Page 1 of 1

Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 16:09
by Oscar
Hi, a friend of Uruguay captured this Hypostomus in Velazquez town.

Image

Image

Image

Could be Hypostomus uruguayensis or Hypostomus luteomaculatus?

Thanks and regards.

[Mod edit: Add image tags to make images easier to view --Mats]

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 18:35
by DutchFry
I don't think this is a Hypostomus species (see teeth)

I think this might be

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 18:44
by MatsP
I agree, the teeth are not Hypostomus, and it does look a bit like a "pineapple", so Rhinelepis is a good suggestion.

--
Mats

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 19:08
by matthewfaulkner
Rhinelepis do not have adipose fins and the fish in the picture does. And they dont really have the ridges along the dorsal flank, they are far more flattened.

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 20:11
by Suckermouth
I'm not as familiar with them as I'd like to be, but isn't this a ?

[mod edit: Add CLOG tags. --Mats]

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 20:18
by MatsP
I don't think it's a Pseduacanthicus, there is no distribution of them south of the Amazon drainage, AFAIK. (We do not have any listed for the "La Plata" region, for sure).

--
Mats

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 20:40
by DutchFry
my first guess was Acanthicus hystrix, but thought it couldn't be due to distribution area differences.

but as matt says, there is an adipose fin clearly visible (and I missed that, again :P ) so maybe it is a species of Acanthicus after all?

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:05
by matthewfaulkner
Surely if it was Pseudacanthicus or Acanthicus it would be much spikier. Why has Hypostomus been discounted?

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:08
by MatsP
matthewfaulkner wrote:Surely if it was Pseudacanthicus or Acanthicus it would be much spikier. Why has Hypostomus been discounted?
I agree, not enough spikes to be any (<something>)Acanthicus. Teeth are not Hypostomus.

--
Mats

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:18
by matthewfaulkner
From the closeup of the eye, it seems to me it doesnt have the omega shaped skin lobe over the iris. Anyone else concur?

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:20
by MatsP
Doesn't look like a omega eye - not sure what that keys in/out.

--
Mats

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:36
by matthewfaulkner
Ive had a quick flip through the Hypostomus genus. I dont think Hypostomus should be discounted there are 2 variations in the teeth that I can see, the more V shaped spatula (Panaque like) and the wider angled rake like ones, like this Hypostomus has. This has the same shape teeth and is also from the La Plata region in Uruguay.

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:38
by MatsP
Good point.

--
Mats

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 19 Jan 2010, 21:53
by Suckermouth
Off the top of my head, among hypostomines the only groups lacking the eye lobe are the rhinelepins and Corymbophanes as well as the deepwater P. bathyphilus and H. pankimpuju. However, the omega eye may be retracted, and the reflection/lighting is obscuring where it would be in the close-up.

Re: Hypostomus Id

Posted: 20 Jan 2010, 22:14
by Oscar
matthewfaulkner wrote:This has the same shape teeth and is also from the La Plata region in Uruguay.
My friend's first impression and mine were to think in Hypostomus genus. Two months ago, my friend captured a few Hypostomus commersoni, and the teeth are very similar.