Which Hypancistrus am I? (Mum, Dad and the kids)

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 15 May 2012, 23:09

It's Brazilian.

pleco22 · Post by **pleco22** » 15 May 2012, 23:53

Uuuh!
Looks like someone crossed L 400 with L 173. Sorry to say.

Regards

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 15 May 2012, 23:56

They were bought as L173, but do have a complex history...

Jools

Firestorming · Post by **Firestorming** » 16 May 2012, 03:53

Oh come on Jools, share......

Zeno · Post by **Zeno** » 16 May 2012, 06:51

Imo, the two in front are in the range of L 400.

Greetz, Zeno

plecoboy · Post by **plecoboy** » 16 May 2012, 12:35

I agree the two in front are L399/L400. The two in back ??

panaque · Post by **panaque** » 16 May 2012, 13:44

plecoboy wrote:I agree the two in front are L399/L400. The two in back ??

if I understand correctly the two in the back are the offspring of the two in the front

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 16 May 2012, 14:21

Correct that is the offspring in the back.

Jools

sidguppy · Post by **sidguppy** » 16 May 2012, 19:27

but if the 2 in front are man made hybrids (bred in Brazil) then the 2 in the back can be heterozygotes of the parent species used to make the two parents up front, or even homozygotes of the grandparents

things can be quite confusing once species are mixed
because often 'looks' skip a generation.

and unlike the Pimelodid hybrids we were talking about in another thread, Hypancistrus hybrids are very fertile and do spread out quickly, even if it's just in the hobby

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 16 May 2012, 19:33

So, I've managed to acquire natural hybrids? So, I should also mention that the parents in the foreground looked quite like their offspring in the background when young. Also, there isn't a lot of variation in the youngsters (apart from pattern) they are roughly the same amount of black and white and all the same shape.

Jools

pleco22 · Post by **pleco22** » 16 May 2012, 21:03

Hi,
the fish on the right is L 173, typical and very nice, could be the female, but L 173 is very difficult to sex. The fish in the front (left) is different and very hard to identify. Bodyshape looks like L 400, a dark one, could also be L 287-type or another Hypancistrus without an l-number.

The offspring is untypical for L 173, only the small one on the left looks like L 173 fry. This is typical for hybrids. The variation includes both forms of the parents, the rest is like blended.

Showing a dark yellow bodycolor is sometimes normal for L 173. I am sure, that this kind of mixed L 173 are the source for L 173b sold sometimes. But I am also sure, that this form is also living in the xingu.

Zeno · Post by **Zeno** » 16 May 2012, 22:29

sidguppy wrote: things can be quite confusing once species are mixed
because often 'looks' skip a generation.

Yes this is also my experience. You will get no answers to your questions if you can't take a look at the grandparents !

pleco22 wrote: the fish on the right is L 173, typical and very nice, could be the female, but L 173 is very difficult to sex. The fish in the front (left) is different and very hard to identify. Bodyshape looks like L 400, a dark one, could also be L 287-type or another Hypancistrus without an l-number.

The offspring is untypical for L 173, only the small one on the left looks like L 173 fry. This is typical for hybrids. The variation includes both forms of the parents, the rest is like blended.

Showing a dark yellow bodycolor is sometimes normal for L 173. I am sure, that this kind of mixed L 173 are the source for L 173b sold sometimes. But I am also sure, that this form is also living in the xingu.

No, No, this is not correct.
In fact; every time you see a Hypancistrus with a slight different pattern and/or other feature you and your exporter/importer are creating species which don't exist, like 173b or 287. The moment you saw it doesn't worked anymore you started to brought in sounding names like last emperor, dark devil etc. It's not fair to create confusion at the hobbyists in order to set up a trade for expensive fish.

Greetz, Zeno

Post by **Janne** » 17 May 2012, 02:19

Whats wrong with a nice L66?

Janne

plecoboy · Post by **plecoboy** » 17 May 2012, 13:00

L173 gets to about 3 inches in length. The fish in the pic appear to be at least 4 inches. I'm still thinking L399.

HaakonH · Post by **HaakonH** » 17 May 2012, 19:11

I'm sorry but I can't help but laugh

Everytime this subject is put on the table, the same discussion follows. And the answers, or lack there of, are always the same...it's a wonder we still bother asking about these fishes really but I certainly understand why we do. It's like we're hoping for some new, enlightened professor or guru to step up and say 'yes, these are actually Hypancistrus LXXX from that left rock down that Xingu affluent right next to that hut I saw. Very rare and easily defined by this and that trait.' I wish it was that easy, but it just gets worse! I thought I knew a thing or two about these Xingu-forms, but the more I learn the more I realize I can't tell most them apart, except for a few obvious ones. The L173/399/400/lower Xingu group is beyond me.

