A quick question to keepers of L001.

saraya · Post by **saraya** » 11 Apr 2006, 09:01

I know that the info on here is a little off, as it states a length of 8 inches. Mine has already exceeded that, and my LFS currently has one that Iâ??m guessing is about 12 inches.
What length has your L001/L022 reached?

Thank you.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 11 Apr 2006, 10:51

Hi, and welcome to the site!

I know that the info on here is a little off, as it states a length of 8 inches

Bear in mind that the figures given in the cat-elog are in SL, not TL.

DATZ and Wels Atlas II give between 300mm and 400mm TL for Glyptoperichthys joselimaianus (L001).

my LFS currently has one that Iâ??m guessing is about 12 inches.

Make sure your not confusing G.joselimaianus with G.gibbiceps, which is a very similar, but much larger fish at 600mm TL.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 11 Apr 2006, 11:50

And of course, the measure given in the Cat-eLog is based on a scientific paper where the largest specimen examined for the purpose of that paper - that's not to say they can't grow LARGER than that. Very often, the maximum size given by scientific papers is underestimating the actual size, simply because it takes more space to store a larger specimen, and the collector may not keep the largest specimens for the scientists to examine for this reason.

--
Mats

saraya · Post by **saraya** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:48

Thank you both for the replies.

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is meant by 'SL' and 'TL'?

Many thanks.

DeepFriedIctalurus · Post by **DeepFriedIctalurus** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:49

I myself figured the E-log entry to be accurate, as I raised a couple in the past myself that seemingly stopped growing at the listed 8"SL (probably due to competition from voracious Hypostomus). Much to my surprise several weeks ago, one was traded in at a local shop that was nearly 11"SL!

Even at that size I'd still consider them much easier to house than G.gibbiceps! ;)

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 11 Apr 2006, 12:59

Off topic a bit here. Sorry.

I've just had a quick look through the "Resolved Site Suggestions and Bugs" forum, but I couldn't find any posts that address these issues, although I'm sure it has been discussed.

I think the SL's given in the cat-elog are quite misleading for a lot of people who just glance at them. I feel it could make the cat-elog less credible in many people's eyes.

I lose count of the number of people who we have had to explain TL and SL to.

As TL is not ideal either, perhaps a new measurement called AL (aquarium length) could be used, whereby this includes the tail, but not filaments, and reflects the typical length reached in an aquarium given good care.

After all, 99.9% of people who use the site are amateur fishkeepers, not ichthyologists.

I know to change all of them would be impossible, but maybe for some of the larger common species? Obviously it won't make much difference to buying a new tank if a Corydoras is 40mm or 50mm, but for large plecs like G.joselimaianus it can.

Is it worth me posting this in the "Site Suggestions and Bugs" forum?

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 11 Apr 2006, 13:04

Please excuse my ignorance, but what is meant by 'SL' and 'TL'?

Sorry, missed that.

Here it is....

http://www.planetcatfish.com/faq/index. ... opular=yes

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 11 Apr 2006, 13:08

@racoll: Yes, why not post in the bugs forum. I think AL is a good idea - and giving some idea of what size to expect in a fish is definitely a good thing - particularly if they grow much bigger than what the Cat-eLog says.

@saraya: And since racoll didn't actually explain the SL/TL terms, I'll refer to the new section called Glossary that some of us have been working to put together: Under the Help! menu at the top left corner of the browser window, you'll find "Glossary", which has both TL and SL explained.

--
Mats

saraya · Post by **saraya** » 11 Apr 2006, 13:13

Wow! You guys are quick.

Thanks.

I'm quite sure I have a L001.
(Shane ID'd it over on PF for me a while ago.)
Mine is currently SL of 9.5 inches. TL would be a little over 11.

Thanks for providing the links and explaining the terms!

pturley · Post by **pturley** » 11 Apr 2006, 16:57

There are already three measurements for fish, SL, TL and FL (fork-length), we really don't need a fouth (AL) IMHO.

The third is predominatly used in angling. It is a measurement from the tip of the rostrum to the fork in the caudal fin. In fish like the bowfin (which lacks a forked caudal fin), angler's use the fin rays at the center of the caudal to determine FL.

Standard length gives the most consistent values in term fish sizes. Caudal fin dimensions can vary based on species, differing populations of the same species and even different individuals within a population (males vs. females), (damaged vs. undamaged) etc.

I wouldn't think there is enough reason to change.

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 11 Apr 2006, 20:38

Darn, I posted in the wrong thread!

Mikael · Post by **Mikael** » 12 Apr 2006, 07:56

sorry to continue this somewhat off topic discussion, wouldn't a simple solution be to make "SL" a link to the definition in the FAQ? I suppose the pages are generated through some kind of template so that ought not be too much work for Jools to change.
Mikael

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 12 Apr 2006, 09:04

Mikael wrote:sorry to continue this somewhat off topic discussion, wouldn't a simple solution be to make "SL" a link to the definition in the FAQ? I suppose the pages are generated through some kind of template so that ought not be too much work for Jools to change.
Mikael

At the left side of all Cat-eLog pages, each term has a link which takes you to a page explaining that term.

Clicking on size gives you this page: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/help_term.php#size

Does that answer the question?

Jools

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 12 Apr 2006, 09:11

One other correction, SL is based on the biggest size given by:

(a) fishbase if we've not got anything else and it's not clearly wrong
(b) personal experience, if I have seen a fish at a size
(c) scientific paper
(d) CSG show size guide info. unless it significantly disagrees with the (b) or (c)

None of the above is complete although one of my current projects is to add all CSG info. Once I complete this, it will then mean that SL info. precludes the need for an "AL" field which I would say is overkill if the other data is present.

Jools

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 12 Apr 2006, 09:34

Clicking on size gives you this page:

It does indeed, but how can it be made more obvious, as it seems it's not apparent to many people.