PlanetCatfish.com

These fish are both Hypancistrus zebra if we are to consider the species description although they appear as different L numbers. What is the common feeling as to the speciation of these. Are they geographically distinct or are they actual seperate species. I am only wondering as I am fortunate enough to have a male 46 and have recently aquired a group (5 ) 173 which are currently houses in seperate tanks. Although I am not a believer in cross breeding, from an evolutionary point of view it is unlikely that these are likely to be different species and at best are branched from a common lineage. I was wanting some opinions on introducing them together with the view to breeding. Any opinions would be valued

If you use Datz as referense is L173 the same species as L46, if you use the Aqualog I would not feel so sure they are the same species...I mean that you cant be sure the exporters have labelled them right...any pic's?

Janne

I will try to get some, I will have to borrow a digital camera better than mine, I have the aqualog book and have looked extensively at the fish would photo references be any help. When I studied ecology at uni we always considered a species to be a group of animals which can reproduce and produce viable offspring, I would assume this to be the same in fish. By crossing thse and breeding the offspring maybe the answer can be found????

That is the definition for mate-recognized species, yes, but is, IMO, not applicable to the general term "species". Then again, I'm not exactly a scientist myself.

eupterus wrote:I will try to get some, I will have to borrow a digital camera better than mine, I have the aqualog book and have looked extensively at the fish would photo references be any help. When I studied ecology at uni we always considered a species to be a group of animals which can reproduce and produce viable offspring, I would assume this to be the same in fish. By crossing thse and breeding the offspring maybe the answer can be found????

Not quite true. There's a link between reproducing viable off-spring and species, but only in the opposite sense, that if they are NOT able to reproduce viable offspring, then they are NOT the same specie. But that's not the same as saying that a creature that produces viable offspring with some other creature is definitely the same specie. There are many examples of different species that will produce viable offspring, not just in fish, but also in many other types of animals. I did a search a while back and found a list of about 15-20 well-known animals that can form offspring with other species, and several of them where also able to reproduce afterwards.

This thread has some discussion on this subject. [Link starts in the middle of the subject, as there's a lot of discussion in various directions].

--
Mats

I am not as upto date as I would like to be, my degree was a fair few years ago but I always used the species definition that I mentioned previously and I cant find any fertile interspecific breeding. This is why the liger has never been accepted as a species, all offspring have been infertile. The discussion on speciation could go on forever, you only have to look at the Mbuna and utaka from malawi. Back to my original thread... any thoughts on the introduction of my 46 with my 173's.

As stated earlier, the L173 and L46 _may_ be the same specie, or it may be NOT the same specie, depending whose L173 definition you use. Aqualog apparently has a different fish for L173 than DATZ. That's of course assuming that the exporter actually identifies the fish correctly.

A photo would help those here that can identify whether your L173 are actually Hypancistrus Zebra, or not.

[Next question is of course if you actually want to cross-breed even the same specie with different "look". I think Janne for instance is of the opinion that "if the fish look noticably different, they aren't supposed to be bred together"].

--
Mats

While the liger is an excellent example of two species different enough not to produce fertile offspring, there are many that can.

The edible frog Rana kl. esculenta occurs naturally as a hybrid between the pool frog Rana lessonae and the marsh frog Rana ridibunda. They are able to maintain populations without either of the parent species.

This is due to both diploid and triploid frogs being present in the population.

This doesn't make the edible frog a new species yet, but it does blur the lines.

The 173 s that I have obtained are very similar to the 46s if you have the aqualog book, mine are closest to the page 133 three down left hand side. In appearance they are v similar to my 46 I only assume that they are not due to price and availability. I dont like the Idea of hybridization myself but the fish are so similar and the whole speciation debate on hypancistrus is a tough one.

Has anyone got any photos to point out these differences?

eupterus wrote:The 173 s that I have obtained are very similar to the 46s if you have the aqualog book, mine are closest to the page 133 three down left hand side. In appearance they are v similar to my 46 I only assume that they are not due to price and availability. I dont like the Idea of hybridization myself but the fish are so similar and the whole speciation debate on hypancistrus is a tough one.

According to Janne's post (second item in this thread) the L173 in Aqualog IS NOT the same specie.

Janne wrote:if you use the Aqualog I would not feel so sure they are the same species...

So I wouldn't cross those with the L46.

--
Mats

Hi,

the newest DATZ (German aquaristik magazine) says, that it was a misstake that L173 could be the same species as L46.

Juvenile L173 look very similar to L46, but they get taller as L46 and the colour gets darker.

The newest official picture of L173 is this one:

http://l-welse.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=696

Sven

The two would be different species if they are reproductively isolated (do not cross-breed) in the wild. Hybridisation in captivity doesn't mean much in this respect. The key question really is whether they co-occur in the wild. If they are from seperate populations I wouldn't cross them, whether they are considered the same species or not.

Sven T. wrote:Hi,

the newest DATZ (German aquaristik magazine) says, that it was a misstake that L173 could be the same species as L46.

Juvenile L173 look very similar to L46, but they get taller as L46 and the colour gets darker.

