Keeping Ninja Shrimp

[hwchoy]

The other question is if all the C. serratirostris are *really* C. serratirostris. There has not been a revision in Caridina for *very* long time.

Mustafa

haha the reason I am saying this is because I have received my copy of Fauna Sinica Vol 36 on Atyidae 2004 !

So it says here in pg 162: widely distributed throughout Western Pacific and Indian Ocean, from Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Mauritius, Seychelles, Fiji, Australia through to Madagascar.

[kross]

Because it is a NINJA



TKD

hahaha.... u got me there!

[Mustafa]

haha the reason I am saying this is because I have received my copy of Fauna Sinica Vol 36 on Atyidae 2004 !

--I still have to get a copy of that, but obviously the same information is elsewhere.

So it says here in pg 162: widely distributed throughout Western Pacific and Indian Ocean, from Taiwan, Japan, Philippines, Indonesia, Mauritius, Seychelles, Fiji, Australia through to Madagascar.

--Yes, and it occurs in several subspecies, too! Scientists up to this point have had this annoying habit of hardly ever describing the color of the shrimp when they were still alive. They always concentrated on the anatomy. That's why it is so hard to figure out what all these different subspecies look like in real life. We know the japanese ones are very colorful, but I have seen some serratirostris from the Pacific islands that were almost see-through without any color. I hope that future publications do have some pictures of living shrimp for comparison reasons.

Mustafa

[hwchoy]

that's the problem, they prefer their specimens dead and hence there is no colour to describe

not to mention the fact that they do not consider colours and patterns to be indicative traits.

[Mustafa]

I know that they don't think that colors are indicative. But I also think that they are wrong. For example...it turns out that there are many species in India and Southeast Asia, that could be grouped into the vicinity of Caridina babaulti, but not only do they look different in coloration and patterning, they also have different modes of reproduction. Some of them have floating larvae that require saltwater/brackish water and others produce pretty much fully developed hatchlings, albeit very small ones. The egg size and the hatchling size seems to differ tremendously, too. However, as I said above, their morphologies are very close and almost the same.

I have several of those species here and they do not crossbreed with each other...even the ones that have completely abbreviated larval development don't. So..according to most scientists in this field they would all be grouped together into the same species complex regardless of their differences other than morphology.

By the way...your "Malayan" shrimp can also be subdivided into several species with different modes of reproduction although morpholically they are probably the same. Some "Malayans" have large eggs with fully developed young hatching out of them and others have tiny eggs with free floating larvae after hatching. And, to top all this, they supposedly also belong into the vicinity of Caridina babaulti.

I think a major rethinking of the species classifications among shrimp species is in place and highly necessary. The old methodology is just too imperfect and outdated.


Take care,
Mustafa

[hwchoy]

not entirely. colour and pattern is ONE possible indicative traits amongst all others such as morphological forms. unfortunately taxonomy many times cannot rely on colours and patterns as the preserved type specimens invariably loses their colours and pattern. same goes for fish.

however, your statement about malayan shrimp is interesting. in all the hundreds and thousands of malayan shrimps I have seen, they all have very small eggs. there are a number of shrimps that share the malayan's stripe and cream-tipped tailfan, but it is quite possible for us to tell them apart simply because we have seen so many malayans, however such intimate knowledge would not be possible to be described in a taxonomy paper. certainly some species are more charateristically patterned (e.g. Yamato).

[Mustafa]

not entirely. colour and pattern is ONE possible indicative traits amongst all others such as morphological forms.

--Yes, but it's hardly ever used by "shrimp scientists" to define species. It should be given a lot more weight along with things like egg size, mode of reproduction etc. How many "teeth" the rostrum of a shrimp has might not be as important as the other factors in the end.

unfortunately taxonomy many times cannot rely on colours and patterns as the preserved type specimens invariably loses their colours and pattern. same goes for fish.

--That's why it is time for them to RETHINK and start using different methods, including taking live specimen back to their labs and trying to breed them to learn more about their mode of reproduction. That way they can see their real coloration, too.

however, your statement about malayan shrimp is interesting. in all the hundreds and thousands of malayan shrimps I have seen, they all have very small eggs.

--I've seen both varieites and morphologically they seem to be at least *very similar* if not essentially the same. Here are some pictures of the "malayan" shrimp that is bred and distributed in Germany:

http://www.wirbellose.de/arten.cgi?acti ... &artNo=275

Here is a report about them and also a map of some of their type localities:

http://www.caridea.info/u_publi/malaysi ... sia_v3.htm

Unfortunately, it's all in German, but maybe you can tell by the pictures that the eggs are relatively large. They produce tiny copies of themselves, although their offspring are MUCH smaller than N. denticulata sinensis offspring for example.

I have a shrimp with a similar patterning on its back from Calcutta, India, which my friend in Germany also identified as being very close to the Caridina babaulti species complex:

http://www.petshrimp.com/indianwhitebandedshrimp.html

My shrimp do not have a fully developed line on their backs (although some do, but very few) but they have an interruped "line".

