So- L236 is now considered to be real?

[TwoTankAmin]

I am quite confused, as usual. I have read a lot of threads here in the past pretty much stating that there are no such species as 173 or 236. Now I read those 3 recent articles on L236.

So I am confused- is this a real species or not?

I have what are purported to be F2 fish from the same lineage as mentioned in the articles. So I am curious about this subject.

But I have another question in this regard. A lot of what has been written on this site about both L236 and L173 has called their existence as species into question. That aside, the one thing that was stated is that both these fish are highly variable in appearance. Some will be stunning and others will get identified as completely different species. And this circles me back to an old thread I started about "L173b" from Glaser.

What I wonder is what one might label an L236 that fit into the category of looking like a different species. How would one delineate between two offspring from the same spawn- one which looked like the ideal specimen and the other which looked totally different. How is it even possible to identify both such fish as the same species?

From what I can tell, the identification of 173 or 236 depends more on who owns these "so called" fish than anything else?

[Borbi]

Hi,

you confuse "species" with "L-Number".
Within the limits of the L-Number-System, L 236 (as well as L 173, L 250 or even L 287) are very real.

Whether 1) these are one-off individuals of more regularly colored species or 2) they are simply so rare (for whatever reason) that a lot of people just believe they have them, but are in fact talking of different forms (including all the confusion such misidentifications and "false" reports on them), is a completely different question.

But: DO NOT take an L-Number for a "species"!
That will not work!

Cheers,
Sandor

[TwoTankAmin]

Well perhaps I used the wrong term in saying species. Let me state what I am asking another way.

How does anybody know if they have an L236 or something else being called that? I look at the Cat-elog and see 37 listed keepers. If this is indeed a one of fish, that is a high number. I did get my fish from one of those names.

And I still will recall numerous posts on this site made by well respected members stating the odds are there are no real 236 or 173. Others claim they are highly variable and this would circle me back to the ID issues. I read all 3 articles which I thoroughly enjoyed, which individually and collectively seem to suggest L236 is something that is real and not one of or a hybrid while also acknowledging that possibility.

While its only a few, all the Hypancistrus I have kept and spawned produced off spring that clearly resembled the parents.

So I suppose I should have put my original question like this. Is it now accepted that L236 deserves L number status as probably being a unique fish as opposed to a being hybrid. Or is L236 a catchall number for a variety of fish that didn't seem to fit clearly in other better established L-number slots?

The last thing I wonder about, and which I will try to ask Ingo about at the event this fall, is why zebras, which live deep and in dangerous waters, have been collected in numbers for years yet the L236 might live in deep water and not have been found? Given what its value would be relative to a zebra, I would imagine the same divers would be after both.

[plecoboy]

L236 is from the Rio Iriri which may be why it is not collected as often as L46 and has it's own L number. I believe L173 to be a valid L number as well. There are variations in all the hypans of the Rio Xingu probably due to where they are collected in the river.

[TwoTankAmin]

In part one of the 3 part series Ingo wrote:

The first L 236 was reportedly imported from the Iriri river, a tributary of the Xingu River (Pará State, Brazil). Later mostly single specimens were only imported as bycatch of other Hypancistrus (L066, L 399, L 400) that came from the Xingu river at Belo Monte. Rumour has it that L 236 lives in very deep water at Belo Monte and is because of this a rare bycatch.

I was responding to that quote. Note the word "reportedly". Do you know something Ingo doesn't in regards to this? My understanding is it is common for collectors to lie about the source of fish to keep their spots a secret from other collectors. Is there anything close to a 100% certainty the Iriri is the actual and sole source of these fish? Can it be shown none of them have been caught in the Xingu as Ingo wrote?

Has there been anything done to prove or disprove the deep water rumour or to disprove the Xingu bycatch reports?

Finally, variation of all Hypancistrus, or almost any other fish is common, they are not clones after all. However, the degree of variation is what I think would matter. I have seen 100s of live zebra plecos, many more if you count photos. Never once in all those fish have I ever had one iota of doubt as to the identification of the fish. I have never seen anybody misidentify a zebra either. I have never seen agreement like this for either 173 or 236. In fact I have seen mostly the exact opposite. And lets rule out the tendency for fish to change their appearance as they grow. because that gives zebras an unfair advantage, they are hard to wrongly ID even as fry and that is not typical for a lot of the Hypans. And there is frequent debate on the identification of "adult" 173 and 236.

