I was hoping they were both L 333'?

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 07 Sep 2009, 07:04

Hi experts..need you expert advice!!!!!!!!!!

The one on the right is a female. The patters look really different on both. They one on the left was sold to me as a King Tiger.

What do you think?

DutchFry · Post by **DutchFry** » 07 Sep 2009, 09:58

The one on the left looks like L260 to me!

the one on the right is possibly L270!

cheers

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 07 Sep 2009, 12:02

They are absolutely certainly not the same species. I'll leave to others to figure out what they really are, as they aren't fish I'm overly familiar with (and better pictures would probably help).

--
Mats

sunfish · Post by **sunfish** » 07 Sep 2009, 13:22

They are not the same species, and I'm pretty sure neither of them is L333. If they are male and female you should separate them to prevent hybrids.

Proteus · Post by **Proteus** » 07 Sep 2009, 16:42

I do not believe its at least a L260 because my L260 has very tight looking stripes, this left side looks like a standard king tiger stripes

its only based on the side view.

DutchFry · Post by **DutchFry** » 07 Sep 2009, 18:09

well, I have a L260 male myself and i think this is one too! (or at least L260, not so sure about the gender part ofcourse)

but agreed, better pictures would help!

Proteus · Post by **Proteus** » 07 Sep 2009, 18:20

Dutchfry if your male looks like that maybe I ought post my collection of L66s that were sold to me as L66s and I have yet have not taken pictures of the big boy in another tank hes the biggest L66 I ever seen- and the L260. its possible I got different species going....

good thing they're not breeding yet.

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 07 Sep 2009, 21:14

The fish on the left appears to me to be L333.
The angle does not make to easy to tell but L260 adults are a contrasting black and white forming tight and more intricate network pattern.
My 7 L333 breeding group resemble your fish.

The fish on the right reminds me of these Hypancistrus, allowing for some variations between individual fish and/or capture location.
They were sold as L333 but they are not.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 07 Sep 2009, 21:50

The left one appears to be 66, and the right, possibly a 66 as well. Body shape doesn't seem to be that of 333.

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 07 Sep 2009, 22:21

Did anyone click on the photo to see them closer up?
At first glance, the left fish does appear type be L260 but when I look at the enlarged photo then it looks more like the pattern has the color of L333 and is not nearly as pin striped as L260.
I mean I don't know about you guys but I have not seen an L260 that was not black and white. My color vision is not perfect but it seems more cream colored to me. I have most of my color blindness of the kind that can make it difficult to see Huckleberries amongst the sun dappled green leaves. But I see zebras(equine type) as black and white.

It has been while, but the several Hypancistrus in the photo I posted were identified as definitely not L333 by our most ilustirous members.
I hate to re-post and ask what the consensus on their identification is now. It would interesting to know what they would be called if shown again under "What is My Catfish".

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 07 Sep 2009, 22:29

I agree the left fish is probably L260. As to the right fish, don't know...

--
Mats

Proteus · Post by **Proteus** » 07 Sep 2009, 23:43

apistomaster wrote:Did anyone click on the photo to see them closer up?
At first glance, the left fish does appear type be L260 but when I look at the enlarged photo then it looks more like the pattern has the color of L333 and is not nearly as pin striped as L260.
I mean I don't know about you guys but I have not seen an L260 that was not black and white. My color vision is not perfect but it seems more cream colored to me. I have most of my color blindness of the kind that can make it difficult to see Huckleberries amongst the sun dappled green leaves. But I see zebras(equine type) as black and white.

It has been while, but the several Hypancistrus in the photo I posted were identified as definitely not L333 by our most ilustirous members.
I hate to re-post and ask what the consensus on their identification is now. It would interesting to know what they would be called if shown again under "What is My Catfish".

My L260 under certain lighting condition is white and black very difficult to catch as it oftentimes showing up on my photo as yellow or cream. to the naked eye of mine when I'm looking at it under certain light its white to me. Perhaps because of how thin the white is to the black?

see the different in the striping pattern versus 66 or 333- yes I just discovered theres too many variants to be confident in my 66s now to call them plain 66s as mine has all different patterning and colorings to them hence the reason of my posting over to plecofanatics as from my skimming of that site, theres several members specializing in the variants.

That is my L260-

see how the stripe color changed in an instant under different light conditioning its the same fish 10 seconds later....

Proteus · Post by **Proteus** » 07 Sep 2009, 23:53

My conclusion of it not being an L260 is the patterning: looking at the photo

one of my L66 or 333 variant
is more like the photo of UPC's

while my L260

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 08 Sep 2009, 01:46

You guys are great...im sure we'll get to the bottom of this. His lines are defintely cream. Not a queen... Im really thinking l333. I uploaded some more pictures. Sorry about the poor quality

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 08 Sep 2009, 02:11

And the female (one on the right)... Sure its not a L333 also>?
Sorry about the poor picture quality.

