PlanetCatfish.com

i agree its hypan, which one I have no clue..

I am no longer sticking with oiligancistrus..........

I was able to collect 5 of these Parotocinclus from several orders of P. jumbo my LFS received over time and I believe this is similar to those nv had. You can see how they are similar but still definitely a Parotocinclus very different from this Hypancistrus.

I don't see any reason why that fish couldn't be a well conditioned L201. It doesn't appear even extraordinarily large for either 201 or contradens. Remember that the catelog is in standard length, which doesn't include the caudal.

i ran into the seller at the OcA extrav today. He said its a L082.

No, it isn't.

No... differs greatly in body shape to your fish.

Definitely not L082,definitely Hypancistrus contradens.

grokefish wrote:I know what it is,I know what it is!!!!!

Just cant remember, will got back in a mo....

Edit:

ancistrini sp(l082)

[Mod edit: Replace link with clog-tags to the species in the link... --Mats]

In your face suckers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I'll bet every pleco I have that yours is NOT L082. It's a hypancistrus - either contradens or L201. I'm voting for a well conditioned L201. Can't say it forcefully enough - NOT L082

he said he only had L082 and LDA 31. when he saw the pics, he said 082 opal spot instantly.

This wouldn't be the first time a black/white fish was mislabeled. The worst I saw was a 8" l240 sold as lda33. Your fish sold as l82 would be right up there. I hope you didn't pay 82 prices - 82 is worth about 5-20x what an l201 is, depending on where you shop.

Ok Dr Pleco don't get me wrong here I'm not attacking your knowledge here and I'm not saying you are wrong either but you need to point out to this fella the reasoning behind your statement not just bet your fish against it.

I kept a colony of opal plecs for quite some time and that is what I immediately saw it as.
I have also had which was my second guess,which I retracted because clearly the adipose fin is not attached to the dorsal by a membrane and

Now you could be quite correct but please qualify your answer.

It's hard to qualify but in my mind it's very obviously not l82. The fish is short and compact with small spots vs long and slender with larger spots. The caudal peduncle is also thick in l82, which isn't represented with this fish. The interopocular odentodes are also very exaggerated in this fish, as it would be in a 3" hypancistrus and not in a 3" l82. L82 is also very rare and expensive and i haven't ever met anyone who bought one wihout knowing exactly what it was, mostly because they are so rare and expensive. L82 never comes in as an accidental contaminant because they're from deep water, are very valuable, and exporters know what they are. I hope that helps.

I am 100% with Drpleco on this. Let me explain why...I have kept L201, Hypancistrus contradens, and L082 and I can say with certainty that there is no mistaking them with one another. First off L082 are banned and also very expensive, even before the ban they were one of the most expensive species you could buy. What is happening is a simple case of misidentification, the fisherman/exporter says 'this looks like this one and also like this one-which one can I get more money for?' This has happened a couple of times here in the states. When the exporter in Colombia has a fish labeled as L082 you can bet your entire pleco collection that it is Hypancistrus contradens. I am not sure how much louder Drpleco or myself can say it, but from the photos provided the fish in question is definitely, unequivocally, 110% Hypancistrus contradens. And I would be curious to know what the price tag was on the fish in question...

There's no way this fish is L082 .

dconnors wrote:I am not sure how much louder Drpleco or myself can say it, but from the photos provided the fish in question is definitely, unequivocally, 110% Hypancistrus contradens.

Agreed!

Here is some justification:

1. Eyes are too small for L082
2. The caudal peduncle is too thin for L082
3. The dorsal fin is too large for L082
4. The fish is not compressed or cylindrical enough for L082

Here are some similar photos to illustrate:

L082


H. contradens


jabones' fish

Thank you Racoli! I think your photos show much better what Drpleco and myself were trying to say!

I agree this is very difficult to determine the right species. but this is important to stop improper sales. I do not think the seller miss informed me intentionally, but I also think my fish is plumper than a l82. Which presents a big problem do remember buying these fishes as an 8 number. To make sense I just remember 8 in the number; if I knew more it would be a moot subject. Please lets figure this out.

jabones wrote:he said he only had L082 and LDA 31. when he saw the pics, he said 082 opal spot instantly.

Are you guys sure its not a very pretty LDA31? I must say I haven't seen a LDA31 with spots like that but it is a highly variable species and younger fish have better patterns than the older ones. The orange colored dots also would fit.

jabones wrote:I agree this is very difficult to determine the right species.

It's not when you have good photos, but you know what's really hard? Getting good photos!

jabones wrote:I do not think the seller miss informed me intentionally,

Not usually a problem what it's sold as, unless you pay triple the price of course!

jabones wrote:Are you guys sure its not a very pretty LDA31?

I am. It's not a . They have a quite distinctive shape.

