PlanetCatfish.com

Lujan, NK & JW Armbruster, 2011. Two new genera and species of Ancistrini (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the western Guiana Shield. Copeia 2011: 216–225.

Abstract

Two new ancistrin genera and species are described from main channels and tributaries of the upper Orinoco River in Amazonas, Venezuela. Micracanthicus vandragti is black with white spots and distinguished by its small body-size, large gas-bladder capsules, and highly protrusible mandibles with short tooth cups and five to eight long teeth per tooth cup. The known range of Micracanthicus vandragti is restricted to the lower Ventuari River and portions of the Orinoco River near its rocky, anastomose confluence with the Ventuari River. Soromonichthys stearleyi is green with small yellow-gold spots on the head and thin vertical bars on the body and has long dentary and premaxillary tooth cups with 39–69 teeth per tooth cup. It is distinguished by its coloration and by its unique pattern of plate loss on the snout: plates absent from mesethmoid surface and anteriormost margin of snout. Soromonichthys stearleyi is known only from Soromoni Creek, a northern tributary of the upper Orinoco draining southern slopes of Mount Duida.

I believe is Micracanthicus?

Hi!!

it shall be interesting to see in what it differ from Pseudolithoxus or Lasiancistrus...
I am looking forward to reading this description
Cheers
Yann

Coloured images of new species from original description is here:

Micracanthicus: http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-a ... 6_4654.jpg

Soromonichthys: http://a3.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/photos-a ... 7_4941.jpg

If anybody want a full PDF of this paper you can write on email miksik.michal@gmail.com

Silurus wrote:I believe

Ancistrini sp(1)

is Micracanthicus?

No. Ancistrini sp. (1) has a pic of the jaws, and these clearly do not match the picture in the description.

Anyone else thinking about LDA66 being at least similar but not sure if sucker disc the same? Catelog pics of the new species imminent.

Jools

Dumb question of the day: could Micracanthicus vandragti be ?

racoll wrote:Dumb question of the day: could Micracanthicus vandragti be

L201

?

Don't think so. The largest specimen is 42mm, and one would expect that they would have found some larger specimens if it was L201. After all, they collected 59 specimens over quite a distance apart. Of course, I don't KNOW for sure...

--
Mats

Yes, you are right Mats. Just noticed that.

Jools wrote:Anyone else thinking about LDA66 being at least similar but not sure if sucker disc the same?

LDA66 or L 435 is a Lithoxus, I am pretty sure about this. The sucker disc doesn´t match. The typical barbels from Lithoxus are missing in Micracanthicus vandragti. Have a look at the mouth of L 435 here: http://www.datz.de/Artikel.dll/l-431-bi ... B7D0E4A085
But I agree, that body shape matches.

Anybody else wondering about Fig.1? The paratype and the uncataloged specimen look very different. The one above is very flat, the paratype isn´t, the adipose fin and as well the caudal fin is different.

Yes, I did spot a big difference in fig. 1.

Yann suggested when I posted about M. vandragti on FB that it possibly is L280 - we don't even have a picture for L280, but there is a single picture on l-welse.com.

--
Mats

Hi!!

Yes it was first thought to be an Hypancistrus when first presented. The origin match as the size, colour and morphology

In the Aqualog, they show 2 pictures of the real L280 while the others are Hypancistrus

http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showp ... roduct/295

Cheers
Yann

I agree with Yann, L 280 fits very well.

http://www.datz.de/Artikel.dll/l-280-or ... 5E2D6773DA
This is the DATZ publication, with the same picture we have on l-welse.com. But it is said, that the specimens turned out to be pretty easy to keep in the aquarium and the species is apparently omnivore.

Hi,

Is it possible that anyone could send me a copy?

Thanks a lot!
so long
Norman

Done, Norman!

Thanks Daniel!

I'd like to have a copy too (address in the e-mail icon), thanks.

L280 is close enough for me. It certainly belongs to this new genus. Catelog updated!

Jools