PlanetCatfish.com

Here the two first pics from one of my wildcaught Ancistrus. This one came in with some normal colored ones which could be . Unfortunately the baby's aren't his.

The original was also from the same area, I think it came in mixed with A.sp."Rio Paraguay". A.sp."Rio Paraguay" sometimes produce offspring with no dark pigment. Could be a coincidence, could be a form of the same species.

Haakon

I have some Ancistrus "Rio Paraguay" by myself and these have a very different body shape.

Body shape of this one was the same as the body shape of those who I believe are Ancistrus pirareta. I am quite sure he is the same species as the normal colored from the same batch as body shape and bristels are identical. I'll try to make some pics from the normal ones as soon as possible.

The L144 crossed my mind also.

I have A.sp."Paraguay" myself, and I haven't really noticed the different bodyshape but maybe I need to look closer. Anyhow, do you think your specimen looks like the true L144? Like in I.Seidels pic here:

http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/im ... ge_id=2735

I'm basing this idea on the possibility that L144 could be a different species than A.sp."Paraguay", that the original L144 was mixed in with A.sp."Paraguay" by coincidence.

Haakon

Isn't this the 'true' L144 pic?
http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/im ... e_id=11546

Yes it is! I didn't realize there were two entries in the cat e-log that could be mixed up. When I used the link to L144 in my first post it led to the profile for Ancistrus sp.(4), and not to the profile for L144...anyhow, both pics are by I.Seidel, and I would say the one you link to is the right one (original)

Haakon

I do see similarities with the original L144 but I also see differences.

The white tips on the tail is something we see in the original L144 and in false L144 but not in common albinos nor in superreds.

However it is not clear in the pictures, it looks like my specimen does have some black pigmentation al over the body. It is less pronounced then in the original L144 but it is present.

My specimen is much more orange then the original L144, could be a diet issue.

My specimen doesn't show the headspot we see on the original L144. However, I've seen identically shaped headspots in normal coloured wildcaught Ancistrus (possible pirareta) but most of the batch didn't had that spot. So the lack of it doesn't necessarily mean it can't be the same species.



I believe the original L144 was another species then the common Ancistrus and by crossbreeding the mutation was fixed in commons. That could partially explain why the original and false L144 are quite distinct.
This one could be the same as the original L144 but could also be something completely different. A crossbreeding with the false L144 could prove if this is the same mutation or not, however this isn't my first goal. First lets try to breed this male with some females from the same species and see if I can breed some more of them.

Hi!!

I would like to add a few things regarding the "common" Ancistrus.
From what I know, Sonia Fish-Muller (The leading Ichthyolog regarding this genus) was able to compare the captive strain with described species known of Ancistrus.

The closest species she could find was Ancistrus cirrhosus, but no DNA testing was made, it was not clear if the differences seen in the wild animal and captive one was due to intensive captive breeding (consanguinity) or hybridisation with other species.

On my early years into fish keeping, I had 2 differents species...well at that time just thought it was differences between male and female...the female were more of the cirrhosus type but could have well been triradiatus while the male was more of the brown type (ex: L88) and they bred together, youngs proved to be fertile over a few generation (I stop keeping them afterwards)

Longfins, albinism are unatural traits that have been selected often via consanguinity, in nature such animal would have been eliminated by predators as they won't swim as fast as "normal" individuals, and albinism makes them more visible compare to their normal colour

Cheers
Yann

I'm confussed.

The pic looks like a super red

Bijn wrote:I want to invite the people who have a substantiated opinion about the origin of the L144 to have a look and eventually give their opinion in this topic:

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 43&start=0

That is very interesting.
I have had thousands of the yellow BN with the black eyes.
In all of them I have never seen one that did not have a black and white eye.

The one in those pictures has a black and "yellow/orange" eye.

Very interesting!

vinman wrote:I'm confussed.

The pic looks like a super red

Which (I think) is the point that Jools is refering to when regarding Lxxx vs. scientific names vs. common names.
A practical example I can give you is some fish that we had here, they were called the following on the importers lists (and priced accordingly):
Leopard Frog Plecs, Clown Plecs, and Pretty Peckoltia.

Now most people will possibly assume that what is being talked about is:
Leopard Frog Plecs = L134 =
Clown Plecs = L104, L162, LDA022, Ringlet Pleco = or perhaps Flash Pleco,
Pretty Peckoltia = ???

So the store ordered them (all 3 types) and put them in 3 different tanks with their labels and prices (all different) and put the fish in there, and I turned up and looked at them and suggested that all 3 tanks in fact had the same fish in there. That fish being

I just don't get too hung up on the random common names anymore, I mean whats important to me is how the fish is cared for not its subjective label.
To me that pic looks like an ancustrus.

