syno tanganicae

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 21 Dec 2009, 19:29

looks like i'm on the wrong side of the pond for a change!

http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/ ... 1262019380

EDIT - It would appear after a short while the link to the specific fish is no-longer accurate - EDIT

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 22 Dec 2009, 07:37

I was trying to decide if these where tanganicae or irsacae (aka dhonti dwarf). What are your thoughts?

And how many I should get... at this size if they were tanganicae they would take 10-15 years to get 10"+ from my understanding and if they end up being irsacae then they shouldn't break 10", right?

They also got in one dhonti, but he/she is already sold. They said hopefully they will be getting more in though, as I was actually more interested in adding a pair of these to my tank that houses my pair of granulosus.

andywoolloo · Post by **andywoolloo** » 22 Dec 2009, 09:30

wow, that's a handsome syno!

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 22 Dec 2009, 13:51

nfrost wrote:I was trying to decide if these where tanganicae or irsacae (aka dhonti dwarf). What are your thoughts?

And how many I should get... at this size if they were tanganicae they would take 10-15 years to get 10"+ from my understanding and if they end up being irsacae then they shouldn't break 10", right?

They also got in one dhonti, but he/she is already sold. They said hopefully they will be getting more in though, as I was actually more interested in adding a pair of these to my tank that houses my pair of granulosus.

Personally (if i could) i'd get em all!

These appear to be Tanganicae as the irsacae i've seen/got appear different - my biggest irsacae is only 6" & hasn't got bigger at all in the time i've had it. Crudely speaking the tanganyicae have a head like an isosceles triangle but irsacae have a convex dorsal headshape - this is a real rough amateurish description but is evident in fish i own (gotta get a camera sorted

)

Literature states often that Dhonti is only known from the holotype, so whether lfs get them is questionable but i do think there are many tang synos that are extremely similar which are not yet decribed to science. Eg at least 3 variations of petricola, at least a couple of variations of Polli (+ sp.2 as well). The dhonti/irsacae/tanganicae group seems to be more than just 3 sp. The description of the Dhonti states 'no spots' but look at pics & there are all spotted fish.

Then look at the Tanganyicae pics in cat-e-log pic 10 shows a fish with a short angular head whereas pic 4 shows a fish with an elongated head - are these the same sp?

As many tang syno keepers here will testify, the whole issue is a real muddle

& science is slow to support us - look at dwarf petricola becoming lucipinnis in Dec '06 along with grandiops appearing. There are lot's more surprises to surface i'm sure

worton[pl] · Post by **worton[pl]** » 22 Dec 2009, 16:15

Hey,

well It looks like irsacae to me.
I mean I support Richard with his opinion about a mess in taxonomy but I've seen really a lot of irsacae and I would say this fish is irsacae. I've probably something that would turn out to be tanganicae but it doesn't grow

. And my fish really have this triangular head like in Seeger's book.

When you have two species to compare it is easier to spot differences and luckily I've irsacae and probably something close related to tanganicae, maybe a dwarf form or something like this since it stay around 7-8 cm for about a year now.

Regards.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 22 Dec 2009, 17:49

worton[pl] wrote:Hey,
well It looks like irsacae to me.
I mean I support Richard with his opinion about a mess in taxonomy but I've seen really a lot of irsacae and I would say this fish is irsacae. I've probably something that would turn out to be tanganicae but it doesn't grow . And my fish really have this triangular head like in Seeger's book.
When you have two species to compare it is easier to spot differences and luckily I've irsacae and probably something close related to tanganicae, maybe a dwarf form or something like this since it stay around 7-8 cm for about a year now.
Regards.

It needs all us keepers to start getting pics of our fish so some close comparison work can be done, both visually & in terms of observations (my 'tanganyicae' swims subtley different from my 'irsacae' )

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 22 Dec 2009, 17:55

I have 4 of the tanganicae coming, should be here Tuesday.

I was under the impression that the 'dhonti dwarf' is irsacae, correct?

My very amateurish opinion: from looking at photos of the 3 species throughout the web, tanganicae and irsacae have underslung mouths (more polli like), with tanganicae having a slightly more underslung mouth than irsacae. Tanganicae also has a much higher body compared to ircacae (especially just before the dorsal). Dhonti has a much smaller proportioned (granulosus like) mouth, head and jaw. Dhonti also seems to have a higher dorsal (grandiops/multi), whereas tanganicae/irsacae have shorter/fuller dorsals (polli like). Remember, I am just saying thats what I have noticed, not saying that any of it is true or factual (and I could be looking at misidentified synos to boot)... I just collect lake tang synos, whereas I breed lake malawi mbuna.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 22 Dec 2009, 19:42

nfrost wrote:I have 4 of the tanganicae coming, should be here Tuesday..

