Is this L173?

Gerry · Post by **Gerry** » 12 Mar 2007, 15:36

Picked them up straight from the importer who said they were wild caught L173.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 12 Mar 2007, 15:56

Gerry, I hope you don't mind me splitting/moving the subject. I personally don't know enough about L173 to say if that's L173 or something else.

--
Mats

Gerry · Post by **Gerry** » 12 Mar 2007, 16:06

No problem, I just posted it to show you after you asked if it was deffo L173, be good to find out for sure now.

Post by **Janne** » 13 Mar 2007, 18:32

Yes, these are what is exported as L173, I have never seen any bigger species then around 5 cm; they comes mostly mixed with other species youngsters from the fisherman. They are their own species and not the same as H. zebra, with that I cant say if their L-no is correct or not because I dont know how the first species looked when that species recived the L-number L173.

Janne

AndrewC · Post by **AndrewC** » 13 Mar 2007, 18:45

Hello Gerry
Nice fish

Do you know a importer around our area ?

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 13 Mar 2007, 19:08

They are their own species and not the same as H. zebra, with that I cant say if their L-no is correct or not because I dont know how the first species looked when that species recived the L-number L173.

Interesting one.

There is no picture of L173 in DATZ; it just says L173 = H. zebra. The pictures in Aqualog show a mixed bunch of very different looking fish, and none of which look that similar to Gerry's. You can tell they are very closely related to H. zebra though (the aqualog fish - Gerry's less so).

L173 seems to be a dumping ground for anything that looks remotely similar to H. zebra.

Gerry · Post by **Gerry** » 13 Mar 2007, 21:37

Don't quite follow the L173 in DATZ (newbie bit showing I guess)

This is the picture of L173 0n this site

And this is what it says in Identification "L 173 is applied to H. zebra without a "clean" pattern."

so I guess thats why mine is classed as a 173

I like them anyway

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 13 Mar 2007, 23:18

Could I ask which importer?

Jools

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 14 Mar 2007, 09:58

Don't quite follow the L173 in DATZ (newbie bit showing I guess)

DATZ is the German aquarium magazine that started the L number system. Although most people (retailers/exporters etc) use the Aqualog 21 "All L numbers" book, the definitive guide is the DATZ "L Numbers Special" publication.

There has been so little taxonomic work on Hypancistrus, it is very difficult to say what is a species.

The recent description of four Hypancistrus by Armbruster indicated that patterning will be a primary method of differentiating these fish.

I can't see this working with the myriad of very similar Xingu Hypancistrus, but as aquarists we don't see the whole picture. Each "species" may well be limited to very small geographical areas such as a specific section of rapids.

It may be a lot easier therefore to describe species when their geographical relationship with other species/forms is known. We don't get this information as the fish are often consolidated at the export facility.

.

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 14 Mar 2007, 13:44

Hi!

I have seen this type of coloration on very young L333, and I am sure it can also occure among L399 and l400

but it has nothing to do with L173 for sure
Cheers
Yann

Gerry · Post by **Gerry** » 14 Mar 2007, 18:48

Jools wrote:Could I ask which importer?

Jools

Murray of Glasgow