Jools, these are beautiful specimens. Are the parents both wild? I'd say they're both Hypancistrus, even the offspring could be Hypancistrus ;D

No really, sorry for joking - as you probably know I'm well familiar with the frustration concerning these fishes. Seriously though, to me that parent on the right sure looks like a L173, but the other doesn't look as much like L173, I think I'd say L400. But I've said it before and I'll say it again; I think L173 is a very variable form, and only the individuals most 'zebra-ish' are labeled L173 by humans. So even though just one of your parents has the looks, in my opinion they may well belong to the same species. Or not

Haakon

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 17 May 2012, 19:58

HaakonH wrote:Jools, these are beautiful specimens. Are the parents both wild? I'd say they're both Hypancistrus, even the offspring could be Hypancistrus ;D

Very good, as you may have guessed, these fishes came from you/Norway. These are the two fish I bought in the auction as L173. Interestingly, the other fish I bought from you, produce really different offspring. I can tell these fish apart from what I think of as L333 - but the others I struggle with - one batch of offspring = several l-nos!

I think that tells us something...

Jools

pleco22 · Post by **pleco22** » 17 May 2012, 20:18

Zeno wrote: No, No, this is not correct.
In fact; every time you see a Hypancistrus with a slight different pattern and/or other feature you and your exporter/importer are creating species which don't exist, like 173b or 287. The moment you saw it doesn't worked anymore you started to brought in sounding names like last emperor, dark devil etc. It's not fair to create confusion at the hobbyists in order to set up a trade for expensive fish.

Hi,
sorry to say, but I think that L-Numbers are just more confusing, than helping to identify hypancistrus. Look at L 333 for example. There are more that 3 variations (and now L 401) stuffed in one L-number. Could be, that L 333 ist one species. Could also be, that L333 is devided into 3 different species. Until someone will describe this species, I will keep them separate and give them new names. By the way: Queen arabesque sounds for me even better than L 260.

Regards

Post by **Janne** » 18 May 2012, 01:10

Look at L 333 for example. There are more that 3 variations (and now L 401) stuffed in one L-number. Could be, that L 333 ist one species.

L401 is at least from another river system quite far away from Xingu, but for L333 there are at least 3 locations in Xingu but all locations show similar appearance and variation.

Janne

Zeno · Post by **Zeno** » 18 May 2012, 10:46

Indeed, once again we fall in the same discussion everytime someone puts a picture on the net that is slightly different from that old faithfull L66. This means we have a problem …
I believe I can say L numbers have been direct linked to the occurrence of the fish in the river. Meanwhile, due to a rise in popularity and commercialization, this info has become les reliable. The occurrence of most fish has moved to big collection points in the country of origin or even moved to our own tanks. Consequently we are comparing apples with pears.
Since the L number system is meanwhile followed worldwide, a solution or change of the system is not for tomorrow.
And yes, Queen Arabesque sounds better dan L260 but now we have already the New Queen Arabesque referring to a variant of the L333. In other words, the confusion is getting bigger and bigger. Maybe we can have a discussion if someone has an idea how we can escape from this swamp …

Zeno

Post by **Janne** » 18 May 2012, 18:37

Maybe we can have a discussion if someone has an idea how we can escape from this swamp …

Since these L-numbers L046, L066, L173, L236, L333, L399, L400 with "species" from lower xingu complex and probably some I forgot occur in same location (not directly all side by side in the river but close enough to meet each other) outside Belo Monte it will remain as a swamp until someone really make a good and reliable study of this swamp. Of these L-number only L046, L066 and L333 occur alone in other locations than "Belo Monte" not mixed. L174 + one without L-number occur in same location but far more upstream from Belo Monte, most locations has 1 "specie" of Hypancistrus except just Belo Monte that have many "species or L-numbers" of Hypancistrus. And the fact is that some really look different among these Belo Monte Hypancistrus, different shape of body, different size or color of eyes, different type of tail fin... just keep them like they would be different species until we all will be uplighted in the future.

