PlanetCatfish.com

Labeled S. caudalis

8.5 cm SL

My first thought was - certainly not caudalis. The more i look the more greshoffi seems right.

Any one else?

How about this one labeled S. serpentis

Pic from Aqualog Photo Collection 1

Clearly it's not like the pics in cat-e-log of serpentis, it too has strong resemblence to greshoffi which is a very variable species.

Different sources have very conflicting information but there are slight elements of afrofischeri in this one but i don't think it is. Without collection locality of riverine species it can be tricky - i'd perhaps go with greshoffi again but from a different location (?)

My first thought was Synodontis greshoffi- certainly not caudalis. The more i look the more greshoffi seems right.

I agree 100 percent

How about this one labeled S. serpentis

Dave, were you thinking this is what the first one labelled caudalis may be or do you wish to confirm the serpentis label on the second picture?

Birger

Birger wrote:
Dave, were you thinking this is what the first one labelled caudalis may be or do you wish to confirm the serpentis label on the second picture?

Birger

Yes and, OK, yes

I'll take both!!

I think the second picture is serpentis

Clearly it's not like the pics in cat-e-log of serpentis,

Richard do you think the picture in the Cat-eLog is serpentis...I am having doubts on that, I have my idea, interested in your opinion

Birger

I would say greshoffi too. Not caudalis or afro-fischeri.

I'm having doubts on that cat-e-log pics from serpentis too.

Birger - i think in order to make the most educated opinion a number of things could be done...

1 - the pics in cat-e-log show a species which is identified as serpentis - can we find from the specimen owner/photographer why they believe it is that species?

2 - Synodont_fan is the only registered keeper of serpentis -does he/she have the fish in the cat-e-log photo or something else? If so what's it like?

3 - we need to view the scientific description to see what we can get from that

4 - collection locations would help pinpoint ID (perhaps not though )

5 - Serpentis is a 5" TL max fish - how big is the the one in Aqualog - it looks small but also looks like something that would get bigger

6 - i've only seen a fish labelled serpentis once in my life & it looked different to cat-e-log AND the aqualog photo. it was at Lynwood fish house in surrey many many years ago - it was vaguely like the individual in Fishbase but was a 2.5" specimen in fairly poor condition.

I have a slight distrust in aqualog - brilliant though they are there are mistakes a plenty - my initial copy of the L numbers one has an african Euchilichthys identified as a pl*c!!!!!

I have a gut feeling that the aqualog fish is not greshoffi but i cannot say exactly what it is - i also dont think it is afrofischeri - although there are some slight pointers, i haven't seen this species enough to be totally familiar with it. It may well be serpentis (?)

There is a very good point put in a thread somewhere in either the "african" or "whats my catfish" forum, by someone i can't recall which basically suggests that there are certain identities we are taking for granted that aren't actually correct in this day & age - for example - in threads we have discussed aterrimus, debating the Sands CotW pics against the cat-e-log pics & others posted of keepers own fish - i feel there is a clear difference between them but which is the real one - just because we are used to calling a fish a particular name doesnt mean its the correct one. There is a similar example with nigrita & robbianus - i used to be able to tell them apart easily but info now suggests a different id approach is needed with photos by Sands of early imported specimens labelled Robbianus but similar fish now being identified as nigrita.

There are other examples but essentially what i'm trying to get across (probably not clear enough) is that synos aren't as a whole family, imported enough with relevant detail to enable exact id's & even then there is variability in some species which can hinder identification. More research, by people wiser than me is needed & hopefully more availability of species for us to keep & study.

Richard you have some very good points there...

I have the same feeling on the Aqualog pictures about them being not correct often, but in this case I think they are correct as it resembles the picture in fishbase which is supplied by http://www.fishbase.se/Collaborators/Co ... cfm?ID=338 who seemed to have much experience with Kenyan fish..also resembles the illustration in Revision Des Synodontis Africains by Poll. Now if the photo in the Cat-eLog is a more mature fish that is a possibility but I do not think so, but like you say it would be nice to hear from the donor of the picture as to why he thought this is what it is.

Which of course leads to the question what do I think this fish in the Cat-eLog is, I am not sure yet, any ideas what else it could be...Jippo what are your thoughts on all this?

Birger

I would haven't had enough knowledge but i just wanted to say lovely fish!