[Jools]

Sorry, but what's the question? I don't really understand the term real?

Jools

[plecoboy]

I think what he means is L236 a real type(species) like L46, L66, etc. or are they a natural occurring cross.

As for collection point of L236, I only went off of Planet Catfish's info.

[HaakonH]

I think that it's important to remember that since L236 was originally introduced in DATZ we have learned a lot more about Hypancistrus.

One of the things we have learned, is that the pattern displayed by the original L236 can be found in single individuals of most of the wormlined Hypancistrus forms.

In my opinion, L236 is now more a label for a type of pattern than for a type of fish. And this pattern can be found in i.e. L66, L333 and L399/400 - all Xingu based forms.

Back in the day, this was not common knowledge. Then it was believed that a different looking fish with a unique pattern like the original L236 was a form of it's own, found in significant numbers in it's habitat in the wild. This was never proven to be the case. Nor was it ever proven that it was collected in Rio Iriri, that may well have been a rumor spread by the exporter in Brazil to deter competitors from finding the collecting site. That trick was used for other forms, like i.e.L333. Eventually the truth prevails.

Back when there was less knowledge about all this, two similar patterned Hypancistrus may well have been paired up, due to their similar pattern, even though they may have been i.e. one L400 and one L333. The original pair which is talked about in the article was never shown to the public. Odd, to say the least.

One thing is for sure: You can take say a line of L66, where you find an offspring or two with a mutated L236 pattern and line breed them, just like Budrovcan did with his fish. It's just that no-one else seem to have done that.

Haakon

[plecoboy]

Isn't it possible that some are collected in the Rio Iriri? The river does meet the Rio Xingu. Unless there is some sort of natural barrier like a waterfall, fish should be able to swim between the two rivers.

Considering how variable L236s are, perhaps there is an Iriri type and similar looking crosses out of the Xingu?

[HaakonH]

Nobody has sifted through the Iriri on a scale that proves with 100% certainty that no Hypancistrus come from there. But as far as I know, there's not a single official report or scientific study available to the public that confirms the presence of Hypancistrus in Rio Iriri. Not much commercial fishing is happening there either, and when it was, Hypancistrus was not among the genuses collected. In short, there's nothing that proves that Hypancistrus occur above Altamira, just some diffuse rumors without documentation. Then again, there's no proof that Hypancistrus as a genus is not present in the Rio Iriri either, so anyone can basically believe what they want. I just piece together the facts that I know and base my own beliefs on that

There is however plenty of evidence that shows how L236-ish fish occurs in Rio Xingu downstream of Altamira. There's also a good bit of documentation that suggests that the typical L236 pattern can occur in the more common Hypancistrus varieties from time to time.

Haakon

[TwoTankAmin]

There is no way to prove a negative. So that side of things will always be open to contention.

My point is this. If I go back and read old threads on this site, there is great deal of disparagement about the existence of 236 or 173 and we may as well throw in 250 as well. Go back and look and your will see how many times it is stated that these fish are likely nothing more tan one-ofs or unique specimens of something else. Many folks stated with a great degree of certainty that these fish, in fact, were always something else (another L number or species with unique markings) and not something remotely unique enough to put it on track to becoming a defined species or even make it deserving of an L number.

Now here we are a couple of years later with three very interesting articles by three separate respected authors which have been linked into a multi-part piece. Now I would ask this. If a fish keeper not well versed in the ins and outs of L-numbers and identified species comes to the site and reads them, what impression might they take away as to the status of L236? Will they come away saying its not likely to be anything more than one-ofs of other things and nothing more or are they likely to come away thinking maybe it is a unique type of fish which deserves to be on the same track that has gotten other fish from L-number to named status?

[plecoboy]

Considering the Belo Monte dam, I hope there are some in the Rio Iriri too. I think L236 is in a holding pattern until more info is available.

