PlanetCatfish.com

Armbruster, J W. 2005. The loricariid catfish genus Lasiancistrus with description of two new species. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 549â??570.

Bichuette, M. E., and E. Trajano. 2005. A new cave species of Rhamdia Bleeker, 1858 (Siluriformes: Heptapteridae) from Serra do Ramalho, northeastern Brazil, middle São Francisco River basin, with notes on ecology and behavior. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 587â??596.

Britto, M R., F. C. T. Lima and A. C. A. Santos. 2005. A new Aspidoras (Siluriformes: Callichthyidae) from rio Paraguaçu basin, Chapada Diamantina, Bahia, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 473â??480

Britto M R., and R. E. Reis. 2005. A new Scleromystax species (Siluriformes: Callichthyidae) from coastal rivers of Southern Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 481â??488

Datovo, A., and M I Landim. 2005. Ituglanis macunaima, a new catfish from rio Araguaia basin, Brazil (Siluriformes, Trichomycteridae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 455â??464.

Fisch-Muller, S, A R. Cardoso, J F. P. da Silva and V A. Bertaco. 2005. Two new Amazonian species of armored catfishes (Siluriformes: Loricariidae): Ancistrus verecundus and Ancistrus parecis. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 525â??532

Garavello, J C. 2005. Revision of genus Steindachneridion Eigenmann & Eigenmann, 1919 (Ostariophysi, Siluriformes, Pimelodidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 607â??624.

Gauger M. F. W., and P A Buckup. 2005. Two new species of Hypoptopomatinae with accessory teeth from the rio Paraíba do Sul basin (Teleostei, Siluriformes, Loricariidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 509â??518.

Lundberg, J G. 2005. Brachyplatystoma promagdalena n. sp., a fossil goliath catfish (Siluriformes: Pimelodidae) from the Miocene of Colombia, South America. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 597â??606.

Provenzano R., F, A Machado-Allison, B Chernoff, P Willink and P Petry. 2005. Harttia merevari a new species of catfish (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from Venezuela Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 519â??524.

Rapp Py-Daniel, L. H., J Zuanon. 2005. Description of a new species of Parancistrus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the rio Xingu, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 571â??578.

Ribeiro, A C., M Carvalho, and A. L. A. Melo. 2005. Description and relationships of Otothyropsis marapoama, a new genus and species of Hypoptopomatine catfish (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from rio Tietê basin, southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 489â??498

Sabaj, M H. 2005. Taxonomic assessment of Leptodoras (Siluriformes: Doradidae) with descriptions of three new species. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 637â??678.

Shibatta, O. A, and R. C Benine. 2005. A new species of Microglanis Eigenmann, 1912 (Siluriformes: Pseudopimelodidae) from upper rio Paraná basin, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 579â??586.

Sousa L. M. de, and L. H. Rapp Py-Daniel. 2005. Description of two new species of Physopyxis Cope, 1871 and redescription of P. lyra (Siluriformes: Doradidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 625â??636.

Takako, A. K., C. Oliveira, and O. T. Oyakawa. 2005. Revision of the genus Pseudotocinclus (Loricariidae: Hypoptopomatinae), with the description of two new species. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 499â??508.

Werneke, D C., J. W. Armbruster, N K. Lujan, and D C. Taphorn. 2005. Hemiancistrus guahiborum, a new suckermouth armored catfish from Southern Venezuela (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) . Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 543â??548.

Werneke, D. C., M. H. Sabaj, N K. Lujan, and J W. Armbruster. 2005. Baryancistrus demantoides and Hemiancistrus subviridis, two new uniquely colored species of loricariids from Venezuela (Siluriformes: Loricariidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 533â??542.

Wosiacki, W. B., and O. T. Oyakawa. 2005. Two new species of catfish genus Trichomycterus (Siluriformes - Trichomycteridae) from the rio Ribeira de Iguape Basin, Southeastern Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 465â??472.

On his site Armbruster mentions the upcoming description of "The Green Phantom Pleco", L-200, stating that there are actually 2 species involved. Is this the description then?

Werneke, D. C., M. H. Sabaj, N K. Lujan, and J W. Armbruster. 2005. Baryancistrus demantoides and Hemiancistrus subviridis, two new uniquely colored species of loricariids from Venezuela (Siluriformes: Loricariidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 533â??542.