Cheers

krazyGeoff wrote:

vinman wrote:I'm confussed.

The pic looks like a super red

Which (I think) is the point that Jools is refering to when regarding Lxxx vs. scientific names vs. common names.
A practical example I can give you is some fish that we had here, they were called the following on the importers lists (and priced accordingly):
Leopard Frog Plecs, Clown Plecs, and Pretty Peckoltia.

Now most people will possibly assume that what is being talked about is:
Leopard Frog Plecs = L134 =

Peckoltia compta

Clown Plecs = L104, L162, LDA022, Ringlet Pleco =

Panaque maccus

or perhaps Flash Pleco,

Panaque sp(l204)

Pretty Peckoltia = ???

So the store ordered them (all 3 types) and put them in 3 different tanks with their labels and prices (all different) and put the fish in there, and I turned up and looked at them and suggested that all 3 tanks in fact had the same fish in there. That fish being

Panaque maccus

I just don't get too hung up on the random common names anymore, I mean whats important to me is how the fish is cared for not its subjective label.
To me that pic looks like an ancustrus.

Cheers

OK but I know this for a fact
Super red X normal make normals
super red X Calico make calico
Super red X normal het calico make calico and het calico
The red gene in the common starin BNP is a line bred calico

I'm working on LF super reds and albino calico in LF and SF

vinman wrote: OK but I know this for a fact
Super red X normal make normals
super red X Calico make calico
Super red X normal het calico make calico and het calico
The red gene in the common starin BNP is a line bred calico

I'm working on LF super reds and albino calico in LF and SF

Likewise, I'm working on a couple of new strains on common bristlenose. However, I'm not convinced that the red is from line bred calicos. My numbers seem to show that red and calico are two separate genes. This is why most breeders have had trouble with producing a good red LF. The spawns I've had so far, seem to point to the red actually being masked in places by the calico/marble pattern. However, it does seem to carry in the genotype since some sibling spawns, LF common phenotype carrying red, have produced fish with a different body pattern and red fins.

My current favorite, and one I intend to work with over the next couple years, is two female LF produced this spring with red fins and a thick wavy body pattern rather than spots. For all intent, it appears the spots are so large they merged and produced a more abstract pattern. So far, this is only from the first dorsal ray back, but I am going to work with it to see where it goes.

There's more to this strain than would seem to be immediately obvious.

Larry

Continuing from this thread, and also this thread ...

Bijn wrote:I believe the original L144 was another species then the common Ancistrus and by crossbreeding the mutation was fixed in commons.

It's also equally likely that the same or similar mutations will appear in different species. For instance, albino and leucistic individuals appear quite frequently in all kinds of animals.

Regarding L144

The real L144 was a single "yellow" specimen in a group of Ancistrus from the Rio Paraguay.
The strain was fixed via breeding of this yellow male with some of these females. It is believe that it is actually Ancistrus sp Rio Paraguay Red point if I remember correctly.

The commercial strain is a normal/ common Ancistrus that was selected and fixed but has nothing to do with the original L144

Cheers
Yann

I commented on the thread Bijn posted here.

As this talk of hybrids and L144 is bit off topic, perhaps it could be moved to that thread?

Hi,

Indeed Sonia examined the species, but concluded it is neither A. cirrhosus nor a close relative. Racoll also demonstrated this from the maternal lineage, and no you do not need any male in a genetic sampling to demontrate introgressive hybridization.

Cheers
Raph

Hi Raph!!

Thanks for clarifying this (This Ancistrus sp common)
Makes me wonder why Ingo stated that she concluded A. cirrhosus was the closest species....

So it is either a "new" species yet undescribed or a mix of a bunch of stuff
Cheers
Yann

Ancistrus sp(3) is re-born! Actually, the thing here is also that in my view the common ornamental Ancistrus looks a bit different in the US versus the UK and Germany - but are all the common one in each territory.

We also have to go into the history of export patterns to get all this into context too. I will now try and split this thread and then merge it with the other one.

Jools

** merge ends **

racoll wrote:

Bijn wrote:I believe the original L144 was another species then the common Ancistrus and by crossbreeding the mutation was fixed in commons.

It's also equally likely that the same or similar mutations will appear in different species. For instance, albino and leucistic individuals appear quite frequently in all kinds of animals.

You are right, it is possible that the "original 144" was another species with the same mutation and that this mutation popped up in common Ancistrus without crossbreeding.

Another possibility is another mutatioin with the same or a similar result.

I have pics (from Janne) of the same colouration in a Xingu interestingly this was collected with a yellow Hemiancistrus and a yellow Parancistrus. It's a head melter.

Jools

This is one from the same shipment as the orange one:

Good news. He is guarding some eggs!