L114 vs L600 vs P. Leopardus

[jac]

Could some one please explain what is the scientific difference between these numbers/fish.
A few years ago I would be satisfied with the common answer of "difference in pattern and color" but as I get deeper into the catfish world I find the answer is not satisfying any more..

[Acanthicus]

Hi Jacqueline,

P. leopardus also has a slightly more flattened body,especially the head. But, in fact I don't think L 114 and P. leopardus represent two different species, thats why L 114 should be called cf. leopardus.

[Linus_Cello]

It depends if you ask a "lumper" or a "splitter".

[jac]

Hi Jacqueline,

P. leopardus also has a slightly more flattened body,especially the head. But, in fact I don't think L 114 and P. leopardus represent two different species, thats why L 114 should be called cf. leopardus.

Thanks Daniel. And what would be the difference between P. Leopardus/cf. Leopardus and "L600"?

[Borbi]

Hi Jacqueline,

Short answer: there is none.
L600 isn't a "valid" L-Number, but was invented by some seller to make the real P. leopardus appear more interesting (still today, a fish sells better if it has an L-Number, almost regardless of what it looks like)..
So what you find advertised as "L600" (I am waiting for the day DATZ publishes the actual L600) is P. leopardus proper assuming they managed to get a correct ID for them.

Cheers,
Sandor

[jac]

Thanks Sandor!

So it comes down to "knowing your source" I guess, as with so many Lnumbers. To really know what type you have would mean you have to know the (reliable) source of where the fish came from?
What would be the most common available? The cf. leopardus ( which is often referred to as L114)? Is the coloration and pattern actually typical for the different fish? For instance in Holland people are fixated on the "L600" having small spots on it's head and having large orange coloration on it's fins. And "L114" or cf. leopardus having larger spots on the head and less orange coloration. Discussions get so heated that, for myself, I need a more scientific answer then just the argued answer of "different color and pattern".

To get it more clear for me, a few pictures.

I have had this fish, which I thought was called "L114", for quite some years now. I bought it as a baby at 4cm:



Now he looks like this and is about 30cm at the moment I bought him directly from a large wholesaler and don't know any background information about him. Would the correct name for this fish be Pseudacanthicus cf. Leopardus?



In Januari this year I was given a baby Leopardus, from Timo Schellenberg Also at 4cm, but it has grown to 10cm in the past few months. This fish is different from my large "L114". Would this then be a "real/true Leopardus? Not that I'm doubting anything from where it came from, I just need to see the difference between these fish ;)

A video of the new one at about 5cm:



And a picture of it now, taken two weeks ago. As you can clearly see, to start off with, it has a lot more orange coloration on it's fins then the top fish did at the same age/lenght..



And what about the L427.. This one is less common? And the only way to tell you have this fish is to know where it came from?

[Acanthicus]

Hi Jac,

just as you said, the L 114 is cf. leopardus. Even a splitter can't deny this until L 114 gets described as a different species. (But I don't think it ever will.) Timos specimen is a true P. leopardus, it matches the P. leopardus description perfectly in comparison to L 114, which differs slightly but not enough to call it a valid species on it's own.

[jac]

That slightly explains this reaction which I didn't quite understand.. People with different views and opinions.

It depends if you ask a "lumper" or a "splitter".

Is coloration then a key factor in identifying a "true Leopardus"?

And can we just completely forget about "L600" then?

[Acanthicus]

Yes and yes, forget about L 600 and colour is a characteristic to look for.

A lumper lumps (who would have thought so....) all similar species into one, for example all the different cf. sabaji from different rivers or all the cf. vittata from different areas. A splitter splits (again.... ) a lot, and often uses markings and colour as characteristics for a distinct species, for example all the l-numbers for B. xanthellus.

[jac]

Ok Thanks again Daniel.

I still feel a little dissatisfied (to determine a fish based on coloration) but that will possibly be an interesting chat when we meet up ;)

I do now understand the terms "lumper and splitter" Why didn't I figure that out myself

[bekateen]

Hi Jac,

I'm curious, what do you think you are, a splitter or a lumper?

Cheers, Eric

[Jools]

I'm curious, what do you think you are, a splitter or a lumper?

For every catfish moment, there is a Planet thread.

Jools

[racoll]

I realise I dominated that previous lumper/splitter thread (apologies), so I'll try to avoid that here, but re-reading it I noticed something that should be said.

