can you ID this ancistrus sp. ?

Kimrin · Post by **Kimrin** » 30 May 2005, 00:49

the pic isn't great quality, I can try others if you need.

Post by **Silurus** » 30 May 2005, 01:37

This?

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 30 May 2005, 18:50

Hi!

Look similar with the species link given by HH!
Do you know the country they were imported form, Peru?
Cheers
Yann

Kimrin · Post by **Kimrin** » 31 May 2005, 01:45

yes! Silurus, that's exactly what she looks like. I say she because still no bristles and I've had her for 8 months. Also hasn't put on much length, she's only about 2.75 TL. Has a nice solid build though, she isn't skinny.
I like her, much prettier then the usual commons.

I just picked her out of an ordinary store tank labeled as bristlenoses. This one seemed a bit different, lighter in color. Haven't the slightest idea where they came from originally.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 31 May 2005, 08:59

Kimrin wrote:yes! Silurus, that's exactly what she looks like. I say she because still no bristles and I've had her for 8 months. Also hasn't put on much length, she's only about 2.75 TL. Has a nice solid build though, she isn't skinny.
I like her, much prettier then the usual commons.

I just picked her out of an ordinary store tank labeled as bristlenoses. This one seemed a bit different, lighter in color. Haven't the slightest idea where they came from originally.

I can't see the picture, but at 2.75" total length, a male should start showing bristles, so I think you're right that it's a female. The fact that she's "nice solid build" is also an indication that it's a female, as they tend to be a little bit fatter than the males, particularly if she's gravid (carrying eggs).

Most of the "common" ancistrus are tank-bred, so it's likely that some breeder in the area is where it "came from", rather than a river in South America, which is where they live in the wild.

--
Mats

Kimrin · Post by **Kimrin** » 31 May 2005, 15:43

I'm sure you're right Matt.
Most tank bred commons are "mutts" aren't they? So likely she is too and she's just a throw back to to some ancestor that looked like her?

I'm not sure what happened to the pic but she looks just like the one Silurus linked to.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 31 May 2005, 16:04

Kimrin wrote:I'm sure you're right Matt.
Most tank bred commons are "mutts" aren't they? So likely she is too and she's just a throw back to to some ancestor that looked like her?

If by "mutts" you mean hybrids created by the mother and father being of different speceis, yes there is a possibility of this. We've had a few debates on whether this is a likely or unlikely scenario, and no-one can really say for sure. Since the most common isn't a scientifically described specie (or at least, no-one is able to point to a document that clearly describes the specie listed in the cat-elog as A. sp(3)), it's probably going to take a while before this is clarified.

However, if we follow the hypothese that the A. sp(3) is a hybrid, then there would be variable looking off-spring.

Obviously, there's also the possibility that your fish is really just a colour variant of the same specie that everyone has been breeding in their tank for several years now. Or that it was wild-caught and is a different specie than the tank-bred varieties.

--
Mats

Kimrin · Post by **Kimrin** » 31 May 2005, 22:34

hmm, forgive my ignorance on the subject Mats.

By mutts I did mean a strain created by hybridizing initially. That's what I thought the commons (sp.3) was.
If that's debatable then, is what you're saying that some believe it is a pure strain and no-one just happens to have found any wilds to prove it?

I didn't mean to imply they aren't pretty either ;). I'm just biased towards my little pretty.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 01 Jun 2005, 09:23

Kimrin wrote:hmm, forgive my ignorance on the subject Mats.

By mutts I did mean a strain created by hybridizing initially. That's what I thought the commons (sp.3) was.
If that's debatable then, is what you're saying that some believe it is a pure strain and no-one just happens to have found any wilds to prove it?

I didn't mean to imply they aren't pretty either ;). I'm just biased towards my little pretty.

We're all ignorant about something, not a problem.

As of right now, no-one knows whether sp. 3 is a hybrid or a wild variety that hasn't been properly identified. It may even be that it's been caught and identified, but because there are quite a few Ancistrus species with a brown body with lighter spots, it's been then mixed up with another specie, and the two got lumped together by the original identifier, and we now use the name for one specie, but sp. 3 is not a correct match.

It's sometimes hard to tell the difference between different variations of the same fish and two different species. So it may be that we've HAD an identified specie, but it's got lost...

And of course, there's still the possibility that all the tank bred ones are hybrids from mixed species, but it's a bit surprising that they look so similar between ones bred in Sweden and ones bred in the UK for instance, if they are hybrids you'd think that they'd vary a bit more.

Unfortunately, we'll have to wait for someone to identify the correct species and/or do some genetic analyzis and see what they are.

I'm getting more confused the more I think about it, so don't worry if you can't follow my ramblings above...

--
Mats