PlanetCatfish.com

It's a pretty open question, but should they? Why would it be a bad idea? Or, what usefulness might it have?

Jools

Befor debate, it should be sayed that some catfishfolks in germany, on L-Welse.com already had a similar idear but decided to call it LH-Numbers, which can be seen her: http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showcat.php/cat/120
As the L-Numbers a given by DATZ, they will or maybe already have decide(d) at the end if or not.

OK, so I'm not proposing a new number system. I'm asking about the existing l-number system. I would suggest (although it's a point of debate) that this would only include things that are commercially available.

Jools

I would group them under an F number. F for Frankenstein

I can imagine why one would like to have a nuymber system - after all, it is not that hard to produce many, many hybrids and hybrids of hybrids, starting with a few species, but I would reserve the L system for the real thing

Hi together,

let me explain why we had the idea to found the LH-system on l-welse.com. After the first Hypancistrus hybrids were produced we all faced the problem that they will get spreaded in the trade, among aquarists and most likely will not be called "hybrid" all the time. Especially not after changing the keeper twice within a few years. So we were sitting in this pub having a beer and had the idea to give them a number, cause it worked very well with the L-numbers before. Of course we can not list every (ancistrin) hybrid, but we do have all the ones I know about, I think.

People now prefer to sell their offspring as "LH xx" instead of "hybrid xx" or even worse as a pure strain of a species. That's our aim! To keep it that way it is important that the fishes don't get a number immediately after somebody crossbred them. We want to avoid that hybrids get produced and spreaded because people like to have high LH-numbers. But it is important to name them, and even if we don't published many numbers yet (luckily), you can see them on some stocklists and in some shops as well.

The L-number system is not going to end that soon, the next numbers are in progress already.

Obviously, this kind of hybrid numbering scheme will end up entirely legitimising the production of hybrids, and lead to competitions to produce the "coolest" looking loricariid hybrids.

But, as 99% of LFS customers just want a cheap and pretty little pleco, it won't really matter what they are called, or what its parents are.

Isn't this happening already with all those different color types of Ancistrus?

leisure_man wrote:Isn't this happening already with all those different color types of Ancistrus?

No.

Although it's quite likely natural hybrids have l-numbers.

Jools

racoll wrote:Obviously, this kind of hybrid numbering scheme will end up entirely legitimizing the production of hybrids, and lead to competitions to produce the "coolest" looking loricariid hybrids.

I'd be keen to understand why it's obvious it would legitimise it. With hybrid synos for example I note that many know what they are. It's all a bit bladerunner, but there is the distinct possibility we're heading that way anyway.

BTW, I'm not saying this is a brilliant idea, I am just wanting to kick the ideas around a bit.

Jools

If any fish is going to be traded it should have a consistent identifier. For pleco hybrids I don't know if it should be an L-Number or something else but at least we'd all know what it was. It's going to happen whether we like it or not so we might as well have the chance to see it identified in some meaningful way AND searchable as such.

I am against deliberate hybridization of all species of fish.
It may be wishful thinking but it sure would be nice if we had accurate collection location data and a naming system similar to that which was adopted by the Killifish breeding hobbyists. They have been amongst the most scrupulous record keepers and this has helped maintain purebreds down to the collection data ID level for decades. Of course Killifish hobbyists are a fairly small subset of all aquarium fish breeding hobbyists and it's been easier to cultivate an anti-hybrid ethos.

In many cases, we haven't even been able to distinguish species and their variants to begin with thus making a comprehensive way of identifying accidental or intentional hybrids from a naturally occurring variant that much more difficult.
I have the same opinion as racoll that by developing an identification scheme for hybrids it may help legitimize them.
It is a quandary as hybrids do exist and more will be developed as time passes.

Jools wrote:I'd be keen to understand why it's obvious it would legitimise it.

They probably wouldn't be legitimised among the "serious" hobbyists, but for the casual users of the site, seeing a numbering system would imply that they are not only tolerated, but encouraged.

I fully support having the synos in the Clog as hybrids. However, they are simply labelled as Synodontis hybrid 1, Synodontis hybrid 2, etc. They are not given the mystique and fetish of a special number handed down from the Gods.

This is a very interesting discussion.