HaakonH wrote:On his site Armbruster mentions the upcoming description of "The Green Phantom pl*co", L-200, stating that there are actually 2 species involved. Is this the description then?

Werneke, D. C., M. H. Sabaj, N K. Lujan, and J W. Armbruster. 2005. Baryancistrus demantoides and Hemiancistrus subviridis, two new uniquely colored species of loricariids from Venezuela (Siluriformes: Loricariidae). Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 533â??542.

Yes.

Jools

ok So, is L-200 the Baryancistrus or are both the species imported as L-200? Is L-128 one of the species?

L200 high fin is the Baryancistrus
L200 is the Hemiancistrus

Regarding L128 I have no idea yet
Cheers
Yann

yannfulliquet wrote:L200 high fin is the Baryancistrus
L200 is the Hemiancistrus

Regarding L128 I have no idea yet
Cheers
Yann

Are you sure about this distinction? I've been looking at hi fins and can't find one with the characteristic dorsal fins join. I'm waiting to read the paper and will, at least at first, trasnfer all L200 pics into H. subviridis.

Jools

Hi Jools!

Here is the picture from Andre of a high fin... you can clearly see the joint between the 2 fins!!



to compare with the Hemiancistrus:


Cheers
Yann

Agreed, I'll need to get some more pics of hi fins to ensure that all have this. Info from Jon was that some Hemiancistrus have high or low fins.

Jools

Remarkable how two uniquely colored species from different genus can be so alike! Regarding the described Parancistrus:

Rapp Py-Daniel, L. H., J Zuanon. 2005. Description of a new species of Parancistrus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the rio Xingu, Brazil. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 571â??578.

Is this the Peppermint Pleco L30/31/176/300?

Abstracts are now available here.

Silurus wrote:Abstracts are now available here.

This is going to be a huge amount of work in terms of understanding all this and its impact on the catelog. Nice problem to have mind you.

Jools

According to this it seems even more evident that L30 is now described as Parancistrus nudiventris. I'm sure we will get a confirmation wether this is right or not soon

It also appears that either L106 or L122 (or both?) is now named Hemiancistrus guahiborum. Again I'm sure we'll get this confirmed soon enough.

Hi,
if someone want´s to know:

L 92 = L 194 = Lasiancistrus tentaculatus

HaakonH wrote:It also appears that either L106 or L122 (or both?) is now named Hemiancistrus guahiborum. Again I'm sure we'll get this confirmed soon enough.

I assume it is the L106 as the L122 appears to be a <em>Pseudancistrus</em> correct me if I'm wrong but this is the change I'm going with.

Jools

Hi!
Regarding Parancistrus nudiventris
From what I saw, a live picture of the holotype was taken, look very much like L176 but it seems that L176 has no white belly which is the case with L300... so we shall believe it is L300.
Anyone could confirm this?

Cheers
Yann

Slowly I read me through some articles of that issue of Neotr. Ichthyol. Concerning Hemiancistrus guahiborum I had to see that the authors lumped L106 and L122 together. The type from Rio Ventuari is L106, but the color photograph of a non-type shows a L122. Also L122 occurs more downstream in the Orinoco (acc. to Seidel & Evers (2005) its collected especially arround Puerto Ayacucho). Werneke et al. publish in their distribution range this and other downstream areas as well, so its for sure that they lumped both L-numbers, because L106 does not occur so far downstream. Another statement in the description struggled me too, in the discussion they wrote: "...it is one of the most abundant loricariids in the area, it is not commonly exported. Despite its often quite attractive appearance when alive, it is typically passed over by fishermen seeking the more strikingly colored species with which it is sympatric." Seidel & Evers on the other hand write: "...L122 is surely one of the most attractive and at the same time most frequently imported Guyanancistrus-species...".
That Werneke et al. use a different genus name is not the amazing part, but that they are not familiar with what is going on in the trade is a bit astonishing. It really looks like that they are focused soleyly on ichthyological scientific literature (no aquaristic literature is found in their reference). Have they been aware that aquarists can tell two different species (L106 and L122) apart? Isn't it part of their "homework" to read other references as well for doing a good job?

