PlanetCatfish.com

The pictures of looks like a Chaetostoma to me, not an Ancistrus. What do you guys think?

I think it looks like some mad (Czech?) scientist crossed an Ancistrus with a Chaetostoma.

I agree, it's not a typical Ancistrus. But it's not a perfect match to Chaetostoma either.

Maybe it would be better of as a "Ancistrini"?

There are other, described Ancistrus, that have a similar mouth, e.g. :


--
Mats

Good catch. This appears to have been a data entry typo. L 355 is an Ancistrus sp.

Pls see Wels Atlas Vol 2 page 224.

-Shane

Shane, now I'm not following you. The fish in the Cat-eLog is currently listed as an Ancistrus, but I believe Mike is trying to say it should be Chaetostoma.

Having looked into it a bit further: in Ingo's L-number book, there is picture illustrating L355 a fish with the typical Chaetostoma "black edges of the scutes", but typical "bristles" of the Ancistrus,. In the Datz L-numbers Special, L355 is a similarly marked "black trim" Ancistrus.

--
Mats

L 355 is an Ancistrus. The ref above (Wels Atlas) shows a male with tentacles.

The fish we have pictured as is clearly NOT L 355 and should not have been entered as such.

-Shane

Ok, so do we have any idea what the pictures show? Or is it Chaetostoma sp(X)?

I'm happy to fix it up.

[And sorry for being daft again. Seems everything I do/say goes wrong these days... ]


By the way, does Wels Atlas have a picture of the mouth - seems like none of the pictures I've seen show a mouth of L355.


--
Mats

By the way, does Wels Atlas have a picture of the mouth - seems like none of the pictures I've seen show a mouth of L355.

No, just a pic of a male.
The same pic, flipped, is in Back to Nature L-Catfishes.

The fish has characteristics of both family's Chaetostoma and Ancistrus.

Other than the 'bristles' what is the difference between Ancistrus and Chaetostoma? Is it something to do with the cheek odontodes?

The.Dark.One wrote:Other than the 'bristles' what is the difference between Ancistrus and Chaetostoma? Is it something to do with the cheek odontodes?

According to Armbruster's key here:
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_ ... y/key.html
the difference is "Fleshy tentacles on snout" Yes = Ancistrus, No = Chaetostoma.

--
Mats

Mmm. Surely there are other morphological differences?

The.Dark.One wrote:Mmm. Surely there are other morphological differences?

I'm sure there are, but if you look at some of the Ancistrus, such as L309 which has a mouth matching Baryancistrus, A.claro that has a mouth very much resembling Chaetostoma, A. ranunculus with a body shape that is pretty unusual, etc, then we see that Ancistrus is a pretty variable group. So I'm not sure if theare are any really good consistant ones...

[Of course I probably shoudln't even comment on the subject, as I know nothing, just repeating what I've read elsewhere - I've never kept any Chaetostoma, and only four or five species of Ancistrus, so hardly experienced...]


--
Mats

The.Dark.One wrote:Mmm. Surely there are other morphological differences?

It's definitely the easiest. Pretty much all the other characters are hard to see or osteological IIRC.

I've been agonizing over the Wels atlas photo. It is remarkably similar to the fish in the cat-elog wrt coloration. I find it hard to explain why a Chaetostoma would be so very similar in pigmentation to an Ancistrus. If Ancistrus sp. "L-355" has a claro-like mouth, I suppose it is possible that the cat-elog photo shows a young female... but if you'd just given me the cat-elog photos without telling me what it was I'd without hesitation have said "cool Chaetostoma, bro!".

As none of us seem really sure what the heck is in that photo, maybe it is best to leave it as Ancistrus sp. L-355?

Mike, Shane's point is that the pictures in the Cat-eLog are misidentified and are not truly L355.

Guys,

This is a good spot.

I'm, stone wall, happy this isn't an Ancistrus. If you look at the relative longer length of the paired fins, the less developed evertible spines and the rubbernose, this fish we currently have is a male Chaetostoma. Any Ancistrus with fins anywhere near that well developed would be all bristled up.

I will fix.

Jools

If you tell me what to call it, I can do this [probably any minute now], as I have just started a 20 minute build.

--
Mats

Well, I need to check it's not ANY of the other l-numbers first.

Jools

Mats,

Mmmm, turns out L402 = the Rio Zuata fish Shane and I collected. Can you rename the sp. Zuata entry as L402 and move over any associated records like common name then rename L402 as sp(2) for now?

Jools

Mats,

I can't say it fits any Chaetostoma in the l-number system. So, suggest you rename the now vacant L402 as sp(2) and whack all Christian's pics in there?

Cheers,

Jools

Ok, onit.

--
Mats

However, to avoid "sp(2)" colliding with old usage, I prefer sp(5)...

So, moved the images now. Accidentially moved the Andre Werner picture that I think Jools added just now... Moved that back again.

I'm going to update the data as well.

Edit: Cleaned out occurrances, common name and emptied the "distribution" field on the datasheet.

--
Mats

So, the resultant changes are in and ?

Jools

Yupp. That's the idea anyways.

--
Mats

Both look OK to me now.

Jools

Shane,

OK, so Chaetostoma aff_milesi is C. sp. . The one in the catelog as might be C. pearsi. I begin to understand this old, old confusion, what's your take on this?

Jools

PS Mats, can you move things around? I think it's better as C. sp(L402) than anything else.

I'll move C. aff_milesi to L402 tonight - I'm done with my build thingy now...

--
Mats

Ok, L402 it is now - found myself "waiting" again...
L402 common name also added.

--
Mats

OK, so Chaetostoma aff_milesi is C. sp. L402. The one in the catelog as Chaetostoma sp`rio_zuata(orinoco)` might be C. pearsi. I begin to understand this old, old confusion, what's your take on this?

Ok, have not been keeping up with new L Numbers, but am comfortable with that designation if you are.

Unfortunately is not C. pearsei, which is a Valencia/Tuy drainage fish. See the photos I took in Wels Atlas Vol 2 pg 442 and 443. We have the exact same fish pictured as in the Cat-elog (just a different photo).

Schultz collected at the Rio Zuata right where you and I did. He IDed L 402 as C. milesi (clearly wrong) but must not have caught the second spp found there (C. sp Rio Zuata).

I am OK with moving the above fish to Chaetostoma, though I have a nagging feeling it might be one of the closely related genera, like Dolichancistrus or Leptoancistrus. However, despite an hour's worth of work I can not key it out. Too many of these genera require a sexually mature male to key out.

-Shane