I'm with Andrew, like it or not, hybrids are a part of the hobby. In my opinion the purpose of P.C. and the L#, C# CW# system is to document, catalog, and share information about all known Catfish. Agree or disagree with the ethics of them, it shouldn't dictate whether or not to include them. One can't build an accurate database of information if you leave out that which you dislike or disagree with.

Giving them a Common Name identifier such as a number that theoretically would become a standard would be beneficial for those selling, trading, or attempting to identify a fish. I do think it needs to be separated from the current systems in some way.

As far as the fears of legitimizing them, add a blerp to each hybrid Elog page stating something along the lines of "Because of the number of new species being discovered intentional hybridization is discouraged because....

The LH system seems eminently suitable to me, as it is essentially an expansion of the existing L-system.

Whilst I'm not a fan of purposely interbreeding between species, I can understand that there may be some potentially beneficial results from species interbreeding, and I believe that the careful monitoring and annotating of such endeavors would be a lot easier with a standard identification system.

The only concern I would have would be that of who would be responsible for maintaining such a register of hybrids.

A couple of thoughts...

L Numbers are just common names. They serve no classification purpose. What is the difference then between creating new L Numbers or even LH numbers and deciding that henceforth we shall call Hypancistrus sp X crossed with Hypancistrus Y the "Double Super Diamondback Pleco?" In other words how does it help the hobby to create common names for fish that do not even exist in nature?

Also, as stated above, giving hybrids L Numbers (or LH numbers) will increase their value and in turn their purposeful production. I have learned this the hard way. If I take two bags of loricariid fry to a local auction and label one bag with the scientific name and the other with an L Number the bag labelled with an L Number will always sell for three to four times what I will get for their properly labelled brothers and sisters. Sad fact, but I have proven it to myself time and again.

-Shane

I believe hybrids should have a name / number of some type. This applies to ones that are bred on a commercial scale. They will enter the shops in increasing numbers and it helps the shops and buyers to ID them. This will also help with their care as people can if willing ensure they have suitable setups, diets and space. I would like to see more effort put into the documentation on them as they tend to be lacking in allot of details. Sizes they grow mating, behaviour towards other fish.

Yes most buyers are ruled by the wallet and wont part with more than £3-5 for a fish that's just the way allot of people enter the hobby. Fish keeping is reported to be a cheap undemanding hobby. In some respects you can make it this way but the shops don't really help you as they stock what sells not what is suitable for most tanks in their area. A pleco or gibbie is still cheaper than an Ancistrus in most shops I've visited so goes out the door more often. I'm going to assume most peoples tanks aren't suitable as most tanks in the shop are not. They have been labelled badly and wrongly as trash collectors in the tank. It might move it around but don't expect it to eat it. Shops could do more to ensure crosses / hybrids are clearly labelled but some keepers just don't care and shove the end result out the door on which ever one the fry looks closest to. That I believe is wrong and potentially damaging to the hobby as it could produce some odd results if someone breeds off it later on believing it to be X when its X+Y.

Little Question about natural hybrids that will occur eventually.
As these fish spread round the world by being released or climate change if they make a hybrid naturally in the wild would you give it an L number as not knowing any different it could easily be said its never been found before or would you know it to be a hybrid?

To make a little example out the L number system I spotted something perhaps people can clear up.
L144, Black Eyed Yellow Bristlenose - General Remarks This fish appears to be a form of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus. - Yet it has a L number Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus does not. Does this mean it came before we decided not to include a hybrid or does it mean it was closely related to one of the species that now forms a much loved part of many tanks. Or I could have missed the L number for Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus.

From the looks of the peoples posts they want the L number to remain for a naturally document species and a new one for the hybrids.

I don't believe hybrid's are 100% good or bad for the fishes health / well fare or the hobby. I object to them being injected or dyed but that's me personally I have a strong attraction to parrot fish but it puts me in 2 minds I know its wrong how they are created but its a lovely fish with bags of character. Its got a name its in shops everywhere why because its a cat fish should it not be allowed a name?

If dwarf species of some of the bigger boys in the cat fish world could be created as a keeper I would love to have them. Now yes it would be a hybrid is it good or bad depends on how its done and how well the fish produced is health wise. I love the spotted dora but don't have a tank capable of keeping one to full size in let alone a group but if smaller cory size examples arrived I would find it hard to resist. Especially if they have a appetite for MTS.

