PlanetCatfish.com

[Mod edit: Split from this --Mats]

I am asking this as a very serious question.
Can any one tell me with what guidelines L numbers are issued?
You have photos of several fish all displaying patterns and shapes that to me vary.
You are saying they are L this or that is it based on any rules or set standeds?

macvsog23 wrote:I am asking this as a very serious question.
Can any one tell me with what guidelines L numbers are issued?
You have photos of several fish all displaying patterns and shapes that to me vary.
You are saying they are L this or that is it based on any rules or set standeds?

I don't believe there is a published standard anywhere. It is up the the authors in DATZ (the publication that publishes new L-numbers), and it's based on:
1. Sufficiently different body pattern.
2. Sufficiently different body shape/size.
3. Sufficiently different location [For example: (L75/L124/L301/LDA002) and (L121, L135, L305)]

Don't ask me how much "sufficiently different" actually is - generally, on point 3, it's "a different river".

And matching L-numbers is simply a case of matching with the pictures published by DATZ - there may be brief textual descriptions, but often it's not a lot of detail.

It becomes a judgement, and there are a few options:
1. Just lump everything remotely similar in the same bucket.
I don't particularly like this one.
2. Split everything on the tiniest difference...
This can become unmanageable, and it becomes the problem of what you call "It looks nearly identical to Lxxx, but it's not quite right"...
3. Wait for detailed scientific publication - and no one is allowed to trade in undescribed species.
Clearly this wouldn't work with the current crop of fish, and there are collection going on in all manner of different new areas too.
4. Use the current system, and decide on a case by case basis.

I'm splitting this thread, as I'm sure there will be some debate, and I don't think it belongs in this particular thread specifically.

--
Mats

and an uptodate DATZ list with photos can be obtained from were?

Buy DATZ Sonderheft L-Nummern (L1-L387) and DATZ Magazines after L387

I would say this is about the most out of date book I have

..and that's the reason to buy DATZ Magazines

MatsP wrote:
4. Use the current system, and decide on a case by case basis.
Mats

Macvsog
What is wrong with doing the above.

You keep going on about the L Number system and how bad it is, what else is there ?

Hi mate I got a Aqualog book of all L-Numbers by Erwin Schraml and Frank Schafer
but there's not much info just continent of origin/temp/pH/food etc.
But what it dose have is lots of great photos and more then one photo of each L-number
that really helps I got mine in my LFS but there's lots being sold on line
got mine for £50 but it was being sold for £70 !!!! I got version (21)

Matt30 wrote:Hi mate I got a Aqualog book of all L-Numbers by Erwin Schraml and Frank Schafer
but there's not much info just continent of origin/temp/pH/food etc.
But what it dose have is lots of great photos and more then one photo of each L-number

Hi, this must be some new edition? As far i know, it only holds L1-L350 (some with no photo at all, or erranous one). DATZ have all the original photos.

AndrewC wrote:

MatsP wrote:
4. Use the current system, and decide on a case by case basis.
Mats

Macvsog
What is wrong with doing the above.

You keep going on about the L Number system and how bad it is, what else is there ?

Nothing is wrong with the L Number sytem.
I just whis to understand its workings and were it is taking us as fish keepers

For the vast majority of fish, I beleive the L-number system works just fine.

The problem comes with a small number of species that are difficult to identify and quite expensive (meaning that some people will benefit, sometimes greatly, from misidentifying the fish in question - this leads to further confusion, because if you search the internet for Lxxx, it shows 7 different forms of fish, all labeled as the same one - because the people who bought the fish believes the seller is correct).

But the exact same thing would happen if they were using common names or any other form of naming undescribed species, and given the way that scientific descriptions work, we may not be able to tell the fish apart by scientific description either.