Hi Erwin,
your argument also seems to fit on Armbrusters comment on L 200 Low and L 128 (before publication of the description of Hemiancistrus subviridis) - he talked about an "unknown blue-tinted species" (L 128) in mail conversation (with Caolila) - and aquarists know to determine this "unknown species" since 1993...

This also seems strange to me, because I guess, J. Armbruster knows (and sometimes reads???) at least Planetcatfish.

Hi!

As Im just finishing my diploma thesis my advisor told me several times that using internet sources or a high amount of these is viewed very critically by the correctors. So this may be the reason that this site or others arent used as sources for scientific publications. And I guess Ichtyology is much more conservative than Human-Geography.
For not using hobby literature - they may not speak German? Or is there up to date english books on the market?

Hi Christian,
of course there is - the Datz Sonderheft "All L-Numbers".

And it´s also hard to understand, why above all US-ichthyolgists ignore scientific works in foreign languages.
Some of these works are "a must" - and mainly in anatomy German language was standard before the world wars.

E.g. the standard works of Chranilov about the Weberian apparatus of Cyprinoformes (1927) and Siluriformes (1929) in German language are rarely cited, but the work of Bridge & Haddon and Alexander to similar topics is cited.
Reason seems to be the German language... (and of course the houndreds of pages of Chranilov´s work).

I think it´s a must to translate foreign language literature - one can´t ignore e.g. the work of Steindachner in German, the work of Alpio de Miranda-Ribeiro in Portugise and Latin, ...
Fisch-Muller, Weber and the others from Geneva publish in French language even today (the main problem for myself ;) ) - and their work is not ignored.

And I don´t see the problem with works in ichthyologically main languages - at univiersities people of many countries meet and work together, so where should be the problem of translating German, French, Spanish, Portugiese?
More difficult could be Japanese, Indish language, Chinese, and Russian - but even here in Europe todays we have many people from former Eastern Bloc, and they are all able to speak and translate Russian (these languages are not that important for neotropical fish, but for gobiis, cyprinidae, etc.)

I recently had a dialogue with John Armbruster via e-mail. We discussed a few topics, but he avoided/forgot (probably the latter) to comment on my questions regarding the link between L128 and L200. He also appeared to be not too fond of the L-number system, pointing out it's flaws and not it's benefits. It appears that ichthyologists for the most part ignore such "unprofessional" (in lack of a better word) work as i.e. the L-number system, or at least pay very little attention to it. It's as if to them the whole topic doesn't concern hobbyists, only science. To me it seems pretty arrogant and - when you see the example Erwin points out - ignorant to behave like that, because in the end I think we all want the same outcome.

It's pretty obvious that Jon doesn't work with material from the trade. What hits LFS' in his part of the world is pretty different from the fashionable pleco hotspots of Europe or elsewhere. That aside, I suspect this ignorance/avoidance of the trade is more because the material it supplies is pretty useless without solid locality info. although I'd have thought that an overview/awareness of what's out there could at least be gleaned from imports. L128 is another example of a fish he's not conversant with yet aquarists are very familiar with.

If Guyanancistrus and all those other shadowy genera were brought into being in a more detailed, defensible way then it would perhaps have been harder to have lumped the two l-numbers together (if, indeed, that was consciously done).

Given this situation then it's not surprising that this newly described species mixes up two L-numbers but then l-numbers <> species. It won't be the last for a long time given the mess things are in.

Jools

Sabaj, M H. 2005. Taxonomic assessment of Leptodoras (Siluriformes: Doradidae) with descriptions of three new species. Neotropical Ichthyology, 3 (4): 637â??678.


Hello,

I have interest in the above mentionned paper ? Can someone provide the full text version ?

Semper Pisces

Charly

Here it is

http://silurus.acnatsci.org/ACSI/partic ... odoras.pdf

I'm sorry to dig up such an old thread. I was doing a forum search and I stumbled across this. I just found it a coincidence because I just got an email from Jon yesterday about the whole L128 hemiancistrus subvirdius question. What he told me is he cannot say for sure yet whether they are the same species because he only has one L128 specimen, and that one has a different body shape than H subvirdius. He said he would need several more L128 specimens to compare before he could say for sure. He also said there are good barriers between the upper and middle orinoco, and that could explain the differences. Tracy