PlanetCatfish.com

She's about 6"+ now & her looks have changed since I have 1st got her. She has a very broad head & very beautiful long tail. I haven't been able to narrow down the L number though. I've bounced between a few but then she changed when she got bigger. The closest I've come to is the L-131

She appears to be from the Rio Tapajos area.

Thank you in advance to all,
Robert & as I call her Lady Snake ;)

Sorry I got these mixed up. These were of my Leopard Frog.

Are you trying to say that these are all the same fish? The first picture is a Hypancistrus species, the next pics are a Hypostomus and the last 3 are another sort of Hypostomus.

Yes this is all the same fish. I only have 1 of this fish & these pictures are all of the same fish. I got it when it when it was less then 3".

The 1st picture of the head was from when she was smaller in June. Then the ones below it are the most recent. Originally when I got her I thought she was a different fish also & didn't think she would get any larger then about 3-4" max but she surprised me & kept growing long with her looks changing.

I don't know what kind of fish that is but…man…that purple and black gravel…I don't know what to say!

Gravel aside, the fish is very hard to identify down to species, the reason being that there are MANY different species that look pretty similar. Without information of where it came from (country helps a bit, river will make it more likely, but even if you gave us GPS coordinates down to a 10 x 10 feet/3 x 3 m square, it would still be a bit of a "it may be one of these...", and a list of anything between 2 and a dozen different species). Since it's not a highly valuable fish in the trade, it's unlikely that you will be able to get down to the precision needed to identify it in detail anyways.

--
Mats

I am not 100% sure which of the three fish above we are trying to identify. The one in the most recent posting is Hypostomus plecostomus.
-Shane

naturalart wrote:I don't know what kind of fish that is but…man…that purple and black gravel…I don't know what to say!

Is that good or bad???

I have a big Castle, that has 2 large halves, in the center of the tank, with a 1" round air stone in each halves tower.
This is what it looks like.
Sorry the picture isn't clearer.

MatsP wrote:Gravel aside, the fish is very hard to identify down to species, the reason being that there are MANY different

Hypostomus

species that look pretty similar. Without information of where it came from (country helps a bit, river will make it more likely, but even if you gave us GPS coordinates down to a 10 x 10 feet/3 x 3 m square, it would still be a bit of a "it may be one of these...", and a list of anything between 2 and a dozen different species). Since it's not a highly valuable fish in the trade, it's unlikely that you will be able to get down to the precision needed to identify it in detail anyways.

--
Mats

Mats I appreciate your in site, but I don't know of many people or lfs that know or have that information on the exact location of where a specific fish they got came from. How am I supposed to find this information out? Only way I know is if I were the one the one the went to get the fish for myself.

I know there are MANY different Hypostomus species just like there are Many different Hypancistrus species.
I'm not asking what species it is. I'm asking for help identifying the L-number & obviously others are having the same trouble as I have been since I have got her.

That's why I said the closest I have come up with is the L-131.
I also said I think from the appearance that she came from the Rio Tapajos.

I've never known the value of a Pl*co to have anything to do with the identity of it's L-number. I'm not sure what you call not being highly valuable though either. No she isn't a Pl*co that cost a few hundred dollars. She wasn't cheap though either when I bought her. She was the same cost as most Speciality Pl*co's or more on the high side.

I hope this helps make more sense.

Robert

The fish in this pic


is not the same as the fish in this pic

I don't know what kind of fish that is but…man…that purple and black gravel…I don't know what to say!


Is that good or bad???

It's neither, I personally wouldn't set up a tank like that. I try to simulate the animals biome as close as possible. But I know of a successful aquarist who would enjoy your type of setup. Asthetics are up to the individual. My only caveate would be 'be careful what materials you use in your tank. The wrong material can affect your water chemistry and eventually the health of your fish. For example, your material could be dolomite which raises ph. Your mystery plec could be a fish that prefers a low ph. Long term, this could shorten the life of your fish. I am just speaking hypothetically.

Dave Rinaldo wrote:The fish in this pic


is not the same as the fish in this pic

I give up... For those that can't see that the eyes & head are the exact same fish only younger, or those that don't choose to believe me for whatever reason, I have now deleted the picture.
Please disregard it completely.

I'm not sure why it's so important or why anyone thinks they know which of my fish I took a picture of better then me. Maybe people know something about what fish I own that I don't know.

All I've simply asked for is help identifying my pl*co. Sorry I showed more pictures then even needed but all that you need to look at & go by are the most recent pics from Sept. where she is about 6". I've asked about the L-number for example maybe L-131???
Can anyone help please???