Janne

har_eh · Post by **har_eh** » 18 May 2012, 18:55

Zeno wrote: Maybe we can have a discussion if someone has an idea how we can escape from this swamp …

Could hold a fund razor and send a few PC members to the xingu to observe the colonies/get national geographic interested to document/sponsor. Not sure about what permits you'd need etc. It's not a very realistic idea but I'm afraid the initiative will have to come from people like us $:-\$

Zeno · Post by **Zeno** » 19 May 2012, 15:56

Yeah this means we only need a swimsuit to clear up the situation

Janne, thanks for the info. If I understand correctly this means that L46/66/333/174 are the only species of the genus Hypancistrus we can identify with any certainty ? The others we can appoint as Hypancistrus sp, or Hypancistrus Bel Monte. This means we can confine the swamp to L 173/236/399/400 ?

Thanks, Zeno

plecoboy · Post by **plecoboy** » 19 May 2012, 23:44

.....and then the dam was built and they all disappeared.

Post by **Barbie** » 21 May 2012, 09:41

Ugh. I have 11 of these "type" of fish that I purchased originally as L173, but then was told they were definitely L287, then definitely L399/400. I have very fantastic fry from the group, but there are 3 distinct "looks" to the adults that aren't necessarily making me positive it's all one species. A good friend is planning to send me his group of these fish that we bought from similar sources way back when, so I can have yet another batch to keep separate from these. I detailed these in pictures every couple years for the last 5 years or more, but I haven't really taken pictures of the fry. I guess I should do that too.

Good luck on your quest Jools. I wish I was any help. I can get you a LOT more pictures of this sort of fish, if you'd like them ;).

Barbie

HaakonH · Post by **HaakonH** » 22 May 2012, 23:28

Jools, you already know this but this line that you got from me originates from Aquarium Glaser. I don't know how the original grandparents used to produce this line looked. I don't know who Glaser used to breed them, but for the "L236" you got from me they used Budrovcan.

Haakon

Post by **Janne** » 26 May 2012, 21:10

If I understand correctly this means that L46/66/333/174 are the only species of the genus Hypancistrus we can identify with any certainty ?

Yes.

This means we can confine the swamp to L 173/236/399/400 ?

Yes, and you can add L287 and H. sp "Gurupa" (I think it was that name or a similar) + or variable forms of lower xingu that not fit into any L-number to the swamp.

Janne

pleco22 · Post by **pleco22** » 27 May 2012, 00:00

Hi,

OK, any scientific papers for this? Or just another opinion? Sorry, but I think that dividing the xingu complex into some species and calling the rest a "swamp" is not a suitable solution for this phenomenon.

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 27 May 2012, 02:17

har_eh wrote:
Zeno wrote: Maybe we can have a discussion if someone has an idea how we can escape from this swamp …
Could hold a fund razor and send a few PC members to the xingu to observe the colonies/get national geographic interested to document/sponsor. Not sure about what permits you'd need etc. It's not a very realistic idea but I'm afraid the initiative will have to come from people like us $:-\$

Any scientific work within Brazil will require collaboration with Brazilian scientists.

pleco22 wrote:Hi,

OK, any scientific papers for this? Or just another opinion? Sorry, but I think that dividing the xingu complex into some species and calling the rest a "swamp" is not a suitable solution for this phenomenon.

There is no paper but Janne does have connections.

Zeno · Post by **Zeno** » 27 May 2012, 08:15

pleco22 wrote:Hi,

OK, any scientific papers for this? Or just another opinion? Sorry, but I think that dividing the xingu complex into some species and calling the rest a "swamp" is not a suitable solution for this phenomenon.

There are no papers necessary. It's a genetic swamp an does not mean these fish are not special. In fact, they often show beautiful patterns.

@ Janne

Thanks for clarification. It's always interesting to get information from someone close to the source.

Greetz, Zeno

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 27 May 2012, 09:20

Suckermouth wrote:
har_eh wrote:
zeno wrote:Maybe we can have a discussion if someone has an idea how we can escape from this swamp …
Could hold a fund razor and send a few PC members to the xingu to observe the colonies/get national geographic interested to document/sponsor. Not sure about what permits you'd need etc. It's not a very realistic idea but I'm afraid the initiative will have to come from people like us $:-\$
Any scientific work within Brazil will require collaboration with Brazilian scientists.

So, there is some work going on in the background on this - I am in contact with the ichthyologists involved and have discussed funding. What interest is there in providing funding to fieldwork that would then yield enough material for the not-so-exciting hard work of species descriptions etc?

Jools