PlanetCatfish.com

Nice update Marc -

Very nice indeed!

And your Echinodorus is a whopper as well!

Your tank looks awesome Marc, the plants look really healthy. What deals with algae?

grokefish wrote:Your tank looks awesome Marc, the plants look really healthy.

Thanks all.
To be honest, the Echinodorus on the left are pretty new. As you may have seen the older ones are much deeper green (with traces of algae).

grokefish wrote: What deals with algae?

Besides a few older (thus lazier) Crossocheilus siamensis (so NOT the flying fox, which is kallopterus!), this:

Looks like, following a brief conversation with Mats whilst at Pier, I am now the owner of two (Mats thinks they could both be male, but not 100% positive) . I wasn't sure at first as wasn't sure on ID, but once we'd ascertained the cream/dark stripes and long body, it fell into place, and at at £5 each, couldn't really say no
I'm looking forward to getting over to Mats to collect them sometime over the next week or two
Martin

Well done, both of you .
Stunning fish for an even more stunning price

Martin S wrote:Looks like, following a brief conversation with Mats whilst at Pier, I am now the owner of two (Mats thinks they could both be male, but not 100% positive)

Trachelyopterichthys taeniatus

. I wasn't sure at first as wasn't sure on ID, but once we'd ascertained the cream/dark stripes and long body, it fell into place, and at at £5 each, couldn't really say no
I'm looking forward to getting over to Mats to collect them sometime over the next week or two
Martin

No - not T Taeniatus - theya re the fish that are in Sands CotW vol 3 , identified on page 24d as Epapterus dispilurus or something very close to this

Richard B wrote:No - not T Taeniatus - theya re the fish that are in Sands CotW vol 3 , identified on page 24d as Epapterus dispilurus or something very close to this

Richard, I have no page 24d? The fish on page 24 is ID-ed as A. nuchalis (I have to check that ).

@ Martin: if they are Auchenipterus or Epapterus..... simply brilliant!!!

Marc van Arc wrote:

Richard B wrote:No - not T Taeniatus - theya re the fish that are in Sands CotW vol 3 , identified on page 24d as Epapterus dispilurus or something very close to this

Richard, I have no page 24d? The fish on page 24 is ID-ed as A. nuchalis (I have to check that ).

@ Martin: if they are Auchenipterus or Epapterus..... simply brilliant!!!

Page 24d is in the supplement pack for the looseleaf edition - it is the same fish from page 24 originally identified as A Nuchalis but later re-identified by Dr Hans Franke as E Dispilurus

Richard B wrote:

Marc van Arc wrote: Page 24d is in the supplement pack for the looseleaf edition - it is the same fish from page 24 originally identified as A Nuchalis but later re-identified by Dr Hans Franke as E Dispilurus

Okay, didn't know there were supplements....
ID of Epapterus dispilurus seems alright. Best feature to look for is the tiny dorsal (hence the genus name).
Well Martin, you're going to be the first keeper

I can't remember if there was an adipose fin or not but E dispilurus is pretty close although if there is an adipose would it be pseudepapterus? The fishes in question were darker & openly freeswimming - so much so that some people thought it was a pangasiid - i'll be interested in your thoughts once you see a pic although Neil did have it labelled as an argentine woodcat if that is of any assistance?

Well, this is the first I've heard since my conversation with Mats, and assumed my tentative ID of T. taeniatus was good! Mats did say they were extremely active in the tank, which did surprise me, but looking at it does look more like an active fish than your usual woodcat.

Marc van Arc wrote:@ Martin: if they are Auchenipterus or Epapterus..... simply brilliant!!!

Marc van Arc wrote:ID of Epapterus dispilurus seems alright. Best feature to look for is the tiny dorsal (hence the genus name).
Well Martin, you're going to be the first keeper

Lets hope that i do them proud then.

Richard B wrote:I can't remember if there was an adipose fin or not but E dispilurus is pretty close although if there is an adipose would it be pseudepapterus? The fishes in question were darker & openly freeswimming - so much so that some people thought it was a pangasiid - i'll be interested in your thoughts once you see a pic although Neil did have it labelled as an argentine woodcat if that is of any assistance?