--
Mats

Hi t-hak (2003 version 21) there are much more resent versions out there.

macvsog23 wrote:I would say this [DATZ L numbers special] is about the most out of date book I have

This is the original reference for L numbers, so cannot be out of date. New photos are not issued for old L numbers,so the image provided there is the only correct reference for each L number.

When a fish is described, the L number is effectively retired.

racoll wrote:

macvsog23 wrote:I would say this [DATZ L numbers special] is about the most out of date book I have

This is the original reference for L numbers, so cannot be out of date. New photos are not issued for old L numbers,so the image provided there is the only correct reference for each L number.

When a fish is described, the L number is effectively retired.

My point was more it has not got the newer L numbers in it not that the old ones were out of date
As you point out the l number should be no longer used once it gets a scientific description. Sadly people can’t let go and still use the L numbers.
I still see L200 on the lists at the LFS were I work.

macvsog23 wrote:As you point out the l number should be no longer used once it gets a scientific description. Sadly people can’t let go and still use the L numbers.
I still see L200 on the lists at the LFS were I work.

But that list probably also contains any number of other scientific inaccuaracies, like synonyms that aren't in published papers in the last ten years, misidentifications such as Tatia galaxias that are in fact Tatia intermedia, and Peckoltia vittata that turn out to be Panaque maccus.

--
Mats

MACVSOG23,
Your questions are very good ones and just the sort people start to ask after a while. To my mind the L Number system has far outlived its usefulness and, in fact, has become as much a detriment as a help to the hobby as far as its usefulness for identification purposes. On the positive side (or negative?) it also started the "Pokeman card collector" phenom that attracted a lot of attention to the catfish aspect of the aquarium hobby.

DATZ have all the original photos.

This is spot on! The ONLY way to see the photo of the fish that was assigned a specific L Number (think of it as the L Number "holotype") is to have 20ish years of back issues of DATZ. Same for Das Aquarium's LDA number system. Every L Number book I am aware of contains some original photos from DATZ and then some (often many) photos of fish that "look like" what was originally assigned the L Number (due to copyright issues). Since the L Numbers vary so much between books, and probably not a single US hobbyist has access to 20 years of DATZ back issues, it is now necessary to use the L Number and cite the book and edition you are using to make that ID. Luckily PC has somewhat stabilized this mess as most English speaking hobbyists are using PC as their guide to L Number IDs. Note, that even having every DATZ back issue is not a 100% solution as they messed up a couple of times and reissued L Numbers to different fish. My other pet peeve has been DATZ "assigning" genera to L Numbers (that as often as not are wrong when the fish is eventually identified with a known species or described), but that is another topic.

-Shane

Shane
I am grateful for your sane and helpful comments.
Thanks again your have hit the nail on its head, with the poker mon comparison.

You have given me the information I need to make the decision I have been pondering for some time.

Regards Bob

Shane wrote:probably not a single US hobbyist has access to 20 years of DATZ back issues, it is now necessary to use the L Number and cite the book and edition you are using to make that ID.

That's true, but I would suggest irrelevant. At least in terms of L001-L350 or thereabouts, they are all in the bilingual DATZ special edition that I edited the English for. I also took two boxes of these to the US and folks could get, for example, copies from Lee. Newer L-numbers are available in a similar method as scientific papers but, really, the main source would be us.

As you know firsthand, we take a lot of care about the ID of the 12,000 or so pics on the site although I'd be the first to admit that a few things need reviewed. Hypancistrus being a prime example, although I hope to do that during a trip to Germany mid this year.

