Ancistrus sp. Caqueta - ID?

PhaidOut · Post by **PhaidOut** » 03 Mar 2007, 04:51

It's ID night for me... Anyone know what those might be? I just purchased a group from a breeder who picked them up from BelowWater. He didn't now anything about them and Oliver (BelowWater) informed me they are an Ancistrus from Rio Caqueta in Columbia. And that it was a white water river.

All that said, they look like my common BN at this time and size (1.5"-2.5")... I don't have any fry in that size range at the moment, but I don't see anything distinguishing about them... MAYBE thier spotting is a little different.

Any one know anything or have any comments?

Post by **Shane** » 04 Mar 2007, 12:19

Ancistrus lineolatus was described from Florencia, Rio Orteguasa, Caqueta, Colombia. There is some minor targeted collection of aquarium fishes in the area mainly after Panaque and Corydoras.
-Shane

PhaidOut · Post by **PhaidOut** » 05 Mar 2007, 01:35

Thanks for taking the time out to reply Shane. Don't see them listed as that on the sight though...

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 05 Mar 2007, 13:01

A. lineolatus, if that's what you've got, isn't in the Cat-eLog because no one has sent photos to Jools of a fish that can be identified as such.

About half of all the described species of Ancistrus are "missing" from the Cat-eLog for that very reason.

--
Mats

PhaidOut · Post by **PhaidOut** » 06 Mar 2007, 01:43

I managed to forget my camera at work, but Photomax http://www.photomax-library.org.uk has what looks like the fish I have listed under Ancistrus lineolatus. Takes a login to view them though. Otherwise I guess it will be few months until they grow into their adult appearance...

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 06 Mar 2007, 10:47

Well, I don't think that will help, for two reasons:
1. I've seen more than one photo by Max that aren't correctly identified (not necessarily his fault - there's many fish that aren't correctly identified anyways).

2. I doubt very much that Max will "give away" the picture, even if it's getting him credit. I could be wrong, and I've sent an e-mail to photomax to ask for one or two photos to be sent to Jools. I'm not having much hope tho'.

--
Mats

PhaidOut · Post by **PhaidOut** » 07 Mar 2007, 00:26

I wasn't really thinking along the lines that the photos might be provided for the site seeing they are stock photos andI agree it probably isn't too likely considering it is a for profit enterprise. I don't know Max and only found the site looking for information just yesterday.

I was thinking more along the lines of what my specimens presently look like. If they are actually the same species - great, if not so be it. But at this age, I think it going to be pretty hard to tell unless there is a "sure" indicator I find somewhere.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 07 Mar 2007, 10:15

The species was described by Fowler in 1943. Reference is:
Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila. v. 95 255 Figs. 44-47

It's also referenced (cited) in several later documents, but I'm unable to find any of those documents publicly available (but I'm not always good at finding them...)

--
Mats