Hello Jabones,

If you're still not convinced what this species is, you need to make a picture of the mouth. That is the only way to solve this case.
I think you'll find a Hypancistrus mouth.

Here are pictures of the different called pleco's:

L082 mouth:


L142 mouth:


Hypancistrus mouth:

Thanks for clearing that up.
That pretty much sums up that it ISN'T an Opal but it still doesn't identify that it is hypancistrus contradens.
I was aware that it wasn't l082 but just wanted to rattle some cages to get the information above into the thread.

What I am trying to make a point of here is that often within 'Whats my catfish' threads someone asks.

'whats my catfish'

and others answer

'it is suchandsuch'

Without any qualification of why it is that species.

This way no-one learns anything.
By qualifying the reasoning behind the answer we all learn something.
To you it may be obvious what it is but to the questioner it may not be.
How will they learn to identify others of the same species?
I bet there are plenty of keepers out there trying to breed black/white spotted fish in a group that are not of a single species.
Years ago when I set about collecting as many 'peppermint plecs' as I could, I was after Parancistrus nudiventris but ended up with parancistrus nudiventris, oligancistrus and L082 (opal plecs).
I obviously learned how to determine between the three eventually but if I had not investigated and found how to determine between them I could have been oblivious to the fact forever.
By pointing out to non ichthyologists and beginners how to determine what the species is we can all help catfish keepers identify themselves what they are looking at in the LFS, where PC is not present, and help the bigger picture of more chance of these fish being bred in captivity.

Or something.

Matt, I completely agree. Similarly, if someone says "No, it's not X, I think it's Y", that definitely should be detailed as to what - even if it's "the body shape is wrong" rather than "It has got too broad a snout, and the caudal peduncle is not thick enough".

But I also agree with Racoll, sometimes (if you are used to the fish and the picture is good), you can just look at it and say "It's <something>", where someone else will say "How do you know?" and you can't put your finger on a few details - it's just a number of things that you sort of recognise without even thinking about it.

--
Mats

This way no-one learns anything.
By qualifying the reasoning behind the answer we all learn something.
To you it may be obvious what it is but to the questioner it may not be.
How will they learn to identify others of the same species?
I bet there are plenty of keepers out there trying to breed black/white spotted fish in a group that are not of a single species.
By pointing out to non ichthyologists and beginners how to determine what the species is we can all help catfish keepers identify themselves what they are looking at in the LFS, where PC is not present, and help the bigger picture of more chance of these fish being bred in captivity.

Point well made.

I guess people are a bit lazy though, as it takes much longer to make a post when you have to dig through photos and check in books etc.

I think it will be a good idea indeed, if everyone would tell him or her reasons for determine the species. Then the reasons are interesting for everyone.

I agree when we respond to the "what is my catfish" posts and offer our perception of what it is we should also explain our reasons as specifically as we can but it is definitely a two street.
The poster should explain what information other than that provided by the seller leads them to believe it is species "X" but responders often have kept so many species that they do not need to research more than their memories to know the fish is not what it was sold as and is like this or that species. More experienced people ought to provide some objective basis and at least a lead to what key or species profile that helps back up their assertions.

The longer and deeper one has been involved with a group of fish the less one relies on the references but hobbyists much newer to keeping a group of fish have no way of knowing how much a responder is relying on first hand experience.
I am a hobbyist/expert on wild Discus. There are only 3 species in the genus Symphysodon yet controversy is rampant in the Discus part of the hobby.
There are perhaps 1000's of Loricariiadae so it is no wonder there can be so many different opinions.
For what it's worth I am 2 years short of reaching the half a century mark of fish keeping and breeding. I came over to the "dark side", fancy small plecos, only about 6 years ago because I had stopped learning very much about the fish I had spent so many years on, mainly Discus, Apistogramma, Characins, Anabantoids and Killiefish. Time to try hatching out any eggs I may have in one of the 6 bags of peat I have collected. Each contains 2 to 3 weeks of spawning from one pair of Simpsonichthys boitonei. You never know until you add the water whether or not you have been successful but this species only makes you wait about 2-1/2 to 3 months before you get to find out if you are successful of not.

Apistomaster wrote:specifically as we can but it is definitely a two street.

Indeed - good photos help a lot.

When provided with under water, well lit, close up, lateral and ventral photos, the forum can provide an accurate ID of most loricariid species within 12 hours, especially if it's a common enough one.

For tricky ones like brown and some , it is a bit harder though.

Samplec wrote:

I think it will be a good idea indeed, if everyone would tell him or her reasons for determine the species. Then the reasons are interesting for everyone.

That's the only reason most of us read this section - to learn - and boy do we appreciate the fab explanations and readable examples.
Keep it up

finally got around to doing some moving of fish, and here's a pic of the mouth.