Barber perch

Barber perch
Scientific classification
Domain:	Eukaryota
Kingdom:	Animalia
Phylum:	Chordata
Class:	Actinopterygii
Order:	Perciformes
Family:	Anthiadidae
Genus:	Caesioperca
Species:	C. rasor
Binomial name
Caesioperca rasor (Richardson, 1839) [1]
Synonyms[1]
Anthias rasor Klunzinger, 1872 Lacepedia cataphracta Castelnau, 1873 Serranus rasor Richardson, 1839

The barber perch (Caesioperca rasor), also called the barber sea perch, red perch or Tasmanian barber, is endemic to Australia, found from southern Victoria to southwestern Western Australia, including Tasmania.[2]

Description

The barber perch is a laterally compressed, deep-bodied fish growing to a maximum length of 26 cm (10 in). Females and larger juveniles are a pinkish colour with a large black vertical bar on the flank towards the posterior end and a blue streak just under the eye. Smaller juveniles additionally have a black head. Males are similarly marked but their overall hue is silvery or yellowish. They additionally have blue margins to the fins and a small blue spot on each scale.[2]

It differs from the closely related Butterfly perch by having a more slender body and males are more blue with a darker bar, rather than blotch, on the side.[3] The two species sometimes form mixed shoals.[3]

Behaviour

The barber perch is a schooling species of fish which forms dense shoals at depths down to about 180 m (591 ft).[4] It is largely a piscivore.[5]

References

1. Bailly, Nicolas (2014). "Caesioperca rasor (Richardson, 1839)". WoRMS. World Register of Marine Species. Retrieved 2014-02-24.
2. Barber Perch, Caesioperca rasor (Richardson, 1839), Australian Museum, 19 May 2009.
3. Bray, Dianne. "Barber Perch, Caesioperca rasor". Fishes of Australia. Retrieved 29 September 2014.
4. "Caesioperca rasor (Richardson, 1839): Barber perch". FishBase. Retrieved 2014-02-24.
5. Bulman, C.; Althaus, F.; He, X.; Bax, N. J.; Williams, A. (2001). "Diets and trophic guilds of demersal fishes of the south-eastern Australian shelf". Marine and Freshwater Research. 52 (4): 537–548. doi:10.1071/MF99152.