authentic ornatopinnis?please help id thanks

[rsyno]

Srry for the crappy pics theyre hiding best i could do

[rsyno]

More pics

[rsyno]

Couple better pics

[rsyno]

Iv already had these guys positively id'd as ornatopinnas but i want to be absolutely sure. im just hoping i have a m&f-anyone know how big these guys get? i might have to get a tank just for these guys~

[sidguppy]

Iv already had these guys positively id'd as ornatopinnas but i want to be absolutely sure

I got real bad news for you then.....

this is a hybrid
even if the pattern wasn't off; the headshape is all wrong and it even has a humped back.
it's misshaped.

looks like someone crossbred a brichardi with a decorus, but it sure as hell ain't no ornatipinnis.

[Jools]

I've seen these (and Marc saw them too Sid when he was in Scotland) being sold. When properly formed they are very attractive fishes. They are farm produced of that I am certain, they probably are hybrids but I wouldn't hazard a guess at their lineage. So, labelling them authentic S. ornatipinnis seems incorrect.

I was tempted to buy some as they are pretty and we are going to need a catelog entry for them, or at least think about how they are represented in the catelog.

Cheers,

Jools

[rsyno]

Maybe these are a bit better pics,thats the female in the foreground and the male in the back. that one pic in. the cat e log resembles my fish in every way.as to them being farmed, i wouldnt doubt it. im not trying to second guess anyone i just want to portray these two the way i see them in person because when ilook at the catelog pics , that one could be my fish.anyways let me know if this makes a difference ~either way i still think these guys are awesome i just want to kbow for sure what they are- thanks for your feedback i really appreciatethe expertise here:-D

[MatsP]

Superficially, I agree, they are a good match. However, if we look more carefully, the body shape is different, the dorsal fin is different.

I'm also not 100% sure that ALL of the pictures in the Cat-eLog are genuine fish. Some I'm pretty certain of - the preserved specimens, the ones from Rehoboth Aquatics, and the ones from Danny Blundell. The others may be the same hybrid form as yours. Whilst wholesale tropicals do indeed import a lot of fish from the wild, they also buy from SE Asia and Czech republic - where hybrids come from.

--
Mats

[Richard B]

These are without doubt hybrids

I think cat-e-log pics 3, 4, 6, 7 & 8 could all be hybrids - essentially the ones with bolder colours and wavy banding on the body with clear defined edges to the banding - i've not seen this in genuine species (when small)- in fact i've not seen a genuine one for years.

[sidguppy]

to make things worse:
the Catelog entry on this species is a mix up

and it's not the fault of the catelog, but it already went wrong on a scientific level

for example take 2 preserved specimen:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/_i ... ge_id=9452

http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/_i ... ge_id=7577

these are NOT the same species, but they are decribed as such.....
1 look at the postcleitral process will show that they're not even close

now a lot of things can change in a Synodontis when growing up.
the body height, the slimness, the shape of the dorsal, the pattern and color and even the headshape

but not the postcleitral!
that bony plate is like a fingerprint and we categorize species on it

the preserved one from Tom Vigliotta / Cornell University Museum of Vertebrates has a slim daggerlike Postcleitral that is bent and pointing upwards

the preserved one from The Natural History Museum, London has a broad triangular plate shaped like a blade

looks like this time they got 2 species lumped together as one and the difference is too big to overlook.

as for the live ones in there; IF we assume the fish from Danny Blundell are genuine, NONE of the others is.
the ones from Danny do have the broad triangular plate that is similar to the preserved one from London.

both the pics from Jools, Johnny Jensen and Mark Smith have all the thin spike-like postcleitral that bears no resemblance to either one of the preserved fish, it's far too narrow on PCP to be the London specimen and it's straight, not bent upwards as in the first preserved fish.

going by either preserved fish (1 of those 2 must be genuine at least), all these are fake.

I'm in dubio about the 2 pics from rehobothaquatics.com.
they have a fair resemblance of being youngsters that'll develop into fish like the ones from Danny
and the PCP is broad and triangular, but not as wide as the preserved fish

god, I hate hybrids
damn Tcechians! blew up the hobby with their garbage

[Richard B]

I've just revisited Sands: CotW Volume 2 supplements which were published in '84 so should be genuine; before all the hybrid troubles started. The juvie (HJ Richter)has a PCP like the Cornell specimen (although the patterning on the Cornell specimen seems highly unusual IME).

The pic of the adult (Jerry Meola)shows a PCP which is roughly the same shape, although it appears a little deeper with a more rounded tip.