puffer_puff, your puffer looks identical to many adult GSPs that I have seen.

Definatly a GSP. Looks like one I gave to friend after he got fairly large and aggressive. Once GSPs get older and are larger their 'baby spots' seem to turn to a series of patchy spots.

puffer_puff wrote: Mine did not have the green (the patch to which you are referring) on its head, even when I first acquired it.

I can see a green patch on your puffer in the picture.

I see it too. It's just not as flourescent as some others are.

My GSP barely has a visible "halo". Definately not as bright as I've seen on others.