DATZ is not a person, it's an organization that publishes a magazine. It stands for something in German.
The wikipedia entry is straight copy-pasted from PlanetCatfish, and not recently.
pinkertd wrote:Has there been DNA analysis done on other ancistrus species to see if they are also close to the common brown ancistrus? If what is today commonly called the L144 not what Datz wrote about, why does his description say Black Eyed Yellow? And if our black eyed yellow ancistrus are not true L144, is there documentation on how and when this color variant was achieved and by whom? To come up with a yellow ancistrus seems like it would be a major accomplishment. There are very few yellow tropical fish when compared to other tropical fish colors.
Genetic research in Ancistrus AFAIK has so far shown differences between even closely related species. What racoll used was a single mitochondrial gene (shorthand "mtDNA"). He probably used either cyt B or COI genes; these are commonly used genes in fish science for distingushing species. An identical mtDNA sequence would not be unheard of among different species of fishes, but I don't know any instances of this within Loricariidae. However, these genetic analyses I've mentioned are not done with comparisons to A. cf. cirrhosus, and the number of sampled species is small compared to the diversity of the genus. Since racoll is probably the only person who has sequenced A. cf. cirrhosus and this data is not freely available, then there's no way for anyone but him to compare to other species. Given that this is just a side project of his, comparisons to other species are not likely to happen soon. This is complicated by the great diversity in Ancistrus, the large geographical range the genus occupies, and the use of alternative genes that could be used which make comparisons impossible (ie. D-loop). Advances should be made within the next few years with authors completing work in Venezuelan and Guyanese species, as well as beginning work in Peru and Colombia. Work in Brazilian species will continue as it always has, although I wouldn't expect to see any genetic work out of them soon. In any case, I have my doubts that we'll find a species that has an mtDNA sequence that is very closely related to A. cf. cirrhosus/A. sp. 4 for quite some time.
As far as documentation to the origin of A. sp. 4, that would be fascinating and give us a confirmation of its origins. But I think the confusion is because we haven't found anything like that yet.
pinkertd wrote:What I find with the plecos I have is that they are the slowest growing and slowest to mature when compared to common brown and those related to common brown. They are much smaller. As fry they are more fragile. The spawns are smaller and less frequent than other BN related to the common brown. Would not a mere color variant of common brown share the exact same traits?
This is hard to tell. It's possible that the mutation that causes this specific color pattern also has other affects in the fish's ability to grow.
pinkertd wrote:I am just extremely inquisitive and can find absolutely nothing on the origin of what we now commonly call L144 and also on what Datz identified as L144.
As am I.
pinkertd wrote:I think by now renaming what has been labeled and globally recognized as an L144 for at least a decade and giving the L144 label to one fish that no one has owned or really ever seen except perhaps Datz himself, is just going to add a whole new volume of confusion to what already exists. Especially because of all the information that already exists on the intranet regarding what we have been accepting as an L144 that cannot be changed or altered and will stay the same.
Although this might be a different case, the ingrained confusion of L201, H. inspector, and H. contradens is EXTREMELY frustrating, even despite the fact there is little confusion on Planetcatfish that H. inspector is completely different from the other two species.
/g/s/1.jpg)
/g/s/1.jpg)