PlanetCatfish.com

on request:
first off, I'll say this, so you'll be warned: I'm NOT a good photographer, despite a pretty cam (canon G2). I specifically included some pix wich aren't sharp to show the variety in pattern wich occurs with this species. Not exactly cat-e-log material.

second: check the black & white portions of the pectoral and dorsal fin: as you can see, it has "petricol-pectorals" but a "multipunctatus-dorsal" (I'm referring to the way black and white are arranged)
It's a sturdy built fish, unlike petricola, but very much like the true polli. These are all F1's AFAIK.

headview


at a much younger age, in a dark tank


here the black dorsal can be seen, same age as second pic


my biggest specimen; check the irregular pattern!


this one is from the same group, almost as big; pattern!!


about six months ago, or so; the third is an adult dwarf petricola.


check the white band on pectoral, and shape of whiskers....


Tropheus bumped in, but again, check pattern of the catfish!


see text above.


ditto.

This is what I can do for now; save pitching one in ethanol and sending it to HH....
Sid

These pics are enough to tell me that this is clearly an undescribed species (save the ethanol and more importantly, save the fish!). The color pattern, humeral process shape (it's longer than in S. polli) and the shape of the caudal fin lobes (pointed vs. rounded in S. polli) are very distinctive.
If wild-caught specimens with exact locality can be found, the description of this should not pose too much of a problem (Rusty?).

I think I have at least one preserved specimen that looks a little bit like your fish, Sid. I'll post a pic once I get around to cleaning it up.

Rusty

To me, these look much like "dwarf petricola" (an undescribed species), but are probably yet a different undescribed species (if they are not an artificial hybrid). Certainly no resemblance I can see to S. polli, from Zambia or anywhere else on Lake Tanganyika.

Greg Pierson and I talked about this fish by email about two years ago. He also called it a variant of polli initially, but changed his mind to thinking of them as more like dwarf petricola. The other resemblance with dwarf petricola is that they are apparently relatively easy to spawn in aquaria.

BTW, what's the size of the fish in your pix, Sid?

Dinyar

They're all over the hobby these days, and some people breed them by the hundreds, I know one breeder in person, and I've seen his wildcaught parent fish.
He's not the kind of guy to spout nonsense or lies, and he DOEs visit Lake Tanganyika on a regular base (he's a scuba diver as well)

In local shop we have probably these species. I must go and check today. They are bred so that`s why i thought they are probably hybrids.

BTW, what's the size of the fish in your pix, Sid?

the biggest is about 6-7 cm right now.

the adults I've seen were something in the 12-13 cm range.

I thought ALL petricola were easily recognized by a white dorsal spine, something wich is obviously not the case here.
and adults don't resemble any petricola, neither do these; too stubby built, too narrow mouth, bigger eyes etc.
As soon as possible, I'll travel to Rene and take pics of his WC adults!

SG_Eurystomus wrote:I thought ALL petricola were easily recognized by a white dorsal spine, something wich is obviously not the case here.
and adults don't resemble any petricola, neither do these; too stubby built, too narrow mouth, bigger eyes etc.

I said "more like S. petricola", not "S. petricola". Some of the characters you list, such as "narrow mouth", don't strike me as particularly representative of S. polli. But it's not really very productive to say "more like..." this or that, because assuming the fish is not a hybrid (and I'm willing to believe it's not), it's almost certainly yet another undescribed species of tanganyika Synodontis.

Yes, it would be very interesting to see photos of adult specimens.

Dinyar

Hi!

Still it is not 100% sure that are not Hybrid???
It would be also pretty useful to know the origin from the specimens found in shop.
If all come from Wild caught import or from Breeding farm...
There was a great 2 part article about Synodontis from the Tanganyika wriiten by Erwin Schraml that was published in Datz...
I shall see if any look similar to the one here
it would also be great to have him post his opinion on that topic...
Cheers
Yann

yannfulliquet wrote:There was a great 2 part article about Synodontis from the Tanganyika wriiten by Erwin Schraml that was published in Datz...
I shall see if any look similar to the one here

Not as far as I recall (and I've been discussing this article with Erwin for more than a year).

yannfulliquet wrote:it would also be great to have him post his opinion on that topic...

But let's not flame him next time he gives us his opinion.

Dinyar

Hi!

His article was published in Datz in the issues of August and September or September and October. It was greatly illustrated.
A must read article if you want to see better among these Syno or make you scratch your head even more...



