PlanetCatfish.com

I would go with my original ID and say it is L287. It matches them most closely, an importer is selling fish identified as L287, and so far there is no solid evidence that L287 don't exist. You got a darn good deal there Oscar300.
jeri

Ian M wrote:Well I am new around here. I have noticed that no one has asked the size of the fish. They look very like my small L66 which are 1.5 to 2 inch long. Just another thought.

Ian

There around the 4"plus size, so are getting close to full grown.

And PP.............there L399, (or L 287 unless proved other wise! I have had him check his list, no L287 being imported this week, but he does have a 12" and 6" L25 coming in.....Wheres my credit card )

Like I said when I got them, there were 333's and 66's in the shop at the time, and these fish did not suite either bracket, obvious that they were somthing else. Plus the importer had them seperate so he knew, but didnt put an L to them because of confusion through the fish changing hands. L333's were more expensive, L66 was cheaper, It was not a money making thing by the LFS.

Hope it clears stuff up a bit?

Oscar300,

Have a look in my albums, your fishes is not L287/L399/L400.

L333
L333?
I have labelled all pic's as L287 but they are more then one species but so far I think these L-nb are a mess.
L236/L287/L399/L400

And to mix it up even further, there are several species sold as L333 just because they look similar.

Janne

The variation between all these fish is to huge, it is nearly impossible to tell. My two dont even look like the same L any more, I think im giving up

Shame there isnt definitive ID information avalible, like scale counts etc

Hi,

jellyfish wrote:I would go with my original ID and say it is L287. It matches them most closely, an importer is selling fish identified as L287, and so far there is no solid evidence that L287 don't exist. You got a darn good deal there Oscar300.
jeri

once again:
the fish sold as L 287 got new L-Numbers, L 399 and L 400 (two types).
Is this so difficult? ;)

There are many problems to differ between L 66, L 333, L 399, L 400 - because thes L´s have great variations in coloration.

Please note:
a L-number is not automatically a species, L-number system aimes to name new imported plecos, it´s no species description, probably some different L´s (from different origin, with different coloration) will be the same species, when described once.

So some questions for naming L´s one can´t answer.

Janne wrote:Oscar300,

Have a look in my albums, your fishes is not L287/L399/L400.

L333
L333?
I have labelled all pic's as L287 but they are more then one species but so far I think these L-nb are a mess.
L236/L287/L399/L400

And to mix it up even further, there are several species sold as L333 just because they look similar.

Janne

Well this is turning into a right saga.
I always understood the L number system was in place to make this plec keeping exercise easy to understand.
Now we have Janne stating there are several species sold as L333. I guess we have to partly depend on exporters catching and dispatching the correct fish but who puts these L numbers in place? If we are going to have multiple species covered by one L number we might as well call them all L46 Zebra Plecs and be done with it.
In the early days it seemed if a Pleco had a slight difference it got a new L number-now its bundle them all in to this L number because it looks the same-well it doesnt but we will try and pass them off as them.
I am really disappointed with the numbering system as I feel it is letting the every day aquarist down.

PP

Hi,

powerfulpumpkins wrote:

I am really disappointed with the numbering system as I feel it is letting the every day aquarist down.

PP

ok - then buy your plecos in future again as "queen x" and "tiger y", "z-zebra" and so on.

I am really disappointed - because reading this thread I recognize, how many of you do not realize the sense, the intention of the l-number system. What it can do and what not.

A L-number never can´t be a scientific species description, and is it the fault of the l-number system, if fish are miscalled by dealers/exporters/aquarists?
This is not a L-number problem - this problem also is evident in described species.
The "real problem" is the evolution and the enormous number of similar species and variations of catfish (and other species) in neotropical america - and we even don´t know, what to call "species".

I am really disappointed - because reading this thread I recognize, how many of you do not realize the sense, the intention of the l-number system. What it can do and what not.

