PlanetCatfish.com

I just want to confirm that this is indeed a Panaque maccus, as it was originally purchased serveral years ago as a Peckoltia vittata (!)

click on tumbnails to enlarge

Hi,

I had similar situation with my L204 (bought as
peckoltia vittata but you have Panaqolus
(Panaque) maccus.

Konrad

Looks like a P.Maccus male.

This is a typical case of "bad reverse name lookup" with double common names. One of the common names used for Panaque Maccus and Peckoltia Vittata is Clown Pleco. So if the exporter/whole-saler is using Clown Pleco, the LFS may want to add the scientific name to the display label, but ends up looking up "the other" Clown Pleco.

Your's is definitely and not . I've got both...

--
Mats

Thanks for the replies everyone.

To be fair to the lfs, I do not think it was identified when imported at the time and that has to be close to 10 years ago.


Interesting, while looking through the Pekoltia list in cat-elog I came across Peckoltia cavatica which appears to be another I had a single specimen of at the same time, also unidentified. However mine had a distinctly pale orange leading ray on the pectoral fins. Would this have been a male or from a different locality? And if the Armbruster & Werneke, 2005 refers to when they were named, what where they know as previously?

The 2005 mentioned behind the scientific name is indeed the year it was described. Prior to that, it would may have had an L-number, but it's also possible that it wasn't L-numbered.

Here's is the first page of document describing the fish. It appears as it was a previously undescribed specie.


Panaque Maccus was described in 1993, so it should have been possible for the LFS to correctly identify it, but of course that requires the LFS actually tries...

In the LFS' defence: a lot of species has been exported/imported as "Peckoltia Vittata". Literally anything that was a small Pleco, in brown-ish and striped would probably have been identified as P. Vittata at some point or another...

--
Mats