PlanetCatfish.com

purchased as L204, has however been uncertain after that had looked around on the Internet because they do not have such strong patterns?

Hi KrisA.

You are right, that is defintitely not

It is a , possibly at first glance

Ty Yes, it looks more like an L340 than L204.
just so annoying that they can not tell the difference between their hygiene catfish,
but they are wild caught so it can be the importer debt

racoll wrote:Hi KrisA.

You are right, that is defintitely not

Panaque sp(l204)

It is a

Hypancistrus

, possibly at first glance

Hypancistrus sp(l340)

I'd put about 25 danish Øre that it is , L129. They are relatively common in the trade, much more so than L340 - in fact most fish sold as L340 are actually L129.

--
Mats

I'd put about 25 danish Øre that it is Hypancistrus debilittera, L129.

You're probably right Mats, but something didn't quite look right.

As always, more photos needed...

I would bet $100 (all I have currently LOL) that its a L129 as well.

I agree, it's L129.
I've also three L129, and yours looks a lot like mine.

Hi again.
sorry for my delay here.
now i know what they are, its is wild L340.
and they have spawned now
saw fry swimming around on the bottom stomacksack on,
He has pushed some of them out of the cave,
but he should just learn it.
here is some pics of the male and a little youngstar

Congratulations to the spawn.

On what grounds do you make it L340. For every ACTUAL L340, there are probably 100 or so H. debilittera (L129), and whilst your fish doesn't have extremely thin lines, it's certainly not the wide lines that are typical for L340. So I'd still say it's L129, unless you have some pretty good argument to the contrary. [Although I will admit that these fish aren't terribly easy to identify, and there are plenty of "not quite clearly one or the other" pictures].

--
Mats

I have to say off hand they don't necessarily look like L340, can you get a pic of a male frontal shot?

Yes, this is a very nice L129

At this point, i don't even know what constitutes a real 340 anymore. I have seen fish i thought for sure were debs labelled 340s by individuals whose opinions on the matter i hold very dear, so yeah. Screw it. Might as well just call it 340/129. To be fair, it is believed that Schraml's initial photograph is a very aberrantly colored individual. I'd LIKE to say your fish is 129, but for the aforementioned reasons, I'm not completely sure.

Jon wrote:At this point, i don't even know what constitutes a real 340 anymore. I have seen fish i thought for sure were debs labelled 340s by individuals whose opinions on the matter i hold very dear, so yeah. Screw it. Might as well just call it 340/129. To be fair, it is believed that Schraml's initial photograph is a very aberrantly colored individual. I'd LIKE to say your fish is 129, but for the aforementioned reasons, I'm not completely sure.

And there I was thinking it was only me that thought that L340 and L129 are pretty much impossible to tell apart based on photos only - if you know the capture location, sure they can split very easily - they are from rivers that both flow into Orinoco, but from different sides of the river - and no, I don't know which side is which without looking it up.

--
Mats