A L-number never can´t be a scientific species description, and is it the fault of the l-number system, if fish are miscalled by dealers/exporters/aquarists?
This is not a L-number problem - this problem also is evident in described species.
The "real problem" is the evolution and the enormous number of similar species and variations of catfish (and other species) in neotropical america - and we even don´t know, what to call "species".

yes exactly



i have Tiger-Pleco for sale , and I can sell as wass I want .
looks like l66(Tiger Pleco) however they cost like l236 (Tiger Pleco) <= i am joking



lg Udo

PP, there's a few "solutions" to the L-number "problem":
1. No-one is allowed to import/export fish that hasn't got a full scientific description yet.
2. No-one gets to import/export fish that hasn't been CLEARLY identified as a particular L-number (or C-number or whatever else).
3. The current stituation: We live with the fact that SOME fish aren't easily classified into L-number X or L-number Y.
4. Exporters and importers let their imagination name the fish.

Unfortnatly, 1 is going to be pretty darn difficult to enforce, never mind the fact that we wouldn't have half of the Hypancistrus, Ancistrus and Peckoltia species that are currently available in the trade.

2 isn't going to be much easier than 1, as enforcing it would be pretty difficult.

I think 3 is better than 4.

Remember that many of the people involved in the capture of these fish aren't highly educated ichtyologoists, they are uneducated fishermen that catch the fish live to make a living. Further down the "river" they are collected into some sort of "wholesaler" that classifies the fish - most of the time, we'd be lucky if he's got an Aqualog book to go by. If the fish aren't distinctly different in looks, then they aren't going to be differentiated at this point - unless there's a lot money to be made by identifying L400 vs L333 that look almost identical [1], there's going to be little effort made to identify which is which. So they may originate from different areas, but if you got half a box of one, and half a box of the other and an order comes in for a full box, would you expect the "wholesaler" to wait for another lot of whatever was ordered to come in.

Further, several L-numbers are, when scientists analyze the fish, often combined into one specie. Not to mention that Aqualog publishes a new L-number for something that they have ALREADY published...

Yes, the situation today is a mess, but it's a much better mess than it used to be before L-numbers came into place. At least, now there's a book with a pictures of almost all L-numbers... And many of them are UNIQUE-looking. A few aren't... If we didn't have a book containing L400 and L399 as well as L333, I don't think this discussion would even happen. [Although there are cases wehere it'd certainly hepp, like the "Jurupari" mess...]

[1] And even then, can you trust the person doing the identification to be HONEST?

--
Mats

A L-number never can´t be a scientific species description, and is it the fault of the l-number system, if fish are miscalled by dealers/exporters/aquarists?

No, but the Aqualog still have some faults and some of them are made intentional...like using the same pictures for several L-nb just reversed the photo. So, if the ordinary aquarist dont discover these...the aqualog contribute to the confusing in the L-nb system...and as many exporters are using the aqualog as a reference book there will be some faults made...and most aquarist's use the aqaulog for indentification.
Even for this...the aqualog has many good reference pictures that Datz lacks.

The L-nb system really makes all much easier but like Walter said;
The "real problem" is the evolution and the enormous number of similar species and variations of catfish (and other species) in neotropical america - and we even don´t know, what to call "species".

So even all the aquarist's have to take some responsibility and treat species they dont are absolutely sure is the right L-nb and treat them like they are without a L-nb, dont mix them with other similar species thinking they are the same.
With time this will hopefully be cleared and we will know what is what and under that time we need to have some patience.

Janne

Hi Janne,

Janne wrote: No, but the Aqualog still have some faults

but, as you already mentioned, the Aqualog has never been an official reference.. so the mistake is at Aqualog.

If you want more pics (original pics) of each L-Number, you could buy the new Bede "Mini-Atlas L-Welse" (I know, buy, buy, buy... ;) ).

These hypancistrus species are very difficult to distinguish. As janne said, there are tons of species sold as L333 that are not. There is easily 10 variants that are confused very easily as L066 and L333. Yann and Janne identified mine as L066, but one of my females has the color of yours, Oscar. In my opinion, if you want to breed fish like these that are easily mistaken, by the fish all at once, instead of one at a time, as it is more likely that the fish are the same if you purchase them at the same time.