Of course we shall not flame him.... I know I have not been totally innocent in this even if it was not directed on him but rather on I. I. but I am going a bit off topic there so discussion close...

Cheers
Yann

yannfulliquet wrote:His article was published in Datz in the issues of August and September or September and October.

He circulated a draft more than a year earlier. For various reasons, publication was greatly delayed.

Dinyar

Hi Dinyar

Some of the characters you list, such as "narrow mouth", don't strike me as particularly representative of S. polli

you're right, it's not.
Polli, like petricola, has a wide mouth (although petricola's even wider than polli's), especially when compared to multipunctatus, granulosus or nigromaculatus for example.

But I think this species is different from both species; it's definitely NOT a polli, but that's the "tradename" that we have to deal with, for the time being.....

the bodyshape is more "polli" than "petricola" IMO, and the fact that both he true polli (when juvenile!) and this one have a black dorsal spine and white edges on the pectorals is confusing. True polli's have a different outlook when juvenile, though; more spots, wider mouth, rounded tailpoints etc.

I still have true polli's at home, and they don't look anything remotely like these!

Irrevocale proof: this fish is NOT a hybrid!!

the wildcaught parent of all the F1 "polli white Zambia"
this one's the male:



the smaller one's a F1

Hey guys, interresting discussion about this fish I caught 15 years ago! We called it Synodontis species "polly white". At that time it was a very rare "accidental catch". Later I saw many more of this nice cat. I have been catching cichlids, cats and others for 7 years and there is one major thing I've learned: "we've seen nott'n yet". My guess is that we have named a few synodontis only and the guys that were doing it at the time had no idea how many lookalikes there are. I went to the Museum of Africa in Tervuren, Belgium to see for myself the type specimes collected at that time and to my surprice and horror I found many different species in the same jar as beeing holotypes!
So what happened when Poll made his drawings of these catfish? Did he just draw one fish or did he had all the ones I found in his jar in Tervuren in front of him? I think it is about time someone will pick up from there and will start investigating the old stuff first to make a base to start discribing all other wonderfull cats from lake Tanganyka! Lots of fun with your cats! René Krüter.

to my surprice and horror I found many different species in the same jar as beeing holotypes

This doesn't make any sense to me. There can only be one primary type (holotype, neotype, lectotype) for one nominal species at any given time, unless you're talking about syntypes. But I don't think Poll described any Synodontis with a syntype series.

Perhaps lakediver meant that specimens representing multiple similar species were in the same jar labeled as one species. We certainly know that can happen.

Dinyar

Hi René,

the problem that in the natural museums are different species in one "lot" is common, not only in catfish. The problem is often that in the big lakes you find a species-swarm, with very similar looking species. At first glance its often not possible to tell the difference, where the variety of a species ends or where a different species begins. Surely Synodontis from Lake Tanganyika are such a case. Especially because some of them get pretty big and have different growing stages (S.dhonti, S.tanganaicae and S.lacustricolus for instance, but even the best know species S.multipunctatus reaches over 25 cm!). We don't know yet if they appear in color morphs, what I'm suggesting for S.dhonti, or in restricted local races, like S.petricola. Maybe in the latter its just the same as in Pseudotropheus elongatus from L.Malawi. That "species" occurs around the lake, but its devided in so many (sub-) species. You're absolutley right, we don't know yet, how many more surprises these lakes are still hiding. And in the museums is endless much work for generations of ichthyologists. "So many fish, so little time", an interesting title of an article, that fits every day.

Erwin

Erwin,
I admit upfront I'm a novice at Tang. Syno IDs. You mention tanganaicae and lacustricolus, I thought they were the same species. Is your article available in English?

It should be available in English too, but I have not received a copy of it from Today's Fishkeeper magazine yet It must be in the issue of september(?) 2003. Maybe somebody else on this list has it already and can send you a pdf?

Sorry,

Erwin

Actually, I/we would also like a PDF copy of the second installment of Erwin's article. Erwin, maybe you should post a new topic in this forum asking if anyone has the article.

Dinyar

Erwin what do you mean by

We don't know yet if they appear in color morphs, what I'm suggesting for S.dhonti, or in restricted local races, like S.petricola.

I'm new at keeping Catfish but I think there are many more species of petricola or multipunctatus
I've 3 different looks of multi's in possesion and for I know only one species multi is descript but I maybe haven't been looking around enough.

