scientific names vs L numbers

[talawoodward]

Hi everyone,
I just joined, and if you see my post in the speak easy forum, you know I'm working on a paper about the freshwater ornamental fish industry in the US. One of the things I'm working on is a database of fish in the industry, so I've been using the cat-elog a lot to match up L-numbers and common names and scientific names.

Couple of questions -
1. These articles that are posted in this forum about newly identified species. Would I be correct in assuming that these are not neccessarily in the aquarium trade? Also, is it a correct assumption that a "newly identified species" may already have an L-number from being in trade, though not previously recognized by science?
2. Something more specific - When I looked up L001, its listed under Pterygoplichthys joselimaianus. However, in FishBase, this isn't a listed name. The closest I found was Glyptoperichthys joselimaianus. Any ideas? Also, the genus Ancistrini is not listed at all, and Fisebase is usually a very up-to-date resource.

Thanks so much!
~Tala

[MatsP]

Let's cover your specific questions first, then I'll expand a little bit:

1. Newly described species may or may not have an L-number, that is correct. Also, not all L-numbers are commonly traded - there are quite a few L-number fishes that range from "very rare" to "noexistant" in the trade, whilst other L-numbers are quite frequently found - of course shops like WalMart or PetSmart may not carry many of even the more common L-numbers, since even those are "exotic" compared to guppies, gold-fish and the more common varieties of tetras.

2. L001 is listed in the Cat-eLog as Pterygoplichthys joselimaianus. This is the latest name for this fish, which is based on research by Jon Armbruster et.al. Fishbase may catch up as a "wait and see what settles", or it may be that they are following another (group of) scientist(s) research - as with so many things in science, it can take a while for some particular theory to get accepted - or it may ultimately be rejected!


More on 1: L-numbers are given to species that for one reason or another can't be given a full scientific name. The most common reason is that the actual species hasn't been described, but there are other situations where an L-number is given out.

There are examples of fish where the scientific description splits a single L-number into different species. One such case is L200, which is now

Baryancistrus demantoides

and

Hemiancistrus subviridis

- one of those was called "L200 Hi-Fin" or some such, so the hobbyists/trade had recognised that there was a difference between fish looking very similar.

Another factor is that since one of the "deciding factors" on L-numbers is the origin of the fish, sometimes new L-numbers are given to same or very similar fish to an already described species or existing L-number. This is because some species are described with a fairly limited distribution, but with further research it may be found that it's the same species - but it may also be a DIFFERENT species.

Scientists will have to sort thisout, and it will probably take MANY years before all 400 or so L-numbers have been correctly described and all (or at least most) scientists agree on the classification of each species.

In the science of describing and naming species, there are groups called "splitters" and "lumpers". Splitters will take any chance to split a species or genus based on some minute detail in the species or genus concerned. Lumpers will say "local/individual variation" to just about any of those differences.

--
Mats

[Marc van Arc]

Also, the genus Ancistrini is not listed at all, and Fisebase is usually a very up-to-date resource.

Hello & welcome to PC,
I tried FB on Ancistrinae (which seemed more appropriate than Ancistrini) and got no listings either. But then, the Ancistrinae are a sub-family, not a genus. A genus to this sub-family would be Ancistrus for instance, which of course will provide you with plenty of hits.
Hope this helps a little.

[racoll]

Also, the genus Ancistrini is not listed at all

Ah , the Ancistrini is a tribe rather than a genus.

Here is what the cat-elog says:

"The ancistrini is a tribe of the subfamily hypostominae. At one time it was a subfamily, ancistrinae, but currently sits a little lower in the scheme of things. It's used here mostly for l-numbers that can't be placed into a currently valid genus. They may, for example, exhibit traits that places it halfway between two established genera or have features common to two genera that were previously thought to be unique. "


In addition to what Mats has written, I would like to add that although the guys from DATZ and Aqualog know an enormous amount about loricariids, the fish are not scientifically studied in any depth before they are assigned an L number. For this they need to be killed and dissected by a taxonomist.

The fish in DATZ are just photoed alive and the authors have an educated guess at the genus (usually but not always correct).

It was created as a system because prior to L numbers all there was was Hypancistrus sp. "Xingu III" or worse still "Queen Fairy Polka Carousel Pleco" (the exotic names dreamt up by exporters got a bit silly).

Soldier through this post to the end and you may understand a bit more about why the L number system came about.

[MatsP]

Right, missed the bit about "Ancistrini". As you can probably see in the Cat-eLog, Ancistrini is written in non-italic, which indicates that it's not a genus.

The fish in this group are "undecided". They are part of the tribe Ancistrini, but the genus is not determined on these fishes (a "tribe" in this context is a grouping within a subfamily), which contains a large number of the genus of the most popular/famous L-numbers, such as : Peckoltia, Ancistrus, Hypancistrus, Panaque, etc. It is quite easy to determine if a fish belongs in the Ancistrini tribe, but it can be much harder to place them in a genus, particularly if they are either "inbetween" or "none of the above" in the list of existing genus. In this case, it requires a proper taxonomic researcher to "decide" the matter (and even then, there may be others disagreeing and calling it something else).

[1] "spikes behind the gill-cover" is one clear sign that the fish belongs to this tribe. Others are less obvious, but for soemone with a bit of experience, it's not that hard to place most Loricariidae in a subfamily or tribe.

--
Mats

[Marc van Arc]

Gentlemen,
Thou art truly right.
I got a little mixed up in things, mainly because the name Ancistinae is still used in Wels Atlas and Ancistrini didn't ring any bell.
I should have known however, that Ancistrinae/-i is no longer a subfamily.
That'll become clear from the oncoming Wels Atlas 2 book review.

Racoll, what have you done to your avatar? I really liked the ET

[racoll]

Racoll, what have you done to your avatar? I really liked the ET

I decided a change was in order. This is one of my wild green discus (Symphysodon tarzoo).

The blobfish will return.........

[talawoodward]

Thanks for the help everyone! I really appreciate it.