Rhino Pleco

fishlover88 · Post by **fishlover88** » 15 Jun 2007, 08:19

Hey does anyone know what the L-number or LDA-number for Pterygoplichthys scrophus (rhino plec) is? Or why it doesnt have one? i havent been able to find it and its been buggin me.....

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 15 Jun 2007, 11:34

Doesn't have one, because L-numbers were introduced in the 1980's (I think), whilst Pterygoplichthys scrophus was described by Cope about 100 years prior in 1874 (although not as Pterygoplichthys).

L-numbers are only used (or at least, they SHOULD only be used) on fish that doesn't have a formal scientific description.

Sometimes described species are given L-numbers to differentiate a described species and a fish that is well outside the decribed species' area, e.g. a fish that was described from Rio Orinoco that is exprted from Rio Xingu may be given an L-number, because it's POSSIBLE that this fish is not the same species. Similarly, the same undescribed species may well get several L-numbers based on different export locations (and sometimes this gets VERY confusing!)

--
Mats

Chrysichthys · Post by **Chrysichthys** » 15 Jun 2007, 14:37

MatsP is right, however I seem to remember that in Aqualog there's a picture of with an L-number (I don't recall what it is), but the species name is incorrectly given as . Which, if the Cat-eLog photo is correct, doesn't look at all like P. scrophus.

I don't have a copy handy to check, but maybe somebody else does. It's possible you might encounter rhino plecos sold as this L-number, even though it shouldn't have one.

fishlover88 · Post by **fishlover88** » 16 Jun 2007, 02:58

thanks guys, i had completely forgotten why l-numbers existed. Use em so often i forgot why.

thanks again

bsmith · Post by **bsmith** » 18 Jun 2007, 04:59

if L numbers are given to "new" undescribed plec's then why is a leopard frog plec a L134? was it just given the name recently? the L# just sticks around, ill bet thats it.

B

Dave Rinaldo · Post by **Dave Rinaldo** » 18 Jun 2007, 05:10

stlpleco wrote:if L numbers are given to "new" undescribed plec's then why is a leopard frog plec a L134? was it just given the name recently? the L# just sticks around, ill bet thats it.

B

leopard frog* is a "common name", not a scientific name, as this fish has yet to be described.

*(and L134)

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 18 Jun 2007, 11:40

stlpleco wrote:if L numbers are given to "new" undescribed plec's then why is a leopard frog plec a L134? was it just given the name recently? the L# just sticks around, ill bet thats it.

B

I echo Dave's comments: As far as I'm aware (and the collective Cat-eLog updaters, obviously, as there's still no real name in the Cat-eLog), no scientist has described the L134 species that is supposedly in the gneus.

is a better "name" than "Leopard frog pleco" for two reasons:
1. It works all over the world, whilst the English-based ocmmon name isn't particularly useful in France, Germany, Japan or Sweden (the last would translate to "Leopard-fläckig grodpleco" - which I presume most people in Saint Louis, Missouri wouldn't have a clue what it is).

2. By combining in the Genus name, it gives at least some hint of what the right diet and living conditions are of this fish. Of course, in some cases, the scientists will come up with a different genus than the journalists/amateur scientists that write up the L-number articles. But as a starting point, it's better than a "common name".

Anyone can come up with common names of fishes. Some people can come up with names that are accepted in general over the community of fish-keepers (at least in a given language).

--
Mats

bsmith · Post by **bsmith** » 18 Jun 2007, 15:42

so its the scientific name, not the common name. does the L# drop off when it has been scientificaly identified/classified?

B

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 18 Jun 2007, 15:57

stlpleco wrote:so its the scientific name, not the common name. does the L# drop off when it has been scientificaly identified/classified?

B

Yes, the L-number is there for species that are NOT scientifically described.

It obviously depending on what you mean by "dropping off". The L-number SHOULDN'T be used further after the species has been described, but was described in 1991, and people still call it L46. Likewise, L183 was described as long before L-numbers even existed - but it's still being caled L183 more often than not. [The other problem is of course that L183 is often used for a bunch of other black-with-white-spots Ancistrus spcies...]

Should this be the case? In my opinion, the BEST way to tell everyone which species you are talking about is the scientific name.

As to the Cat-eLog here at Planet Catfish, for example references to Ancistrus sp(L183) doesn't work. [Sorry to Silurus for sending you a mail when testing this]. So we're doing our part to make the transition.

--
Mats

Chrysichthys · Post by **Chrysichthys** » 18 Jun 2007, 16:03

It should, but it doesn't. For one example, was given that name a few year ago, but it's still being sold as L075, at least here.

Returning to the original topic, L196a in Aqualog (the actual book), while supposedly , looks to me like . Pass the cursor across the two links and you'll be able to see the difference using the new thumbnail thingy.

bsmith · Post by **bsmith** » 18 Jun 2007, 21:58

first off let me apologize to fishlover88 for hijacking your post, sorry.

i get it now, and i totally see why the L#'s are used so frequently, the scientific names are hard to spell and even harder to pronounce! thats gotta be it.