PlanetCatfish.com

What is the current status of these genera? I know some researchers consider that Pterygoplichthys is the valid genus for those fish that I consider Liposarcus, but does anyone know what the currently accepted position is?
Pete

They are all considered valid for now, although Jon Armbruster will synonymize all of them under Pterygoplichthys once his giant loricariid paper comes out

What are your views on this? Just from an aquarist's viewpoint, I do think that there are identifiable groupings within what will revert to Pterygoplichthys, but whether these groupings warrant separate genera isn't a question I'd like to answer.

coelacanth wrote:What are your views on this? Just from an aquarist's viewpoint, I do think that there are identifiable groupings within what will revert to Pterygoplichthys, but whether these groupings warrant separate genera isn't a question I'd like to answer.

I've always had trouble with these three. With the possible exception of nasal flute dimensions (and that can't be enough to warrant generic status can it?), and ignoring dentistry I'm not sure I see external characterisitics to split them. What characterisitics are you grouping on Pete?

Jools

According to Jon, the P. multiradiatus group (=Liposarcus) lacks evertible elongated cheek odontodes, but can still evert the cheek plates at a right angle to the head, while the P. gibbiceps group (=Glyptoperichthys excluding P. punctatus) has a large supraoccipital crest.

I think it all boils down to whether you are a lumper or a splitter.