PlanetCatfish.com

I'd like to know for sure, as I am a big otocinclus fan. The store information is that it's wild caught from Colombia, but they call all of them affinis, however it looks nothing like that to me. I could take more pictures, but I'm not sure if all those I have are the same either, so some proper information would be nice.

I'm by no means an expert on Oto's (Mike Noren is the man here), but I'd say it's based on the origin and it's colouration [tail markings look similar to me, which is a good starting point for identification].

O. vittatus is (according to the distribution data in Cat-eLog] quite widespread and would potentially have occurrences in Columbia, but the pattern on the tail is less similar.

--
Mats

That was my first thought, but wanted to see if others thought so too. Thanks. If anyone is even more sure, please chime in.

Yeah... thanks for the kind words, but I'm by no means an expert on any fish group, just an interested amateur.

First of all: You are correct that it is not an affinis or a vittatus.

Secondly: I think you shouldn't look too much on the O. huaorani photos in the cat-elog - some of those are definitely misidentified. Frankly I suspect there's three different species in the O. huaorani pictures.

Thirdly: Excellent picture! It even is possible to make out the canal-bearing plates on the side.
Yes, a couple of more pictures would be great. Some of the diagnostic characters, mainly the tail and lateral pigmentation, are a bit difficult to make out in this picture.

However, I am not convinced your fish is a huaorani.

O. huaorani is supposed to look like this:


(after Schaefer, 1997)

(see also http://www.otocinclus.de/huaorani.htm )

Notice the continuous lateral pigment band going all the way from the snout to the caudal pigment spot; that the caudal pigment spot isn't divided; the lateral pigment band continues out into the caudal fin as a rectangular "bar"; and the lack of "speckling" on the dorsal side between the dorsal fin and the caudal fin. Also it looks to me like your fish has canal bearing plates only on the first 6 or 7 plates along the lateral line, while huaorani supposedly have pores all along the lateral line.

Another possibility is that your fish is an

Otocinclus macrospilus

.


(after Schaefer, 1997)

That species does occur in Colombia, but although it it is similar to your fish wrt the lateral pigment line, the double pigment spot, and the canal bearing plates, it differs from yours in being strongly but irregularly patterned all over the dorsal side.

So... I don't know what your fish is, and I certainly don't know what the fish in the huaorani cat-elog entry are, but if your fish at all is a described species, it's likely to be either huaorani or macrospilus.

A couple of more pictures of your fish could well help; I'd be especially interested in photos showing the tail and caudal pigment spot well.

Thanks for a lot of good info Mike, and the positive photography comment, I competed with it in a Norwegian fishphoto-competition and got second place so I'm happy with it.

From the drawing I'd say the top fin (sorry, not good with the names) is too big on the huaorani compared to my otocincluses. But it usually doesn't extend it at all, only rarely when it's floating around It does look like the macrospilus. In many ways, but the top of mine is speckled with dots, if that's the right wording.

I think the 3 I have there is the same ones, I had 6 first, but two had the no stomach syndrome and couldn't be saved, and one, which I think was vittatus, came red on the sides, couldn't notice in store. So I assume they are the same, and I'll try to take some more pictures so you can get more insight, I'm not sure if the rest of the photos will be any good though ;)

Thanks a lot so far.

Mike_Noren wrote:Secondly: I think you shouldn't look too much on the O. huaorani photos in the cat-elog - some of those are definitely misidentified.

Any suggestions on what to do with them? I was thinking of moving the first two pictures into O. macrospilus.

Jools

What a fantastic photo biXen, well worthy of a Planet Catfish spot, Im sorry I cant help you with any id but I couldnt pass up the option of a well done for the pic. Ive got to admit I am a big Oto fafn I had 3 up untill 3 weeks ago, now I am on their 3rd batch of fry!! well chuffed.

Jools: In my non-expert opinion, take it for what it's worth, insert standard disclaimer here etc:

Picture 1 & 2 is probably macrospilus (because they've got the speckling, broken pigment band, and have the double pigment spot, and I don't know of any other oto with that combination of traits. I'm not completely happy with the ID but I'm not sure how big the natural variation within oto species is either, so... yeah, macrospilus.