Regards,
Robert

Shane wrote:I am not 100% sure which of the three fish above we are trying to identify. The one in the most recent posting is

Hypostomus plecostomus

.
-Shane

That's the ID.

Your fish (either of the three previously posted) is not

Are you trolling?

What I meant by "not expensive" is that the "common" species are not expensive compared to similar size fish of more exotic types. But the Hypostomus is still a wild-caught fish, so it's not going to be priced like a common pleco that has been farm-raised - they are litterally pennies each in small size, and maybe a dollar or two per fish in larger sizes. Obviously, there is markup of about 10x by the time the fish gets to the shop where we get to buy it - after all, the guys that make these fish available to us must make a living.

Just to give you a comparison number: On a list from an exporter in Colombia, you get a bag of 30-50 "Large" , and 10-15 "Large" L240 in a bag. The price of ONE fish in the L240 bag is about 30 times more than the L231. We do need to add some shipping costs and such to the price of the fish, but I would certainly say that the "Common hypostomus" is not an expensive fish.

And yes, that's just what I said, most shops will not have any information as to where the fish came from. The wholesaler MAY have that information (and if the shop is really interested they may ask on your behalf to find out!), but often the fish is coming through what's called a "transshipper" - a company that collects and collates shipments from different exporters onto the wholesalers (so the transhipper buys 10 boxes of fish from exporter E1, 20 boxes from exporter E2 and 12 boxes from exporter E3, then sells 2 of the E1 boxes, and 1 box from E2 and 3 from E3 to wholesaler W1). And of course, if you don't at least know who the exporter was, then the location of where the fish came from is PROBABLY lost (unless it's a high-price fish where the location is meaningful to make the difference between a $10 and a $50 fish value at the exporters, so making the fish worth $100 - $500 in the shop).

I agree with Shane that it's LIKELY , but although I confess I've never been to South America, and Shane has spent years in South America, collecting fish that we often want to keep in our tanks, I would say that there are other species that look pretty much the same from various parts of South America.

And it certainly isn't a species.

--
Mats

Dave Rinaldo wrote:Your fish (either of the three previously posted) is not

Squaliforma sp(l131)

Are you trolling?

I'm sorry if I still haven't managed to make it clear but these pictures are of only 1 fish. I put in the comments under the pictures when they were take. Now it doesn't matter because I deleted the younger picture that I was being told wasn't the same fish even though it was. It's a moot point though because all I've asked for help with is identifying the L-number.
I know I've had a hard time doing it on my own but I thought that with all the experts on here that someone would have been bound to have had or seen one before. I guess I have a rarer pl*co then I thought.

As far as the l131 I really don't think you can go by the single picture on this site to rule it out. I was comparing it to the photos in the Aqualog which it definately resembles more.
I really do appreciate the help though. I don't care one way another if it isn't the l131 I just would like to know what she is.

MatsP wrote:What I meant by "not expensive" is that the "common"

Hypostomus

species are not expensive compared to similar size fish of more exotic types. But the Hypostomus is still a wild-caught fish, so it's not going to be priced like a common pl*co that has been farm-raised - they are litterally pennies each in small size, and maybe a dollar or two per fish in larger sizes. Obviously, there is markup of about 10x by the time the fish gets to the shop where we get to buy it - after all, the guys that make these fish available to us must make a living.

I agree with Shane that it's LIKELY

Hypostomus plecostomus

, but although I confess I've never been to South America, and Shane has spent years in South America, collecting fish that we often want to keep in our tanks, I would say that there are other species that look pretty much the same from various parts of South America.

And it certainly isn't a

Squaliforma

species.

--
Mats

Thanx Mats,

I probably paid about $79 for her. If I remember correct she was labeled as a Tapajos Pl*co, not that that means anything one way or another. I've bought other fish mislabeled too from the lfs.
I also agree that Shane most likely would know best if he has seen this fish before & she is in fact from South America & the Rio Tapajos. As I just posted previously the l131 pics I went by are from the Aqualog. I couldn't go by the 1 pic on here.
She also doesn't look like the or the . The 1st doesn't have the same type of tail fin. The 2nd just does not have the same look or color with the black stripe across the body.
Do you still have yours? Does mine really look the same? I've seen common pl*cos & this is not one. This definately did not cost the price of one either. This was the price of a specialty one as I said.
Again Thank you for you help.

If we assume that the origin of the fish is Rio Tapajos, then it would be one of these.

looks pretty close.

