Fish on cover of Peterson's Guide

I'm sure a lot of you have a copy of the Peterson Field Guide: Freshwater Fishes but has anyone of you noticed the large sunfish picture on the cover? What is it? My best guess is that it's a bluegill/green hybrid.

Why do you think it's anything but a pure-blooded green sunfish? That's what I take it to be.

Another question related to the Peterson guide. What is the date of the latest edition? Mine is dated 1991. I see a 1998 edition on eBay, with an illustration of the same cover. Is that a 1998 printing of the 1991 revision? Or is there a newer book that I should be getting? I've heard a rumor that a new edition is due out this year?

Well you know what I am gonna say - WARMOUTH!!

But seriously, looks like a green to me too.

The body shape looks like a bluegill (camera angle perhaps), as does the blue coloration on the face. All the green sunfish I have ever seen have vermiculation and not the solid coloration. Also, while the mouth is larger then it would be for a bluegill, it looks to small to be a green.

My edition is the 1991, I have also heard that a new edition is coming out.

The body shape looks like a bluegill (camera angle perhaps), as does the blue coloration on the face. All the green sunfish I have ever seen have vermiculation and not the solid coloration. Also, while the mouth is larger then it would be for a bluegill, it looks to small to be a green.

My edition is the 1991, I have also heard that a new edition is coming out.

Looks like a straight up green to me as well.

The new edition of Peterson's should be out this spring, if I am not mistaken. One of the authors discussed it at last year's NANFA meeting.

I would agree with those that say that is a hybrid bluegill/green. I too have this book and yes one of the authors was at the convention and talked about the upcomming edition due out this year. It sounded like he/they are making a lot of efforts to improve the book greatly.

...as does the blue coloration on the face.

I think you're just looking at regional variation. There is a reason that the green sunfish is called Lepomis Cyanellus, "cyanellus" meaning "blue". There is a certain amount of blue to be expected in a green sunfish.

I'm not just saying the coloration is off the body shape and mouth size are all wrong. The fish is way to deep bodied to be a pure green sunfish, it looks much more like a bluegill in body shape. The bars on the sides of it's body do not look like a green sunfish's bars (this is the least convincing though since it is a coloration thing). The face of the fish if you will has somewhat of an indentation before the forhead goes up higher toward the dorsal fin this is more of a bluegill feature greens usually have a more smooth profile or transistion between the head and the forhead of the face of the fish. Finally the mouth is too small for a pure green sunfish. it does look a little large for a bluegill so this would point toward it being a hybrid. When looking at any fish coloration should not be trusted, the coloration of this fish looks very green sunfish like, except the vertical bars on the side of the body and the coloration on the operculum is a little off too. When identifying any fish look at physical features more than coloration, because coloration may be helpful but should not be trusted without considering other features.

I think you're just looking at regional variation. There is a reason that the green sunfish is called Lepomis Cyanellus, "cyanellus" meaning "blue". There is a certain amount of blue to be expected in a green sunfish.

I have folders upon folders of fish pictures on my computer that I have found all over the net and I made sure to look at every green sunfish picture I have on it before making that comment. None of them have quite the solid coloration that the one on the book does. Also, like smbass was saying...coloration is not a good ID tool, at least not with fish. When I was in college my prof. told me to not even bother with it, mostly becuase all his specimens were dead and colorless but whatever...either way it helped me a lot because now I ID based on other characteristics, though granted...I did comment on the solid blue color. Smbass did a great job of pointing out everything that wasen't green about that fish. For anyone who was not convinced before I think you should be now.

I have an older version of the guide and that very same photo is on the cover. That is the only photo on the cover actually (the greenie). The book gives credit for the photo and describes the species. It is definatly a green sunfish. That is all I see in it and cannot see anyghing else in it. Looks pure greenie to me.

By the way when is the newest version of petersons due out. I am waiting till that one comes out to update. I have had this copy for years and years. Probably around fifteen years or more. I would guess more.

About relying on color to ID a fish. That is not a good idea for may reasons. That is why Peterson when he was still alive chose to use paintings. He could render the colors more like what the naked eye saw. With film it was bad but now with digital it is only slightly better. A camera no matter what the quality or pro level "and I own a pro digital slr" does not capture colors acuratly. And even if it did, and with all the color corecting I can do in photoshop, the color gamut of printing inks can only produce a limited amount of color schemes. So with that said, that fish on the cover since being a photograph and an old one at that, was shot with film and processed with older inks "originally" that were not as good as the ones we have today. Ya do not rely on color. That is a greenie no doubt in my mind. And as far as the body shape on this fish photo in question it looks much to elongate for a full grown blue gill. A blue gill at that maturity would be very very disk shaped.

And as far as the body shape on this fish photo in question it looks much to elongate for a full grown blue gill. A blue gill at that maturity would be very very disk shaped.

Well I'm not saying it's a pure bluegill, I'm saying it's a hybrid.

Word on the street has always been that this fish is a green sunfish. Otherwise, I'm beginning to wonder if only hybrid sunfish have their pictures appear on this board by some peculiar selection process.

I have an older version of the guide and that very same photo is on the cover. That is the only photo on the cover actually (the greenie). The book gives credit for the photo and describes the species. It is definatly a green sunfish.

I'm glad the older version of the book tells you that. There is no such description in the 1991 edition, at least not that I can find. A glaring omission, IMHO.

About relying on color to ID a fish. That is not a good idea for may reasons. That is why Peterson when he was still alive chose to use paintings. He could render the colors more like what the naked eye saw. With film it was bad but now with digital it is only slightly better. A camera no matter what the quality or pro level "and I own a pro digital slr" does not capture colors acuratly.

I have wondered why there are so many paintings in the various books, instead of photographs. Thanks for the explanation!

I am also with the hybrid camp on this one. This is undoubtably the most common hybrid out there. The hatchery near me sells hundreds of thousands of these fish to stock in private ponds every year. Many of these ponds overflow directly into small streams, and the hybrids escape.

not only is this hybrid produced in hatcheries but it also occurs naturaly where ever bluegill and greens are found.

I'm glad the older version of the book tells you that. There is no such description in the 1991 edition, at least not that I can find. A glaring omission, IMHO.
I have wondered why there are so many paintings in the various books, instead of photographs. Thanks for the explanation!

I looked in my book for a name that goes with the photo and found none. I think in the older edition it was not identified properly. No way is that fish a pure example of any species.
Skipjack, great photo...only confirms it even more, looks very similer.

I'm beginning to wonder if only hybrid sunfish have their pictures appear on this board by some peculiar selection process.

I think this is the case because we all know the standard fish...It is only the oddball ones that wind up having questions about them. Most of these fall into the hybrid category...

So in the new peterson's are they going to have a section on Hybrid sunfish?

Lucky for me I have never caught or seen a hybrid sunfish before. I never even knew just how common they were until I came to this site.

Lucky for me I have never caught or seen a hybrid sunfish before. I never even knew just how common they were until I came to this site.

Huh. Imagine that

Lucky for me I have never caught or seen a hybrid sunfish before. I never even knew just how common they were until I came to this site.

They are more common than one would think. Both Natural and aquacultured. I have to say also though I have really only seen a handful myself, most of these being Pumpkinseed x bluegill or redear x bluegill. despite having a lot of Green suns around where I'm at, I have seen very few that even qualify for a second look as a hybrid.

Hybrid shiners are the things we see a lot of around here. I have seen some really strange hybrids in this regard.