Jools

Jools I am sure Shane or for that matter no one is questioning the PC L numbers or the amount of hard work you’re putting in to keeping them up to date.
I for one would eat dead rat rather than attempt what your doing let alone try to keep it up-to-date.
I think a few people find the system out of control not you’re listing but the fabric of the system. I know it’s the best we have in many ways but I find the whole thing is being turned in to a shudo scientific matter by a few people who can’t accept that it’s now over loaded.
I have no scientific or taxadermical back ground so I am offering no solution or alternative. It is just an observation and an opinion.
The L number system will carry on and people will still dispute an L number. It is the way of the world.
But I do feel that once people like your self have labelled a fish and posted that information in a site it should be observed.Debates will range as several people have pointed out it is mainly based on the more expensive fish not a simple hypan or fish that is easily spawned.
I also understand the problem of people hybridizing to get a fish that looks like a more expensive fish or selling juvies that have a distinctive pattern as a rarer fish. This you can never stop.
I my self breed a few Hypans and have found it most frustrating when several people have confirmed the L Number of my fish only to be attacked or called a liar by some one because they have green eyes.
This whole matter is mainly based on people selling fish on this and other web sites. I advocate that as no one is being forced to buy a fish or pay the asking price that comments regarding its L Number are removed unless some one can provide a positive id of the true L number?
Shane’s Poker Mon comment sums that up.
So to sum up Jools and crew I make no attacks on your work, I just can’t see that the L Number system is working any more and hope an alternative system is provided before we all go crazy.
With around 500 Sp of pleco or more not having a scientific description it may never happen and the L Number system is going to stay but eventually it will be worthless and that can only result in more problems?
My self I would have preferred may be a system were the genus is followed by a location number then a collection number IE hypan L1 C1 for a fish from say one lactation the next fish from that location would be hypan L1 C2 and so on but that would be a night mare to implement so it can never happen.

The Pokemon/Stamp collection principle does indeed apply - and "What is the L-number?" is quite often a question in "What's my catfish", as if all plecos SHOULD have an L-number and that this in itself makes it "better". But it's not the L-number systems fault - it is because (some) people want an easy to identify/pronounce/use "label" to use for their fish, and once they realize that "Plecos are fun", they want more of them, and start collecting different forms - L-numbers make that easier than reading CLOFFSCA...

But I fail to see how we could possibly come up with anything noticeably better... Well, with a lot of work, there could be more detailed descriptions, pictures of more than a single fish [particularly in case of those that are quite variable] and so on. But I don't believe that, aside from not trading in fish that haven't been correctly identified to a scientifically described species... Clearly, PlanetCatfish and some similar websites do a good job, in general, to help identification of the fish.

If only scientifically described species was in the trade, a lot of us would probably be quite unhappy with the selection if that was the case - although those who favour for example Loricariinae and non-pleco type catfish may actually benefit, because the exporters would have to find more species that are described, and skip those undescribed exotic species...

The other, probably unwanted, consequence would be a huge amount of lumping similar looking forms into one species, as they would then belong to the described species and could be exported. Today, they can be exported without having a defined identity. Of course, some exporters and wholesalers still do this to squeeze some new form into an existing L-number, which, because it's "defined", fetches a higher value. But it would get even worse.

I'd like to see someone suggest a feasible alternative...

I would also like to point out that in my opinion, there are only a small number, perhaps a dozen or two, of the 450 L-numbers that are truly "highly debated". Most L-numbers are quite distinctive, and they are not terribly hard to distinguish.

--
Mats

I could not ahve put it better

macvsog23 wrote:My self I would have preferred may be a system were the genus is followed by a location number then a collection number IE hypan L1 C1 for a fish from say one lactation the next fish from that location would be hypan L1 C2 and so on but that would be a night mare to implement so it can never happen.

By collection number, you mean "C1" is collected on the 25th of May 2001, "C2" collected on 7th July 2002, etc? Or just "C1" is "off-white squiggly stripes", "C2" is "pure white squiggly stripes". If it is the latter, then that's exactly what the L-number system already does, just not encoded so that you can separate out the location directly from the number.

