LG-Numbers? What are they?

Tuti · Post by **Tuti** » 02 Aug 2006, 08:30

Hi,

In the Cat-elog I found a species with Common name 'LG6'. Also I read somewhere else about some otocinclus species, what has a common name 'LG5'.

Now I'm wondering: what does this LG-numbers mean? Is it something like the L- and LDA-numbers?

HaakonH · Post by **HaakonH** » 02 Aug 2006, 09:01

Please correct me if I'm wrong, as I don't have the Mergus book by Seidel here with me right now.

As far as I can remember LG is short for the German term Loricariidae Gattung, (Loricariidae Family I believe?), and was provided for a few species of catfish which could not be placed in any existing family yet, because they have traits that make them differ from all other families. Instead of just dumping them into a closely related family, calling them "Hemiloricaria sp." or something like that, they were given the code you mention.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 02 Aug 2006, 12:35

LG is short for the German term Loricariidae Gattung, (Loricariidae Family I believe?)

I think "Gattung" means genus rather than family.

Tuti · Post by **Tuti** » 02 Aug 2006, 14:40

I think the best english term for 'Gattung' is 'Genus', just what Racoll said.

@HaakonH: But is that not just the same what they're doing with L- and LDA-numbers? Or did you mean that L- and LDA-numbers already have a familyname (Like Hypancistrus sp.), LG-numbers not?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 02 Aug 2006, 14:48

For some reason, it seems like some authors don't think that Loricariiane subfamily don't belong in L-numbers... So the LG-numbers are for those Loricariinae (Loricaria and other similar genera).

And the correct grouping is "Loricariinae Gattung", not "Loricariidae", I believe.

--
Mats

Tuti · Post by **Tuti** » 02 Aug 2006, 15:10

Ah thanks Mats, thats a clear answer. Somewhere it wondered me always a little bit that the L-numbers did not contain any species from the Loricariinae-family, while there are so many species in that family.

Is it the same story for Hypoptopomatinae? (Hope I write it correctly)

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 02 Aug 2006, 15:24

It does appear like Hypoptopomatinae (yes, I looked it up, and no, I'm not sure I spelled it correctly - it's definitely not one to write itself easily) are not included in L-numbers either...

--
Mats

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 02 Aug 2006, 16:22

Ah thanks Mats, thats a clear answer. Somewhere it wondered me always a little bit that the L-numbers did not contain any species from the Loricariinae-family, while there are so many species in that family.

Is it the same story for Hypoptopomatinae? (Hope I write it correctly)

It does appear like Hypoptopomatinae (yes, I looked it up, and no, I'm not sure I spelled it correctly - it's definitely not one to write itself easily) are not included in L-numbers either...

Members of sub-families Hypoptopomatinae and Loricariinae DO have L/LDA numbers eg....

LDA52, LDA23 & L010.

I'm sure there are more.

I think there are so few because:

a) The Ancistrinae are prettier, and make up the bulk of new imports.

b) Perhaps a greater proportion of the Hypoptopomatinae and Loricariinae have already been described, as they generally live in shallower water, and were easier to sample by scientists.

As far as I understand LG applies to a whole new genus, while L and LDA apply to individual fish from one locality.