# Think you got what it takes?



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

anyone close friends with Brian dont comment yet.. Let these guys have a chance to try and dig up some information.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

_Cichla ocellaris_?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

here is cichla ocellaris


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

lol apart from the guy with his finger in its mouth, and the size it looks much the same


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

i think it looks totaly different.. Notic the the Top fish has ocellus on his side.. and the ocellaris has Bars.


----------



## Guest (Feb 26, 2004)

Cichla Monoculous(sp)?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

here is a pic of my Monoculus


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Cichla orinocensis?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

this is Cichla orinocensis.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

looks like i have you guys STUMPED!


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Peacock said:


> this is Cichla orinocensis.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

That book is wrong.. cichla Ocellaris has a Ocellus on the 3rd Bar. while Orinocensis Has 3 Ocellus (or Rosettes) down its body..


----------



## badforthesport (Jan 8, 2004)

wtf, that book is wrong, thats bull! Lets get em!


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

90% of all books listing Cichla are wrong.. its sad... Praise the lord we have people like Brian out there doing work in this field!!


----------



## badforthesport (Jan 8, 2004)




----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Peacock said:


> That book is wrong.. cichla Ocellaris has a Ocellus on the 3rd Bar. while Orinocensis Has 3 Ocellus (or Rosettes) down its body..


why is this?

lol if my information is all off, I want some new info - please show me where to look


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


> Peacock said:
> 
> 
> > That book is wrong.. cichla Ocellaris has a Ocellus on the 3rd Bar. while Orinocensis Has 3 Ocellus (or Rosettes) down its body..
> ...


 Dont look at Fisherman sites either.. they are all morons..

If you want good information, PM Brian your questions..

did you Read His artical in TFH?? it was on Cichla....


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

I didn't read that.

I'm just wondering, and not trying to disrespect Brian here in any way, but what is it that makes him right, and the several Dr's who published my book wrong?
they do seem pretty good, there piranha info is fairly up to date for one.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


> I didn't read that.
> 
> I'm just wondering, and not trying to disrespect Brian here in any way, but what is it that makes him right, and the several Dr's who published my book wrong?
> they do seem pretty good, there piranha info is fairly up to date for one.


 WHat books are these?

Have you ever read a book where the profile for an RTC or a Aligator Gar said they only reached 24 inches?

also. Brian is working Hands on with these fish and is doing the Scientific work... Where as these guys writing the profiles are just coping profiles of other sources..

do you realy think these Dr's have experience with every species of fish they include in their books? Not a CHANCE. it would take them more then just 1 life time..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

also.. the pic posted above. with the Orinocensis..

i have seen that pic posted in 4 different books.. and 2 of them say ocellaris, the other say temensis and orinocensis.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

that doesn't explain *why* Brian is right and these are wrong.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


> that doesn't explain *why* Brian is right and these are wrong.


Ok.. lets take this from being a ID post and turn it into a "Books are not allways right" post.. or a "DOnt beleive everything you read" post............

ill have brian come in and comment to explain it to you, I cant do it, i dont have the vocab to explain to you why you shouldnt Regard your books as god. expecialy when the Authers dont even have experience with the species.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Innes said:
> 
> 
> > that doesn't explain *why* Brian is right and these are wrong.
> ...


 well lol how are you ment to get an ID when the one guy you expect to be able to ID it has been asked not to post in the thread, and all the other info on this species is wrong?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


> Peacock said:
> 
> 
> > Innes said:
> ...


 because i dont think me posting websites with correct profiles will help you..... i think your one of those types STUCK on your books..even if the books are Bull sh*t, In your opinion if its in a book its got to the Write thing.. the Books never lie... "Noo!!, the book cannot be wrong!!!!!!!! It is a Book!!!"

also you never did answere my question about what book this is.. i think this is Axelrods CIchlid book.. its big and BLue... nice photos.. shitty information..


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

"Orinocensis was once considered a synonym for Ocellaris untill the work of a swedish Ichthyologist Sven Kullander proved otherwise". and people still dont know about this.. just like Axelrod.... Also, if you notice.. his book only lists 2 speices of cichla... why didnt he list all 5?

most people still dont even know there is 5 Described species.....


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

Peacock said:


> Innes said:
> 
> 
> > Peacock said:
> ...


 you seem to know me pretty well without knowing me at all, lol I really am not a stuck in books kind of person, if I was would I really have 10000+ posts in 1 year on an internet site?









