Whither all the danios?

**lampeye** · 3rd Apr 2009, 04:04

A few years back, there were danios everywhere. I figured they'd fade in popularity a bit after the "thrill of the new" wore off, but it seems like we're back to nothing but zebra and giant danios in stores.

I'm especially amazed by the all-but-disappearance of Danio choprai. I am in the 'States, but have you found this to be the case wherever you are, that the newer danio species are again difficult to find? If anybody in the 'States could chime in, that would be great - maybe this is just a local (East coast) thing?

**Czyne** · 3rd Apr 2009, 10:22

I'm on the west coast and have seen danio choprai in a couple of stores recently. Leopard danios are also common, and those "glofish" are everywhere. No others really hit the market nearby that I know of though, other than the zebra (the long-finned version is equally as common as the original now) and giant.

**lampeye** · 3rd Apr 2009, 20:48

Real leopard danios, or just the "frankei" mutation of D. rerio?

**Czyne** · 4th Apr 2009, 02:26

I thought that it was still being disputed whether or not it was a mutation or a separate species, with the slant leaning heavier towards mutation. I'm curious if they've found a true leopard danio separate from the rerio/frankei variety, though. If so, do you know the scientific name it's under?

**lampeye** · 6th Apr 2009, 00:43

That's a surprise. That it is a simple mutation is beyond dispute. http://danios.info/fish/rerio.aspx

The true leopard danio has always been D. nigrofasciatus. I had some a couple of years ago, but donated them all to the local club.

**Czyne** · 6th Apr 2009, 05:38

Good to know it's now beyond dispute. It was suggested that the species status of "B. frankei" be reexamined as early as 1979, although I'm unsure when it was changed. Surprisingly there are articles as recent as 2005 still claiming it to be a separate species, although I'm fairly certain it was already determined a mutation by that time given the content of some of the studies I've come across.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...&log$=activity
http://dev.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/132/1/89

I've never heard D. nigrofasciatus referred to as a leopard danio before, and even now I can only find one source calling it "leopard" (same one from 1979, with frankei being called "spotted" instead). http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi...tract/70/4/287
But either way, I don't intend to argue over a common name. If it were up to me it'd just be called "black banded" as per its scientific name.

Good luck on your search for rarer species in your area of the states.

**lampeye** · 7th Apr 2009, 01:51

Haha - too true! I can't stand common names, but I've fallen into bad habits, since 'everytone else is doing it."

I guess I shouldn't be so didactic about one being the "real" leopard, but that's what it was in my first fish reference growing up.

Parichy's page is a surprisingly useful resource for hobyists... http://protist.biology.washington.ed...sStartPage.htm
You'll see the former "frankei" in the group on the left.

**Czyne** · 7th Apr 2009, 15:06

Common names can be handy when your LFS owner has no frickin clue what half of the fish he sells even are. Otherwise, they're often more confusing than helpful when around others who have an extensive interest in the hobby. I wish they'd just write the scientific names on the retail tanks rather than common, but how many people would that practice scare off?
Anyhow, that's a really great site. I hadn't bothered to look up the reference of that photo on the right (even though I'd come across it many times) so it's nice to finally have it bookmarked.

**lampeye** · 8th Apr 2009, 21:40

I don't know if this is funny, or sad...

but I put in a few hours a week at my LFS. I'm the "go-to guy" for identification of freshwater fish when we get shipments. But a shipment came in Monday (I wasn't there) full of all kinds of uncommon cyprinids, and there is now a tank with celestial pearl danios labeled "indian tetra." AAAARRGGGHH! I don't know what upset me more, the geographical error, or the taxonomic one!