What is this Ancistrus?

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 20 Apr 2005, 06:51

Just wondering if anyone has an idea of what species Ancistrus this is, or if it's a hybrid?

Thanks

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 20 Apr 2005, 09:42

By just looking at the pattern, it's most likely "Ancistrus sp(3)", Common Bristlenose. However, there are many different species that are similar (brown with lighter spots), and without very careful examination, they are difficult to tell apart.

If you bought the fish in your local fish-shop for a few dollars (no more than 10), then it's extremely likely that my above guess is right. Likewise if a friend gave it to you, or something like that.

Now, it's most likely that the above fish is actually a tank-produced hybrid from a mix of the identified (and perhaps some un-identified) species, since when these fish were first introduced some 40-50 years back (or more), the knowledge that there were dozens of different species was not there, so if the fish looked the same, "it is the same", even if one came from eastern Brazil and the other from western Colombia. So different species that looked similar was batched together. When these bred, the off-spring became a mix of the parent's look. Since these fish are relatively easy to breed (just get a male and one or two females in a well-kept tank, and they will produce 30-60 off-spring per female every month for several years). Almost every ancistrus you find in the average fish-shop is tank-bred from an earlier tank-bred pair, so the origin of the great great great great grandfather and mother is terribly hard to find.

--
Mats

Post by **Shane** » 20 Apr 2005, 13:35

Now, it's most likely that the above fish is actually a tank-produced hybrid from a mix of the identified (and perhaps some un-identified) species, since when these fish were first introduced some 40-50 years back (or more), the knowledge that there were dozens of different species was not there, so if the fish looked the same, "it is the same", even if one came from eastern Brazil and the other from western Colombia. So different species that looked similar was batched together. When these bred, the off-spring became a mix of the parent's look.

Mats,
Can you document the above? While there it a possibility that the so-called common Ancistrus sp. (A. sp 3) could be a hybrid, I do not believe this has ever been proven through genetic or morphological studies. I think we can fairly say that A sp. 3 appears to be the most common sp. in the hobby, but we do not know if it is A) a species that the hobby has yet to identify, B) represents more than one valid sp. that all appear very similar, or C) is the product of captive breeding and possibly a hybrid. While Ancistrus have been imported for many years, they have only spawned rarely in captivity until very recently. I am sure we could review the literature and find out exact dates, but my guess would be that Ancistrus did not start becoming an "easy" or commonly spawned fish until the mid-1990s. (A simple review of the Breeders Award Programs from various clubs would yield this information.) We could also search stock listings from Florida and Singapore breeders to find out when they first began offering captive bred stock. I will guarentee that there were certainly no captive bred Ancistrus being offered before about the mid-1990s.
The best thing to do is ask the importers and retailers where they got the fish. We may quickly find that all, some, or many A. sp. 3 are wild exports.
-Shane

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 20 Apr 2005, 13:56

Shane wrote:
Now, it's most likely that the above fish is actually a tank-produced hybrid from a mix of the identified (and perhaps some un-identified) species, since when these fish were first introduced some 40-50 years back (or more), the knowledge that there were dozens of different species was not there, so if the fish looked the same, "it is the same", even if one came from eastern Brazil and the other from western Colombia. So different species that looked similar was batched together. When these bred, the off-spring became a mix of the parent's look.
Mats,
Can you document the above? While there it a possibility that the so-called common Ancistrus sp. (A. sp 3) could be a hybrid, I do not believe this has ever been proven through genetic or morphological studies. I think we can fairly say that A sp. 3 appears to be the most common sp. in the hobby, but we do not know if it is A) a species that the hobby has yet to identify, B) represents more than one valid sp. that all appear very similar, or C) is the product of captive breeding and possibly a hybrid. While Ancistrus have been imported for many years, they have only spawned rarely in captivity until very recently. I am sure we could review the literature and find out exact dates, but my guess would be that Ancistrus did not start becoming an "easy" or commonly spawned fish until the mid-1990s. (A simple review of the Breeders Award Programs from various clubs would yield this information.) We could also search stock listings from Florida and Singapore breeders to find out when they first began offering captive bred stock. I will guarentee that there were certainly no captive bred Ancistrus being offered before about the mid-1990s.
The best thing to do is ask the importers and retailers where they got the fish. We may quickly find that all, some, or many A. sp. 3 are wild exports.
-Shane

Shane,

Good point. I have no documentation to substantiate the claims I make, only things that I have read elsewhere in the Loricariidae forum here, which is not sure to be a true by any means.

