HELP! Puffer identification

[IkeepPuffers]

Hi, recently I saw a really beautiful puffer at my LFS. Unfortunately i do not have any pictures of it and I can't find it in the pufferpedia. Can anyone help me with the identification? To be honest, I am not completely sure if it is a brackish puffer. FYI it has black bands on the top of its body and some yellow dots around the body. The tail and fins are slightly yellow. (BTW i noticed that the pictures of takifugu Niphobles in the PP are wrong. Only the first picture shows a niphobles, the other two have bands like mine without the Yellow "Y". Niphobles are not supposed to have bands on their body, instead they have a hugh black dot at the side)Here are the pics:

[pufferfreak]

Sounds like a ceylon. does it look like a figure eight and GSP?

[IkeepPuffers]

It doesnt look any bit like a fig 8 or GSP. The first thought i had wasthat it was a ceylon, but after looking at a ceylon puffer, i am dam sure that it isn't a ceylon. Ceylon puffers have black spots but the pufferthere had yellow ones and no ring is present on the top of its body. Instead, it has black bands there.

[Corvus]

Picture will likely be needed, anything else is guessing with very little information.

black bands and yellowish spots e.g.

ug.php/v/PufferPedia/Marine/T_Niphobles ... x.jpg.html

or

ug.php/v/PufferPedia/Marine/T_Oblongus/ ... _.jpg.html

[IkeepPuffers]

Thanks corvus. It looks like the Niphobles but isn't entire like it. Niphobles have white spots and this puffer has yellow ones. This species also have a yellow "Y" marking at the top of the head. The LFS is a respectable one and it confirmed that this is strictly freshwater although they do not have a name for the puffer. I've got some pics which i will upload later. Thanks.

[Pufferpunk]

He added pics to the 1st post above. I have seen these puffers here before but can't remember what the were called.

[Corvus]

Oh, these guys again...

Chelonodon cf. patoca.

Either they are the real Chelonodon patoca and all the ones usually imported/named/illustrated as such are in fact C. laticeps (or C. kappa what the valid name might be), or this is a yet unnamed species. I have done a little research on them. Whatever will be the taxonomical result, the genus Chelonodon is for sure.

Martin H. and I have an upcoming article on them in a reputable aquarium magazine in July.

They travel into freshwater and may be caught there, but from the first batches sold in Europe only the ones in marine water are still alive and thriving. The ones in fresh and brackish water died. Keep it in marine, it's the only long term alternative.

[Pufferpunk]

It seems the Chelonodon species do a lot of swimming through the different salinities, huh?

[t1gerbee]

great looking fish...

never seen one before!

[Umbrella]

It seems the Chelonodon species do a lot of swimming through the different salinities, huh?

Ya I have never seen this kind but I believe I read that Chelonodon's (Patoca) can be either Gray or brown with spots. None of mine look like yours (color-wise, but the body shape is similar, not identical) but it is always a possibility that there was a morph and you got lucky. There is another kind of Chelonodon that I would LOVE to get my hands on, its called a Blaasop beauty ( Chelonodon Pleurospilus ) but I have never heard anyone speak its name.

Am I wrong in thinking that all the 'Chelonodon' species can inter-breed ? If they can, then who knows how many are really out there Problem is - I thought the Chelonodons were all mostly SW. The LFS told you yours was FW ??

Anywho - I believe it is some kind of Chelonodon, just because of its body structure. Whether it is a Patoca, Laticeps ( which I thought was a blueish color but w/e), Pleurospilus or some combination there of - I have no idea. But I think I am going to have to agree with Corvus on the marine thingy. IDK, but for some reason I would not expect to see that kind of color in a FW fish.

Beats me >.<

C. Pleurospilus :


C. Patoca :


C. Laticeps :
---Sorry, I removed the pic because it was not the correct species ---
I have no pic available for C. Laticeps.

Maybe he is undiscovered and/or a Morph.