Supposedly all the shrimp above are Caridina cf. babaulti. I don't buy that...it makes no sense since the differences besides morphology are too big. They can't even interbreed with each other, how can they be the same species?

Take care,
Mustafa

[hwchoy]

--I've seen both varieites and morphologically they seem to be at least *very similar* if not essentially the same. Here are some pictures of the "malayan" shrimp that is bred and distributed in Germany:

http://www.wirbellose.de/arten.cgi?acti ... &artNo=275

Here is a report about them and also a map of some of their type localities:

http://www.caridea.info/u_publi/malaysi ... sia_v3.htm

Unfortunately, it's all in German, but maybe you can tell by the pictures that the eggs are relatively large. They produce tiny copies of themselves, although their offspring are MUCH smaller than N. denticulata sinensis offspring for example.

I have a shrimp with a similar patterning on its back from Calcutta, India, which my friend in Germany also identified as being very close to the Caridina babaulti species complex:

http://www.petshrimp.com/indianwhitebandedshrimp.html

My shrimp do not have a fully developed line on their backs (although some do, but very few) but they have an interruped "line".

Supposedly all the shrimp above are Caridina cf. babaulti. I don't buy that...it makes no sense since the differences besides morphology are too big. They can't even interbreed with each other, how can they be the same species?

Take care,
Mustafa

Yes if you see shrimps with medium or large eggs they would not be what we refer to as Malayan shrimp. but then again it is only a common name so.

You probably know this, but Caridina cf. babaulti merely means "a species apparently, but not definitely, different from C. babaulti". Hence by definition there can be any number of different looking species bearing that label.

perhaps they really should be using the Caridina aff. babaulti label especially if, for example, their eggs are different in size to C. babaulti.

[Mustafa]

You probably know this, but Caridina cf. babaulti merely means "a species apparently, but not definitely, different from C. babaulti". Hence by definition there can be any number of different looking species bearing that label.

perhaps they really should be using the Caridina aff. babaulti label especially if, for example, their eggs are different in size to C. babaulti.

Hi Heng Wah,

"aff." would mean the specimen is something like the named species (i.e. Caridina babaulti) but most likely NOT that species.

"cf." just means "refer to" or "compare with" and it just means that that the specimen might be that species (i.e. C. babaulti) or it might not be. It does not give you any definite answer (which we don't have) but leaves open what species this might really be (which is the reality).

That is why I use "cf." rather than "aff." Either way, both have no taxonomic value, since the only thing that counts taxonomically is the full and definite species name.

Take care,
Mustafa
PS: Any ideawhat you guys call the "malayan like" shrimp, which have large or medium eggs (common name is enough)?

[hwchoy]

precisely, if you have specimens that have large eggs, you're quite sure you are looking at a different species hence aff. is appropriate in that case. I say this because you said "...they are all C. cf. xxx, I don't buy it..."

I am agreeing with you, they should be aff. and not cf.

I have not seen malayans with big eggs. there are similar-looking ones but the differences are enough to tell without the eggs.

[Mustafa]

precisely, if you have specimens that have large eggs, you're quite sure you are looking at a different species hence aff. is appropriate in that case. I say this because you said "...they are all C. cf. xxx, I don't buy it..."

Hi Heng Wah,

Slight difference in egg size are even common among the *same* species. For example the N. denticualata sinensis (released to the wild around 1991 and now breeding freely)in Hawaii seem to have different sized eggs from many asian specimen. The only way we would know for sure that we don't have two of the same species is if their mode of recreation is totally different, i.e. one produces "mini-shrimp" and the other floating larvae.

Of course ""...they are all C. cf. xxx, I don't buy it..." would be the best description of what I am trying to say because there *are* some species out there that could possibly be C. babaulti, which "aff." would exclude. "cf." in that case was not totally appropriate but does an "ok" job...haha. . I should have said..."they cannot all possibly be Caridina babaulti", without any "cf." or "aff." to completely express my thoughts.

Take care,
Mustafa

[hwchoy]

maybe more than one species was dumped into Hawaiian rivers but nobody knew (since they look so similar) ?

[Mustafa]

maybe more than one species was dumped into Hawaiian rivers but nobody knew (since they look so similar) ?

Actually, no. In this case they are all N. denticulata sinensis (unless other species were dumped in the rivers there recently and have managed to establish themselves).

There is a paper on these species where Cai Yixiong is also mentioned as one of the co-authors. Slight differences in egg size within the same species from different locales seems to be "normal."

Just read it here:

http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/pdf/englund&cai99.pdf

[hwchoy]

the size difference between "our" malayan and the pic in that german paper is rather big. I'll go dig up one of my egg-bearing malayan pics see if it is something you also see.

[Mustafa]

the size difference between "our" malayan and the pic in that german paper is rather big. I'll go dig up one of my egg-bearing malayan pics see if it is something you also see.

Great! I'm looking forward to your picture. By the way, I do think that the "malayans" with the large eggs are a different species from the malayans you are talking about, since their mode of reproduction is different ("mini-shrimp" vs. free-floating larvae).

Mustafa