Hypostomus Id

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » 19 Jan 2010, 16:09

Hi, a friend of Uruguay captured this Hypostomus in Velazquez town.

Could be Hypostomus uruguayensis or Hypostomus luteomaculatus?

Thanks and regards.

[Mod edit: Add image tags to make images easier to view --Mats]

DutchFry · Post by **DutchFry** » 19 Jan 2010, 18:35

I don't think this is a Hypostomus species (see teeth)

I think this might be

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 19 Jan 2010, 18:44

I agree, the teeth are not Hypostomus, and it does look a bit like a "pineapple", so Rhinelepis is a good suggestion.

--
Mats

matthewfaulkner · Post by **matthewfaulkner** » 19 Jan 2010, 19:08

Rhinelepis do not have adipose fins and the fish in the picture does. And they dont really have the ridges along the dorsal flank, they are far more flattened.

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 19 Jan 2010, 20:11

I'm not as familiar with them as I'd like to be, but isn't this a ?

[mod edit: Add CLOG tags. --Mats]

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 19 Jan 2010, 20:18

I don't think it's a Pseduacanthicus, there is no distribution of them south of the Amazon drainage, AFAIK. (We do not have any listed for the "La Plata" region, for sure).

--
Mats

DutchFry · Post by **DutchFry** » 19 Jan 2010, 20:40

my first guess was Acanthicus hystrix, but thought it couldn't be due to distribution area differences.

but as matt says, there is an adipose fin clearly visible (and I missed that, again

) so maybe it is a species of Acanthicus after all?

matthewfaulkner · Post by **matthewfaulkner** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:05

Surely if it was Pseudacanthicus or Acanthicus it would be much spikier. Why has Hypostomus been discounted?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:08

matthewfaulkner wrote:Surely if it was Pseudacanthicus or Acanthicus it would be much spikier. Why has Hypostomus been discounted?

I agree, not enough spikes to be any (<something>)Acanthicus. Teeth are not Hypostomus.

--
Mats

matthewfaulkner · Post by **matthewfaulkner** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:18

From the closeup of the eye, it seems to me it doesnt have the omega shaped skin lobe over the iris. Anyone else concur?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:20

Doesn't look like a omega eye - not sure what that keys in/out.

--
Mats

matthewfaulkner · Post by **matthewfaulkner** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:36

Ive had a quick flip through the Hypostomus genus. I dont think Hypostomus should be discounted there are 2 variations in the teeth that I can see, the more V shaped spatula (Panaque like) and the wider angled rake like ones, like this Hypostomus has. This has the same shape teeth and is also from the La Plata region in Uruguay.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:38

Good point.

--
Mats

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 19 Jan 2010, 21:53

Off the top of my head, among hypostomines the only groups lacking the eye lobe are the rhinelepins and Corymbophanes as well as the deepwater P. bathyphilus and H. pankimpuju. However, the omega eye may be retracted, and the reflection/lighting is obscuring where it would be in the close-up.

Oscar · Post by **Oscar** » 20 Jan 2010, 22:14

matthewfaulkner wrote:This
Hypostomus commersoni
has the same shape teeth and is also from the La Plata region in Uruguay.

My friend's first impression and mine were to think in Hypostomus genus. Two months ago, my friend captured a few Hypostomus commersoni, and the teeth are very similar.

Hypostomus Id

Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id

Re: Hypostomus Id