When I posted the link to , I didn't mean that the picture you get when you hover over the link is the one you have, but that you should click the link and look at all of the 108 different species that is available there - and do click on the links for fish that look somewhat like yours. After all, you know what yours look like much better than we do with a few photos.

Of course, the is said to be "widespread throughout South America" - that probably also covers Rio Tapajos - and the L130 may well be the same species.

And no, due to my ignorance, mainly regarding their food-needs, both of the H. plecostomus I had 15-20 years ago didn't last more than a few of years. Real characters they were, however.

I still say it's not , and throughout the genus there are a few dozen pictures. In S. villarsi there are 36 images, and S. cf. emarginata there are 12 images. They all share the same body shape, which is noticeably more elongate than your fish.

Edit: Looking at the collected specimens held in Museums for H. plecostomus, there is a listing for a specimen collected from Para state, which MAY indicate that this species [or something that was identified at the time as this species] is present in Rio Tapajos.

--
Mats

Looking at the collected specimens held in Museums for H. plecostomus, there is a listing for a specimen collected from Para state, which MAY indicate that this species [or something that was identified at the time as this species] is present in Rio Tapajos.

Mats, I doubt H. plecostomus is found south of the llanos and is certainly absent from the Amazon drainage all together. Many of the identification problems stem from the original holotype location being "India" (sic) probably a reference to the Venezuelan coast of what were then the West Indies. The only island in that area that has a loricariid population is Trinidad. I have kept the sp found there (H. robinii) and it is clearly a different sp from that I collected in the northern Venezuelan drainages. Early imports of plecos were "reportedly" from Trinidad and the name "Trinidad Plecostomus" became the accepted common name for what was, in that era, the "common pleco." Take a quick Google search and you'll see that this common name is still in wide usage among wholesalers and entry level hobbyists even though no loricariid has been shipped from Trinidad is probably better than 50 years (with the exception of the ones I received of course from Kaare).

Raz' above fish (at least the third sp shown in the pics) is in fact H. plecostomus. They still turn up as bycatch in shipments from the llanos. They are never exported on purpose to my knowledge.

I can not change the fact that Raz does not agree with my ID. As you pointed out I spent four years in that area (Colombia/Venezuela) collecting these fish and am quite familiar with them. My guess is that there was another pleco in the same tank that was a "Tapajos pleco" or that label was old and the "Tapajos pleco" had ben sold off at some point. As Raz noted these things happen all the time. Sometimes aquarists get lucky and get a very expensive fish for little money this way. In Raz' case he paid $79 for a fish that normally retails for less than $5.00. That said, I think all on the site would agree that price means nothing.
-Shane

Raz wrote:I'm not asking what species it is. I'm asking for help identifying the L-number

It may not be easier to ID as an L number, even if an L number exists for your fish, which it may not. With a described species you have fixed diagnostic characters to work with, but with an L number we just have a single small picture from DATZ. Not a simple task, as we have demonstrated in here, by getting so confused about the same fish changing so much during its life. A photo just can't represent the entire species in all its manifestations.

Basically I am trying to say the same as everyone else - what you have is a brown , that could be one of a dozen different species or L number. I'll have a look at some books tomorrow and see if that helps.

, or are candidates. It certainly isn't a though.

I would repost the picture of the fish when it was younger - it might help the ID.

[EDIT] Given Shane's experience with these fish, I would probably just go with the H. plecostomus ID.

MatsP wrote:.

Edit: Looking at the collected specimens held in Museums for H. plecostomus, there is a listing for a specimen collected from Para state, which MAY indicate that this species [or something that was identified at the time as this species] is present in Rio Tapajos.

--
Mats

I believe Raz is only quoting location, Rio Tapajos, from the entry for L131 Squaliforma cf. emarginata in Aqualog All L Numbers, p. 109 - 110.

Shane wrote:Raz' above fish (at least the third sp shown in the pics) is in fact H. plecostomus. They still turn up as bycatch in shipments from the llanos. They are never exported on purpose to my knowledge.

Why don't you believe me when I keep telling you the pictures are of only 1 fish??? Just because they are taken in a different part of the tank doesn't change the fish. I only have the ONE. I think I would know what my fish looks like & what I took a picture of.

