PlanetCatfish.com

I stumbled on this large female at the LFS yesterday. Apparently it was a trade-in, but I have no other information about its origin. My general rule is "always buy a female pleco if you find one - find a male later," so I bought her. I'd love to track down a mate, but I need a positive ID first. The fish is about 5" TL. Anyone have any clue for an ID?

Hmm, looks like a L015:





[Mod edit: Change link to image into image tag, and add Clog-link --Mats]

Possibly, but there are a few look-alikes, e.g. , just to mention a couple of them.

With a capture location, it would be much easier to identify. Without, we're stuck at trying to match pictures with other pictures...

--
Mats

Thanks Marty and Mats! I wish I had more info, but alas... Best I can tell anyone is that the common peckoltias sold around here are L377 and L134, and I rarely see L15. They're hitting the lists more frequently lately, however. L377 looks to have more well-defined stripes, as does L15. But do the stripes lose contrast as the fish grows? Mine has settled in well but continues to retain its mottled look.

I'd love it to be L15, but I have doubts.

Anyone else have any ideas on this gal?

my opinion's worth less than the true pleco fans, but I'd go with vittata as well- it looks a damned close match to the one put up by WaterWorldAquatics; the substripes between the stripes seem to be variable in their intensity depending on the fish's mood in your photos?

From visual comparison only, I would say its l80. The dorsal fin patter and the last inch of body pattern before the tail is a definate match. Though not as clear as one might want it, the "saddle" pattern below the dorsal most resemble l80 as well.

But, Im too new to plecos to even think this could matter over actual body type comparison...

What about ?

It's another possibility. Unfortunately, without a river (or at least country) it will probably not be possible to find out where it's from.

--
Mats

I'll add my 2 cents and go with Peckoltia vittata, too. Eventually, I think many more look-a-likes will be consolidated and classified as to belonging to fewer species which are just variable even within the same place. Giving every variation a new designation will someday seen as odd to future generations.
Take Discus, for an example, For years and because of some sloppy and hasty pasted together monographs, Blue and brown Discus were classified as separate subspecies. It was clear to any thinking fish person that they were merely the same fish that occurred in a continuum ranging from plain brown to totally covered with blue striations. All could and do occur in the same wide range and within any given group there would be some with every degree of colors possible in a continuum between the extremes.

The color variations within a species are primarily important to those to whom fish are merchandise. Ichthyologists will not regard these variations within described species with much importance.

I agree with those that suggest L15 P. vittata, L80 is a smaller species more "patterned" which not reach more then ~10 cm TL. It's not totally impossible it can be L009 but the overall look seems to fit L15 much better.

Janne

Well, I guess I'll call it L15 then! Thanks everyone!!!

Andy

apistomaster wrote:I'll add my 2 cents and go with Peckoltia vittata, too. Eventually, I think many more look-a-likes will be consolidated and classified as to belonging to fewer species which are just variable even within the same place. Giving every variation a new designation will someday seen as odd to future generations.
Take Discus, for an example, For years and because of some sloppy and hasty pasted together monographs, Blue and brown Discus were classified as separate subspecies. It was clear to any thinking fish person that they were merely the same fish that occurred in a continuum ranging from plain brown to totally covered with blue striations. All could and do occur in the same wide range and within any given group there would be some with every degree of colors possible in a continuum between the extremes.

I agree 100% with apistomaster- I'm sure that plecs and corys will need major revisions (again) in the next few years. Already it's been recognised that many of the L-numbers (which admittedly are typically just individual fish) are synonymous once the species has been described, and many others are extremely difficult to distinguish. Many of the problems will depend on whether the taxonomists concerned are "lumpers" or "splitters"- whether they'll regard very similar but possibly discrete populations as different races, subspecies or species in their own right; there's no right or wrong answer on this one- it's down to a judgement call.

A second issue is whether we'll identify the species properly in the trade/hobby e.g. Satanoperca leucosticta was misidentified as jurupari for decades and still is usually mislabelled in the hobby; Apistogramma borelli also used to be regularly misidentified.

Carp37 wrote: A second issue is whether we'll identify the species properly in the trade/hobby e.g. Satanoperca leucosticta was misidentified as jurupari for decades and still is usually mislabelled in the hobby;

in this case the problem is also quite a few definitions for both species happen to exist - thus it is virtually impossible to make everybody happy (the species look very similar, one definition is how they breed. The problem is, breeding them is not that easy). Personally, i'd rather say I used to have an unspotted Satanoperca (thus leucosticta or juruparu) from the Rio Tapajos - and refrain from speciating them.

Satanoperca is, of course, it is a member of Cichlidae not a fish normally discussed on this forum, but it is too good an example of problems regarding the identification of species.

Bas Pels wrote:Satanoperca is, of course, it is a member of Cichlidae not a fish normally discussed on this forum, but it is too good an example of problems regarding the identification of species.

True Bas Pels- I was struggling for a catfish example- possibly Corydoras julii/trilineatus would have been a better choice...