PlanetCatfish.com

de Oliveira, RR, J Zuanon, LR Py-Daniel & MS Rocha, 2010. Peckoltia compta, a new species of catfish from the Brazilian Amazon, rio Tapajós basin (Siluriformes: Loricariidae). Zootaxa 2534: 48–56.

Abstract

The new species looks vaguely like Peckoltia sp(l134).

If that's the case I want that PDF. I'm PM'ing you my e-mail.

EDIT: Thanks HH! This also looks like L134 to me.

any pics.

I have asked the respective authors for copies of the photographs in the paper, and I will be adding them to the Cat-eLog when they arrive. I'm pretty sure this is L134 - the distribution matches, as well as the pictures.

--
Mats

Collected in 1991, described in 2010

Funny how they say ...

Peckoltia snethlageae and P. sabaji were allocated by Armbruster (2008) in Hemiancistrus, however, no diagnostic features nor a clear explanation was presented by the author justifying his decision.

Considering the lack of evidence supporting the relocation of P. snethlageae and P. sabaji to
Hemiancistrus by Armbruster (2008), in the present study we consider both as valid species within Peckoltia.

Where are these diagnostic features and clear explanations here then?

Now I'll show my ignorance: but discussing the eye of the fish, they say "Eye laterodorsal with small but conspicuous iris without diverticulum or flap; orbit round."

Does diverticulum here mean "not an omega eye" - in which case it's either misdiagnosed somehow, or NOT L134.

--
Mats

PDF for me please
michal.miksik@gmail.com
Thank you very much

MatsP wrote:Now I'll show my ignorance: but discussing the eye of the fish, they say "Eye laterodorsal with small but conspicuous iris without diverticulum or flap; orbit round."

This is L134.

I'm surprised by the text quoted but maybe it's just lack of experience in watching the fish, and other ancistrini, in life. If the description is just of a fish as taken out of a dark place and straight into preservative, then this would be why specimens would look this way. Maybe even the flap reduced when preserved or dead - that is a total guess. It's an important characteristic though; I think such a feature would place a species in loricariinae for example!

Jools

Ok, I will update Cat-eLog page this evening.

I think we'll stay with the 110mm SL tho', as I don't think changing it down to 62mm would make sense - I've personally seen fish that I'm sure are larger than 62mm.

--
Mats

I've got the biggest L134 I've ever seen, I will bear in mind and measure it some point. Meantime, I think the SL is about right.

Jools

now in catelog.

Jools

The authors and year needed to be rectified, though.

Silurus wrote:The authors and year needed to be rectified, though.

Good spot, anyone?!?

Jools

As I said earlier, if it's not already done when I get home tonight, I'll add it up.

--
Mats

racoll wrote:Collected in 1991, described in 2010

Funny how they say ...

Don't get me started!

racoll wrote:

Peckoltia snethlageae and P. sabaji were allocated by Armbruster (2008) in Hemiancistrus, however, no diagnostic features nor a clear explanation was presented by the author justifying his decision.

Considering the lack of evidence supporting the relocation of P. snethlageae and P. sabaji to
Hemiancistrus by Armbruster (2008), in the present study we consider both as valid species within Peckoltia.

Where are these diagnostic features and clear explanations here then?

I think they were thinking that Armbruster had no clear reason to make the change, so they reverted it back. Of course, it may be an unnecessary change considering the lack of clarity in the relationships of Hemiancistrus and Peckoltia. I'm just going to point at that Armbruster is revising Hemiancistrus (like he did with Peckoltia) and he is going to deal with those species. I don't know how long it's going to be until that's published, though.

Jools wrote:

MatsP wrote:Now I'll show my ignorance: but discussing the eye of the fish, they say "Eye laterodorsal with small but conspicuous iris without diverticulum or flap; orbit round."

This is L134.

I'm surprised by the text quoted but maybe it's just lack of experience in watching the fish, and other ancistrini, in life. If the description is just of a fish as taken out of a dark place and straight into preservative, then this would be why specimens would look this way. Maybe even the flap reduced when preserved or dead - that is a total guess. It's an important characteristic though; I think such a feature would place a species in loricariinae for example!

Jools

I saw that but didn't comment on it here before. This is certainly in error. Even preserved specimens with very dilated eyes have obvious iris diverticula, as stated in Lujan & Chamon's description of P. bathyphilus and H. pankimpuju. I can't imagine a possible excuse for this. Chamon is Lucia's student, so I can't imagine Lucia being unaware.

Another thing I wanted to comment on was their diagnosis. Their description diagnoses this species by a rather specific striping pattern on the snout which clearly doesn't hold if you look at the Cat-eLog. Seidel says in the Back to Nature guide that the stripes do not break up into spots until the fish reach adulthood, while younger fish are much more consistent. I think all the specimens the authors studied were younger specimens; as mentioned none of the specimens were much larger than 60 mm, while they do get larger. Assuming fish younger than 60 mm have not grown large enough for their stripes to break up, this makes sense. That's my hypothesis as I haven't seen L134 in person so I don't know when their stripes starting breaking up.

I asked a question to the first author about the eyes, but he's on vacation for a bit, so will answer when he's back in the office.

--
Mats

Milton wrote:Another thing I wanted to comment on was their diagnosis. Their description diagnoses this species by a rather specific striping pattern on the snout which clearly doesn't hold if you look at the Cat-eLog. Seidel says in the Back to Nature guide that the stripes do not break up into spots until the fish reach adulthood, while younger fish are much more consistent. I think all the specimens the authors studied were younger specimens; as mentioned none of the specimens were much larger than 60 mm, while they do get larger. Assuming fish younger than 60 mm have not grown large enough for their stripes to break up, this makes sense. That's my hypothesis as I haven't seen L134 in person so I don't know when their stripes starting breaking up.

The diagnosis is not useful at all, even such small speciemens as 5-6 cm can be spotted with almost none stripe or just a few on the caudal peduncle. There are at least 4 localities which one locality where all speciemens have spots and thinner stripes without the typical stripes on their snout. In the description they mention they have used recently caught specimens too, not only the ones from 1991 (they don't specify recently). The diagnosis also fits L288 a little... but they maybe not yet have discovered that species that also is wide spread in Tapajos area.

The only positive in this description is that L134 have got a name and that they open the door for more species then only P. vittata in all other rivers.

Janne

Anyway, it has a name. It is out there. You can't complain it's taken too long and then slate the description - it's like complaining about the state of the roads and then complaining about roadworks! I don't envy the person who takes on that whole thing at a generic level - et al is a lifes work!

Jools

Jools wrote:You can't complain it's taken too long and then slate the description - it's like complaining about the state of the roads and then complaining about roadworks!

True enough!