Shane wrote:I can not change the fact that Raz does not agree with my ID. As you pointed out I spent four years in that area (Colombia/Venezuela) collecting these fish and am quite familiar with them. My guess is that there was another pl*co in the same tank that was a "Tapajos pl*co" or that label was old and the "Tapajos pl*co" had ben sold off at some point. As Raz noted these things happen all the time. Sometimes aquarists get lucky and get a very expensive fish for little money this way. In Raz' case he paid $79 for a fish that normally retails for less than $5.00. That said, I think all on the site would agree that price means nothing.
-Shane

Wow... I never said I didn't agree with your ID. In fact I said "Shane would most likely would know best if he has seen this fish before & she is in fact from South America & the Rio Tapajos." The place I deal with gets their fish in every week & sometimes twice a week. It was one they had just gotten. I'm sure you have no idea how my lfs I buy from is setup but I can assure you that A) I'm not stupid enough to pay for a speciality pl*co & to buy a common pl*co, B) they would never sell or charge me like that, & C) I would never buy a common pl*co.
Number one they keep all their common pl*cos in the bottom tanks & no other ones. Of course I don't & didn't buy from there. Mine was in the top tank & the only pl*co in it. I did not say a thing about this happening all the time. I said that the fish are sent to the lfs under the wrong names &/or L-numbers.

I'm really shocked that I'm getting such a hard time over asking for the L-number of my fish. The species doesn't help a great deal if it only narrows it down to over 100 or more possible fish.
I'd have better luck continuing to use the Aqualog & see what I can come up with I guess. I just though that someone out there would have been bound to recognize & have the same fish. I guess I have a rarer & more unique fish then I realized & that's why I am having such a hard time.

I just took a couple more pictures last night if these help any better.

racoll wrote:I would repost the picture of the fish when it was younger - it might help the ID.

Thanx,
I would but when I had just 1 picture posted of when she was younger & I had 1st got her, even though I had the date on it that it was taken, for some reason everyone thought they knew better then me what the picture was taken of & kept telling me how it wasn't the same fish.

I could always email or something to those that are really interested in helping me.

Thanx again,
Robert

If we knew (and was 100% sure of) exactly where your LFS got their fish from, what name it was bought under, exactly where it came from, etc, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

Just to make one thing clear: I don't think your fish is what is called "Common pleco" today - your fish certainly isn't - but it sure looks like which was available commonly in the trade some time back. It is now not so common.

And whilst your LFS may well have honestly thought the fish was from Tapajos, it doesn't mean that someone else sent fish as "Rio Tapajos" when it was actually from the Orinoco drainage - that may be on purpose or by mistake - my LFS is pretty reliable, but they have had fish in that isn't what the label says - in both positive and negative way for the customers and them - like when they got a fancy form of Chaetostoma worth 3x more than the ones they put in the order for [and they paid the lower price for].

I don't see anything in your pictures to say "Shane is wrong".

It is possible that your fish is NOT , but some other species that looks pretty similar - as I said earlier, there are about a dozen species of Hypostomus that has brown body with darker spots . When it dies, please get some 70% ethanol (or 60% vodka), preserve it and we can perhaps find someone who will disect it and do a detailed study to say for sure. But I suspect you will not get a better answer from us at this point.

Here is a few selected species that look similar to yours, just to show that there are many choices:










This is by no means an indication that your fish is one of the above listed - just showing you that there are several to choose from by looking at pictures, when there is no further information to determine what variant it may be [by variant I mean L-number, regional variation or scientific species].

If you feel cheated because you paid a lot for a fish that wasn't worth so much, then take it up with your LFS, not us - "Don't shoot the messenger".

I understand that you feel that "It must be something worth the money I paid" - which it may be, but if so, it's because you KNOW it came from somewhere different, not because anyone can see the difference. A bit like manmade vs. natural diamonds - most people can't tell the difference, but if you paid for (and got) natural ones, YOU will know the difference - even if most others don't see any difference.

And by the way, a $5 fish, I'm pretty sure that is a small, captive bred, common pleco. At least where I bought mine in Sweden, they were sold in the shop for the equivalent of $15-30 for a fish at around 6-8". And that's 20 or so years ago.

--
Mats

Raz wrote:She's about 6"+ now & her looks have changed since I have 1st got her. She has a very broad head & very beautiful long tail. I haven't been able to narrow down the L number though. I've bounced between a few but then she changed when she got bigger. The closest I've come to is the L-131

She appears to be from the Rio Tapajos area.

Thank you in advance to all,
Robert & as I call her Lady Snake ;)

He doesn't know that his fish came from the Rio Tapajos, just that L131 does!

MatsP wrote:If we knew (and was 100% sure of) exactly where your LFS got their fish from, what name it was bought under, exactly where it came from, etc, then we wouldn't be having this discussion, would we?

