What is my Catfish

[craigo]

Bought these here in Oz a few months ago, nobody over here can ID these for me - time to go international, I have a pair and believe them to be the only ones in the country. I think they belong to the Rinelocaria family but cannot be sure.

Could anyone help me out here please...........

[Raph]

Hi,

Rineloricaria lanceolata.

Cheers
Raph

[Richard B]

Hi,

Rineloricaria lanceolata.

Cheers
Raph

Hi Raph

Im interested how to tell lanceolata as there are no images in cat-e-log. These pics could be submitted for inclusion?

[The.Dark.One]

There are, but under

Hemiloricaria lanceolata

[Acanthicus]

Hi,

Hemiloricaria lanceolata, yep. A male with a deformed head and a strange looking body. Normally it should look like this:

[Richard B]

There are, but under

Hemiloricaria lanceolata

So the fish is Hemiloricaria lanceolata - is R.Lanceolata valid??

[MatsP]

No, Rineloricaria is not correct. Birger added it by mistake the other day. There is a post about it in Cat-eLog issues.

--
Mats

[craigo]

Thanks Guys, So it's Common Name is the Chocolate Whiptail Catfish? These would breed, live under similar conditions to the L10a yes?

Is it normal for either the male or female to have a 'pot belly' unlike a female full of eggs???

[Richard B]

Thanks Guys, So it's Common Name is the Chocolate Whiptail Catfish? These would breed, live under similar conditions to the L10a yes?

Is it normal for either the male or female to have a 'pot belly' unlike a female full of eggs???

same conditions for L010a indeed. Generally only a female would have the 'pot belly'.

No offence intended but craigo is a brilliant username from one of my favourite tv adverts

[craigo]

Hahahaha yeah, its not a bad nickname. Much better than ones I've been assigned throughout life lol.

So are these a common cat in Australia? I have never seen them for sale over here and have been into cats now for almost 2yrs, was contemplating selling them at one point but had no benchmark to go off......

[Raph]

Hi,

No, Rineloricaria is not correct.

No, Rineloricaria is valid. Moreover, I consider Hemiloricaria a junior synonym of Rineloricaria (and all other related genera Fonchiiichthys and Leliella). I already wrote this in 2007.

Rineloricaria is the correct name of the taxon.

L10a is just a breeding form of R. lanceolata.

Cheers
Raph.

[Shane]

Just to clarify for forum members.

Rineloricaria is the correct name of the taxon.

Isbrucker revalidated Hemiloricaria in 2001.

Raph's 2007 paper determined, "Isbrücker and Isbrücker & Michels (in Isbrücker et al. 2001) described four new genera: Fonchiiichthys, Leliella, Quiritixys and Proloricaria, and revalidated the genus Hemiloricaria Bleeker, 1862 on the basis of a very restricted number of characters of questionable validity because they focus mainly on sexual dimorphism." Note: Ferraris had made, with one exception, the same conclusion in 2003.

Ferraris also published (in his Checklist of Catfishes) in 2007 and recognized Hemiloricaria.

Rodriquez and Reis published in 2008 supporting the validation of both Hemiloricaria and Rineloricaria.

In sum, the dust has yet to settle on this one with some subsequent authors following Raph's 2007 paper (e.g. Rapp Py-Daniel 2008) and others either Ferraris' 2007 paper or Rodriguez and Reis' 2008 paper.

-Shane

[MatsP]

And to clarify my statement. My comment was not an assertion as to the validity of either name, but rather that we should not have BOTH Hemiloricaria and Rineloricaria for one and the same species. We currently have it as Hemiloricaria lanceolata, this may change in the future. The Rineloricaria entry was added by mistake.

--
Mats

[Jools]

Sorry, what was the 2007 paper?

Cheers

Jools

[racoll]

Sorry, what was the 2007 paper?

I assume it was:

RAPHAEL COVAIN & SONIA FISCH-MULLER (2007). The genera of the Neotropical armored catfish subfamily Loricariinae (Siluriformes: Loricariidae): a practical key and synopsis. Zootaxa 1462: 1-40.

Bear in mind also that publication can take a long time after the manuscript has been drafted, so something published in 2008 that seemingly "ignores" a work in 2007 might just be due to discrepancies in the review, editorial, and publishing processes.

[Raph]

Hi,

Exact. Moreover, if you look at the tree we published with Monica and Hernan when we described Fonchiiloricaria nanodon in 2011, you can see that we labelled all species (only 3 for this publication, the topic was not Rineloricaria) as Rineloricaria including R. lanceolata, R. platyura (both placed in Hemiloricaria by Isbrücker), and R. oswaldoi (= R. sp. Tocantins in my 2008 publication). The phylogenetic position of R. platyura as sister group of R. oswaldoi renders Hemiloricaria paraphyletic.

Hope this helps a little bit

Cheers
Raph.

[racoll]

I don't see a good reason why PC doesn't follow Raph's work.

This also should probably be split off into a new topic, in case it gets forgotten and buried.

[Jools]

I don't see a good reason why PC doesn't follow Raph's work.

This also should probably be split off into a new topic, in case it gets forgotten and buried.

I agree on both counts Rupert. Maybe even it's something you could jot down quickly in the catelog forum? There is a job here to write-up, move/rename, add synonyms and clean-up. I will volunteer for the clean-up (which is not a small job - I need to check every article, there are ~500).

Jools