In summary I believe they should have a name and an L number even if its an artificially high number so people know yes its document but no its not natural. Starting from L50,000 for example would be clear its not natural. If the number entering the hobby is tiny than fine leave it unnamed as a hybrid and the shop keeper will slap a name on it of whatever they feel like.

Shane wrote: Also, as stated above, giving hybrids L Numbers (or LH numbers) will increase their value and in turn their purposeful production. I have learned this the hard way. If I take two bags of loricariid fry to a local auction and label one bag with the scientific name and the other with an L Number the bag labelled with an L Number will always sell for three to four times what I will get for their properly labelled brothers and sisters. Sad fact, but I have proven it to myself time and again.

JamesFish wrote:
To make a little example out the L number system I spotted something perhaps people can clear up.
L144, Black Eyed Yellow Bristlenose - General Remarks This fish appears to be a form of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus. - Yet it has a L number Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus does not. Does this mean it came before we decided not to include a hybrid or does it mean it was closely related to one of the species that now forms a much loved part of many tanks. Or I could have missed the L number for Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus.

Sadly, many fishkeepers think L-numbers are higher / better as indentification name then the taxonomic one, it isn`t! A L-number is simply a picture of a Loricariidae published by DATZ (sometimes with more information) of a "new", not identicated fish (or variation) entering the hobby, planed only for use till a taxonomic one is given (a information that somehow doesen`t get to people, who are new with L-numbers ). Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus has a nearly taxonomic name as which it gets easy (for a Ancistrus at least) indenticated, there is no reason to give it another placement name. L144 "appears" to be a variation of Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus so it got one.

Hybrids are normally not smaller then their parents, they sometimes get rather big. There are often other catfish that look similar (or even better) then a big one, you just have to find a good LFS instead of going to a gardencenter for buying fish.

JamesFish wrote:To make a little example out the L number system I spotted something perhaps people can clear up.
L144, Black Eyed Yellow Bristlenose - General Remarks This fish appears to be a form of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus. - Yet it has a L number Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus does not. Does this mean it came before we decided not to include a hybrid or does it mean it was closely related to one of the species that now forms a much loved part of many tanks. Or I could have missed the L number for Ancistrus cf. cirrhorus.

I think you've misread the cat-elog, it doesn't say is a form of . The common Bristlenose which we've optimistically labelled A. cf. cirrhosus in the cat-elog doesn't have an l-number but (if you don't think it's a hybrid) could be given one if anyone could find out where it is currently imported from in the wild.

Jools

Durlänger wrote:A L-number is simply a picture of a Loricariidae ... planed only for use till a taxonomic one is given

Shane wrote: L Numbers are just common names. They serve no classification purpose.

This is the crux of the problem. The system tries to be both things. Species are fundamentally not the the same as the units that aquarists use to communicate with each other.

If the L number system were just for undescribed species, why on earth would they give individuals with clearly atypical phenotypes an L number? The confusion around L144 is a perfect case in point. The normal species is not coloured this way. The fish pictured as is simply a leucistic individual of a different species that shares the same phenotype as the leucistic . It's a common mutation, which has been selectively bred for in captive populations.

People have simply confused the two, and apply the L144 common name to any leucistic , regardless of its origin.

I personally feel that hybrids should not be given proper classification of any kind. It, IMHO, will lead to the creation of all kinds of weird and wonderful inventions and will sully the proper keeping of fish

My view on the l-number system is that it's for unidentified (versus undescribed) hypostominae (or at least Loricariidae excluding loricariinae and hypoptopominae). Which is why phenotypes are and hybrids could, be included. But I think consensus is that hybrids should not be included (although it's open to naturally occurring hybrids simply because we don't know what they are).

Jumpmaster wrote:I personally feel that hybrids should not be given proper classification of any kind. It, IMHO, will lead to the creation of all kinds of weird and wonderful inventions and will sully the proper keeping of fish

It depends what you mean by proper. I don't disagree with the point that hybrids are undesirable, but how does the lay fishkeeper know what is a hybrid or not? The have to be listed (classified) in some way.

