ID this 2 catfishes fm Peru

[amiidae]

Looks like some sort of Amphilius sp. or Cetopsorhamdia to me. Fish imported from Peru.

Came in as " Shark cat "

[Suckermouth]

Top one looks like

Cetopsorhamdia sp`peru`

with my cursory glance at the Cat-eLog...

[amiidae]

I think thats a match. Thks. Any second opinion ?

[racoll]

I would say they are two different species. Look at the adipose and caudal fins.

[MatsP]

I agree with Dave on the first one. The second one looks like another Heptaperiidae, but not one I can recognise... There are several described species that we have no picture of, and of course it's entirely possible it's not even described.


--
Mats

[amiidae]

Thanks, guys.

Any ID advice on the second cat ?

[MatsP]

I couldn't find anything in the Cat-eLog that matches the second fish.

--
Mats

[The.Dark.One]

The ID on the first fish I agree with.

The second one is also a Heptapterid and possibly Cetopsorhamdia as has already been said. ID to species level on these is very difficult. Perhaps it is an adult of these little (approx 3cm) Heptapterids that also came from Peru and were imported by Pier Aquatics?

http://www.scotcat.com/thedarkone/hepta ... p_peru.jpg
http://www.scotcat.com/thedarkone/hepta ... _peru2.jpg

[retro_gk]

The second fish seems to resemble Cetopsorhamdia phantasia, as illustrated in Fishes from the lower Urubamba river (22MB PDF, page 437).

The fish in the paper shows a distinctive row of spots across the middle of all the fins, something that is not clear in Amiidae's picture, but is apparent in the first picture posted by TDO.

[Silurus]

The second fish seems to resemble Cetopsorhamdia phantasia, as illustrated in Fishes from the lower Urubamba river (22MB PDF, page 437).

Not it, I think. The shape of the caudal fin is too different.

[The.Dark.One]

The second fish seems to resemble Cetopsorhamdia phantasia, as illustrated in Fishes from the lower Urubamba river (22MB PDF, page 437).

Not it, I think. The shape of the caudal fin is too different.

I agree. But my fish seems to match it almost exactly (as referred to by retro gk)?:

http://www.scotcat.com/thedarkone/hepta ... p_peru.jpg

But the drawing of the holotype in the description looks different? Perhaps these are juveniles? (They were about the same size as the specimen in the linked pdf).

[bekateen]

The second fish seems to resemble Cetopsorhamdia phantasia, as illustrated in Fishes from the lower Urubamba river (22MB PDF, page 437).

The current link to this paper (Fishes of the lower Urubamba) is here: https://checklist.pensoft.net/article/18237/list/18/.

This fish is not true

Cetopsorhamdia phantasia

, as can be seen here: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1444843 (pdf here: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Do ... cuador.pdf)

C. phantasia is diagnosed by the following traits:

• unbranched first dorsal ray and ten branched rays of its dorsal fin
• Dorsal fin situated relatively far posteriorly
• Distinguished from other ten or eleven species currently classified as Cetopsorhamdia by maxillary barbel very long, reaching posteriorly beyond anal-fin base (versus reaching posteriorly at most to pelvic-fin origin in other species of Cetopsorhamdia), and by its distinctive pigmentation pattern

Here is the narrative of coloration:

Coloration (preserved): Snout, lips and chin anterior to mental barbels very dark with what appear to be numerous sensory papillae forming gray speckles on darker background. Similar papillae cover sides and top of head, and back to dorsal-fin origin; papillae scarce or absent over elongate occipital fontanel. Two ovate, light-colored spots on nape bracketing occipital process; thus, contrasting with more typical Cetopsorhamdia condition of light band extending entirely across nape. Belly and underside of head posterior to mental barbels dusky gray, becoming progressively darker posteriorly towards pelvic-fin origin. Mental barbels gray and maxillary barbels darker, approximately matching their corresponding backgrounds. Body anterior to dorsal- and pelvic-fin origins olive-gray, slightly darker towards back. Remainder of body (except caudal peduncle of Rio Aguarico specimens), caudal-fin base, and much of dorsal, adipose, and anal fins very dark, almost black, contrasting sharply with almost unpigmented distal portions of those same fins. Caudal, pectoral, and pelvic fins of holotype relatively clear with two narrow, transverse bands formed by dark chromatophores concentrated on rays; similar submarginal band present on anal fin. Dark pigment on pectoral, pelvic and anal fin of paratype and nontypes more irregular, blotchy.

Coloration (in life): When alive, coloration very much like that of preserved specimens (Fig. 1) with one striking exception-head and body anterior to line between dorsal- and pelvic-fin origins beautiful, irridescent green. Live specimens from depths of turbid Rio Aguarico differ in having head and anterior body metallic gold with a green sheen and similar coloration on entire caudal peduncle, but one Rio Aguarico specimen with dark caudal peduncle like specimens from Rio Jivino.

Below the drawings from the C. phantasia original description (Stewart, DJ (1985)), the photo of "C. phantasia" taken from the "Fishes from the Lower Urubamba river near Sepahua, Amazon Basin, Peru" paper by Carvalho et al. (2011), and cropped/aligned photos of current "C. phantasia" images 1 and 2 out of the CLOG pages. I think it's likely these are three different species. As for real C. phantasia vs. the other two fish, the first obvious difference is that the color pattern in no way matches, with the CLOG photos showing a body color split between dorsal and ventral surfaces rather than head and body. Secondly, the maxillary barbel is not even close to extending beyond the anal fin base. The Rio Urubamba photo shows a fish that might be solid colored, which in my mind more closely aligns with the recently described

Cetopsorhamdia hidalgoi

. Also, I'm wondering if the fish we have listed as

Cetopsorhamdia sp`peru`

might be C. hidalgoi.

My two cents is that the current CLOG photos of a two-tone fish show an undescribed species, not the same as the solid black fish also shown on the same CLOG page. Alternatively, could this be a sex-specific color pattern, considering that we observed these brown-black fish and fully black fish together in the same stream... maybe male/female color differences? I don't think so, but that would be awesome if so.

Cheers, Eric

[Viktor Jarikov]

Wow, Eric! This is awesome of you! No expiration date for scientific questions

[bekateen]

Thanks Viktor. In this case, we solve one problem (to figure out what IS C. phantasia) only to leave unresolved the original question... what the heck are these brown & black Cetopsorhamdia (the original question)? I've reassigned them for now as

Cetopsorhamdia sp`Peru_2`

.

I don't know what to do with the single photo of what appears to be an all-black fish, but since the photo is from the same owner and the photos were uploaded together, I'm leaving it for now with the brown & black fish photos.

Cheers.
Eric