I'm not sure Shane's 100% right about the documentation, he was maybe referring to the original description which was certainly bereft of size info. fisbase has it at just over 40cm and it doesn't look "way way" over to me - maybe 16" SL max? Was it measured?KathyM wrote:Hi Jools - Shane said there is no scientific documentation of one over the PC size, and that they don't grow over 11-12" SL as far as he knows - which is why we were trying to find pics of ones over that. this has got to be over 12" SL - way, way over *lol*. It'd be nice if this helped towards providing the proof Shane wanted to update the PC size.
No idea as they are very similar to look at, perhaps there is some clue in the catfish atlas vol2 and some German speaker can investigate?Mike_Noren wrote:Also, I note that the Army Corps of Engineers list L. disjunctivus as being introduced and established in Texas - how would one separate it from L. pardalis?
I know of at least one group of aquarists that collect exotics in Florida and take them back up to NY state to sell or auction them - more as a good deed thing than for any profit.Mike_Noren wrote:Just out of idle curiosity... would it be possible/legal to collect and sell loricarids from US waters?
Perhaps it's already done?
Perhaps he was speaking to the size they grow in the aquarium? In the wild a lot of species tend to grow larger then would in captivety...KathyM wrote:I'm sorry, I'm not as up on plecs as you lot - just going on what Shane said on PF which was that maximum SL was 11-12", and that they didn't go over that to his knowledge. I've personally seen what I would class as liposarcus at much bigger than 11-12" (but as I said to Shane if there's a very similar species that gets bigger I don't know - they weren't gibbies and were being sold as "commons"). Shane was eager to see some proof of liposarcus going over his maximum as he has never seen one, or proof of one. That's why I'm so excited about this - it looks a good 18" to me (I've lightened it up in my photo editor and the fish is slightly twisted in the pic), but 16" SL sounds reasonable too - either way it's way way over what Shane said was possible!
Kathy,either way it's way way over what Shane said was possible!
The Mergus Wels Atlas vol. 2 states that in their natural range, L. disjunctivus is not as succesful as L. pardalis, because of which it is restricted to its current range (upper Rio Madeira) - expansion of this species to other area's in Brazil is called unlikely. Equally unlikely is the taking over of L. disjunctivus's habitat by L. pardalis, because of a number of natural boundaries (rapids, water falls) to difficult to take.Jools wrote:No idea as they are very similar to look at, perhaps there is some clue in the catfish atlas vol2 and some German speaker can investigate?Mike_Noren wrote:Also, I note that the Army Corps of Engineers list L. disjunctivus as being introduced and established in Texas - how would one separate it from L. pardalis?
Jools
Oh Shane come on! I cannot believe you seriously believe that statment.....Shane wrote: My response was, "PC has been around for 10 years and in that time none of us has ever seen or been sent a photo of an 18-24" SL L. pardalis.
-Shane
No, you're misrepresenting me. Anyone can read PF and see what I said. I said I've seen tonnes of "common plecs" characterised as liposarcus pardalis as handins in my LFS at way over 9.8" which your site is saying is the maximum, You said that you could believe that one might reach 11-12" maximum, but anything over that is "exaggeration". Now I personally have seen a common that looked to me to be nearing 2ft in TL. I can concede that it could've been less, maybe 18" SL, then tail added on. What I saw was to me identical to pics you've IDed on PF as liposarcus pardalis, and looked the same as this one. I've seen them sold on eBay regularly way over 9.8" SL, although if these "albino commons" and "commons" are a different species I'm happy to stand up and say I'm wrong, along with everyone else that has IDed them as such. I'm not the only person who has seen big commons, most people on PF who are more experienced than me warn people regularly that liposarcus pardalis reaches 18"-2ft, I myself have seen the whopper I posted above about, and several nearly 18" ones. I suspect just as I might judge slightly over, you must judge a fair bit under - someone measured their gibby on PF and you told them they were wrong by over 6" despite the photograph - your reasoning was that it was away from the tapemeasure (which I can concede makes it inaccurate, but doesn't distance take away size, not add to it?), etc, but that gibby was a fair bit bigger than you suggested to my eyes at least. I respect you have good intentions and want to be sure, but you can't deny everyone else's experiences or shut them off as liars as you have with me - I'm quite happy to be wrong on this, tell me what I've seen and I'll take it all back. "Commons" (whatever they turn out to be) DO go over 11-12", I've seen them bigger than that with my own eyes - like I have said over and over, show me a plec that is sold as "common" that isn't a gibby and is close enough to liposarcus pardalis to be identical to the untrained eye and I'll be happy to change my views. I don't want a fight, I just want to know the truth. I'd personally love a common but daren't get one in case I was right about their adult sizes, along with everyone else that has warned me. It's not helping me if I turn out to be right, it's hindering, so if you have an alternative explanation, you'll make my day ;)Shane wrote: Kathy,
You are greatly misrepresenting what I said. We have yet to positively identify the above sp and it was not (unfortunately) measured.
By way of background:
Kathy posted on another forum that PC's sizes for the various "common pl*cos" were wrong and cited, as proof, that 24" L. pardalis were "ten a penny" in the UK.
My response was, "PC has been around for 10 years and in that time none of us has ever seen or been sent a photo of an 18-24" SL L. pardalis. The second someone provides one we will make the necessary changes to the site to reflect this information."
-Shane
Kathy,KathyM wrote:which your site is saying is the maximum
I think others have answered about measuring the fish, but as the post is veering a little, I just wanted to say that it is interesting to see these fish and we'd certainly like to help ID different ones you may find.MacAAA wrote:I'm interested in finding out how many different types of Plecostomus are in the wild in this area and maybe help add to this site.
I was using it in reference to the scoffs that were made at me, insinuating I'd made it up - I haven't called anyone here a liar. I've got nothing to gain either way (apart from a common if your site is right *lol*). I do apologise for getting site ownership wrong, it was implied elsewhere that it was Shane's site and I'm genuinely sorry I got it wrong.Jools wrote:Kathy,KathyM wrote:which your site is saying is the maximum
For your info., it's my site, I enter the data. I also don't like the word liar - let's keep this civil please.
Jools
Thanks Woodyswoodruff wrote:Kathy,
We do grow them bigger here in Texas. The photo of the L. pardalis from Calaveras Lake does look to be bigger than my Goliath here in Houston. I have also seen one about 18-20 inches just last night but was unable to get a photo before he swam away. No doubt, seeing is believing.
I'm not crackers then *lol*.
]