The newest official picture of L173 is this one:

http://l-welse.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=696

Sven

Woah, if that's what a L173 looks like, you can say they are similar, but they are far from the same. I can tell it's not a Zebra without even taking a second look. Sorry, but I would be quite disgusted if they where crossed with the L46.

Really good article by Ingo on Hypancistrus in the last issue of Amazonas magazine (Nov/Dec 2005). 13 pages of text and 41 photos. Certainly a must have reference for Hypancistrus fanatics.
-Shane

Thanks for all your replies, it is always good to recieve more opinions. As mentioned previously I personally am againsth the idea of hybridisation. My initial question was are they different species to start with. Both come from the Rio Xingu area of the amazon as does L098 which again is very similar. As an evolutionary biologist is is unlikely that two or in this case three species wopuld evolve to be so similar. (046 098 and 173) I have to admit that my 173 are very young at about 2 inches and as yet are fairly brighly coloured. From the posts here I should expect them to fade. I am certainly beginning to feel that crossing these species is not a good idea however i am also of the opinion that there is a common lineage for all three. Also on a timescale these are extremely closely related. Is anyone aware of any genome work on the hypancistrus. I am of the belief that these are phenotypes of the same species which are on the initial stages of geographic isolation and thus leading toward isolation and speciation. Maybe i am wrong. The fact that Datz and Aqualog appear to have a distinct disagreement on the speciation tells me that this is far from clear cut. Any thoughts

L46 and L98 are definitely the same specie.

L173 _MAY_ be the same specie.

But there's more. There are several species of fish that have differnet geographical variations within the same specie. To be a good breeder, we should not cross-breed those different variations, even though they are the same specie [of course, depending on the view of the person, one could argue that they shouldn't even be the same specie in some cases]. Typical example would be that there are two different patterns for , one has slightly larger spots, the other one slightly smaller. Should we find a way to breed pim-pictus, it would be advisable to NOT cross the small-spot with the larger-spot variation.

So, never mind L173 being the same or a different specie, it's definitely a different variation.

That's my view... Others may differ...

--
Mats

I have written an article on Hypancistrus zebra, 41 pages and 43 pics..but it is in Norwegian..so english yet..maybe in time...

How about the eyes of hypancistrus?

All of my L46 have the same eye color, don't think they related, cos i bought zebras 3 times in a period of two years, from seperate sellers..all of them WC, and in different sizes.



Could the color of the eyes be a clue?
Maybe they are not the same, because of the eyes...or am i way off base here?

Hi,

Zebrapl3co wrote:

Sven T. wrote:Hi,

the newest DATZ (German aquaristik magazine) says, that it was a misstake that L173 could be the same species as L46.

Juvenile L173 look very similar to L46, but they get taller as L46 and the colour gets darker.

The newest official picture of L173 is this one:

http://l-welse.com/gallery/displayimage.php?imageid=696

Sven

Woah, if that's what a L173 looks like, you can say they are similar, but they are far from the same. I can tell it's not a Zebra without even taking a second look. Sorry, but I would be quite disgusted if they where crossed with the L46.

Sven forgot to point at the far longer caudal filaments of L 173 compared to L 46.

Citation from http://www.datz.de:
http://www.datz.de/GHIZ2DH6oAX6aEIZ2DHA ... 8FEF1A3FF7

L 173 (Datz 8/1994); Fundort: Rio Xingu bei Belo Monte, Pará, Brasilien; â??Zebra Differenteâ??.

L 173 ist eine weitere Besonderheit aus dem â??Hypancistrus-Eldoradoâ?? Belo Monte am Rio Xingu. Bei den Vorbereitungen für das Datz-Sonderheft â??Alle L-Nummernâ?? haben wir aufgrund von Seidels Vermutung (2000) und der Tatsache, dass nach der ursprünglichen Vorstellung nie wieder ein derart gefärbtes Exemplar importiert worden war, L 173 als H.-zebra-Farbvariante angesehen. Umso gröÃ?er ist unsere Ã?berraschung gewesen, als Mitte 2004 mehrere Exemplare von L 173 in Importsendungen aufgetaucht sind.

Besonders juvenile und subadulte L 173 erinnern vom Farbkleid her noch sehr stark an H. zebra, so dass man tatsächlich annehmen könnte, es handele sich um abweichend gefärbte Zebraharnischwelse. Im Vergleich
zu L 46 weisen adulte L 173 jedoch weitaus länger ausgezogene äu�ere Caudalstrahlen auf, und sie erreichen mit zwölf Zentimetern auch eine deutlich grö�ere Gesamtlänge.

And a translation for our English-speaking friends:

L 173 is another speciality from "Hypancistrus-Eldorado" Belo Monte on Rio Xingu. In preparation for Datz-Sonderheft "L-Numbers" we thought L 173 to be a variation of Hypancistrus zebra, because of Seidels speculation (2000) and the fact, that never again a such specially colored specimen has been imported. To our big surprise midyear 2004 several specimen of L 173 appeared in imports.

Especially the coloration of juvenil and subadult L 173 reminds of H. zebra, so that one could assume, they are miscolored H. zebra. But in comparison to L 46, adult L 173 show far longer outer rays of the caudal fin and achieve with 12 cm a clearly bigger total-length.

To me, L 173 is more similar to L 399 than to Hypancistrus zebra.