Peckoltia or Panaqolus?

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 05 Oct 2003, 18:45

this is a lory of a frein, he buy it as an peckoltia.

we are not so sure of this, may be is a Panaqolus but for me is difficult to see the difference.

thanks

saludos desde PanamÃ¡

Post by **Shane** » 05 Oct 2003, 21:59

Juan,
Looks like LDA 68. I do not think that the fish is normally that yellow and that it only appears so yellow because of the aquarium lighting and/or camera flash. I would make fun of you for having a cichlid avatar in a catfish forum, but since it is a Colombian cichlid I will let you pass.
--Shane

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 01:47

would make fun of you for having a c*****d avatar in a catfish forum, but since it is a Colombian c*****d I will let you pass

What can I said Shane, I have weakness for dwarf cichids, also for lorys and corys, and for colombian girls

jejeje.

From what part of Colombia you are?.

Looks like LDA 68

well I dont know, is not that fish to me, I have see the LDA68 in the petshop, and doesnÂ´t seem like. my freind thinks that may be can be a L002 with a crazy pattern of rays?, my freind will take new shots of the lory, and other that he buy today of the same species. he said that he buys it under the name of " Peckoltia splen",

Thanks a lot Shane, for answer me

Saludos desde PanamÃ¡

Post by **Shane** » 06 Oct 2003, 03:47

Juan,
Panaqolus is not a valid genus, so the fish would have to fit in Panaque or Peckoltia. Peckoltia is difficult because the genus is not that well defined. This looks more like Panaque but it is hard to say from the photos. Take a good look at a number of LDA 68 photos. I also tend towards this ID as I know that a few thousand LDA 68 were recently shipped out of here so they should be hitting pet stores in other countries soon.
-Shane
No soy Colombiano. Soy cien porciento gringo pero he vivido los tres ultimos anos en Venezuela y Colombia. Vivo ahorita en Bogota.

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 04:15

Ok Shane, thanks a lot, I will wait until my freind pass me new pictures, then I will post it.

Jejejeje gringo no?, vale y has venido a PanamÃ¡?

saludos!

kwalker · Post by **kwalker** » 06 Oct 2003, 04:30

Take a good look at a number of LDA 68 photo

where are the picture's of these fish?

ken walker

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 06:30

http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/lo ... /981_f.htm

here is the picture

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 19:46

well I found this lory in the cat e log, looks very similar, but the colors are not the same.

Panaqolus sp. cf. maccus, what do you think

here is the new pictures

thanks
saludos desde PanamÃ¡

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 06 Oct 2003, 19:59

Hi!

Your fish look very much like a Panaque maccus.
Nice pics and nice fish!!!
How big is it?
Cheers
Yann

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 20:32

Hi Yann

my freind says that they are around 4 cm long.

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 06 Oct 2003, 22:04

Your friends fish looks almost identical to the picture of L162 (P. maccus) in "Das Grosse Buch Der Welse)

-Klaus

Carachama · Post by **Carachama** » 09 Oct 2003, 20:28

Hi all,

That species does appear to be Panaque maccus. It looks a little odd, though, kind of like the ones from the Rio Caroni and possibly also the Rio Caura of Venezuela.

I did indeed sink Panaquolus in the following pub:

Chockley, B. R. and J. W. Armbruster. 2002. Panaque changae, a new species of loricariid catfish (Teleostei) from eastern Peru. Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 13:81-90.

The reason why I sunk Panaquolus is that the group does not significantly differ from the rest of Panaque. It is probably a monophyletic (natural) group, but I don't see any reason to recognize Panaquolus other than to be confusing. There are a few undescribed species that don't fit neatly into either group. There is one wood-eating genus in the Ancistrini and it is well-supported, why split it? At best, it could be worthy of subgenus status. There certainly was no justification in Isbrucker et al (2001) for recognizing any of the genera that they describe and the diagnoses are inadequate. The only one of those 14 genera that I am currently accepting is Pseudolithoxus because I had planned on describing the Lasiancistrus anthrax group as a new genus anyway. A secondary reason why I am not recognizing the taxa is because describing genera and adequately supporting them as monophyletic entities worthy of description is very hard work. In modern taxonomy, we need to know where the group fits into a phylogeny in order to support the description of the genus. Without such work, there is no justification for us to accept it. This sort of work was not done by Isbrucker et al. It is no longer acceptable to simply say that you think it is new therefore it is. My pub on the phylogeny of loricariids should be coming out by the end of the year or early next year. It will have some major changes to the taxonomy of loricariids. I should be updating my website sometime soon to reflect these changes.

