Dwarf Bristlenose?

[Floody]

Are there any dwarf ancistrus species?
The reason I ask is that I bought a 2.5 inch male ancistrus about six years ago. He looks just like a Ancistrus cf_cirrhosus and has a full set of bristles, he has also definitely fathered two broods. But after six years he is still 2.5 inch long.
He currently resides in a 400l tank so space is not an issue.
Any ideas?

[MatsP]

Ancistrus claro

is a smaller species. It may also be that the fish is stunted, either through genetics or (more likely) insufficient feeding early in life. I have a male that is about 3" total length. He's fathered a lot of fish, and many of his sons have grown bigger. One of those sons is the male here: http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =2&t=25979

On the subject of feeding: Is your male getting enough food?

--
Mats

[Floody]

Thanks for that Mats.
He shares the tank with a 4" female ancistrus, an Acanthicus Adonis and a Squaliforma, they all get pleco wafers daily and courgette twice a week plus meaty frozen foods twice a week as well as JMC catfish pellets, so food shoud be alright.

[apistomaster]

It is a shame that the status of identification and/or hybridization of the common aquarium strains of Ancistrus is such a mess.
I doubt we will ever be able to get back to the species identification(s) of those used to develop the existing strains of fish called L144, Ancistrus sp 3 or Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.

It is possible that even Ancistrus claro has also been involved with the formation of some of these common aquarium strains of Ancistrus.

In any case, the common aquarium Ancistrus and all it's forms can vary greatly in their maximum size but for the most part, it seems to me that the initial conditions they are raised in influence their ultimate maximum size the most.

I have specimens that have attained nearly 5 inches in total length yet some of the fry the large specimens produced were given to a friend who has always kept his in a 12 gal tank with a built in filter system along with a few small fish. His specimens have not exceeded 3 inches after 3 years and they began spawning when they were no more than 2-3/8 inches total length at about 8-9 months old. They would appear to be a dwarf variety but I know their ancestry is purely normal sized aquarium strain Ancistrus.

I have found that the long finned albino strain I keep and breed is the least vigorous of all other strains I have kept. Their fry grow very slowly and many die along the way for no apparent reason. Those with the longest fins seem to be the weakest. My albino long fins produce a long fin and a very long fin variants. I have wondered if it is anything like the difference between veil tail angels with shorter fin vs very long fins. One has a double dose of the veil tail gene and the other, a single dose of veil tail genes? Normal fin albino common Ancistrus are a vary vigorous strain. However, when combined with the long fin trait they are the weakest, ime.

It may not matter to many, but I would discourage allowing Ancistrus claro from hybridizing with any aquarium strain Ancistrus.
I believe it is in our best interest to maintain only pure bred strains of Ancistrus claro. Ancistrus claro is a naturally occurring and to my knowledge, the smallest known Ancistrus species.
On Aquabid, it is very common to see sellers listing common Ancistrus as "Dwarf Bushy nose" which they are not. There is only one true dwarf species, Ancistrus claro.

[Mike_Noren]

I doubt we will ever be able to get back to the species identification(s) of those used to develop the existing strains of fish called L144, Ancistrus sp 3 or Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.

"Never" is a long time. It would be fairly straight-forward to investigate the ancistruses if someone had the funds & time to do a genetic study. Eventually, as the Barcode of Life project advances, we'll even have the data available "for free", but that'll take many years.

It is possible that even Ancistrus claro has also been involved with the formation of some of these common aquarium strains of Ancistrus.

This is why I replied. Some years ago I bought this male...
http://mikes-machine.mine.nu/temp/idify ... C_0118.jpg
...and he never grew as big and was more colorful than the "normal" commons, and when I crossed the offspring of this male and a normal female to eachother, the F2 generation consisted of a large number of very dull-colored commons... and one single claro-like fish with a vermiculated pattern on the head. My guess is that this was a cross with A. claro.

[Jon]

IDK if genomics is as straightforward as you might think. Hybridization often results in a genome that is highly fragmented and very different from either of the parents, at least from what I understand.

[apistomaster]

I doubt we will ever be able to get back to the species identification(s) of those used to develop the existing strains of fish called L144, Ancistrus sp 3 or Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.

"Never" is a long time. It would be fairly straight-forward to investigate the ancistruses if someone had the funds & time to do a genetic study. Eventually, as the Barcode of Life project advances, we'll even have the data available "for free", but that'll take many years.

It is possible that even Ancistrus claro has also been involved with the formation of some of these common aquarium strains of Ancistrus.

This is why I replied. Some years ago I bought this male...
http://mikes-machine.mine.nu/temp/idify ... C_0118.jpg
...and he never grew as big and was more colorful than the "normal" commons, and when I crossed the offspring of this male and a normal female to eachother, the F2 generation consisted of a large number of very dull-colored commons... and one single claro-like fish with a vermiculated pattern on the head. My guess is that this was a cross with A. claro.

I did not use the word, "never".

I tend to agree with Jon about how different and fragmented the genome of hybrids could make ultimate determinations of all the genetic contributors of genetic info to common aquarium strain Ancistrus an extremely difficult proposition. This is a picture that is only getting more complex all the time and has been going on a very long time. Even the difference between 2 valid species within the same genus are determined by only a minute fraction of the genome. The Rat genome is 90% the same as that of Humans and Bonobo Apes are something like 98% the same as Humans. Imagine how slight the differences are between 2 similar Ancistrus then imagine unraveling the mish mash that common Ancistrus are without even any solid original reference points.
I know how much hope many hold for the bar coded mDNA as a species diagnostic tool but so far it has raised more questions than it has provided definite answers. But perhaps? I never said "never". I avoid absolutes.

[Mike_Noren]

IDK if genomics is as straightforward as you might think. Hybridization often results in a genome that is highly fragmented and very different from either of the parents, at least from what I understand.

The nuclear genome will be a mix, the mitochondrial genome will be (almost) identical to the maternal ancestor of the hybrid. Ways to detect hybridization would be if a mitochondrial sequence is identical to that of a morphologically dissimilar species; and if relationship inferred from nuclear genes seem to imply two or more different ancestries, and/or conflict with relationship inferred from mitochondrial genes.
The quality of the conclusion will very much depend on the number of genes and number of samples, but with a bit of luck it might be possible to reasonably show that Commons are hybrids with just the BoL data.

EDIT: "Ever" isn't all that much shorter than "never". ;)