Thanks Richard - I'm going to try and organise with Mats to collect them as soon as it's convenient, but if we can get some pics of them in the mean time, that would be great - Mats - any chance you could (if it's not being too cheeky )
Thanks again
Martin

Richard B wrote:I can't remember if there was an adipose fin or not but E dispilurus is pretty close although if there is an adipose would it be pseudepapterus? The fishes in question were darker & openly freeswimming - so much so that some people thought it was a pangasiid - i'll be interested in your thoughts once you see a pic although Neil did have it labelled as an argentine woodcat if that is of any assistance?

Hi Richard,
I was referring to the dorsal instead of the adipose, but, as you say, I'd rather wait for a picture.
What I am pretty sure of, because of the common name, is that they have been at Neil's since about February or March 2009. I remember the name popping up at Neil's stocklist (without picture) and asking Neil what they were. And also if he had any auchenipterids in general, because
Jools was going to visit Pier's prior to our visit to Jools in May and he had kindly offered to take some fish home for me - provided there were any fishes that I liked. So apparently Jools missed them too. Must also have thought they were pangasiids .
For some reason I had always thought argentine woodcats were a kind of Trachelyopterus .....

This rings true Marc as Neil did say he'd had them for quite a while (many months)

Marc van Arc wrote:Jools was going to visit Pier's prior to our visit to Jools in May and he had kindly offered to take some fish home for me - provided there were any fishes that I liked. So apparently Jools missed them too. Must also have thought they were pangasiids .
For some reason I had always thought argentine woodcats were a kind of Trachelyopterus .....

If they are the fish they are, I think they were in the shop when you where there Marc? The argentine woodcat I saw last in Pier was a .

Jools

Jools wrote:

Marc van Arc wrote:Jools was going to visit Pier's prior to our visit to Jools in May and he had kindly offered to take some fish home for me - provided there were any fishes that I liked. So apparently Jools missed them too. Must also have thought they were pangasiids .
For some reason I had always thought argentine woodcats were a kind of Trachelyopterus .....

If they are the fish they are, I think they were in the shop when you where there Marc? The argentine woodcat I saw last in Pier was a

Trachelyopterus galeatus

.

Jools

It's certainly not T Galeatus

And I think the fish is not - anal fin seems wrong, but I'm not at all sure it's either.
I will try to get a photo later on today.

They seem to be doing OK - not as hyper as in the shop, but they are in a more calm environment (in the 4ft tank along with all other new fishes, with a mature filter and about 2/3 water level), where they were kept with some "silver sharks" in Pier, which may have stressed them a bit.

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:And I think the fish is not

Epapterus dispilurus

- anal fin seems wrong, but I'm not at all sure it's

Trachelyopterichthys taeniatus

either.
I will try to get a photo later on today.

Thanks Mats

MatsP wrote: They seem to be doing OK - not as hyper as in the shop, but they are in a more calm environment (in the 4ft tank along with all other new fishes, with a mature filter and about 2/3 water level), where they were kept with some "silver sharks" in Pier, which may have stressed them a bit.

--
Mats

Be interesting am sure, to find out what they (and what they look like ) - both possible fish are very different in looks! Based on their overly active nature, I think I would be right to suggest that they are not T. taeniatus, but having not kept them, I'm just going on what I perceive them to be like.
Thanks again for sorting these - very much appreciated
Martin

Jools wrote:

Marc van Arc wrote:Jools was going to visit Pier's prior to our visit to Jools in May and he had kindly offered to take some fish home for me - provided there were any fishes that I liked. So apparently Jools missed them too. Must also have thought they were pangasiids . For some reason I had always thought argentine woodcats were a kind of Trachelyopterus .....

If they are the fish they are, I think they were in the shop when you where there Marc? The argentine woodcat I saw last in Pier was a

Trachelyopterus galeatus

.

Well, now I recall why I thought they were a kind of Trachelyopterus: you've probably told me so (or Neil did, or both......)

Wrt your remark: yes, I remember them very well. They were an Auchenipterus species (not sure which one) and there were 2 things that prevented me from buying them: they were large (at least 17 cms; imo too large to be put in a small box for 24 hours or more) AND - most important - they were 45 or 50 GBP each, which was too much for my budget at the time. That's quite a difference from the 5 pounds each Mats had to pay.
But I doubt it Jools. I mean, we were at Pier's in Feb 2007..... can't imagine fish like that sitting there for almost 3 years.