Well I think the LFS I got my pleco which COULD be like Oscar300's had the right idea-it was labeled STRIPEY PLEC no L number just common easy to understand Stripey Plec.
I dont expect those that catch the Plecos to be able to grade fish into the correct L number but I am sure those that import them know what they have-or they should do because they charge enough for them.
It seems this L number list is a minefield- can there ever be a satisfactory conclusion?

PP

Hi,

powerfulpumpkins wrote: I am sure those that import them know what they have

no.

How should they know, if they depend on the information of the exporter, and the exporter depends on information of dealers, fishermen, ...


Importers mostly order from a stock of an exporter, and only few German importers (others I don´t know) have own fishermen (e.g. in South America), and these fishermen can only collect a small part of the fish imported to us.

It seems this L number list is a minefield- can there ever be a satisfactory conclusion?

The L-number system works fine for the other 95% of the "species" shown, so yes, I think it provides a valuable reference point. I highlight that, because that's what the system is, a reference point only. A probem occurs when there are several very similar highly variable "species" from one small area.

The satisfactory conclusion is when the fish is described by a scientist, and given a latin name. When most papers are written nowadays, there will be a key to similar species, so they can be identified from their congeners.

Well I think the LFS had the right idea-it was labeled STRIPEY PLEC no L number just common easy to understand Stripey Plec.

The problem with common names, is that it gives you zero information about the fish, apart from what it looks like. When the fish is called L333, L399 or L400, you know that it is from the Xingu, so you immediately know what water it likes, and where to narrow the search down to.

Patterns and colouration change as the fish grows, and vary within the species. Only a study of these fishes DNA is likely to tell us whether they are the same species or not.

If you want to play it as safe as possible, then follow laurab5's advice and buy all the fish at once from the same batch.

Walter I was suggesting the importer should know what the fish they sell are because opperating out of Europe or the US etc they have access to many books and the internet to confirm fish species. I dont blame fishermen and exporters as areas of South America are still developing so such fishermen will not have access to such resources.
Many L numbers sell for a high price so importers should put some effort into providing the end customer with something they can depend on. If it doesnt look like what is general considered to be a good example of a species it shouldnt be sold as such- thats when we get into the problem we are currently covering- species get so mixed up people no longer know whats right and whats wrong. Such misinformation helps nobody.
Racoll yes I know calling my unknown stripey plec a stripey plec doesnt help people understand its needs-but it would be easily solved calling it a Xingu Stripey Plec.
I just hope poor old Oscar300 who started the thread knows what fish he has and has success breeding them as they are stunning fish.

PP

Hi,

powerfulpumpkins wrote:Walter I was suggesting the importer should know what the fish they sell are because opperating out of Europe or the US etc they have access to many books and the internet to confirm fish species.

they cannot have more books or information, than we have.

And even André (Werner) is not always sure, which fish they have got from Southamerica.

It´s an impossible thing you demand.

but it would be easily solved calling it a Xingu Stripey Plec.

Ah, but there's more than one stripey plec from the Xingu!

So when someone (like André ) writes a book, do they just call them.....

"Xingu Stripey Plec 1", "Xingu Stripey Plec 2", "Xingu Stripey Plec 3", "Xingu Stripey Plec 4", "Xingu Stripey Plec 5" and so on.

Or do they call them "Xingu Stripey Plec", "Xingu Stripey Plec with slightly wider stripes than Xingu Stripey Plec 1" and "Xingu Stripey Plec like Xingu Stripey Plec 1, but with a larger dorsal fin".

I'm being facetious I know, but you see the problem with that method.

The L-number system is a simple, easy to understand, quick reference that is easily updated. It also does not deteriorate with translation into different languages, as a descriptive version would.

The main problem is that NOBODY really knows how to differentiate some of these fish until they are scientifically described. And even then it's not final!

We all want to know as much about our fish as possible, but surely finding out what we are keeping is part of the mystery and fun of the plec hobby.

Like Andre said, some import companies may have a few fishermen that can collect fish for them, but certainly not enough to carry the load of demands and order.

