Re: NANFA-- cingulatus problem

Christopher Scharpf (
Mon, 10 Dec 2001 14:11:14 -0400

F. cingulatus:

6 preopercular pores
males lack red pigment on jaws and sides of head

F. rubrifrons:

5 preopercular pores
males possess red pigment on jaws and sides of head

Chris Scharpf

> From: "R. W. Wolff" <>
> Reply-To:
> Date: Fri, 7 Dec 2001 19:14:44 -0600
> To: <>
> Subject: NANFA-- cingulatus problem
> I guess officially arouguttatus has been dropped and its now cingulatus (
> again). The other fish from this split, rubrifrons , retains its name. Now
> that this is two species, does anyone have any Idea what the exact
> differences are? All I can find are vague references to barring and color,
> which is variable anyways , and ranges, which over lap in the Gainsville
> area. I know there are distinct physical differences, since people who have
> caught both fish have tried to explain them to me. I am interested in what
> is the official differences between the two species. I hope its more than a
> row of scales having two more scales in it, a fin having one more ray, or
> spots on one are redder than the other. I seem to remember getting a paper
> on this from somone ( which I can not find) , and the only thing that sticks
> with me is one has a longer snout than the other. But that is also relative.
> Thanks,
> Ray
> PS I ask because I have two "cingulatus" from two different areas. The males
> look different enough, but not really. The one comes from the over lap area,
> according to the maps given by the Texas TNHC site
> .

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,