# Other Aquarium Forums > Freshwater Fauna > Cyprinids >  ID: Rasboras? - Rasbora gracilis

## Ibn

Found mixed in with some Beckford's rainbowfish. Amazing mimicry and resembled the female pencilfish amazingly well.

----------


## hwchoy

very well fed _Rasbora gracilis_.

----------


## Ibn

Did you mean Rasboras pauciperforata instead?

BTW, thanks for the link!

----------


## ranmasatome

nope..looks more like gracilis.

----------


## hwchoy

the high dorsal fin suggests gracilis.

----------


## mickthefish

i'd say gracilis as well, there is another quite similar is it teaniata,?
mick

----------


## michael lai

> the high dorsal fin suggests gracilis.


I'll second that, the high fin a gracilis trademark. Mick, R. gracilis was considered rasboras taeniata(1954) in Brittan's revision and subsequently reissued as R. agilis(1971). It has since been renamed R.gracilis by Kottelat in 1987. They are in fact refering to the same fish. :Smile:

----------


## benny

> I'll second that, the high fin a gracilis trademark. Mick, R. gracilis was considered rasboras taeniata(1954) in Brittan's revision and subsequently reissued as R. agilis(1971). It has since been renamed R.gracilis by Kottelat in 1987. They are in fact refering to the same fish.


That's good information Michael!!  :Well done:  

Cheers,

----------


## michael lai

Thanks :Grin:  Was doing research on Rasboras sp for my next 4 footer project. Chance upon this post, thought I share it with you guys. :Smile:  The author, Dr Martin R. Brittan. His work on Rasboras is '*intense*'.


Cheers.

----------


## Ibn

Wow. Thanks for the verification and great info guys!

----------


## hwchoy

> I'll second that, the high fin a gracilis trademark. Mick, R. gracilis was considered rasboras taeniata(1954) in Brittan's revision and subsequently reissued as R. agilis(1971). It has since been renamed R.gracilis by Kottelat in 1987. They are in fact refering to the same fish.



I would be more careful to explain that the real _R. gracilis_ was confused with the other fishes such as _R. agilis_ (not sure about taeniata have to go check the book) and subsequently revised as _R. gracilis_ in 1991.

The name _R. agilis_ is a valid name referring to a different fish.

----------


## mickthefish

i'd just like to ask you lads about a fish thats in our lfs, to all concerned this fish is identical in body shape and finnage it has the same mid-body stripe but then it's different the body looks transparent it has a silvery blue nose
and the same highlight before the dorsal. have you seen this fish in SG if you have what are they?.
cheers mick

----------


## michael lai

Noted Choy, Err..it was not confused with, it was recognised as R. taeniata but being rename.... :Smile:

----------


## hwchoy

> Noted Choy, Err..it was not confused with, it was recognised as R. taeniata but being rename....



no wait. If it was given a previous name taeniata then that would have been a priority name and would not be given another name gracilis. hence the name taeniata must have been in use for something else. strangely I cannot find taeniata in fishbase. I did find a reference on gracilis = taeniata (non Brittan 1972) which I cannot now remember what is the meaning of (non Brittan).

----------


## michael lai

I hope I remember correctly, if not it's going to get messy. I think they found out that the initial R. taeniata specimen was more a killiefish than rasboras that's why they reissue as R.agilis. I think got to cross reference between Dr brittan and kottelat's literature.
Dr Brittan is recognised as the leading researcher on the rasboras genus so alot of research and data use (brittan) or (non-brittan) as reference points.

----------


## hwchoy

I have the brittan rasbora book although it is not much in depth. if the taeniata name was given to a "killifish" specimen, then that name must be reclassify to the new genus, and then "R. taeniata" should be available for other fish. the complication now is I cannot find taeniata in FB.

----------


## Quixotic

Choy, if you click on this link, http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...sname=taeniata, it's redirected to _R. gracilis_. Interestingly, if you try to do the same search from the main page, it will not return you any results.

Not too sure how to intepret this but does this http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature...sName=gracilis mean that taeniata is not valid?

----------


## hwchoy

funny, when I key in at the search page I get nothing. it means taeniata is a junior synonym of gracilis, and yes taeniata is not valid.

----------