Thank you all for kicking this around a bit in the responses above. I think the naming convention we used for hybrid is a good one (a lucky guess at the time - it wasn't given this level of thought). e.g. Ancistrus sp. hybrid(1). I am not sure yet what we will do when hybrids appear that involved more than one genus.

Although ScotCat gives hybrid synos SC numbers and in the case of loricarids, l-welse gives hybrids LH numbers, I do agree with the point these systems increase their value to a not insignificant number of fishkeepers. These numbering systems are available to a global audience and will be adopted by some who sell fishes via lists. I'd suggest that especially in fishkeeping cultures that are highly status led and fishkeeping cohorts that acquire a significant percentage of their fishes at auction, this then increases the ability to sell them and thus increase their numbers in captivity.

I now have to wrestle with which distinct forms of are hybrids, but that's for another thread.

Jools

Looking at this from the perspective of a former dog breeder - if you get no consistency in phenotype or genotype, what exactly is being numbered / named? It takes consistent effort and much record keeping to get a cross-breeding to breed true to (new) type.

Jools wrote:I am not sure yet what we will do when hybrids appear that involved more than one genus.

Have a look at wikipedia scroll down to "Examples of plant hybrids" for examples.
x Genus1genus2 species (they "forget" parts of the genus)
I myself have to say that I don`t really like that way as:
1. the x could get lost
2. it will not always be easy to see where one name ends and the other starts
3. there are many simular named catfish genera -> confusion

Edit: Genus1 not not genus1 and ()-part

Jools wrote:My view on the l-number system is that it's for unidentified (versus undescribed) hypostominae (or at least Loricariidae excluding loricariinae and hypoptopominae). Which is why phenotypes are and hybrids could, be included. But I think consensus is that hybrids should not be included (although it's open to naturally occurring hybrids simply because we don't know what they are).

Jumpmaster wrote:I personally feel that hybrids should not be given proper classification of any kind. It, IMHO, will lead to the creation of all kinds of weird and wonderful inventions and will sully the proper keeping of fish

It depends what you mean by proper. I don't disagree with the point that hybrids are undesirable, but how does the lay fishkeeper know what is a hybrid or not? The have to be listed (classified) in some way.

Thank you all for kicking this around a bit in the responses above. I think the naming convention we used for hybrid

Synodontis

is a good one (a lucky guess at the time - it wasn't given this level of thought). e.g. Ancistrus sp. hybrid(1). I am not sure yet what we will do when hybrids appear that involved more than one genus.

Although ScotCat gives hybrid synos SC numbers and in the case of loricarids, l-welse gives hybrids LH numbers, I do agree with the point these systems increase their value to a not insignificant number of fishkeepers. These numbering systems are available to a global audience and will be adopted by some who sell fishes via lists. I'd suggest that especially in fishkeeping cultures that are highly status led and fishkeeping cohorts that acquire a significant percentage of their fishes at auction, this then increases the ability to sell them and thus increase their numbers in captivity.

I now have to wrestle with which distinct forms of

Ancistrus

are hybrids, but that's for another thread.

Jools

I like things simple, as nature intended. The moment you give classification, you are giving legitimization . There are quite a few unscrupulous or uneducated LFS/breeders that will capitalize on this and sell all kinds of interesting creations and since some sort of classification has been given newbies like me are bound to be lead astray.

Science has enough problems labeling all the real fish out there, due to the amount. When will there be time to classify all the hybrids?

Jumpmaster wrote:The moment you give classification, you are giving legitimization.

Disagree: Breedings will (with or without purpose) happen. Offspring will likely get in trade. People will come here to "What is my catfish?" and ask -> some of us have to tell them what it is and how to keep them. So this hybrids have to be in the Cat-eLog as reference.

Maybe every in the Cat-eLog listed hybrid should have under Breeding: Being a hybrid, this fish should not be breed!

This way done - no legitimation

Comments like:

I don`t know what it is but I want one

or

As could be seen on other sides (for example monsterfishkeepers.com) should be "cleared out" (in a teaching way) of "What is my catfish?"-topics if it is about a hybrid to show no legitimation for breeding

That'd be my view, education as opposed to prohibition. But not accreditation, or as is suggested, legitimisation via a numbering system.

