PlanetCatfish.com

Hi all
I've just got an early Christmas present today, when the LFS got in a bunch of these Farlowellas. I picked a suspected male (darker colouration, broader snout) and a suspected female (lighter colouration, thinner snout). None of the group had any bristles on, which may be down to their age. Both have three rows of scutes, and are darker above, with a horizontal black line and then are paler below. As you can see, the snout is very long and flat,
I've had a look and wondered about Farlowella hahni, but was wondering if anyone else could ID them please?
Thanks

Some more pics that might help with ID.

Very nice find. We will need a photo of the belly scutes to stand the best chance of identifying them.
-Shane

Thanks, Shane. Will get onto it as soon as I can catch them near the glass! Just out of interest, in case I come into money soon, would it be OK to add another 'pair' to the mix in a 140 litre tank or is it best to have one pair per tank to have any chance of breeding them?

Here are some more pics of the one I'm pretty sure is female. Now that they're not stressed, she is an interesting tan/cream colour, while the suspected male is a darker brown and beige colour. I've included a pic of her tail, as it has some interesting pigmentation. Hope that helps.

Took me several days to find the paper I needed but I have it narrowed down to a few possibilities. Any chance you could find out where they were exported from?
-Shane

Hi again, Shane. I'm going to be a big disappointment to you on so many levels. Firstly, I had a good look at my suspected male and finally got a picture of his scutes. Sadly, he only has two rows I'm attaching pictures of him to this message. It is a shame as I was veering towards farlowella henriqueii for them. He has very marked cross-hair markings on the ventral side of his rostrum.
Secondly, today, I went back to the LFS to see whether I could pick up any more of them with three rows of scutes. Unfortunately, they had sold a fair few before I bought mine, so who knows what was in them, but there weren't any more of the three-rowed scutes left. The lad there was really patient with me .
I picked up another two of the two-rowed ones - aiming for at least one girl if possible. I'll attach some pics to the next message...

So, the other bad news is that I forgot to ask where the Farlowella came from
But, I have managed to get some pics of my new 'pair', which I hope will make up for it, at least partially. They seem very similar to my original 'male' in that they all have bronze bellies and are darker than my other one.
Here are the pics of the first one:

They also have two rows of scutes, with one extra at the top and one extra at the bottom, though I'm not sure if that's 'normal'.
Here are the pics of the second one I got today: lighter than the other new one, but otherwise very similar.
So, after all that, I am guessing that the newer ones and the 'male' of the original pair are of the same species? And now am kicking myself for not picking 4 of them at the time! Any help you can give would be much appreciated!

Looking at the first pics you put up I thought you had found something really different. With all the additional photos I am sure you have vittata (2 rows belly scutes) and mariaelenae (3 rows belly scutes). Still nice fish and it is a great sign that they are eating.
-Shane

Thanks for all your help, Shane. If it's any consolation, I'm disappointed too. But, on the other hand, they're all eating and happy and that's the main thing

Hi,

Shane wrote:...and mariaelenae (3 rows belly scutes).

shouldn't the rostrum be shorter and more "stepped" in F. mariaelenae ?!

Cheers,

Given the pattern on the rostrum of the two plated species, I would be more inclined to go for which is another regularly imported species.

Jools

Jools might be right. The original pics look very much like F. Vittata while the two labelled "new fish" look more like one of the Amazonian sp. I'll take another look at Retzer & Page tomorrow.
-Shane

I am going to be a big disappointment and admit I can't sort out the above based on the information available. Your first group look to be vittata and mariaelenae while the ones labelled as "new" may be an Amazonian sp. However without a collection location any identification I could offer on the "new" fish would really be a best guess and nothing more.
-Shane

Hi,

kamas88 wrote:shouldn't the rostrum be shorter and more "stepped" in F. mariaelenae ?!

I don't think that this is F. mariaelenae.

Cheers,

Hi,

as per Retzer & Page F. vittata doesn't have a median abdominal scute and the rostrum would be IMHO way too long.
The first "suspected male" should be a member of the amazona species group. But the head is widest at the opercle which is not typical for this group.
However, due to the overall appearence I tend to put it into the amazona species group.

F. mariaelenae should have much longer pectoral fins (outreaching the base of the pelvic fins) and as stated before the rostrum should be much thinner and also shorter.
The only species that I couldn't rule out are F. hahni and F. oxyrryncha (the only known difference being the origin).

It could also be that the first or both species are undescribed species or some of the described ones are more variable than stated in the paper of Retzer & Page. It's much easier to say what they are not than to tell what they are...

I agree that the new ones could very well be the same species as the first male.
Do you have a picture of the caudal fin of these ?!

Cheers,

Hi Karsten
That'll teach me to assume that a post has been answered/closed! Having now had them for three-four months, they have all grown on and I will post more pics tomorrow.

OK, I now have 4 grumpy Farlowella, but hopefully plenty of pictures for you. I thought I'd start with the 2-scuted ones, as these seemed to cause the most controversy!
Here is Farlowella 1:

Here is Farlowella 2:

And Farlowella 3:

And, last but not least, my little 3-scuted one. She (I think) has a shorter and more pointed rostrum.

Hi,

no doubt, no. 1 - 3 belong to the amazona species group: two rows of belly scutes is also present in acus group but the median abdominal scute and the caudal fin pigmentation clearly rules out the acus group including F. vittata.

F. platorynchus has a broader head/shorter snout.
F. rugosa can be ruled out by its origin (French Guayana) and the length of the snout and pectorals.
F. amazona and F. henriquei are the remaining described species of the amazona group, which can be distinguished by the shape of the cleithrum and preorbital ridge. Unfortunately I don't have a good reference (especially no pics of living fish) for comparison.
What is the size of your specimen (some characteristics might change with size) ?

As said before the last one should be F. oxyrryncha or F. hahni. I have two Farlowella specimen from Paraguay which should be F. hahni, these are much darker (which is not visible on this pic):

Therefore I tend to say that yours are F. oxyrryncha.

We could assume that both species were shipped together (and not mixed over here) and that you have F. oxyrryncha. However, that doesn't help that much as only F. hahni and F. henriquei have a well defined distribution.

Cheers,

Hi
Thanks for the swift reply! Twigs 1-3 are all about 135-160mm SL. They haven't grown much since I've had them, so I'm inclined to think that they are reaching/have reached adult size. Which would tie in with them being Farlowella henriquei, although their colouring is different to those in the cat e-log, being more like amazonum.
As for the 3-scuted one, it is probably only 150mm SL, so it will be interesting to see if it grows any further or not. It looks slightly more like F hahni, I think, but I have still got such a lot to learn with whiptails.
Just for information, I did check with the LFS where they had imported them from and was rather surprised to learn that they had been ordered from either Indonesia or Taiwan. Which obviously means that their true source is unlikely to ever be discovered! But thank you for all your help!