I know that SOME form of Ancistrus specie was bred in 1980's, but probably not in large scale, as it was an article about it in a Swedish aquarium magazine (Akvariet), which didn't exactly write articles about "Guppy births", so if anything that is evidence towards the fact that until recently they weren't often successfully spawned in tanks.

When I think about it a bit more: A piece of evidence towards them NOT being hybrids is the fact that they breed reasonably true. One would suspect that the offspring of a hybrid would actually not breed into identical to the parents, as some would have some traits from one lineage show up more and others would have other traits show up. [At least I think so...

]

I will refrain from propagating what is really a rumour, in the future...

--
Mats

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 20 Apr 2005, 17:19

Thank you for the replies, the fish was $8.99 american and the owner of the LFS stated that they were tank bred.(a group of 10 of them)I was mainly wondering if it was a hybrid simply because of this. Plus he (I'm assuming it's a "he" because of the tentacles - still very young) doesn't exactly match any of the cat-e-log pics.

Thanks again.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 20 Apr 2005, 17:31

I would think that the majority of these are NOW tank-bred. And as discussed above by me and Shane, it's not sure whether they are hybrids or not, but I suspect that yours is no more, nor any less a hybrid than any of the others.

It's of course possible that yours is a different specie than A. sp(3), and that's why it's looking different. But these fish tend to look a little bit different depending on age. How big is it? My guess would be that it's less than 2 inches long, and if so, it's pretty much par for the course... The spots vary in "clarity" with both age and mood.

Unless it's an older (larger) individual, I would say that bristles mean male, and without a size/age scale to compare to, I'd say this is a male.

--
Mats

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 20 Apr 2005, 17:40

He is just under 2 inches and was unusually comfortable, as I actually got the chance to take the photo. He is usually laying low in a driftwood cave, but he comes out to eat. I think he had too much sweet potato because he didn't move when I approached the tank, so I seized the opportunity. When he is stressed he turns almost solid bright orange like the spots on him.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 20 Apr 2005, 18:34

It's been documented in DATZ, Ingo wrote it up. Ancistrus sp(3) is either a hybrid or a fish that has lost touch with its wild form. At the very least we cannot say what it is, it could be the mixing of several hybrids from different fish farms too! This history of this fish is super-complex.

Tank bred fish are rarely if at all crossed back with wild fish but often a "spare male" is bought at auction for those three females you have. That's going to lead to hybridiazation given Ancistrus have been commonly bred in Europe and available for sale as such for several decades. This is perhaps not as widespread in the US?

Jools

Post by **Shane** » 20 Apr 2005, 20:31

Jools,
I have not seen Ingo's article but would be very interested to read it. I am not sure that it is fair to say "either a hybrid or a fish that lost touch with its wild form" because this statement seems to make the huge assumption (which we know not to be true) that all Ancistrus spp. have been described. This fish does not match any described spp, and therefore the logical deduction, is that this fish is a hybrid. Seems like faulty logic, but I would have to read the article and see Ingo's reasoning.

I am sure that with a little research I could turn up the history of captive Ancistrus spawnings (in fact, I'll look into it soon as I am curious) based on old aquarium literature. My previous comment was in relation to Mat's comment about 40-50 years. They have not been commonly spawned, common being the key word, for anywhere near that long. I like Mats statement above, "I suspect that yours is no more, nor any less a hybrid than any of the others." that seems a very fair statement to me.
-Shane

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 20 Apr 2005, 21:19

Thanks again for the info, I appreciate all of your input.
feel free to use the pic if you ever figure it out. Or let me know if you want any more.