The normal way, fishermen caught fishes, but they won't always tell you the exact location, especially if the fish is very rare and beautiful. If too many other fishermen go there and collect them, the prices will go down and so will the monthly income, when you know the price they are paid for a few fish, you understand them why they are not really going to give you the exact location. Especially since many of these fishermen are already full of debt, contracting while trying to catch our future tank hosts

The exporter will name these under the location they had received. Also when collected and all mixed up, someone, usually an employee, check each fish and reparts them as what he believes they are...

I saw such thing while visiting Turkys in Manaus, the guy was checking a group of Cory all mixte up in a box, 6-8 empty boxes were beside for him to seperate each species or what he would think as possible spieces... he wasn't using any book for that, he doesn't have the time for that... he puts every similar fish together and that's it...

You can't blame the system... like every system it has its ups and downs! But before the species being described it is by far the best system with the less space for error...at least here, we can't be responsible for what is happening there and they are doing their best to satisfy the demand.

The thing I like about the L-code is even if a species is described, you could still (if everything is correct) keep a geographical strain of a species!
Let me explain: Take for exemple Peckoltia sabaji: you could end up with a group of these with a specimen for the Rio do Pará, another from Venezuela and finally one from Guyana, even if they are similar looking each has its own genetic specicity that makes him unique, but they would more unique between each other as coming from totally different region of South America.

If some of you are into Cichlids you will understand, long before now, cichlids fan were keeping their fish without much caring of their geographical origin, depending of the catching locality, they would show slightly differences, but no one would care!!! Since then things have really change, passionate people do care about the river their fish are coming, and do their best not to mix up several geographical variation of a same species...they are trying to keep the strain as pure as possible!!!

Such things are also being seen with other families (killies and stuff)

This is the biggest thing missing in the catfish world, people mixed up several look alike fish...with the L and C code we can arrive keeping a good strain... certainly some of these species of tht L66 group will turn out to be the same once someone decided to described them, but we could still be keeping geographical population of them.

Hope I made my view clear in this long post...
Regarding Oscar fish, yes the yellow color made me hesitated for L333, but I think the body shape is totally off. Still I totally agree with Janne while he said that several species are being imported under that name...that is totally true... I even wonder if both of Oscar fish might be the same L-number, the second look more closely realted to L333 than the first one...
One thing is sure this group is real mess, and as it is hard for us to deferenciate them between each other, you can imagine how are it is for the fishermen and exporters!!

My 2 long cents
Cheers
Yann

I even wonder if both of Oscar fish might be the same L-number, the second look more closely realted to L333 than the first one...

That was my feeling too. The second fish looks more elongated, more dorsally compressed, and with more of a broken pattern.

Looking at aqualog, plec 1 looks very similar to the L066 pictured in the top left of page 72.

Plec 2 looks most like L333 on the bottom right of page 215.

I am looking at the characteristics described above, and the shape of the caudal fin.

In the L333, it seems to be less lyrate with no filament. Also the caudal peduncle seems to be proportionally narrower in the L066.

This I think I can see in these fish, although more pics would help.

racoll wrote:Looking at aqualog, plec 1 looks very similar to the L066 pictured in the top left of page 72.

Plec 2 looks most like L333 on the bottom right of page 215.

I am looking at the characteristics described above, and the shape of the caudal fin.

In the L333, it seems to be less lyrate with no filament. Also the caudal peduncle seems to be proportionally narrower in the L066.

This I think I can see in these fish, although more pics would help.

Good call, I belive the fish are different. Plec 1 is L066 and plec 2 is L399. Although they came in the same box, in the same shipment, time will tell. This thread has helped a few amature plec keepers (me ) with understanding the L number system, thanks is given to everyone who has contributed.

In time im sure my fish will change ID again, the tails are the bit thats bugging me the most, such shape compared to L66, must get more pics, shy buggers

Exactly Yann, cichlids are the same way, especially Cynotilapia Afra and Metriaclima Zebra. There are many that look the same, but not all. Alot of Hypancistrus look like L066, L333, L399, L400. But some are easily distiguishable, like L046, L028, L260 in most cases.

There is a pair of L287 for sale right now on Aquabid - it's another picture to compare if nothing else.
http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/auction/ ... 1139630267