[Borbi]

Amin,

for one, to put it bluntly: a fish "deserves" an L-Number once the editorial staff of DATZ deems it does. The question as to whether it is an average representative of the form / species does not necessarily factor into it.
It is nothing more than a picture of a fish combined with a (not necessarily correct) collecting location!
If a fish imported later on belongs to the same form / variety or not is an entirely different question.
And, lets face it: for as long as plecos are worth to be exported commercially (or sold for high prices depending on the Number you put on them), there will be willing and unwilling misidentification and mislabeling.
Just because, and that is my second point, a certain number of people states they own a certain L-Number, does not make it true for all of them, even if they publish this fact on a respected site as PCF. And, again, they probably all believe they actually do.
After all, and I cannot put it more eloquently than Ingo Seidel once did: There is no authorized body that issues certificates of authentizity for L236!

If people who have actually seen certain original L-Numbers (the ACTUAL fish from the introduction) tell me my Hypancistrus is this and that L-Number, I tend to believe them. I do respect the opinion of people who haven´t seen them but just what they believe is a certain L-Nuumber depending on their track record and reputation, but I will not take it for granted.

Another (and frequently recurring) example is L97 / L282. People who have imported fish frequently put the label L282 on them and fantazise about different colors of the spot and such. I have extensively traced the history of this L-Number and the actual fish introduced as L282. It was a single fish found in a box of L240 and was thus thought to originate from Colombia (or Venezuela). But that box did not come from Colombia! It came from a reseller who never actually ever imported fish. They got them from an importer and just but a shipment of spiny white spotted plecos together.
So considerin Ockhams Razor and until someone proves me wrong by demonstrably importing a white spotted Pseudacanthicus from Colombia (or Venezuela), there is no such thing as L282, because it would need to be a white spotted Pseudacanthicus from Colombia (or Venezuela; remember: collecting location is an important factor for L-Numbers!). White spotted Pseudacanthicus from Brazil are L97, no matter what the exporter says (until DATZ issues another L-Number for a different form, if there is one).
But all these provable (and even published!) facts will not change the fact that you can just as easily find L282 in the trade as you can find L97. And you get a lot of sound reasoning why it should be L282. And probably a higher price for L282 than for L97..
There also is a nice story about the "L173b", but that one is only for verbal communication.

If you cannot trace your wormline Hypancistrus back to a certain trustworthy source and a specific import, there will always be some doubt about their identification, unless someone who has seen the actual fish from an L-Number introduction gives you an ID with some certainty (at least that is the way I go).

Enough said!

Cheers, Sandor

[OlePaulsen]

Sandor: You forgot the nice white spotted L065 ! ;) and the Alenquer

[Jools]

I still don't know what the question is!

Jools

[jbmm]

I still don't know what the question is!

Jools

*lol*

[TwoTankAmin]

In searching for something else I came upon this older thread i started and realized i had never answered Jools in asking what the question was. I would like to answer that.

L-46 is an L number, H. zebra was since described as a valid species since it was given the L number. So It is opossible to say that L46 was a real species. L236 also has an L number, but it has yet to be described. As such is has a real L number but is not a real (or if you prefer a true) species yet.

My point way the articles discussed the 236 it made it appear if it was considered as being a real and distinct species even if not yet described. My question: "Is 236 still considered to be only one ofs or is it now considered likely to be a true species waiting to be formally described?"

My fish labelled "236" came from the same lineage as Jools' did. I got mine from Eric who purchased his at the same time as Jools. Both these fine gents spawned their fish and I acquired some of those offspring from Eric since we are both in the states.

[Jools]

My question: "Is 236 still considered to be only one ofs or is it now considered likely to be a true species waiting to be formally described?"

The wild imports appear to have been one offs. They are now being line bred. I think it is unlikely that they will be described as a species if they cannot be collected in the wild. I suspect some more Hypancistrus will be described from the Xingu and L236 might be placed in one of these species (possibly due to DNA analysis, possibly due to body shape). It then becomes the same deal as red guppy versus snakeskin guppy - same species, different colours, aquarium strains etc. Or...

It needs much thought
It is expensive to be bought
L two three six
might just be a mix.



Jools

[Shane]

Sandor, great post on what is an L Number. Jools, Everything is awesome!
-Shane

[Jools]

Sandor, great post on what is an L Number. Jools, Everything is awesome!

Everything is awesome. It is indeed a typically clinical post on what an L-number is by Sandor. A really useful reminder in fact. However, I think it is not just what an l-number is, it is what it becomes that we end up struggling with.

Jools