![Image](http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9359/uz53.jpg)
Thanks in advance!
Don't think so, on the account of the white spots. More likely to be a young .GhostArcher wrote:Looks like a small to me.
Hifis wrote:I just talked with the guy that gave me the fish, he said that they are Ancistrus dolichopterus L183
?
I was comparing some photos and noticed that the L182 doesn't have white seams (I hope thats the right wordMartin S wrote:Hifis wrote:I just talked with the guy that gave me the fish, he said that they are Ancistrus dolichopterus L183
?
No, not as these have 10 dorsal rays. Your fish only has 8. Identifying spotted Ancistrus is very difficult - are they fry he's selling on? I wouldn't rule out Siluris' suggestion.
HTH
Martin
The synonymy is in error. The species that it was meant to be synonymised was A. dolichopterus but that is also rather dubious. Going back to the description of A. punctatus, it fits L182 rather well. This is known to some working in the field, it's just a rather obscure point and there are lots more interesting undescribed loricariids out there to work on first...kamas88 wrote:By the way why is A. punctatus (from Brazil, Mato Grosso/Amazonas) put into synonymy with L 182 at PCF, in Ferraris checklist (2007) as well as at fishbase it is not listed as a valid species but listed as synonym to A. hoplogenys which is L 59.
I'm even more confused nowThe dorsal fin of A. dolichopterus shows a higher number of fin rays (8-10 soft rays)
I totally agree that L 182 is neither A. dolichopterus (L 183) nor A. hoplogenys (L 59).Jools wrote:The synonymy is in error. The species that it was meant to be synonymised was A. dolichopterus but that is also rather dubious. Going back to the description of A. punctatus, it fits L182 rather well. This is known to some working in the field, it's just a rather obscure point and there are lots more interesting undescribed loricariids out there to work on first...