The real problem however comes with the fact that exporters/wholesalers don't actually HAVE (or do not reveal to the next level, at least) the exact capture location when they sort the fish for shipping out. And if it's of benefit to the seller, they will mark "up" a fish as something more exotic, because they get more money for, say, L174 than for L333 [that's just an example]. This is more likely to happen when the new fish is from a new location, and looks similar to an existing L-number (or species, if that's what is used as a the export name). When it's often 3-4 steps of different companies involved before the aquarist gets the fish, it's not surprising that the capture location can be confused/lost.

It doesn't help, of course, that Brazil has stopped exporting just about all expensive L-numbers, and trusting smugglers to be honest about the capture location of the fish is like trusting a car-thief to be honest about the service history...

And as a typical example of "it's wrong, but we're used to it being wrong", they are STILL exporting Corydoras trilineatus as C. julii, despite it being caught several hundred miles away, and is not that hard to distinguish. I have no idea how long this has been going on, but I suspect it's more than the 6-7 years that I've been aware of it...

--
Mats

I don't get what you mean by "the l-number system isn't working anymore". What broke it? When did it break?

Your thought about the location encoded in the number is a good idea and very logical but, trust me (I used to invent national data standards for a living) it's a very bad one. The name should simply be a mnemonic, encoding anything else into is would be disastrous. As it is, we already have trouble with multiple l-numbers and the location ID would add, exponentially, another dimension (literally, in the case of set math). Also, what's the granularity of the location? As has been said before, location is also sticky data, l-numbers come from a number of sources. If it's Shane and me with a GPS then, great, hopefully you'd trust our data. If it's anything to do with the trade then the scarcity of the fish affects the data.

Two examples, do we REALLY think L236 is from the Rio Iriri? Nah, it's just somewhere to go look that would be hard to do. I also know, personally, an aquarist who said, in collecting a new loricariid, he paid the fisherman he was with US$500 to ensure the location was kept secret. Even if this is all heresay, it points to the fact that calling something LxCy would complicate a simple system that is getting complex.

The point (again, from systems design) is (baring some editorial mistakes) you should have a system where there is a single point of reference and that is not changed by new data.

As long as new loricariids enter the trade (and there is significantly "fashionable") interest in them, they will get new l-numbers. The thing that would 100% fix all this is that this stopped and all the exising ones were identified or described. I think we're still a long way of that and would not expect to see at least the latter in my lifetime.

Jools

Jools wrote:The thing that would 100% fix all this is that this stopped and all the exising ones were identified or described.

This would also be conditioned on easily distinguishable features that at least advanced aquarists can identify without killing the fish - gill rakers, gut length to SL proportion, number of vertebrae or other internal factors would still make the ID a guessing game.

And a case in point for the "this is not the right location" is that the original description of Hypancistrus zebra is "the wrong direction" - it says, from memory, 2 hours north of Santarem by speed boat, when in fact the actual location is 2 hours SOUTH by same type of boat [of course, what speed the boat is actually travelling is another questionable matter].

--
Mats

That's true, but I would suggest irrelevant. At least in terms of L001-L350 or thereabouts, they are all in the bilingual DATZ special edition that I edited the English for. I also took two boxes of these to the US and folks could get, for example, copies from Lee.

Jools, I do not think that the issue is irrelevant as even the Datz Special does not line up with Datz magazine. A quick scan of the bookshelf next to me turns up the following L Number books
1) The Datz Special you mention above
2) Das Grosse der Welse
3) Aqualog All L Numbers, 1995 soft cover to L 202
4) Aqualog All L Numbers, 2003 Hardbound to L 350
5) Aqualog The most Beautiful L Numbers
6) Wels Atlas 1
7) Wels Atlas 2
L Catfishes (I. Seidel)