I'm not even disputing that any information I have is out of date or simply wrong, I was simply wondering why.

as for the book I got the ID out of it is BAENSCH AQUARIUM ATLAS Photo Index 1-5

oh and this book lists 4 species.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


> Peacock said:
> 
> 
> > Innes said:
> ...


 can i see the other 3 speices and their pics please?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

sorry if i sound rude but i get frusterated because of my Lack in english skills.. I cant spell so i cant use other vocab then that of a 5 year old.... god damnet.


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)




----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)




----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)




----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

OOOOhhhh boy, just got directed to this one. I'll be back later when I have an hour or so.

Innes, think of these IDs like piranhas. I am to Cichla as Frank is to piranhas is probably the best way to think of this.

Thanks,


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

Innes said:


>


 OMG!!!!!!!!!!!

That is the Same species Listed Above as Ocellaris...

Look at the 3 Ocellus along the side!!!!!!! now they are calling it Orinocensis..... smart people...

LOL stupid authors....


----------



## Grosse Gurke (Jan 3, 2003)

B. Scott said:


> Innes, think of these IDs like piranhas. I am to Cichla as Frank is to piranhas is probably the best way to think of this.
> 
> Thanks,


 You dont look like Frank









I didnt even know there were differnt types of peacock bass... :smile: ...these are peacock bass right :laugh:


----------



## Innes (Jan 13, 2003)

so anyway, what was the fish, and where can I get some better info?


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

The species of CIchla that has 3 Ocellus on the side inplace of the Faciatus (bars) is Cichla Orinocensis..... this is the second largest cichla. growig to 30 inches and up to 20 pounds.. there isnt much correct scientific info out there... The most information you will find is from Fishermen, who still believe this is cichla ocellaris, and they believe the true ocellaris is Monoculus..

just wait for brian to post.. he knows more about articals and such..


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

Hi all,

Listen, I really do not have the time this weekend to sit here and teach everyone about Cichla. Most don't care anyway and that's just fine.

Getting back to the origianl post, the fish PEACOCK posted is the "fogo" or fire peacock. It is an undescribed species that does NOT currently have any specific name associated with it (yet). Therefore, no one could have gotten it right on a scientific level. What PEACOCK was looking for actually remains a mystery as I thought this game was for described or known species only.

Anyway, regarding all the fishes that he and INNES posted pics of, they are all messed up. The Baensch atlas' are wrong too as usual but so are TFH's so I will shut up now.

If anyone really wants to learn about "CURRENT" peacock bass taxonomy, read my posts that have pics in them or get a hold of my articles.

OK, I gotta go. I am working on my next book after the Atlas for TFH so it's gonna be a long-ass weekend and I will NOT be around to read the aftermath.

Good luck PEACOCK but next time please post a pic of a valid species so you will not get flamed so badly.


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

Brian, I'm still waiting on your input on my new test.









Have fun


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

that was the lamest post i have ever read in the history of foruming..

brian, im ashamed... lol........i can see your point though.. you would be typing for a few hours to people who dont care to much. lol.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

hastatus said:


> Brian, I'm still waiting on your input on my new test.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I replied but I really suck at the internet version of this game


----------



## hastatus (Jan 16, 2003)

:laugh:


> Scott Posted on Feb 28 2004, 03:09 PM
> QUOTE (hastatus @ Feb 28 2004, 02:20 AM)
> Brian, I'm still waiting on your input on my new test.
> 
> ...


 Naaaaa, you did about as well as I did on the other one by Peacock. So don't feel like the lone ranger.


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

LOL, I guess we all have our niches!


----------



## Hareball (Jul 6, 2003)

i'm impressed. you stumped everone with the photo of a fish that has no valid name.


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

ya i was a moron for posting it... thats ok.. im a moron some times and ill admit to it... LOL.......

sorry everyone.


----------



## smtNL (Feb 12, 2004)

it is a cichla ocellaris for sure i think,, if you look at the picture above you will cee he is some darker but the marks on his side are the same,,, he is darker because he lives in a dark environment


----------



## DiXoN (Jan 31, 2003)

Peacock said:


> ya i was a moron for posting it... thats ok.. im a moron some times and ill admit to it... LOL.......
> 
> sorry everyone.


 you may be pbass but your also funny withit
dixon


----------



## Peacock (Feb 23, 2004)

smtNL said:


> it is a cichla ocellaris for sure i think,, if you look at the picture above you will cee he is some darker but the marks on his side are the same,,, he is darker because he lives in a dark environment :nod:


 which pic?


----------



## B. Scott (Apr 24, 2003)

It's not C. ocellaris.


----------

