Some plecos
-
Greatshorty
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 05:28
- Location 1: Hong Kong China
Some plecos
Still struggling in telling who are they!!! Comment please!!!
-
MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:164)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
These are the same as in This thread, right?
If so, is there any particular reason you think they are not L173?
I don't think they are L236, as they are "too white".
--
Mats
If so, is there any particular reason you think they are not L173?
I don't think they are L236, as they are "too white".
--
Mats
-
Greatshorty
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 05:28
- Location 1: Hong Kong China
I have no idea Mats, what do you think?MatsP wrote:These are the same as in This thread, right?
If so, is there any particular reason you think they are not L173?
I don't think they are L236, as they are "too white".
--
Mats
-
MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:164)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
Well, I think that Janne is as close an expert as you'll get, and if he asks you why you think it's NOT L173, then I have to ask the same thing, as that's the one I'd say it is, and from inference, it seems like Janne thinks so too.
But if you have some information that means that L173 is ruled out, such as an export location of Colombia (for example), which would mean that it's unlikely to have come from Rio Xingu would be such an information. The fact that it doesn't look EXACTLY like the picture in the Cat-eLog isn't a good indication.
By the way, I've just sent an update of L173 to remove some incorrect references to Hypancistrus zebra that remained there because at one point L173 was (more or less officially, not just on Planet Catfish) considered a variant of H. zebra, but I (along with others) now think this is not correct.
--
Mats
But if you have some information that means that L173 is ruled out, such as an export location of Colombia (for example), which would mean that it's unlikely to have come from Rio Xingu would be such an information. The fact that it doesn't look EXACTLY like the picture in the Cat-eLog isn't a good indication.
By the way, I've just sent an update of L173 to remove some incorrect references to Hypancistrus zebra that remained there because at one point L173 was (more or less officially, not just on Planet Catfish) considered a variant of H. zebra, but I (along with others) now think this is not correct.
--
Mats
-
Greatshorty
- Posts: 30
- Joined: 11 Aug 2006, 05:28
- Location 1: Hong Kong China
Thx Mats!!!MatsP wrote:Well, I think that Janne is as close an expert as you'll get, and if he asks you why you think it's NOT L173, then I have to ask the same thing, as that's the one I'd say it is, and from inference, it seems like Janne thinks so too.
But if you have some information that means that L173 is ruled out, such as an export location of Colombia (for example), which would mean that it's unlikely to have come from Rio Xingu would be such an information. The fact that it doesn't look EXACTLY like the picture in the Cat-eLog isn't a good indication.
By the way, I've just sent an update of L173 to remove some incorrect references to Hypancistrus zebra that remained there because at one point L173 was (more or less officially, not just on Planet Catfish) considered a variant of H. zebra, but I (along with others) now think this is not correct.
--
Mats
In fact, I don't know where they were caught and I bought them in different time. As a result, whether they are from the same place, I really have no clue.
How can you tell whether or not they are 173? Only from their colour? body shape or what else? I have asked a friend of mine, he told me that if the location is unknown, dimension of the fish and no. of teeth or even DNA are used to distinguish what species they are. Do you know any of these methodologies?
By the way, the first two were bought under L173, but some ppl said it's L66 (can you tell the difference between these 2 species?) and the 3rd and the 4th were came as "hypancistrus new variety" or whatever. But I think the last 2 were quite a different from the first two ans their colour were not a bright (white) as the first two...they were a little bit with greyish colour.
For your comment on L173, yes, I agree with you, 173 is quite different from 46...at least their eyes are in different colour and more likely with longer body apart from the closely alike stripe pattern.
Anyway, thx for your help on these little fellows!!!
-
MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:164)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
I'm pretty sure they are not L66 unless your pictures are not correct colour-balanced. L66 is more brown/yellow than the fish in your picture, so if the real fish looks similar to the picture, L66 is not the right ID.
I can't say for SURE that they are L173, primarily because all I've got to go by is ONE picture in the Cat-eLog that shows L173.
It is always difficult to say what is within the species normal variations and what is a new species. All species have a natural variability, but you may find that a different species is very similar, but some part of the variation is deemed to be outside the "normal variation", making it a "new species".
L-numbers are more complicated than species when it comes to identifying which for two reasons:
1. There's no REALLY good diagnostic keys for L-numbers - just some photos and a bit of text, capture location and size info.
2. Different capture location of the same "species" may make it into a new L-number, even if it's technically the same species.
I do also agree that at least the third fish in your picture series looks different - it's got wider lines as well as less contrasty colouration (the latter is of less importance than the former, as that may be depending on differences in the photo, rather than the difference in actual colour - hard to say without seeing the REAL fish (or all in the same photo)).
--
Mats
I can't say for SURE that they are L173, primarily because all I've got to go by is ONE picture in the Cat-eLog that shows L173.
It is always difficult to say what is within the species normal variations and what is a new species. All species have a natural variability, but you may find that a different species is very similar, but some part of the variation is deemed to be outside the "normal variation", making it a "new species".
L-numbers are more complicated than species when it comes to identifying which for two reasons:
1. There's no REALLY good diagnostic keys for L-numbers - just some photos and a bit of text, capture location and size info.
2. Different capture location of the same "species" may make it into a new L-number, even if it's technically the same species.
I do also agree that at least the third fish in your picture series looks different - it's got wider lines as well as less contrasty colouration (the latter is of less importance than the former, as that may be depending on differences in the photo, rather than the difference in actual colour - hard to say without seeing the REAL fish (or all in the same photo)).
--
Mats
