Florida's Plecos

SoCalDiscus · Post by **SoCalDiscus** » 09 Jun 2009, 23:51

Well, apparently there are common plecos thriving in the Florida canals. Just walking 20' I saw 4 hanging out by the edge. I happen to have picked up a large net the day before and decided I needed to catch on just to take a closer look. So, after about 20 -30 minutes and countless almosts, we netted him. He was a big guy. I wasn't prepared with a measuring tape, but at least I had a camera. Using a measurement of my hand, one of the many photos we had of him, and some math, we're certain he was at least 25 inches for sure. I'm not good with ID'ing commons, but he looked like a Pterygoplichthys pardalis. However, according to the size listed here they're supposed to only get up to about 14". Anyways, just thought the number of these guys in the canals was interesting.

(I hope these photos work and they're not too big.)

andywoolloo · Post by **andywoolloo** » 09 Jun 2009, 23:55

I can't see the pics just red x's, but I 'd love to see them! My pardalis is probably 14 inches right now. I was kind of hoping he was done growing.

SoCalDiscus · Post by **SoCalDiscus** » 10 Jun 2009, 00:04

I'm trying to repost them. Can I use flicker images on here? I have them saved to be viewed by anyone, but I'm not sure if they will just show up on here when I use the Img stuff. I thought I did it correctly, but something somewhere is pointing and laughing at me for missing it. Oops!:) Help. I'd love to get these up!

SoCalDiscus · Post by **SoCalDiscus** » 10 Jun 2009, 00:08

Attempt at image.

URL link in the most likely case that my Img attempt fails
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39267454@N02/3612398808/

Edit:
So, URL it is for now. Until I can figure it out, this is the best I've got.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/39267454@N02/3612399060/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39267454@N02/3611585869/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39267454@N02/3612400086/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/39267454@N02/3611585869/

And, now I cross my fingers and hope.

andywoolloo · Post by **andywoolloo** » 10 Jun 2009, 00:20

here are your pics, hope it's ok I did that, you have to pick the Img spot and add in your pic by right clicking on properties on the pic and copying from the beginning thru the .jpg only.

wow! he is gorgeous! and he let you hold him like that!! He looks like he is eating well! I wonder what he is eating down there!

did you put him back or bring him home? what was it like to hold him?

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 10 Jun 2009, 03:38

He looks delicious!

Honestly, provided they are from clean waterways, large Pl*cos are a great meal! I had them as an appetizer in Peru.

The traditional way to cook them is to throw them directly on hot coals or over an open fire (but I would gut them first). If it's a female, do not remove the eggs, these are supposed to be great! I didn't get to try these however.

Once they are cooked through, peel off the dermal scutes and dinner is served.

SoCalDiscus · Post by **SoCalDiscus** » 10 Jun 2009, 07:45

andywoolloo wrote:here are your pics, hope it's ok I did that, you have to pick the Img spot and add in your pic by right clicking on properties on the pic and copying from the beginning thru the .jpg only.

wow! he is gorgeous! and he let you hold him like that!! He looks like he is eating well! I wonder what he is eating down there!

No, it was great that you did that!

Thank you so much for helping and also explaining what I was doing wrong. I'll have to try that.

I thought he was one of the best looking common plecos I've ever seen. He was definitely eating well. Those canals are full of everything a pleco could hope and dream for.

As for eating them, I wouldn't eat anything coming out of those canals. The pollution in those things is terrible. So, no. He would just have come home and spent three months in quarantine and be hit with dewormer and what not before I'd even consider putting him in my tank.

I have no idea if they get much bigger than that. I love the picture of his mouth. You can see just how big that guy is when you compare it to my finger. Its funny.

I always handle plecos like this. One hand on top of the dorsal fin and one underneath their belly with your thumb and middle fingers just behind the pectoral fins. I use my index finger to support their 'chest'. I found that plecos generally relax and hold still is held this way. Once the pleco relaxes, you can pull up their dorsal fin to show them off. I move all of my plecos by hand, especially my big guys. It is much safer for them. Although if they have big odontals on their cheeks and pectoral fins or are spiney, you might consider some rubber kitchen gloves. I just handle them slowly and I do fine with them.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Jun 2009, 09:14

On the ID, you are right, it's a P. pardalis - the P. disjunctivus that it may be confused with has "reverse" pattern on the belly - so white spots on dark background, whilst yours clearly has black dots on white background.

As to the size, we'd need a proper measurement photo in order to change the official figure [1], and bear in mind that the size is measured as "Standard Length", which is nose to "end of the fleshy part of the tail", so not actually counting the tail-fin itself - which can easily add 3-4" on a large fish like this.

[1] There is a special type of "fish ruler" that is like an L-shape, usually sold in shops dealing with sports-fishing, similar to the thing that you find in some shoe-shops for measuring childrens feet. You prop the head against the upright part of the L and where the fish "ends" is the length of it. But a tape-measure will work just fine. A photo showing the actual measurement is needed as "proof". Unfortunately, it is very hard to eye-ball the size of a fish, and we all get it wrong from time to time.

