PlanetCatfish.com

The fish pictured in the Cat-eLog are the same species as Mark Walters breeds that I saw at the CSG conference. This means that they are not true L144 (as identified by Ingo Seidel at the CSG conference). But they are also not the "common" variant of "L144-lookalikes".

I think the right thing to do is to rename the current L144 as "sp blue-eye", sp(x) or some such, and add a new species as "true" L144. I'd try to get a picture from Ingo of the "ugly" fish that is genuine L144.

--
Mats

Mat,
Do you know if any consensus has been reached about whether the "common' blue eye xanthanistic form, now also available in a long finned variety, is just another mutation of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus?
That has been my impression, especially once a long finned version began appearing.
There are now so many color forms of common Ancistrus and each with its long finned counterpart.

Edit: I just noticed this advertisement and it answered my question. L144 as sold in the USA is merely a form of the common bushy nose.
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 09#p188514

apistomaster wrote:Mat,
Do you know if any consensus has been reached about whether the "common' blue eye xanthanistic form, now also available in a long finned variety, is just another mutation of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus?
That has been my impression, especially once a long finned version began appearing.
There are now so many color forms of common Ancistrus and each with its long finned counterpart.

I'm 99% sure that is the case, yes. So there's three "L144":
1. The true L144 - a quite "ugly" fish, blotchy and not as pretty as the one(s) in the Cat-eLog.
2. The "L144" in the Cat-eLog - I don't really know what the origin of this fish is, but it's clearly different from both the true L144 and the amelanistic/xanthic form of the A. cf cirrhosus.
3. A. cf cirrhosus in amelanistic/xanthic form.

--
Mats

I have just updated the L144 entry in the Cat-eLog to indicate that the pictures do not represent "true" L144.

--
Mats

I totally agree with you on this one
cheers
Yann

This is interesting- I've seen Mark Walters' fish at auction. I doubted they were true L144 (not from a position of strength- just from the point of view that wild-caught L144 never seem to be imported), but didn't realise that the fish pictured in the Cat-elog was the same species as Mark's fish.

Carp37 wrote:(not from a position of strength- just from the point of view that wild-caught L144 never seem to be imported)

Well, actually, there is ONLY ONE SINGLE FISH that is "wild L144". All the other TRUE L144 has come from that single male through captive breeding of offspring from that single male - no wonder there isn't a lot of them around.

As to where the other species that are sold as L144. come from (e.g. are there cross-breeding of "true L144" with common Ancistrus or some other species?), I'm much less certain.

--
Mats

I have added for the REAL L144. Thanks to Ingo Seidel for the picture.

I'm not quite sure what to do with the current L144 entry.

[Edit: Fix link, as I've now swapped the "fake" L144 into ].

--
Mats

I think we have consensus now? Need to change some of the links above tho!

Jools

I'm going to move this into the "Resolved" section, as I think it's "done". We may want to beef out the text section (and check the sp(4) to ensure it's got no incorrect references). I'll raise a new issue for the L144 article in Shane's World, as well...

--
Mats

Any reason why "L144" isn't being lumped with ?

I'm not seeing a difference between L144 and and A. sp. 4 that's jumping out at me. Hmmm.

racoll, I think a reasonable reason not to lump L144 and A. cf. cirrhosus is because we cannot prove they are the same. However, as you showed with mtDNA, A. sp. 4 is the same as A. cf. cirrhosus, so we should consider lumping those.

Suckermouth wrote: racoll, I think a reasonable reason not to lump L144 and A. cf. cirrhosus is because we cannot prove they are the same. However, as you showed with mtDNA, A. sp. 4 is the same as A. cf. cirrhosus, so we should consider lumping those.

Ha ha. My "L144" in inverted commas = !

Should have been more explicit.

I'll do a nuclear gene at some point and see what that says.

Might need to change this in the sp(4) entry

Distribution: The original L144 was Imported from Paraguay. The fish pictured here is of unknown origin.

FuglyDragon wrote:Might need to change this in the sp(4) entry

Distribution: The original L144 was Imported from Paraguay. The fish pictured here is of unknown origin.

Fixed...

--
Mats

racoll wrote:

Suckermouth wrote: racoll, I think a reasonable reason not to lump L144 and A. cf. cirrhosus is because we cannot prove they are the same. However, as you showed with mtDNA, A. sp. 4 is the same as A. cf. cirrhosus, so we should consider lumping those.

Ha ha. My "L144" in inverted commas =

Ancistrus sp(4)

!

Should have been more explicit.

I'll do a nuclear gene at some point and see what that says.

If there's space on the plate, go for it, I wouldn't expect anything else but confirmation that they are the same.

I wasn't aware Rupert had done mtDNA sequencing on "sp.4" and cf. cirrhosus, but if they do appear to be the same, I'd agree with Milton that "sp. 4" should be lumped in as a variant of cf. cirrhosus.

Suckermouth wrote:I wouldn't expect anything else but confirmation that they are the same.

I wanted to rule out hybridisation, as this lone L144 male from Paraguay may have sown his seed far and wide

Right, I have a link on sp(4) to the cf. cirrhosus. I'd think that we could merge it, but I wasn't quite sure HOW certain the ID is - I'm also a bit concerned that they seem to grow much smaller than common ones...

[And we'd probably end up with only 4 pictures or some such].

--
Mats

Mats' solution seems pretty reasonable to me, including the link to L-numbers showing L144 twice (the real one and "sp.4").

Carp37 wrote:Mats' solution seems pretty reasonable to me, including the link to L-numbers showing L144 twice (the real one and "sp.4").

Actually, I meant to remove the second L144 - but I suppose it's a "feature" to keep it. There is a bug in the "submit data" that you can't delete common names, I think it's been recorded before.

--
Mats

Even though it's wrong in the true sense of L-numbers, I'd be tempted to leave it in the L-numbers list, as what we're now calling "sp.4" is still going to be referred to as L144 in the trade for at least the foreseeable future.

racoll wrote:

Suckermouth wrote:I wouldn't expect anything else but confirmation that they are the same.

I wanted to rule out hybridisation, as this lone L144 male from Paraguay may have sown his seed far and wide

Since there is no evidence for Ancistrus hybridization at all AFAIK, that would certainly be interesting.

Suckermouth wrote:Since there is no evidence for Ancistrus hybridization at all AFAIK, that would certainly be interesting.

Ehm, we have had at least one post here on PlanetCatfish with pictures of fry spawned from and another Ancistrus sp. I can't remember the details, but that was posted.

I do agree that they are probabl LESS likely to hybridize than for example Hypancistrus, as they are far more wide-spread and common in nature.

--
Mats

Yeah, someone should ask Ingo et al to give this guy an l-number and be done with it!

Jools

I had a male L159 breed with female L182

Interesting. Now I know.

some of the 'hybrids' are reaching maturity, the spots have gotten smaller as they have grown but still not as small or bright as the L182 female.

As I dont seem to have a L182 male I might try breeding some of them back with the female and see what I get.

anyone care to offer an ID on this male ? he was bought with the L182's he has same backgrpound coloring but no spots at all.

He has matured since these photos ansd now has typical male briistles, but still no spots.