T · Post by T » 21 Apr 2005, 01:00

I think I have one of those little fellers(had 2 but just gave one away).It was just labled as "bristlenose pl*co".

What you think?

T · Post by T » 21 Apr 2005, 01:07

In fact here both of them are(the ones on the right) with a common bristle, albino common and another unknown in the background(also now given away).

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 21 Apr 2005, 05:28

The color of the fish in front of all the others on the second picture is very similar.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 21 Apr 2005, 20:29

Shane wrote:This fish does not match any described spp, and therefore the logical deduction, is that this fish is a hybrid. Seems like faulty logic

I agree, completely, that becuase we cannot ID something we cannot instantly go "hybrid"! I have seen this happen with Synodontis on two occaisons now. One fish we thought was a hybrid for a long time I last year found someone who had caught them in the wild! (OK, they could be released but who would fly back to Africa with captive bred Synos and drop them in the lake?!?)

But that's not the point I appear to have been badly making. If I understand it correctly it goes something like this...

Ancistrus have been imported into the hobby from the wild for the last 30 years at least, probably more if you include fish farms.

Captive bred Ancistrus have been available (esp. at club auctions etc) for the last 30 years. "sp(3)" for the last 15 I know personally.

Crucially however, regular imports of the same Ancistrus are uncommon. Nowadays most Ancistrus come from Peru or Brazil, that was not always the case. Older shipments come from different places and one only has to look at the l-numbers to see what range of Ancistrus there are.

I believe (again according to Ingo) that Ancistrus from the same water conditions will readily hybridize given the absence of conspecifics.

One question I have always had in my mind is why we see so many species of Ancistrus in the hobby (L-numbers and older pics) but none that we know imported from the wild that match "sp(3)". I think it is reasonable to infer either (a) hobbyists were presented with a species 20-30 years ago and have managed to keep it a pure strain over this time and it has not been imported since or (b) a few species have been mixed by hobbyists over the years and the result doesn't quite fit anything we know from science.

What about the albino, piebald and longfin Ancistrus - all pure bred too???

It's not scientific, but I at the very least we must call it origins unknown. Does the argument above sway you or have we all been perfect fishbreeders and not hybridized in a genus where species are easily confused and species readily interbred?

Jools

PS For the fullness of debate, there is another option (c) which is that 30 years of breeding a species in the aquarium makes a fish look nothing like its wild counterpart but I feel we would see intermediary steps?

natefrog · Post by **natefrog** » 22 Apr 2005, 03:42

Just a small point, and this has concerned me on a few occasions, but, if a fish breeds true and has perfectly viable offspring, unless there is a reason to find a breeding mechanism to keep breeding segragated can we not say that these are the same species and that variations in either geographic distribution or morphology can be attributed to recent divergence and may therefore be more aptly described as sub-species?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 22 Apr 2005, 10:21

Jools wrote:What about the albino, piebald and longfin Ancistrus - all pure bred too???

Albino, other coloration "deformities" e.g. piebald, and long fins, are definitely an indication of inbreeding, followed by selective breeding. There's nothing in there to indicate that this has anything to do with mixing species.

Since there are long-fin varieties of many captive bred fish, I'm pretty sure there is a gene (or set of genes) that cause this to happen.

I'm not saying that hybrids won't affect the above genetical sequences. But the fact that we have color/fin "defects" in the fish doesn't prove inter-species breeding at all.

I'm still following Jools on this, even if I my explanation of how/when it happened may not be factually correct, it is likely that early breeders of Ancistrus sp. did not know that there were different species, and thus hybridized through ignorance. When I bought my first Pleco, it was called "Plecostomus Plecosotomus", but who knows which one of the many Hypostomus species it was that I actually got. I couldn't tell, and my aquarium fish book had four Loricariidae in it: Xenocara (Ancistrus) Dolichopterus (looks similar to L193 or so), Plecostomus Plecostomus, an Otocinclus sp. and some form of Farlowella sp.. I knew of a few other Loricariidae, such as Panaque's that they had in some of the fancier shops, but being the mid 1980's, the Loricariidae imports (at least to Sweden) wasn't exactly as well-described and plenty-full as it (probably) is now.