--
Mats

avianwing · Post by **avianwing** » 10 Jun 2009, 11:45

I guess these should either be taken to confined tanks or destroyed, since they are an invasive species- a beautiful one nevertheless.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 10 Jun 2009, 12:00

avianwing wrote:I guess these should either be taken to confined tanks or destroyed, since they are an invasive species- a beautiful one nevertheless.

Although an invasive species i don't think the removal of one will make much difference as i believe there are literally hundreds of them; something like this perhaps?

jimoo · Post by **jimoo** » 10 Jun 2009, 13:14

Wow, that video.

I was in south FL a few months back (looking for herps, some birding) and saw many oscars in ditches, and a few what I think are hoplo cats dried up on the shoreline, but no plecos. Wish I did (wish more they weren't there though).

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 10 Jun 2009, 14:19

Very roughly from the top picture, on screen sizes, your cuff is 18mm and the pleco (bent away a bit) is 150mm. So, the pleco is about 8.3 times the length of the cuff - perhaps you could measure your cuff, and then multiply by 8.3 to get the TL?

Alternatively, head out with a net and a measuring tape! I would like to update the site with information regarding the fact they get this big outside of their native range, but 25" is half a metre and that fish just doesn't look like it's that big (it DOES look bigger than 14", so I'd just like to definitely say by how much).

Anyone else in FL with a net, measuring tape, camera and some time to kill?

Jools

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Jun 2009, 14:52

Well, if the fish is indeed 25" (635mm), then the cuff would be 3" or 76mm. Which is quite a big arm, and the arm in the picture doesn't really look like that of a heavily built man - if you don't mind me saying so. I mean, my arm is probably between 55-65mm across the wrist from the top, about 40mm from top to bottom, and I'm not that small - I may not be "Mr Muscle" either, but...

I agree that it may well be more than 14" - but I don't really think it's 25" long, even measuring WITH the tail.

--
Mats

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 10 Jun 2009, 15:25

An alternative approach to the fish length:

the indexfinger on the fourth picture seams to quite close in length (from knuckle to tip) to the distance betrween the two pectoral fins. This distance * roughtly 5,5 would make the length, again estimating on that picture.

So, knowing the length of that finger (mine is 3 inches, but I got large hands) we might estimate the fish length

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 10 Jun 2009, 15:30

Yup, and that looks to be a more dainty finger in the photo if I can put it politely. Even so, 5.5 * 3" is 16.5" TL, which means the SL is under 14" - I still think we need a measuring tape shot!

Jools

DutchFry · Post by **DutchFry** » 10 Jun 2009, 18:42

i think the pleco on the picture is about 45 cm TL, roughly.

but i DO think the clog needs changing on the maximum size of P. pardalis. I've seen specimens well over half a meter in length, almost reaching 60 cm TL. and that's just in captivity, who knows how big these guys get in the wild (although i don't think they will get much bigger than 60 cm TL)

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 10 Jun 2009, 18:43

I have little trouble believing this pleco is close to 25 inches TL.
I once had one that measured 17.5 inches TL and it was much smaller than this fish. It was raised in an aquarium for nearly 17 years
As an experienced fisherman, I am pretty good at estimating a fishes size and I am quite sure this one is about 25 inches.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 10 Jun 2009, 18:56

Guys, we've had the discussion a few times before. We've all seen common plecos that are bigger than 14" SL apparently, however no one has actually measured one yet. So while I can change the catelog, what I would like is to have a firm view on what to change it to.

Jools

SoCalDiscus · Post by **SoCalDiscus** » 10 Jun 2009, 20:37

MatsP wrote:On the ID, you are right, it's a P. pardalis - the P. disjunctivus that it may be confused with has "reverse" pattern on the belly - so white spots on dark background, whilst yours clearly has black dots on white background.

As to the size, we'd need a proper measurement photo in order to change the official figure [1], and bear in mind that the size is measured as "Standard Length", which is nose to "end of the fleshy part of the tail", so not actually counting the tail-fin itself - which can easily add 3-4" on a large fish like this.

[1] There is a special type of "fish ruler" that is like an L-shape, usually sold in shops dealing with sports-fishing, similar to the thing that you find in some shoe-shops for measuring childrens feet. You prop the head against the upright part of the L and where the fish "ends" is the length of it. But a tape-measure will work just fine. A photo showing the actual measurement is needed as "proof". Unfortunately, it is very hard to eye-ball the size of a fish, and we all get it wrong from time to time.

--
Mats

I was kicking myself for not having a measuring tape. To measure him, I did not just throw an eyeballed number out. I never throw out eyeballed numbers as, you are right, they are completely useless. I did, however, include the full tail, so I would say that reducing my estimate of at least 4" would be appropriate. I still think you get a much larger fish than 14". I wanted the best proof I could get for what I had. We looked through the photos for a nice straight shot of him where you could also see my hand right up against him well. We measured that part of my hand and used a ratio to get his length. And, yeah, I don't have massive hands.

Also, by no means would I ever ask for the measurement to be changed based up that, but there was no way this guy was 14'.

Good news is that I know someone who lives in Florida and pulls these guys out so often that its a game as to who can get the biggest one and the most. I will contact that guy and have him get me some good shots with a measuring tape. I promise we will get one next to a ruler that measure well beyond 14".