And whilst your LFS may well have honestly thought the fish was from Tapajos, it doesn't mean that someone else sent fish as "Rio Tapajos" when it was actually from the Orinoco drainage - that may be on purpose or by mistake - my LFS is pretty reliable, but they have had fish in that isn't what the label says - in both positive and negative way for the customers and them - like when they got a fancy form of Chaetostoma worth 3x more than the ones they put in the order for [and they paid the lower price for].

If you feel cheated because you paid a lot for a fish that wasn't worth so much, then take it up with your LFS, not us - "Don't shoot the messenger".

I understand that you feel that "It must be something worth the money I paid" - which it may be, but if so, it's because you KNOW it came from somewhere different, not because anyone can see the difference. A bit like manmade vs. natural diamonds - most people can't tell the difference, but if you paid for (and got) natural ones, YOU will know the difference - even if most others don't see any difference.

--
Mats

Mats, I said that my lfs sold got it as a Tapajos Pl*co & that was how it was sold to me. That to me would also narrow down where it came from unless all the info was all wrong. Then I agree everything becomes a mystery.

However I disagree & don't feel cheated either way about how much I paid for the fish & whether or not they charged me fairly or not for a specialty pl*co. I have done business with them for long enough to know better & they give me a discount. I called today & had them look up how much I paid & it actually turned out to be $49. The other thing is that I can always trade my fish in to them & they will give me 50% of what they can sell it for. I've had to trade others in to them & always have gotten good prices.

I didn't know this would be so hard.

Dave Rinaldo wrote:He doesn't know that his fish came from the Rio Tapajos, just that L131 does!

Of course I DON'T KNOW anything. I never said I did. I said as far as I knew, & my best guess also was that she came from Rio Tapajos, because of the fact that she was sold to the lfs as a Tapajos Pl*co & that's what I bought her as.

I didn't think there was much of a difference between her & the pictures I saw of the L131 in the Aqualog on pg110 but I guess I was way off from what everyone else is saying too.

It's OK don't worry about.
Thanx again everyone but obviously we are going nowhere but in circles.

I think your first pic, which is now deleted, could be your "Rio Tapajos".

The third post in this thread....

matthewfaulkner wrote:Are you trying to say that these are all the same fish? The first picture is a Hypancistrus species, the next pics are a Hypostomus and the last 3 are another sort of Hypostomus.

Raz,

Is there any chance you can take better pictures? I think Mats posted a very good list (above) of several fish that really look like your fish but better pictures would definitely help ID it!
I didnt get to see the picture of when it was younger either, but I had something similar happening to me before. When I first got one of my fish it looked somewhat different from what it looks today. So there was a correction on her ID. First we all thought she was a L104, but now we know she's a L147.

edit: as far as I know, someone please correct me if i'm wrong (and i havent read all the posts in this thread), not all "pl*cos" have an L number)

Dave,

That 1st pic was & is the same fish just younger when I first got her.

chrisihna,
I though my pictures were clear enough. I don't have a high dollar camera unfortunately. Only a small Olympus Digital one that isn't that new. I wish I had a newer better one. I also have trouble getting the best lighting in the room. I'll keep trying but I don't think it really matters any more at this point.

I need to wait & get some pictures of her stomach when she is sucking on the glass, maybe that will help. If not I'll just give up. I really didn't expect the all the hassle over it. It's not worth it that bad.

Thanx,
Robert

Please re post the "younger" pic again.

Thanx again everyone but obviously we are going nowhere but in circles.

I am not sure why. The same day you posted the picture of the animal in question I provided you with an identification.

Mats, I said that my lfs sold got it as a Tapajos Pl*co & that was how it was sold to me. That to me would also narrow down where it came from unless all the info was all wrong. Then I agree everything becomes a mystery.

There is no mystery here. The label on the fish was clearly incorrect. As I noted H. plecostomus pretty much only comes in now as a contaminant. This is why it would not be placed with the common plecos at your fish store.

I'm sure you have no idea how my lfs I buy from is setup but I can assure you that A) I'm not stupid enough to pay for a speciality pl*co & to buy a common pl*co, B) they would never sell or charge me like that, & C) I would never buy a common pl*co.

Robert, I do not think you are stupid nor do I think your LFS was trying to rip you off. They simply received a contaminant in their shipment and passed it on to you at what was the fair retail price for what they had paid for from their wholesaler. As Mats pointed out H. plecostomus is not really considered a "common pleco" these days.
At this point you have two choices. Take good care of your H. plecostomus and enjoy it (they are neat fish) or take it back and ask for your money to be refunded because it is not a "Tapajos pleco" as was advertised.
-Shane