There is always a lumper/splitter discussion in fish taxonomy.

It looks like that in ornitology, scientists prefer the use of subspecies instead of species, when the collected individuals are from different areas and if they are only slightly different from each other. Well, birds can fly and go longer distances in a shorter time as fish can do. This means on the border of the distribution area of such subspecies you also will find intergrades between the two subspecies. But if you go along the distribution area of the whole species, you will come to a point, where you find subspecies which differ in such a great way from another more far away living subspecies, that they could be easily two different species (if there wouldn't be all the subspecies between these areas which show theses differences step by step).

There are Ichthyologist who say, what for we need a subspecies (=geogr. variant), if a population shows characters which can be expressed, we also can name it as a species. I think in large lakes, like Tanganyika, you always will find populations which are isolated from others for a while, and which therefore create own characters. Are they right away different species? Isn't the subspecies-concept the better way to express such geographical differences?

Tropheus, for instance, is in L.Tanganyika already much much better researched. There you find slightly differences from one rocky place to another. We just have started to receive Synodontis from more different areas, and already we get variations. We know now that the S.multipunctatus from the northern end of the lake looks different from those collected in Zambia. But are they really different species?

For S.dhonti I know for sure, that the collection which I have seen is from one single spot in Zambia, and there I could see a grey morph and a more copperish colored morph. These are not subspecies, because both occur at the same place, that is what is called morphs.

In S.petricola I know that two different types were also collected in Zambia at one place, but they are not only different in coloration, also they will probably reach a different size. I don't know about there anatomical characters much, because they are still alive, and I would like to see how they finally will look like after some years. These are probably two good species and not just one, even they show both attributes of S.petricola.

Could I explain a little bit the present confusion?

Erwin

Tom, I also thought initially that it should not be a problem to follow the authors of the article about the status of S.lacustricolus, who thought that they found out, that this is a synonym of S.tanganaicae. But looking at some fish from Zambia, and seeing with my own eyes that there is a more short-snouted form (S.tanganaicae) and one with a long snout (S.lacustricolus), make me now believe, that both are valid species. We have not seen so many individuals of them yet, and even the biggest ones where not even half of the size of the types of these species. So there should be some more investigation going on until a final decission should be made, if they are really two different species.

Erwin

Thanks Erwin for you explanation, it is more clear to me now.

Erwin,
Thanks for the reply. Using the premise of short snout and long snout are the pics of tanganaicae in the Cat-e-log actually that species or are they lacustricolus or both?

Thanks,
Tom

Tom, I guess you're talking about the picture which can be found under S.dhonti?! At that time when these specimens appeared, they appeared first at Pete Hauschner's wholesale in Texas. He, Dinyar Lalkaka, Greg Pierson (the photographer of the specimens in cat-e-log) and me, discussed at that time which species they might be. I can not see any reason why the S.dhonti should not be this species. It's the grey morph, as I would call it. If I remember right, then they were about 20-25 cm long, and in the largest one, the humeral process startet to change its shape. The shape of this gave us some hard time, because in younger specimens (up to almost 20 cm) it looks very different from that of an adult fish.

That time I also had acceptet without own examinations, that S.lacustricolus is a synonym of S.tanganaicae, like De Voss and Thys van den Audenaerde had written. My daubts appeared later, when such large Synodontis came for the first time to Germany. Amongst them I could find fish which exactly looked like the fish of which De Voss an Thys had a photograph in their paper, and also some with a much longer snout. And then I figured out, that the long snout is not just an expression of age. They could also be two species.

Therefore I think now, that the species, which Greg Pierson named in accordance with us all S.tanganaicae, is probably S.lacustricolus. And so is the fish, which can be seen on the cat-e-log (how does it work that this picture appears now in this text - help )

Erwin

confusing....
and what would you make of this one?

dhonti, tanganicae or lacustricolus?


here the same one, showing teeth


and this is another shot of that same fish, diving below the granny....

he was a sole contaminant in a shipload of multies from Burundi....

Same fish, other tank,



I've recently bought this fish and I am very curious of what it is. SidGuppy is confusing me now.

TIA

Well, I was (!) pretty sure it was a dhonti

especially when taking in consideration, that I supplied a pic of this particular fish, and we then decided it to be a dhonti!

It's in the cat-e-log as such!

But I want the opinion of someone who has seen dhonti's in the wild, so to speak.

erwin, what do you think?