Cool - look forward to some pics

In fact pics of any tang synos are always great (for me anyway)

nfrost wrote: I was under the impression that the 'dhonti dwarf' is irsacae, correct?

yes as far as i am aware...

nfrost wrote: My very amateurish opinion: from looking at photos of the 3 species throughout the web, tanganicae and irsacae have underslung mouths (more polli like), with tanganicae having a slightly more underslung mouth than irsacae. Tanganicae also has a much higher body compared to ircacae (especially just before the dorsal). Dhonti has a much smaller proportioned (granulosus like) mouth, head and jaw. Dhonti also seems to have a higher dorsal (grandiops/multi), whereas tanganicae/irsacae have shorter/fuller dorsals (polli like). Remember, I am just saying thats what I have noticed, not saying that any of it is true or factual (and I could be looking at misidentified synos to boot)... I just collect lake tang synos, whereas I breed lake malawi mbuna.

useful observations - well done - now we only need to benchmark which sp these actually refer to, as there is so much mis-ID IMHO & i'm yet to be convinced about a lot of things with dhonti/tanganyicae & irsacae

Post by **Birger** » 24 Dec 2009, 02:15

They also got in one dhonti, but he/she is already sold.

Just for interest sake I sure would like to see a picture of what they are selling as S.dhonti.

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 24 Dec 2009, 06:47

Here is the photo they posted on their website

I think it looks just as much dhonti as the fish in the profiles section.

As far as dhonti being only know from the holotype as not being spotted, it is my understanding that as dhonti ages it becomes darker, fading to the color of its spots appearing to lose its spots. So, possibly the dhonti that is known from the holotype was a very mature fish and the ones seen in the hobby/above photo/profile section are younger specimens. I believe that lake tang synos live a very long time, especially those that obtain a larger sizes. Also I have noticed that many lake tang synos have odd growth patterns making it hard to distinguish how old wild caught specimens really are/being able to make accurate id's.

Atlantis only got this one dhonti, although they ordered a lot more. They said on the next shipment they will hopefully have more. They are a very reputable business and don't mess around with lies.

Post by **Birger** » 24 Dec 2009, 07:05

I think it looks just as much dhonti as the fish in the profiles section.

To me it does not have as much of a hump but looks younger and is a funny angle which seems to make the fish look odd in the photo.
You are right when it comes to our Cat-eLog page but more sorting is in order.

The following thread still needs more attention and has my and some others thoughts on this http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =3&t=27345

If you are going to attempt to sort these out the Wright & Page paper is a must or at least a good place to start http://www.stevensimpsonbooks.com/?CLSN ... rch=Search

They are a very reputable business and don't mess around with lies.

Please believe me, we are not here to discredit anyone but this whole thing just needs more sorting out.

Birger

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 24 Dec 2009, 07:25

After all the reading that I have been doing I think the only way for me to really figure out what is going on with all these mis-identified lake tang synos is to spends years in the water with them in Africa, then possibly I will be able to differentiate the difference between a tanganicae, a irsacae and a dhonti. So, seriously who's telling my wife?

What is the maximum size for irsacae?

After looking back at the photo from Atlantis the syno photographed has a very unusually marked dorsal...

Post by **Birger** » 24 Dec 2009, 07:49

After all the reading that I have been doing I think the only way for me to really figure out what is going on with all these mis-identified lake tang synos is to spends years in the water with them in Africa, then possibly I will be able to differentiate the difference between a tanganicae, a irsacae and a dhonti. So, seriously who's telling my wife?

As much as it sounds fun unfortunately for us hobbyists many of the official differences need dissecting so we are left trying to tell the difference by small subtle things, it would be interesting to spend time in the water following some of these around and figuring out behaviors...but I am sorry you are going to have to tell your wife yourself

What is the maximum size for irsacae?

According to Wright & Page 190 mm (approx. 7 inch) Total length
I will go through these and fix up some of the missing data that I can put in.
Birger

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 24 Dec 2009, 11:53

nfrost wrote:After all the reading that I have been doing I think the only way for me to really figure out what is going on with all these mis-identified lake tang synos is to spends years in the water with them in Africa, then possibly I will be able to differentiate the difference between a tanganicae, a irsacae and a dhonti. So, seriously who's telling my wife?