Martin S wrote:Be interesting am sure, to find out what they (and what they look like ) - both possible fish are very different in looks! Based on their overly active nature, I think I would be right to suggest that they are not T. taeniatus, but having not kept them, I'm just going on what I perceive them to be like.

If they are active, they're certainly NOT T. taeniatus
Let's calmly wait for the picture (hurry, Mats!!!)

Neil said the fish had been in the shop quite some time, and they were originally something like £40 - but didn't sell. I'm pretty sure they are not T. galeatus - not unless there is a stripey variety. They don't look too far off the Tracelopterichthys taeniatus, but not a 100% match either.

These are fairly large, around 15-18 cm/6-7" - they looked smaller in the tank because the silver sharks in there were probably closer to 25-30cm.

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:Neil said the fish had been in the shop quite some time, and they were originally something like £40 - but didn't sell. I'm pretty sure they are not T. galeatus - not unless there is a stripey variety. They don't look too far off the Tracelopterichthys taeniatus, but not a 100% match either.

These are fairly large, around 15-18 cm/6-7" - they looked smaller in the tank because the silver sharks in there were probably closer to 25-30cm.

--
Mats

You mentioned around 5" in your text, but Neil said they were more like 7" when we spoke, so I was guessing on the larger size, should still be OK for my tank, and guess they must be pretty much fully grown by now if they've been there for some time. I'll have to ask Neil what he was feeding them with (if anything specific).
Martin

Marc van Arc wrote:They were an Auchenipterus species (not sure which one)

Based on the fact Mats mentioned they looked like Pangasius, how about ?
Martin

One of them came out for a sprinkling of tetra bits, so they don't seem to be very fussy eaters. The other was "resting" behind a flower pot.

I haven't checked on them since I did the morning routine feeding, so don't know what they are doing right now...

They did look a bit skinny, so may need a bit of good food.

is possible - body shape is definitely a reasonable match (but if I can't say if a fish is 5" or 7" five minutes after viewing it, how well will I remember what they look like after a few hours), but it's darker with a light stripes laterally, but that's possibly not a good a good ID key.

--
Mats

Hello to both M's,
Give us a pic and we'll know.
Regards,
another M

MatsP wrote:One of them came out for a sprinkling of tetra bits, so they don't seem to be very fussy eaters. The other was "resting" behind a flower pot.

Well, that's a good sign.

MatsP wrote:I haven't checked on them since I did the morning routine feeding, so don't know what they are doing right now...

Why not? Get back out there this minute and check on my fish

MatsP wrote:They did look a bit skinny, so may need a bit of good food.

No problem, am sure some feedings of bloodworm/mysis and if they'll take the sinking pellets I gave you will soon put some weight back on them, but if they active, it's no surpise they are skinnier than the usual typecast catfish.

MatsP wrote:

Auchenipterus nuchalis

is possible - body shape is definitely a reasonable match (but if I can't say if a fish is 5" or 7" five minutes after viewing it, how well will I remember what they look like after a few hours), but it's darker with a light stripes laterally, but that's possibly not a good a good ID key.

OK, no problem - I know I wouldn't have guessed the size right, and I'd have probaly told you something like 8-10"
The other auchenipterus is A.britskii, but there are no images of that, I just though the A nuchalis had a very pangasid look about it.
Martin

This is the old posting about the Visit to Pier.
The name A. nuchalis is mentioned in there.

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... us#p109526

Martin S wrote:The other auchenipterus is A.britskii, but there are no images of that, I just though the A nuchalis had a very pangasid look about it.

Martin, didn't I send you the PDF on Auchenipterus? That might help. And a picture would

Marc van Arc wrote: Martin, didn't I send you the PDF on Auchenipterus? That might help. And a picture would

Yes Marc thanks - I have it here as I printed them all out at work
Martin

I went out for a quick photo session (I'm baby-sitting, so can't go sit in the fish-room for hours on end to get a good photo).

I expect you may need further photos... But here's two of the better ones so far.

This is a crop of a much larger shot. More detail of the rear of the other fish... It seems to be resting much more than the one in the first photo, which is more or less constantly cruising the current area at the back of the tank. Not sure if the redness around the anal fin is anything to worry about... --
Mats