I would not put a fish from Colmbia in a Uruguay setting - with winters around 10-12 C. I would look for fish cought in the sub-tropics ... This can be seen as an argument for splitting the species, but I do realize my arguments are purely aquaristic - and thus not scientific ... Is L200 the same species as L128? Actually I don't care - I would not interbreed them, as they are different populations

This is really the heart of the matter.

Try and forget what you learnt about species at school. Species are not objectively real things, and they cannot be objectively defined. The process of their formation is just too messy and variable to apply a single rule or quality. Conceptually, species are simply populations independently evolving. How you choose to identify such populations is entirely up to you, and each type of data you collect comes with its own set of limitations.

So, therefore, the names we use are just labels. How we delimit species depends on your perspective, and what we want out of the system. Different people want different things, as Bas Pels explained very clearly. If you are an aquarist you tend to want maximum splitting because this tells us a lot more about the environmental preferences and living phenotype of the animal. But if you are interested in evolution of morphological features such as the structure of the skeleton, you have a much less information at this fine level. A geneticist would want to know about gene flow and reproductive isolation. A conservationist or ecologist may really only care about functional traits in communities.

Almost all species nowadays are described by morphological systematics interested in relationships among taxa as inferred from their gross anatomy. For better or for worse, the rest of us just have to live with that.

[bekateen]

For every catfish moment, there is a Planet thread.

Oh thank you Jools. After reading that thread, and considering this thread, I was tempted to treat the thread on lumpers/splitters in a manner similar to that of the "Which part of the world are you from?" thread: We can all post either "lumper" or "splitter," and there could be a survey keeping track of the balance of opinions represented here on PlanetCatfish! (LOL, just kidding).

Cheers, Eric the Lumper (with that name, I could pass myself off as a very strange Scandinavian king!
(no disrespect intended to my Scandinavian friends here on PlanetCatfish)

[jac]

Hi Jac,

I'm curious, what do you think you are, a splitter or a lumper?

Cheers, Eric

Maybe in the beginning I started out as a splitter but the further I go into the catfish world I'm certainly also a lumper I find it fascinating!!!

[PonPonFish]

Some liar invent L600 to represent "better than L114", the REAL L600 will appear in the future, I guess 2018~2020.
The fish you call L600 is L427.

[Jools]

Some liar invent L600 to represent "better than L114", the REAL L600 will appear in the future, I guess 2018~2020.

I think most folks here know L600 was not introduced in DATZ. But many l-numbers have been created over the years to represent fishes "better" than others - official or otherwise.

I wish I was as confident of the future yield of highly imperilled neotropical environments. What we do know is the introduction of new l-numbers averages at about 18 a year, however it's slowed over the last 10 and last 5. Given we're about at L480 half way through 2015, I think you might be doubly optimistic.

The fish you call L600 is L427.

The fish most of europe and the US calls L600 is does not appear to be the range restricted L427 but perhaps you meant to say the fish shown in this thread is L427?

Cheers,

Jools

[PonPonFish]

The fish most of europe and the US calls L600 is does not appear to be the range restricted L427 but perhaps you meant to say the fish shown in this thread is L427?

I am a newbie in pleco, you can see I just registered today... So I don't have any my opinion, and I don't believe people told me, I found people always talk about the wrong thing in every aspect, the only standard for me is DATZ magazine.
Mr. Ingo Sidel introduce L427 at 2009-11, you can see the fish in this article is what people call L600.

http://www.datz.de/images/stories/artik ... 009-11.pdf

Besdies, do you have some more L250 pictures?
Thanks in advance!

[Jools]

The picture in DATZ of

L427

(which is correct - it's from the trip that Ingo and Andi made in Northern Brazil) doesn't look like

L600

to me. P. leopardus ("L600") has a different range, is flatter and doesn't have larger spots on the head.

Jools

[PonPonFish]

The picture in DATZ of

L427

(which is correct - it's from the trip that Ingo and Andi made in Northern Brazil) doesn't look like

L600

to me. P. leopardus ("L600") has a different range, is flatter and doesn't have larger spots on the head.

Jools

Agree, they looks different.
I have one question, the L427 type fish is all black in article, impossible to see if it have larger spots on it's head, do anyone have pictures of this fish in stable condition?

[Jools]

Err, yes, the others on the L427 profile.

Jools

[Dave Rinaldo]

PonPon If you click on the link Jools gave earlier it goes to a profile in the Cat-eLog, which is at the top of the page.

Pseudacanthicus sp(l427)