What is the maximum size for irsacae?

After looking back at the photo from Atlantis the syno photographed has a very unusually marked dorsal...

Bear in mind how big the lake is - you could spend a lifetime there & only see a few of some sp!!!

I had a great chat earlier in the year with the guy at Mike's Rifts who (although a cichlid man) has spent time (many years ago)working out at the lake & he seems honest & not prone to exaggeration. He has mentioned several catfish seen which sound amazing. He may not be directly as knowledeable on synos as some contributors here but he knows enough to differentiate between many of them. examples such as overly large multis (such as in the holotype drawing, but with a proper tail) & a seldom occuring variation of L.Cyclurus (from a specific location) where the clear caudal edge is bright yellow. If these are true & i've no reason to believe otherwise based on our discussions, they would be fantastic additions to the hobby.

Post by **Dinyar** » 24 Dec 2009, 20:34

nfrost wrote:Atlantis only got this one dhonti, although they ordered a lot more. They said on the next shipment they will hopefully have more. They are a very reputable business and don't mess around with lies.

First, it is extremely unlikely that S. dhonti has ever entered the hobby. Wright and Page borrowed pretty much every museum specimen of fish labeled as dhonti, petricola, polli, etc., that they could get their hands on, and concluded that the only specimen of dhonti that they saw was the type specimen.

Second, I am sceptical that the fish sold as tanganicae by Atlantis is in fact tanganicae. I have bought quite a few Tang synos from Atlantis. They are certainly a very reputable operation. But when it comes to the names of these Tang synos, no one really knows, and Atlantis has no special expertise in this area.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 24 Dec 2009, 21:48

Dinyar wrote: First, it is extremely unlikely that S. dhonti has ever entered the hobby. Wright and Page borrowed pretty much every museum specimen of fish labeled as dhonti, petricola, polli, etc., that they could get their hands on, and concluded that the only specimen of dhonti that they saw was the type specimen.

I supected this but there do seem to be an awful lot of badly identified species lurking around now & dhonti is a 'popular' name to be used

Dinyar wrote:Second, I am sceptical that the fish sold as tanganicae by Atlantis is in fact tanganicae. I have bought quite a few Tang synos from Atlantis. They are certainly a very reputable operation. But when it comes to the names of these Tang synos, no one really knows, and Atlantis has no special expertise in this area.

So have you an opinion on the fish pictured? Your experiences would be appreciated as always

Post by **Dinyar** » 25 Dec 2009, 15:24

Richard B wrote:So have you an opinion on the fish pictured? Your experiences would be appreciated as always

My opinion is that Tanganyika Synodontis are a taxonomic mess, with many transitional forms between the defined and to be defined species. Wright & Page took a step forward, but there's still a long way to go before a coherent and complete picture emerges. I got four Tang Synos from Atlantis two months ago, two supposedly S petricola and two S polli, and they didn't look quite like any petris or, especially, pollis, I'd seen before.

A couple of years ago, before W&P resurrected irsacae, many of us wondered why all the "dhonti" we kept in our tanks for years never grew beyond about 12-13 cm, no where close to the ~40 cm of the type specimen, and why they were spotted and not monochrome brown. We concocted all kinds of fanciful theories about aquarium diet, etc., but it turned out the real explanation was simply that it was a different fish.

S tanganicae is supposedly a 56 cm fish. Photos from Poll show it looking like a little brown aquatic pig. I agree that the photo of the fish sold by Atlantis that occasioned this thread does look like Greg Pierson's fish captioned as "S tanganicae" in the Catelog, but I'm not convinced that Greg's fish were in fact tanganicae. AFAIK, he kept them for several years before losing them in a tank wipeout. In this time, they did not grow much (I think they were about 15cm, a little larger than his "dhonti") and never started to turn monochrome brown. My hunch is that this fish will ultimately be described as a new species.

If Atlantis still has some, I'll get some, and tell you what they look like in 2020.

Hopefully, by then they will have been described by science.

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 18 Jan 2010, 06:19

I ended up getting 8 of the Synos from Atlantis. They are very hard to photograph, at least for me. But here are 3 photos of 3 different fish. The first photo is a female, the 3rd day after I got them she looked gravid, then the next morning she was thinner and had the tattered dorsal that she now sports. The second photo is a male that was is very thin, but is starting to thicken up just not as quickly as the others (one odd thing about him is that he has these odd cavities below his eyes towards his mouth, not sure if they are there only because he is so thin). The third photo is of what I think is a female that thickened up quicker than any of the others but isn't/hasn't been gravid.