--
Mats

--
Mats

worton[pl] · Post by **worton[pl]** » 22 Apr 2005, 14:11

what is this little fish in the down-left corner of T's photo?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 22 Apr 2005, 14:13

Otocinclus, I would think.

--
Mats

worton[pl] · Post by **worton[pl]** » 22 Apr 2005, 14:14

uhm yup that is but what species :P looks very nice for me.

Post by **Janne** » 22 Apr 2005, 20:07

When you interbreed a species there will create new genes for mutations being weak and not dominant so you will not see them in the first generations, if you continue for several generations some of these will sooner or later show up like elongated fins or piebald which are easy created between albinos and normal colored Ancistrus.
In a batch of youngsters today you will see at least 3-4 different pattern or color and sometimes there will be one or a few albinos too, this is very common in the european common Ancistrus. In Sweden in the middle of 80's it was very popular to breed Ancistrus because they get good payments for the offspring and was widely spread, in the same time Tjeckien start to breed them in a larger scale and the Albino showed up very soon in the same century.
In the late 90's and beginning of 20's the longfin variant showed up here in Sweden and when you breed them the offspring are both longfinned, normal finned, Albino or normal color still showing very variable pattern.

Even if it will be very difficult to prove they are hybrids I would say that they have lots of Ancistrus in their genes

Janne

Mike_Noren · Post by **Mike_Noren** » 22 Apr 2005, 20:56

natefrog wrote:Just a small point, and this has concerned me on a few occasions, but, if a fish breeds true and has perfectly viable offspring, unless there is a reason to find a breeding mechanism to keep breeding segragated can we not say that these are the same species and that variations in either geographic distribution or morphology can be attributed to recent divergence and may therefore be more aptly described as sub-species?

No, because captive interbreeding says nothing about the situation in the wild, and in any case capability of interbreeding is a primitive (plesiomorph) trait. There is no prerequisite that two species should be incapable of interbreeding in captivity, or produce infertile offspring, or that offspring should show simple mendelian patterns of traits.

As an example, almost any species of orchid can _in captivity_ be crossed with any other species of orchid, but that doesn't mean all species of orchid are really one.

T · Post by T » 22 Apr 2005, 23:45

worton[pl] wrote:uhm yup that is but what species looks very nice for me.

Its a Red Fin Dwarf pl*co (Parotocinclus maculicauda)I used to have 4 but I have lost the other 3 to strange sudden deaths(I had them for over a year then within weeks of each other 3 had died).I keep meaning to get him a friend or two as he doesnt hang with my ottos.

T · Post by T » 22 Apr 2005, 23:47

So what do you guys think of my strangly marked bristles, possibly the same as the one in the first post.

dlrzrwlf · Post by **dlrzrwlf** » 23 Apr 2005, 00:19

I'm no expert, but the pl*co in front of all the others eating in the second pic looks almost identical when you blow up the photo. My pic wasn't very good, but yours was and since I can see mine in real life I can say they LOOK like siblings.

natefrog · Post by **natefrog** » 23 Apr 2005, 07:16

In response to Mike, I appreciate that captivity does rather negate the biological species concept when examining viability and traits; however, the orchid example does not fit with this because most cross bred orchids are sterile or are often polyploids which would mean a full compliment of both parent generation genomes, and the expression of these genes is very unpredictable, (which is a boon for florists looking for the next great showy orchid). All that being said, the more I read, whether it be about the newly described species of Apistogramma, the new Coryodoras, or the new Loracids, it seems everyone wants to split and assign new species status, forgive me for being a "lumper" but all these very similar "species" seem to me to be members of a more accuratly described "super-species". What do you think?