[Corvus]

Really, you have to look at the originals from the first descriptions e.g. Hamilton etc. These are nothing like those internet pictures. And the ones from the first descriptions are the ones that count. The original C. patoca have yellow spots, no white ones.

This thing is much more complicated than you might think.

Why should Chelonodon interbreed? There is no indication at all that this is possible.

[Corvus]

Oh, and this C. laticeps you are showing is certainly no laticeps no matter what the photographer/fishbase says.

[Umbrella]

Really, you have to look at the originals from the first descriptions e.g. Hamilton etc. These are nothing like those internet pictures. And the ones from the first descriptions are the ones that count. The original C. patoca have yellow spots, no white ones.

Yes Corvus - you are absolutely right. I can't believe I forgot about the fact that the fish from the original descriptions have changed over the last 200-300 years. 1700 - 2000. DUH!

This thing is much more complicated than you might think.

Why should Chelonodon interbreed? There is no indication at all that this is possible.

Yes but there is also no indication that is isn't possible. We couldn't possibly know without trying it and we can't possibly try it because we don't have 1) the fish necessary 2) Anyone willing to try. You can tell me that a Frog and an Elephant will never interbreed and I will believe you - because they are simply too different. But why throw the idea out for fish that are actually quite similar ?

Could you maybe clarify a little bit why you are so against the idea of them being able to crossbreed ?

Oh, and this C. laticeps you are showing is certainly no laticeps no matter what the photographer/fishbase says.

As for this one - my bad, I have never seen one and I posted the pics rather quickly. My mistake. But I do agree that it does not look like a Chelonodon at all. I apologize >.<

[Corvus]

Yes Corvus - you are absolutely right. I can't believe I forgot about the fact that the fish from the original descriptions have changed over the last 200-300 years. 1700 - 2000. DUH!

Sarcasm? They had yellow spots at the time they were collected and do simply not look like the ones later named C. patoca, the ones you bought as patoca and the ones almost always imported as C. pactoca. Visit a library get the first decription look at the illustration and read the description. Much more fit with the ones shown above than with the ones usually called patoca.

Could you maybe clarify a little bit why you are so against the idea of them being able to crossbreed ?

That's simple... they would not be seperate species if they could. Their distribution is widely overlapping. If they could crossbreed they would be one population and one species. Fish populations with the ability to crossbreed can only be recognized as different species if their ranges only slightly overlap or don't overlap at all.

[Umbrella]

Sarcasm? They had yellow spots at the time they were collected and do simply not look like the ones later named C. patoca, the ones you bought as patoca and the ones almost always imported as C. pactoca. Visit a library get the first decription look at the illustration and read the description. Much more fit with the ones shown above than with the ones usually called patoca.

No no no! No sarcasm at all. I want to learn from you. I apologize if it seemed I was being sarcastic. I was was angry at myself for forgetting the obvious. I want to find these original descriptions you speak of BUT I can't seem to find anywhere that lets me view such documents without charging me. I def. don't want to spend $$ on a document that might have nothing to do with what I was looking for. You have told me many times to look for these and I am trying but I can't seem to find ANY!

If you have any of those documents - I would much rather buy a copy of them from you than from some random place. If I go to my local library, you think they would have these original description documents? Or are you suggesting i go to a larger library? I found Pieter Bleekers Atlas book for sale online but its 10 volumes and lord knows which volume contains the puffer section. I've seen price ranges of $30 to $250 for specific volumes or $5,000+ for the whole thing. Thats just ridiculous. I only want the puffer part lol. Some volumes aren't even available...

That's simple... they would not be seperate species if they could. Their distribution is widely overlapping. If they could crossbreed they would be one population and one species. Fish populations with the ability to crossbreed can only be recognized as different species if their ranges only slightly overlap or don't overlap at all.

Ahhh. Ok that makes sense. Lol, so to answer my own question earlier - Yes, I am wrong. They can not Inter-breed.