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Jun 2009, 20:57

I do not doubt that there are bigger fish. The question, as Jools pointed out, is HOW MUCH bigger.

--
Mats

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 11 Jun 2009, 08:44

SoCalDiscus wrote: Good news is that I know someone who lives in Florida and pulls these guys out so often that its a game as to who can get the biggest one and the most. I will contact that guy and have him get me some good shots with a measuring tape. I promise we will get one next to a ruler that measure well beyond 14".

Brilliant, that's precisely what we need. It would be perfect to know just how much bigger than 14" these things are getting up to. I should also add it is good to get a belly shot too (as you did in the post above), so we can say, OK, it's this big and it's this species. Furthermore, I have a sneaking suspicion that males are upto 20% larger, but let's not get carried away!

Jools

andywoolloo · Post by **andywoolloo** » 11 Jun 2009, 23:04

do you think maybe they only grow really big like that in the wild and not in home captivity? Even if the tank is big enough for them at home I mean? Maybe it is a out of doors thing? Even though it's not their exact natural environment in a Florida water way?

I am hoping mine doesn't get to be 25 inches. I will have to build a pond for him and bring him in in the winter I suppose.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 11 Jun 2009, 23:59

They probably grow quicker in "the wild", due to more constant availability and wider variety of food, and lower nitrate levels. It's very hard to keep large fish due to waste generated by them. Also, I expect they feed almost continually throughout day and night.

--
Mats

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 12 Jun 2009, 16:43

As I posted earlier, I had a pardalis entirely grown in an aquarium of only 55 gal for 17 years before accepting it as a trade-in in my old shop that was no less than 17.5 inches TL so for a wild specimen to grow to 25 inches TL doesn't strain my credibility any. These have also been caught out of some Rivers in Texas in the same size range as the fish in question.
If the Cat-elog say 14 inches SL then that is a size commonly reached in aquariums in 10 years or less and is not representative of the maximum size of wild fish.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 12 Jun 2009, 16:51

apistomaster wrote:If the Cat-elog say 14 inches SL then that is a size commonly reached in aquariums in 10 years or less and is not representative of the maximum size of wild fish.

The cat-elog says 14" I think because this is the largest officially recorded size in a paper. Personally, I have not seen them this large in the wild (S. America), BUT I think they grow larger in non-native wild areas and I think they probably grow larger in captivity too.

I would also make the point that the vast majority of these fish in captivity are not "wild fish" and are commercially farmed again probably not from wild stock. Also, the Floridian or Texan aliens are also likely not "wild fish" for the same reason. So, their origin seems considerably less important than the environment the a raised in - a point Mats also touches on / concurs.

A tape measure, a large pleco and a camera would help!

Jools

Haavard Stoere · Post by **Haavard Stoere** » 12 Jun 2009, 17:57

Here is a documented specimen measuring 42.29 cm sl. That is 16.6 inches sl. in medieval terms

The fish was cought in Laguna De Bay, the largest lake in the Phillipines.
http://www.fishbase.se/PopDyn/PopCharLi ... lis&fc=157

Since this could have been an extraordinary large individual from a non native environment I think the Cat-elogs 13,8 looks reasonable for the species in its native environment. I don`t think it should be changed before real measurements have been taken.

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 12 Jun 2009, 19:10

What is the intention of a max length?

Is it science, to know about the species, or is it information for us, fishkeepers - to warn us about the possibility?

Science ignores the excemptions - as science is interested in the species, not that much in individuals. For us, we would basically like to know what to expect, normally, in case of luck, or in case of bad luck

If the information is for fishkeepers, we should, therefore better have at least 2 numbers - normally grows to XX cm, but exceptional cases of YY cm have been found

zenyfish · Post by **zenyfish** » 12 Jun 2009, 19:29

Bas Pels wrote: If the information is for fishkeepers, we should, therefore better have at least 2 numbers - normally grows to XX cm, but exceptional cases of YY cm have been found

I asked the same question once.

The average size is too hard to establish given the number of species and the number of samples one would have to take. Also medium size may vary greatly between sex in some species.

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 13 Jun 2009, 01:51

Scientific species descriptions are often based on a small number of individuals and are unlikely to have a complete record of the size span of the species. It is therefore not surprising that the size given in descriptions is sometimes wildly different from the actual max size one can find when looking at a large number of individuals.

Fishes grow throughout their lives, but fastest before they become sexually mature. They also grow faster the better their nutritional status is. In short, the largest fishes will be the oldest ones which have had the most food. I don't think it's a general pattern that captive or introduced fish grow larger than wild fish in their natural habitats - it happens, especially with fish from marginal habitats, but the reverse is at least as common. I have never seen a foot-long chinese algae eater in captivity, for instance.

dwilder · Post by **dwilder** » 13 Jun 2009, 04:26

i live in florida and here are i can find groups of 30 or more in just about every river lake
or ditch and i have caught them 24 inch tl with a tape on it and have seen bigger

Florida's Plecos

Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's plecos

Re: Florida's Plecos

Re: Florida's plecos