I am not even an "L Number guy" and have 8 different L Number books with differing photos on hand. Heck, I do not even have access to the numerous Japanese or Chinese language L Number books. As I said above, PC has done a lot to standardize L Numbers in the English speaking hobby, but L Numbers can never be completely standardized due to reissues of numbers, poor original photos, copy right issues, etc.
Just one example... L 187
L 187 in Wels Atlas 1 is a picture taken by me of a fish I collected in the Rio Aragua (Lake Valencia drainage)
L 187 on PC is a fish I collected in the Rio Zuata (Llanos drainage)
All L Numbers shows two different spp for L 187 and claims they were collected in the upper Orinoco of Colombia/Venezuela. A silly assertion to say the least.
L 187 Datz Special was taken by me and is the same fish pictured in the Wels Atlas. It is not however the original photo from Datz magazine... again due to copy right issues.
L Catfishes has a photo of a fish that looks similar to those I collected in the Rio Aragua, but from one photo I can not say for certain it is.

This is just one L Number and it encompasses in the books at least 4-5 different unrelated spp speard over two countries. How is this not broke?

I'd like to see someone suggest a feasible alternative...

I would be very happy to. Look at the system used by Killi folks. Nothobranchius spec. aff. makondorum Messalo River MZHL 05-12 or Aphyosemion marginatum "Bengui 1-2 GJS 00/29" are far more useful than L 200. These designations are based on collections made by hobbyists and scientists in the field and not by folks working at a trans-shipper in Europe making guesses.
-Shane

MatsP wrote:

macvsog23 wrote:My self I would have preferred may be a system were the genus is followed by a location number then a collection number IE hypan L1 C1 for a fish from say one lactation the next fish from that location would be hypan L1 C2 and so on but that would be a night mare to implement so it can never happen.

By collection number, you mean "C1" is collected on the 25th of May 2001, "C2" collected on 7th July 2002, etc? Or just "C1" is "off-white squiggly stripes", "C2" is "pure white squiggly stripes". If it is the latter, then that's exactly what the L-number system already does, just not encoded so that you can separate out the location directly from the number.

L would be the location so a river or area has a Location number
Ie L1 L2 L3 ECT

C is a collection number so the first fish is C1 next C 2

As Shane said we need to have control of the system not let collectors with vested interests have any input.

Regards Bob

As Shane said we need to have control of the system not let collectors with vested interests have any input.

I would actually be far more comfortable with collectors having input as they at least would know where they captured the fish and could provide habitat data and a series of photos to document different ages and coloration/patterns among the population.
The only input in to the current system comes from a German aquarium magazine that publishes a single photo of a single specimen based on fishes with little to no provenience data shipped to Germany for the aquarium hobby. Then the rest of us play the guessing game trying to match that photo to what is in our local aquarium store and how to best care for the animal.

The real problem however comes with the fact that exporters/wholesalers don't actually HAVE (or do not reveal to the next level, at least) the exact capture location when they sort the fish for shipping out.

I just wanted to point out that I, having spent a lot of time with collectors and exporters in South America, disagree with this statement. Yes, as Jools pointed out, there are rare cases where collectors, hobbyists and/or exporters hide the point of collection for their own ego or business interests, but this is almost unheard of in the trade. In fact most collectors are very willing to share this type of information and are, quite frankly often flattered that anyone would even ask.
-Shane

I do not think that the issue is irrelevant as even the Datz Special does not line up with Datz magazine.

Excepting L187 (the original DATZ was wrong) are you sure? Otherwise, forget books, they're wrong as soon (and usually before) they're published. But I don't think wrong = broken, at least not on that example, or at least I'm not going on that assumption.

I'd like to see someone suggest a feasible alternative...

I would be very happy to. Look at the system used by Killi folks. Nothobranchius spec. aff. makondorum Messalo River MZHL 05-12 or Aphyosemion marginatum "Bengui 1-2 GJS 00/29" are far more useful than L 200. These designations are based on collections made by hobbyists and scientists in the field and not by folks working at a trans-shipper in Europe making guesses.

Great idea. But for me, I don't think that's feasible. Dumbed down horribly, Killie guys don't buy killies from shops much, pleco guys do buy plecos from shops more often than not. It's also quite hard to post plecos (even as eggs).

