Comments on: Coelacanth In Ganges River?

By: youcantryreachingme

youcantryreachingme — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 12:23:02 +0000

10 points to Philip Burns – that fish looks nothing like a coelacanth. It looks clearly perch-like, meaning it’s in the order Perciformes, which, of course, includes groupers.

By: Andrew D. Gable

Andrew D. Gable — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 20:54:19 +0000

Looks like the grouper to me.

That said, I’d dig the idea of coelacanths in the Ganges – after all, remember the theory (I think Karl Shuker came up with it) that the buru was a lungfish? Coelacanth wouldn’t be too far off.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:59:31 +0000

I do have to say that the gills and some of the other features of the mystery fish are remarkably similar to the grouper picture provided by Loren. That species makes sense in a lot of ways. The orange-spotted grouper is found around India, and it is also known to frequent brackish waters. This increases the chance that it might have gone too far upstream and died as a result.

It sure would be nice to see a profile photo of the fish in question. That could really clear a lot up.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 10:20:02 +0000

The nile perch also does not have quite as huge a mouth as this fish seems to have. Although the angle makes it hard to say.

Call me crazy, but it looks almost as if it might be a warsaw grouper Ephinephelus nigritus to me. The general shape and coloration are similar, and warsaw groupers are the only type with 10 dorsal spines. By my count, the fish pictured here seems to have 10 dorsal spines (although it’s a bit hard to make out). There doesn’t seem to be the typical pronounced second dorsal spine, but that could be from damage mentioned on the fins, or scavengers eating away at it. After all, it was found dead.

What a warsaw grouper would be doing in the Ganges river is anyone’s guess. They are not found anywhere near India, but that’s what this sort of looks like to me.

Anyway, definitely not a coelacanth, and I’m starting to think that if the whole account is based on this photographed specimen, then this is a case of mistaken identity. The mystery seems to be not whether or not coelacanth are in the river or not, but rather just what exact species this is and how it got there.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 09:07:49 +0000

krs9864- No, it’s not a Nile perch. The fish pictured here lacks the more pronounced dorsal crest of the Nile perch. We could also expect to see a more sloped head and pronounced jutting mouth with a Nile perch.

I’m willing to go with grouper on this one, although perhaps not the species suggested here.

By: wncranger

wncranger — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 04:23:54 +0000

krs9864, I agree with you. It does look like a Nile Perch!

By: Aravat

Aravat — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 03:25:50 +0000

The mouth doesnt fit, the fins don’t fit, and where’s the armor like scales? This is not like any Coelacanth I’ve ever seen. I’ve looked at both photographs and video of these fish.
Does anybody think the fish in question looks like Latimeria chalumnae/menadoensis?
Let me know.

By: kgehrman

kgehrman — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 02:59:23 +0000

There is also something very non-coelacanth-like about that grouper’s scales.

Though it is really hard to tell from such a small photo. I have seen a preserved coelacanth up close and the scales are much larger with an armored ancient look. I have read that the Comorans used to use them to abrade things (like you would sandpaper) before the the creature was “discovered” of course. I have heard the children would keep scales in their possession in case they needed to repair and patch the tube of a flat bicycle tire.

By: krs9864

krs9864 — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 01:30:06 +0000

Rather than a Jewfish or Grouper, could this not be a Nile Perch?

By: Ceroill

Ceroill — Sat, 29 Aug 2009 21:22:46 +0000

Agreed, not a Coelacanth.