While you guys are looking at these and pondering your thesis, here is a new photo of one of my polli (second largest of four), that I believe might be ilebrevis, but you guys thought other wise... any change of heart?

Post by **Birger** » 18 Jan 2010, 06:37

Hi nfrost
In the first and third photo's of your last post are the colors as different as the photo's show, the first looks more red than the third which spots look black?

That second one does look extremely thin, make sure it does not have to compete too much for food and I would regulate somehow how much it gets at any one time(many smaller rather than larger feedings) but you do say it is looking better which is a good thing. Might it have a parasite of some kind?

My opinion is the same on the S.polli, the look of these really varies on these due in part to their place in the pecking order..

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 18 Jan 2010, 06:52

The third photo was taken with a different overhead light. The first and third fish are very similarly colored and in real life they are closer to the first photo than the third. (side note: I only crop and resize my photos) When I received them they all came in really light in color, very close in color to the thin male. Then all the females (5) darkened up like the ones shown below, whereas the 3 males continue to be lighter. There is one male that has quite a bit of a different look than the others and is very secretive.

I have been doing some late night feeding and they are all starting to thicken up nicely. The male was actually photographed that day after I received them, he looks much better and I don't suspect parasites.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 18 Jan 2010, 18:12

Great pics for us to see & debate - thanks for posting

FWIW i think the last is a nice Polli. (or undescribed polli type)

toby · Post by **toby** » 18 Jan 2010, 19:00

nfrost - good comments. I also got in 5 of the tanganyicae last Thursday and they are in Q with the dhonti - I am the gambler that asked Atlantis to bring them in. I will post pics in the next couple of days and would enjoy some of the comments of the well-versed experts here. My tanganyicae?? came in good condition and I guess time (lots of it) will tell as they progress as to their exact ID, if we ever really know. Regarding your polli/comments, they have a much more goldish hue coloring than my dark brown variants - although I know there have been many comments regarding these variations, etc. In regards ilebrevis, from the info I ( a developing syno fan/keeper) have gleaned and seen, your fish seems to be much stockier in the body than what is purported for the ilebrevis and more representative of the polli. Birgers comments on the dhonti picture posted are correct in saying that the photo angle gave the fish a funny look - it doesn't at all resemble the head and snout proportions of the actual fish as they are much more elongated than perceived in the picture.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 18 Jan 2010, 21:13

I look forward to seeing these pics, particularly the 'dhonti'

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 19 Jan 2010, 00:00

Well thanks Toby for getting these cats in for us. When I spoke with Jon at Atlantis he said that Peter had ordered more dhontis and hopefully that on their next shipment they will get more.

Richard B · Post by **Richard B** » 20 Jan 2010, 22:21

Dinyar wrote: I got four Tang Synos from Atlantis two months ago, two supposedly S petricola and two S polli, and they didn't look quite like any petris or, especially, pollis, I'd seen before.

Have you got pics of these

- i'm intrigued

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 21 Jan 2010, 03:02

I am very interested as well to see your synos Dinyar.

Richard, here is photo of one of my pollis that I got from Atlantis about 8 months ago, I think they are text book polli, I have 5 total all ranging from 5.5" to ~7". The other smaller gold polli (1 of 4) that I posted earlier came from a different importer in a mix of wild tang synos.

Post by **Dinyar** » 22 Jan 2010, 03:55

nfrost wrote:I am very interested as well to see your synos Dinyar.

Richard, here is photo of one of my pollis that I got from Atlantis about 8 months ago, I think they are text book polli, I have 5 total all ranging from 5.5" to ~7". The other smaller gold polli (1 of 4) that I posted earlier came from a different importer in a mix of wild tang synos.

This is the same fish I got from Atlantis in about the same time frame. I would call these "Synodontis polli" for wont of a better label, but they look very different from the chocolate brown and much chunkier fish I kept before as "Synodontis polli", images of which can be found in the catelog.

As for the "Synodontis dhonti" and "Synodontis tanganicae" sold by Atlantis, I looked at some photos emailed to me by Atlantis, plus those on their website and those posted here. They are very nice fish. I don't know what species they are, but I have no reason to believe that these are really "Synodontis dhonti" and "Synodontis tanganicae" as claimed.