Furthermore, don't you (the amateur) still have to make a call when Aphyosemion sp. aff. marginatum "Bengui 1-2 GJS 00/29" is described as a n. sp. that Aphyosemion sp. aff. marginatum "Bengui 1-2 GJS 00/28" isn't?

I would suggest that if a market were created that saw $200 Killis the above system would "break" very quickly too.

To make it work, well, you'd have to batch encode at the wholesaler (maybe in addition to the source). You may also have seen the recent paper on Mullerian mimicry in Corydoras, that would break it too (and for the Killis too BTW) in likely more cases than we realise.

How many l-numbers were created in Germany by a trans-shipper not in the field? I've quickly gone through the first 100 and not found one (L010a doesn't count).

Fact is, it's a commercial vehicle, not something built for breeders and, as such, it's not brilliant.

Jools

Hi,

notwithstanding any ascertion that, like all systems of classification trying to group dynamic systems without clearcut differences, the L-Number-system is neither perfect nor without contradictions, I believe that most frustration with it actually stems from inaccurate application than from the system itself.

Taking just Shanes example of L 187, the question as to which is the "actual" L 187 is quite simple: it is the fish pictured in DATZ 10/1994. And NO other (in case of inconsistencies).
In that respect, the Aqualog book is (by most people really involved in that subject) traditionally not considered a trustworthy reference.
The usage of different pictures used in various books is certainly unfortunate, but probably "simply" a consequence of the identification of that fish with C. pearsi (with exceptions such as Aqualog, who are known to use pictures of similar looking fish from different locations, if they can´t find any[1]).
Whether that in turn would (should) justify the use of pictures of any fish identified (by whom?) as C. paersi is an open question, which probably has no definite answer.

As to the idea of using the Killifish type of identification system (which frequently turns up in discussions like this), I can only remind you that this only works because "nobody" cares about these fishes (meaning, they are of no economic value to just about anyone). As long as loricariids are commercially imported to any degree, it is simply not practical to think about implementing this very system for loricariids, simply because it would require to log every lot from any collection trip, which you just won´t get from commercial fishermen.
On a side note, remember that (yes, there are examples mostly from the early days of L-Numbers where that was different) L-Numbers are linked with capture locations by nature. Take L 97 and L 282 as my favorite example: The fishes from Brazil occasionally offered as L 282 are in fact L 97, because L 282 "belongs" to a fish from Venezuela. There´s neven been (to the best of my knowledge) another fish like L 282 from Venezuela, but IF there ever is one, it deserves being called L 282. The other alternative would be proving that the capture location of L 282 was reported wrongly, but that is next to impossible.
But you won´t get Rainer to publish an L-Number for a fish that has no (at least reasonable) capture location with it.

And as a final (personal) remark:
my impression is that the L-Number-System (with exceptions) only "breaks down" where massive financial interests are involved. No one ever intentionally tried to fake the L-Number for a boring, brownish type Ancistrus species. Here, the example supporting that example is L 144, which has been misused for the xanthoristic variant of the common brown bristlenose to make an extra buck. Not to mention all those black/white Hypancistrus types. But here, the same applies: only "identical" fish from the SAME location should be called by a specific L-Number, and no other. The only problem is then to decide where the boundaries between L-Numbers are. But that is no different in any other system of classification.
But it would be unfair to try to blame that on a system and try to keep those (ab)using the system out of the equation (which holds true for any system, by the way, also the Linnean system of nomenclature).

Cheers, Sandor

[1]NOTE: this is a somewhat exaggerated traditional perception based on the first edition of that book and may well have changed since. But I certainly don´t trust Aqualog for their identifications.

I think, in drawing to conclusion, what I'd say is that Planet has the advantage of being able to document what is what and what is not what. If that turned about to be wrong then it can be changed to reflect best knowledge. In Sandor's example, we can talk about L097 and L282 and the issues with them.

Jools