Birger wrote:Which of course leads to the question what do I think this fish in the Cat-eLog is, I am not sure yet, any ideas what else it could be...Jippo what are your thoughts on all this?Birger

I'm not convinced of serpentis picture in Aqualog, humeral process is so much different than it is in Poll's revision. In my eye it looks juvenile greshoffi. But it resembles too the illustration of S. marmorata in Poll's revision but I have never seen reliable pictures from it.

Fish in Cat-eLog picture of serpentis looks like schoutedeni, humeral process, body shape and coloration fits to it. But from that picture it's impossible to see everything but humeral process is again wrong for serpentis.

I have the same feeling of pictures in Aqualog too, those are not always correct but there is many pictures from wild fishes so at least they are not h-fishes. Pictures are very good but genus is wrong. I have tried to solve if the pictures of S. victoriae is correct in Aqualog cause I think that in Cat-eLog picture of victoriae is correct. In Poll's revision humeral process is shorter than nuchal plate but photos in Aqualog it's opposite. But my biggest question is that what is the fish in Aqualog? S. nigrita is the only same kind specie that is from same area with victoriae, as I know. But the fish resembles more robbianus to my eye. Or maybe it's one form of nigrita. But I have seen that same fish in Finland many times and I have one of these myself too. I always though that it's only some h-fish until I got new Aqualog and there was this same fish with wild-marking. But for now I think it's just one form of nigrita.

Fish in Cat-eLog picture of serpentis looks like schoutedeni, humeral process, body shape and coloration fits to it. But from that picture it's impossible to see everything but humeral process is again wrong for serpentis.

Funny thing about you saying that because I keep going back and looking at this http://www.scotcat.com/articles/article97.htm what is called angelicusXschoutedeni

Birger

I think the fish in cat-e-log identified as serpentis is definately not a schoutedeni x angelicus hybrid - the head shape is much more conical & pointed in cat-e-log photos & having seen plenty of the angelicus/schoutedeni hybrids they are all pretty similar in overall head & body shape, although there is variation in patterning, ranging from the thick stripes of these

http://www.scotcat.com/articles/article97.htm

to fine lines looking very similar to a lot of fish identified as aterrimus like this

http://www.scotcat.com/mochokidae/s_aterrimus3.htm

. The head shape is different form images in fishbase also

At this time, i am really unsure what the species in cat-e-log is

I think the fish in cat-e-log identified as serpentis is definately not a schoutedeni x angelicus hybrid

Richard
I thought that might get you going...notice I said I kept going to it , not that is what I thought it was...I am not really sure what it is either but can agree that it is not serpentis unless this is a species that goes through a major change which I have found no evidence towards this.

Birger

I thought that might get you going...

Sorry, i went away for the weekend - got to keep the girlfriend happy (Didn't even go to any LFS when i was away )

Back on-line at work now & home later.

I don't have S. serpentis and haven't seen it.

When the create-a-list feature was activated quite some time ago, I listed species that I had, as wellas species of interest to me. Perhaps that was my mistake, although I thought that was the plan. In any case, some of the species that now appear on my list of cats are simply those that I want to acquire, not necessarily those that I have.

Sorry for any confusion.

When the create-a-list feature was activated quite some time ago, I listed species that I had, as wellas species of interest to me. Perhaps that was my mistake, although I thought that was the plan. In any case, some of the species that now appear on my list of cats are simply those that I want to acquire, not necessarily those that I have.

Sorry for any confusion.

No problem for me I am getting used to being confused....it is too bad though as it would be nice to see some of these but thanks for clearing that up.

Birger

jippo wrote:I have the same feeling of pictures in Aqualog too, those are not always correct but there is many pictures from wild fishes so at least they are not h-fishes. Pictures are very good but genus is wrong. I have tried to solve if the pictures of S. victoriae is correct in Aqualog cause I think that in Cat-eLog picture of victoriae is correct. In Poll's revision humeral process is shorter than nuchal plate but photos in Aqualog it's opposite. But my biggest question is that what is the fish in Aqualog? S. nigrita is the only same kind specie that is from same area with victoriae, as I know. But the fish resembles more robbianus to my eye. Or maybe it's one form of nigrita. But I have seen that same fish in Finland many times and I have one of these myself too. I always though that it's only some h-fish until I got new Aqualog and there was this same fish with wild-marking. But for now I think it's just one form of nigrita.

Does anyone have an idea about that fish in Aqualog?

I think the Aqualog fish are S. nigrita.