Scissortail rasbora

[emeraldking4 55]

Recently I got two scissortail rasbora (Rasbora trilineata, and also known as three-lined rasbora) donated to me. They weren't the best combination that my cousin had in an African cichlid tank. In there, those two were chased the whole time. And my cousin knew that I already had some swimming in my community tank. So, he gave them to me.

They're now way better off in their new home.

 

[GaryE24 139]

That was once one of the most popular fish in stores around here. I haven't seen them in ages.

 

[Innesfan24 7]

That was once one of the most popular fish in stores around here. I haven't seen them in ages.

Yes! When I was in single digits and low doubles, I always had some of these around. @emeraldking, how large do yours get?

 

[emeraldking4 55]

That was once one of the most popular fish in stores around here. I haven't seen them in ages.

They're still offered overhere at stores...

Yes! When I was in single digits and low doubles, I always had some of these around. @emeraldking, how large do yours get?

About 4 inches max.

 

[anewbie]

You all were spoiled if you had a tank large enough for 20 4 inch fishes when you were in single digits. We only had room for 5 fishes

 

[emeraldking4 55]

You all were spoiled if you had a tank large enough for 20 4 inch fishes when you were in single digits. We only had room for 5 fishes

Mine started off as just 1,5 inch when I got them. All fish of mine are offered a various diet which allow them to grow out nicely. At least, when the species itself does have the ability to grow up to the max potential that is.

 

[Innesfan24 7]

About 4 inches max.

I ask because mine always topped off at 3"-plus yet the literature back then, and the internet now, have them reaching a max of 6". Even the usually reliable SeriouslyFish.com. Given how long this misinformation has been perpetuated I think it was the result of conflating this species way-back-when with R. caudimaculata which does grow to 6", and distinguishes itself from R. trilineata not only by size but also the addition of orange color to the scissor-tail pattern. But it is odd that the error has persisted.

 

[anewbie]

Is there a distinct difference in size between male and female ?

 

[Innesfan24 7]

Is there a distinct difference in size between male and female ?

No. Some sources say females 'slightly larger'. I don't recall ever noticing that. And again, these sources could be referring to the wrong species.

 

[emeraldking4 55]

Is there a distinct difference in size between male and female ?

Not that I'm aware of.

 

[Innesfan24 7]

Here's an early example of the conflation of the two species in 1935. Innes's entry for R. trilineata in EAF. The photo is indeed R. trilineata. But note third line down on the right: "Length up to 8 inches." Nope. That's R. caudimaculata. Then in his description of the caudal pattern he mentions, ."...each lobe is orange toward the outer part..." That also describes R. caudimaculata not R. trilineata. He acknowledges that aquarium specimens seem to max out at half the length. What he did not know then was that those aquarium specimens and the giants from nature were two different species. And even after science and the hobby caught on, the error about size persists.

R. trilineata:

R. caudimaculata:

 

[emeraldking4 55]

At that time, multiple fishes were considered being the same species. Over time, they knew more about them and gave them their own identity. And basically, fish species are still moved to other genera or even identified as an own strain within the same genus.

 

[Innesfan24 7]

At that time, multiple fishes were considered being the same species. Over time, they knew more about them and gave them their own identity. And basically, fish species are still moved to other genera or even identified as an own strain within the same genus.

Both species were known then. R. trilineata was described in 1870 and R. caudimaculata in 1903. Both have been in commerce for over a century and sold under their correct names since the 1950s. What's odd is that the literature and now the internet still describe R. trilineata as maturing at a size twice as great as it actually does, and they do so owing to the two species being conflated in the early days. One would think that would have been cleared up by now especially given how popular a species the 'junior' scissors-tail has been for so many years.

 

[emeraldking4 55]

What's odd is that the literature and now the internet still describe R. trilineata as maturing at a size twice as great as it actually does, and they do so owing to the two species being conflated in the early days.

I had never a specimen of these fish over 4 inches. 4 Inches was always the max at my place.

 

[GaryE24 139]

Old errors seem to live forever. When I was writing about fish, I tracked a few myths to their sources. They were often speculations by hobbyists who were careful to use "may, might and could". but where later writers cut out the qualifiers and presented the speculations as truth. That's one way not to look like a plagiarist - be wrong!

There are a number of fish floating around the hobby with the wrong name, due to honest errors. My pet peeve is always the kribensis cichlid, which isn't the species described as kribensis. There are guesses that have become fact (without being true) about identities, sizes, behaviour... AI will pick them up because they're so widespread.

Last week I found an old intro to killies pamphlet/book and a lot of the pictures were not of the fish named. People were doing their best and we don't always update as new info comes in.