Panaque is going to get even more confusing as time goes on. Peckoltia and Hemiancistrus (it is not possible to tell the difference between the two) grade into Panaque in much the same way that Hypostomus grades into the former Cochliodon (sunk by Weber and Montoya-Burgos, 2002). Panaque, Peckoltia, Hemiancistrus, Hypancistrus, and Parancistrus are certainly too much of a mess to be splitting right now. Further splitting just makes further problems and further confusion.

The best way to tell Panaque from Peckoltia/Hemiancistrus is by the teeth - spoon-shaped in Panaque and thin in Peckoltia, but this character often doesn't work in small specimens of Panaque. One thing that does work 100% of the time is that Panaque lacks the buccal papilla common to most loricariids. The buccal papilla looks almost like the epiglottis and is right in front of the flap inside of the mouth along the dorsal surface (called the oral or buccal valve). Interestingly, this is also the way to tell most of the Hypostomus cochliodon group (also wood-eaters) from the rest of Hypostomus (I have the character illustrated in my pub at: http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2003f/z00249f.pdf ).

Sorry for the long post, but I hope it helps.

HayWire · Post by **HayWire** » 09 Oct 2003, 20:48

I just had to post my reply for this one. I currenly have three of these. They are now around 7cm TL and when I bought them they were around 3cm TL. The reticulated pattern increases as they get larger and that very nice yellow coloration depends on there food. The 2 I have that have taken to shimp pellets, have that same bright yellow almost to an orange color. The other that doesnt eat the shrimp pellets has a white stripeing on him/her. I wish I had a digi-cam cause I would love to post some pictures up here for the comparison. Your friend has a great looking baby, I hope I helped out a bit.

Pleco33 · Post by **Pleco33** » 10 Oct 2003, 04:33

Hi, well I want to say that is a honor read you Carachama. You have been doing an excelent job.

And thanks for the explanation. However it means that Can I either name my Panaque = Panaqolus or not??

Thanks in advance.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 10 Oct 2003, 09:05

pl*co33 wrote:Hi, well I want to say that is a honor read you Carachama. You have been doing an excelent job. And thanks for the explanation. However it means that Can I either name my Panaque = Panaqolus or not??

Thanks in advance.

You can call it what you want!

PlanetCatfish will soon be calling them <I>Panaque</I> again as the appears to hold the weight of scientific opinion. See this split off topic in Taxonomy and Science News forum.

Jools

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 10 Oct 2003, 13:20

@haywire could it be that your third fish with the white stripes is a L204? Ive seen some with broken lines that were really hard to distinguish.

HayWire · Post by **HayWire** » 10 Oct 2003, 16:32

Caol_ila it isnt L204. all three had the white striping when I bought them. I have a feeling this is due to poor feeding practices of the distibuter and the store. I had gotten them out of a tank of clown plecos along with the Ancistomus sp(1) that I have had for a few months now. both of these 2 have a growth rate much faster then that of the clown and are easily confused for them by the LFS personal whom dont have the eye to even see a sick fish.

I would love it to be L204 but that it isnt.

HayWire · Post by **HayWire** » 10 Oct 2003, 16:47

also on another note I had crossed refferanced these three to the cat-e-log and had figured them to be Panaqulos sp. cf. maccus due to the color pattern of them when I bought them. i had figured there would be some differances in markings of this fish, which there are with the three I have.

and on another note...lol... this LFS that I had bought the fish from are now netting all these reticulated marked "clowns" out of the tank and are selling them as baby L241 ,which they are not, and are selling them for $24.99 a peice. i am glad i had gotten mine when I did at only $3.99 a peice.....lmao... I love the practices of some stores.......NOT

Peckoltia or Panaqolus?

Peckoltia or Panaqolus?

The mystery Panaque