Thanks again experts!

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 08 Sep 2009, 02:48

apistomaster wrote:The fish on the left appears to me to be L333.
The angle does not make to easy to tell but L260 adults are a contrasting black and white forming tight and more intricate network pattern.
My 7 L333 breeding group resemble your fish.

The fish on the right reminds me of these Hypancistrus, allowing for some variations between individual fish and/or capture location.
They were sold as L333 but they are not.

The fish on the right of your picture looks exactly like my female!

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 08 Sep 2009, 02:54

I have gone back and forth comparing the last set of photos with my own L333 and the finer squiggled patterned, brown and cream appear to me to me like it could be blended right in with my 7 breeder L333.

The other fish is so similar to the fish in that photo i posted earlier. I had 12 fine looking adults of those and lost them all in a bad fish room accident. I had placed them and my 2 producing pairs of Red Turquoise Discus in my fish only, 33 gal plastic garbage can while I took down an old makeshift stand and replaced it with a new steel stand that holds 6-40 gal breeder tanks perfectly.
All the fish died overnight. My cleaning lady used it as a "real' garbage can. I did wash it out well but she does like her cleaning chemicals.
I had a couple of well established sponge filters and an Eheim Classic 2217 canister filter hooked up and should have been fine for just overnight.

"The fish on the right of your picture looks exactly like my female!" I know, that is my point.
I had been convinced by others it was a different species and so it seemed to me as well. They were very attractive fish and with 12 I was sure I was going to breed them succesfully, soon after i finished getting my new 40 gal tanks broke in. I doubt I'll ever get them again. They were after all,a Brazilian Hypancistrus species distinctly different from my L333, L066, L318 and definitely L260. The lines are broader and less convoluted and broader as the other L-Number Hypancistrus spp I had and they did not look like they would grow quite as large as L333 although I'll never know. Wouldn't it be nice to actually have at least all the Rio Xingu, Rio Tapajos and Alenquer area streams Hypancistrus species properly described so we could reference a key?
Also it is interesting that you were able to get the fish in the first place. Wild caught Brazilian Hypancistrus spp have not been very common for awhile except THE ONE.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Sep 2009, 03:01

upc239, using your first photo as reference, I believe the left hand fish is , and the right hand fish is indeed the same species as Larry's former fish, which I believe are Hypancistrus sp. "Rio Curuá" (the Alenquer "L333"), which now is being called .

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 08 Sep 2009, 03:05

racoll wrote:upc239, using your first photo as reference, I believe the left hand fish is
Hypancistrus sp(l066)
, and the right hand fish is indeed the same species as Larry's, which I believe is Hypancistrus sp. "Rio Curuá" (the Alenquer "L333"), which now is being called
Hypancistrus sp(l401)
.

I deliberately withheld the name and L401 tag to see what the outcome would be.
It is identified in my files as L401.
Thank you, Rupert.

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 08 Sep 2009, 03:09

This fish was identified as simply Hypancistrus sp "Rio Curua".

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 08 Sep 2009, 03:13

Hi..indeed, I looked at the L66's, and they sure look like my male. It was sold to me as a King Tiger, so it would make sense. As for the female... I didnt get it from a store. I got it from an importer..and he often travels to Brazil...so im not surprised. He told me he had it for a year now..and he verified it as a female. Do you think the L 66 will cross breed with her? If so, I will move her to another tank.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Sep 2009, 03:25

Do you think the L 66 will cross breed with her?

Probably, but this is not something that should be encouraged or even attempted.

As you have found out, identifying these Hypancistrus is not easy, and imagine if hybrids were thrown into the mix?

All Hypancistrus are prohibited from export from Brazil at the moment, so the hobby needs to be self sufficient, and keep the lineages pure if these species are to be maintained into the future.

There are also big hydroelectric dam projects on the rivers where these fishes live. They may well go extinct in the wild, and will only be known from captivity.

Try and get some more captive stock of each to breed, or trade them with other breeders.

phoenix44 · Post by **phoenix44** » 08 Sep 2009, 12:52

def an L066
this is my juvi

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 08 Sep 2009, 19:51

I don't think that is a L66.

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 09 Sep 2009, 03:29

the body shape of the right one does not seem to match that of L401.

upc239 · Post by **upc239** » 10 Sep 2009, 01:35

Since the pictures were not clear enough to get an ID confirmation, I tried to get more pics of the supposed 318/401 Female. Does this help a bit more? (Keep in mind that she is paler than usual due to the stress of being taken out and put in

perware..dont worry, i'm not going to microwave her

Jon · Post by **Jon** » 10 Sep 2009, 07:14

Looks rather bulky--possibly 333.

I was hoping they were both L 333'?

I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?

Re: I was hoping they were both L 333'?