IMO, what's happening here is that there are a bunch of related but unidentified species in the wild. When these show up in the trade, importers and hobbyists reach for a name. There are just a couple of "available" options -- available in the sense of species that are described but not well known -- dhonti, tanganicae, and now ilebrevis. Over the years, myth and misinformation has built up as hobbyists -- myself included -- try to shoehorn new fish into one of the "available" species names, and this misinformation become self-perpetuating. Looking at the original descriptions, other papers, and my own experience with Tang synos, I very much doubt that the real Synodontis dhonti or Synodontis tanganicae have ever been imported. According to this logic, the photos of Synodontis tanganicae and Synodontis dhonti in the Catelog should both be more accurately labeled as just "Synodontis sp", although I admit that that does not feel very satisfying. Hopefully, one day the taxonomists will finally clean up this mess.

nfrost · Post by **nfrost** » 22 Jan 2010, 06:00

Dinyar I completely agree with you about the unidentified species and hobbyist and importers looking to tag these fish with an available and catchy name to sell or to research it.

Anyway, here are a couple more photos... the first is a different female than I photographed before, both her left and right sides. And the last two photos are of my best looking male. In the last photo the angle isn't the greatest and he is just starting to change direction, so the head is a little bit off, but I thought it was still a post worthy.

toby · Post by **toby** » 22 Jan 2010, 14:19

From what I continue to learn there indeed does seem to be much confusion as to ID's on some of these lake T synos. I am interested to know dinyar, why you say below that you have no reason to believe that the fish are dhonti or tanganyicae. I am not taking this from the point of view of defending an opposing position but to learn from your experience why you claim this - what specifically leads to this statement. I understand your earlier comment about W+P and the fact that there isn't a lot of substantive info on the type dhonti other than a museum specimen, etc, nor other findings but are there other considerations that you can share that lead you in this direction

As for the "Synodontis dhonti" and "Synodontis tanganicae" sold by Atlantis, I looked at some photos emailed to me by Atlantis, plus those on their website and those posted here. They are very nice fish. I don't know what species they are, but I have no reason to believe that these are really "Synodontis dhonti" and "Synodontis tanganicae" as claimed.

Looking at the original descriptions, other papers, and my own experience with Tang synos, I very much doubt that the real Synodontis dhonti or Synodontis tanganicae have ever been imported. According to this logic, the photos of Synodontis tanganicae and Synodontis dhonti in the Catelog should both be more accurately labeled as just "Synodontis sp", although I admit that that does not feel very satisfying. Hopefully, one day the taxonomists will finally clean up this mess.

From a learning standpoint, appreciating what can be shared here in this forum context, dinyar , why would you feel they have never been imported. Can/would you share more specifics as to what you see or don't see in these fish that lead you to have this opinion. How does what you see in the pictures contrast to what you have found in other papers or original descriptions, leading to doubt or at least a good dose of skepticism which as a relative newcomer to lake synos, I probably have to share somewhat given the many comments posted earlier.

Thanks for any insights you can provide. I will try and post some good pics on the weekend of the syno I got labelled as dhonti. As far as the tanganyicae, nfrost's pictures are very representative of the claimed tanganyicae.

Edit and addition:

dinyar - saw your comment responding to "irsacae or dhonti" posting and I I am much clearer on your position now. I'll stay tuned.

Post by **Dinyar** » 24 Jan 2010, 05:27

Toby, photos that I've seen of S. tanganicae do not look like the fish photos in this thread. There are some black and white photos in a Poll book (will have to dig around for the reference) of freshly caught S. tanganicae sitting on the deck of a boat. I also recall a photo by Erwin Schraml of the type specimen of S. tanganicae in an article he did on Tang Synos for PFK, I think it was in 2002 or 2003. These are all massive fish, just as the size noted in the original description (presumably based on the type specimen) is pretty massive. One cannot make a definitive judgement from black and white photographs and color photographs of preserved specimens, but the photos all seem to show monochrome fish. Many years ago, I corresponded quite extensively with one of the owners of the "S. tanganicae" featured in the Catelog. His fish were not small, maybe 7-9", but they did not grow perceptibly in the few years he had them. Again, this alone is far from definitive proof that his fish were not tanganicae, but to my mind, it's one more piece of evidence against that thesis.

Rather than forcing every "oddball" Tanganyikan Syno into one of the described species, to me it's much simpler and more plausible to think that there are lots of species of Tanganyikan Syno that are still waiting to be described. If and when ichthyologists finally get to the bottom of this story, I expect that they will find that the same forces that led to the spectacular radiation of cichlid species in Lake Tanganyika also worked similar magic on Synodontis catfish.

syno tanganicae

syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae

Re: syno tanganicae