Picture 3: unknown to me; it's got speckling and double pigment spot, but has a complete pigment band. I don't know what it might be; possibly an unusually pigmented specimen, possibly an undescribed species.

Picture 4: from that angle... could be anything.

Picture 5: Unusual-looking fish. I wish there were more photos of it. Possibly it's the same species as in picture 3 but in fright-coloration.

Hello,

In my, also non-expert, opinion:
1, 2, 3 and 5 can be macrospilus or hoppei. I did not discard hoppeibecause of the back coloration, but it can also be dark macrospilus. The shape of the double spot on the caudal is very variable in our macrospilus. Sometime the line is more or less continious.
4: good question

I made my guess with http://www.remowiechert.de/otobestimmung.html, our fishes and searches to identify 'strange' Otocinclus.
ps: breeding is reported in the link.

F.Magnier

Yes, I've seen that key.

However, according to Schaefers redescription, "The presence of a single deeply pigmented, large diamond-shaped spot located at the base of the caudal fin separated from the pigment of the midlateral stripe by an unpigmented area is autapomorphic for O. hoppei among Otocinclus species."

Here's a picture of the hoppei pictured in Schaefer:


(after Schaefer, 1997)

In other words, it is difficult to refer a fish with two caudal spots and, in the case of pictures 3 & 5, a midlateral stripe confluent with the caudal spots, to hoppei.

It is possible that there are specimens with two tail spots and/or continuous midlateral stripe, but in the absence of other evidence (such as interbreeding in nature with "typical" hoppei)I don't know how one would conclude they're O. hoppei, as they miss the diagnostic characters of the species.

Pretty much the same goes for photos 3 & 5 wrt macrospilus - they might be, but without additional evidence I don't know how to tell if their unusual pigmentation is within-species variation or between-species variation.

mikelouth: Thanks for the positive comments.

Now guys, I have taken some new photos, but my main computer isn't working so I don't have anything to pre-process them with, and when you try to take good macro shots that does result in less great results But here's what I got.

I have two fishes that looks like my first picture. I was thinking that my third one was the same, only male, as it was slightly smaller and less bulky. But now I see that it's much smaller, in oto scale, and looks all different. I didn't get a good shot of it, but it's the last image.

Here's first shots of the two fishes that looks like my first image.







And here's nr. 3. I need to get a better shot of that one, but it is another oto I'm 99,9% sure

I was at my laptop yesterday, but now at work I see that obviously these images are far too dark. Turn up your brightness

Looking at the German identification sites images, Macrospilus is out of the question. It does look close to huaorani, but the tail marking make me unsure.

Edit: I'm pretty sure my last image, the smaller one, is Hoppei. Am I way off? I'll put in a better edited image, still not great I know ;)

Any chance you could actually re-do the images with a bit more brightness yourself? I copied one and ten seconds of work in Irfanview got it a lot brighter (and unfortunately a lot noisier, but you can't win all tht time )

--
Mats

I did that now, so do a CTRL-R (reload) and the brighter ones should show up. Still crap, gotta take some new ones, but I'm too used to working with RAW that it gets messed up

Edit: URL Errors, now it works

Did some new photos, now with a bit more lighting. Maybe it can help somebody identify them There's still the two types here, the smaller one is in only one shot I think. It's got more dark areas.






This is the smaller, different oto:


Same as first 3 types again:

I know this is a bit off topic, but that top photo is stunning.

How did you take it? Set up, etc.

jimoo wrote:I know this is a bit off topic, but that top photo is stunning.

How did you take it? Set up, etc.

Thanks, I appreciate the comment, although OT

It's taken using a Canon EOS400D, with a Tamron SP Di 90mm Macro lens. No blitz, just aquarium lighting. Tripod. ISO400, 1/160 shutter, f/2,8 and last but not least, half an hour in Photoshop to pull up exposure, remove unnecessary background fuzz, a leaf under the back of the fish and a green hue on the fish itself

The plant is an Anubias Barteri var. "nana" so not location correct for the fish, which ruins the perfection.