Jools

NCE12940 wrote:if you get no consistency in phenotype or genotype, what exactly is being numbered / named?

Very good point!

Jools wrote: That'd be my view, education as opposed to prohibition. But not accreditation, or as is suggested, legitimisation via a numbering system.

My opinion would be to put them in the cat-elog as-and-when they turn up. This happens already with other hybrids (synos, pims, etc). I don't see why the loricariids are special in this regard; "hybrid 1", "hybrid 2", "hybrid 3" is good enough.

That's where I've ended up Rupert but only when we see them for sale in some quantity or if there is a very good reason to add them.

Jools

Hi together,
it’s indeed a very interesting topic and even if we have had so many discussions about this the last years it is a never ending story.

racoll wrote:Obviously, this kind of hybrid numbering scheme will end up entirely legitimising the production of hybrids, and lead to competitions to produce the "coolest" looking loricariid hybrids.

The competition started long before we created this system.

racoll wrote:I fully support having the synos in the Clog as hybrids. However, they are simply labelled as Synodontis hybrid 1, Synodontis hybrid 2, etc. They are not given the mystique and fetish of a special number handed down from the Gods.

But how many times have you seen the label “Synodontis hybrid 1” in a shop or on a stocklist? I never did, but I saw a lot of hybrids mostly labeled as a described species. That should be avoided in future. edit: Actually it's not a big difference calling a fish Synodontis hybrid 1 or Loricariid hybrid 1, is it?

Nabobmob1 wrote:I'm with Andrew, like it or not, hybrids are a part of the hobby.

Exactly, it’s not a discussion about what we might do in the future. We have far more hybrids in the hobby than we believe.

Shane wrote:In other words how does it help the hobby to create common names for fish that do not even exist in nature?

They might not exist in nature, but they do in the hobby and a lot of them are very pretty and well liked among people. Isn’t that enough reason to name them?

Durlänger wrote: A L-number is simply a picture of a Loricariidae published by DATZ (sometimes with more information) of a "new", not identicated fish (or variation) entering the hobby,....

Almost, there is always a text coming with the picture, telling the reader everything known about the fish. Nowadays the L-Number system is of course not as important anymore as it was 20 years back.

racoll wrote:

Durlänger wrote:A L-number is simply a picture of a Loricariidae ... planed only for use till a taxonomic one is given

Shane wrote:L Numbers are just common names. They serve no classification purpose.

This is the crux of the problem. The system tries to be both things. Species are fundamentally not the the same as the units that aquarists use to communicate with each other.
If the L number system were just for undescribed species, why on earth would they give individuals with clearly atypical phenotypes an L number?

The system never tried to be both things, it’s the aquarists who started to think every number is it’s own species. If you follow all the older publications you will notice that numbers are often equated with each other cause after some time it became obvious that L x is just the juvenile form of L y or whatever. Furthermore it’s not for species, but for unidentified Loricariids (as written in the very first L-Number publication). In the article where L 144 is published the question is already risen if it is a species or just a variation of another fish, but nobody knew and it was not possible to id it, so it was obvious to give it a number. It was an unknown loricariid catfish.

Jumpmaster wrote:I personally feel that hybrids should not be given proper classification of any kind. It, IMHO, will lead to the creation of all kinds of weird and wonderful inventions and will sully the proper keeping of fish

As mentioned above we need names for fishes that are in the hobby and we have plenty of them. The “creation” is nothing we could affect. I think we all agree that hybrids shouldn’t be produced, but it’s enough if 20 people think different. I know somebody who tries to cross L 25 and L 320, to get an entirely black fish with red fins.

Jools wrote:It depends what you mean by proper. I don't disagree with the point that hybrids are undesirable, but how does the lay fishkeeper know what is a hybrid or not? The have to be listed (classified) in some way.

Agree, and because nobody (except us, the “geeks”) will remember the name “Hypancistrus sp. L 66 x Hypancistrus zebra” (and no shop will list them like that) it’s the easiest way to give them a number. Not to make them more attractive, but to be able to name them, that’s it.

racoll wrote:

NCE12940 wrote:My opinion would be to put them in the cat-elog as-and-when they turn up. This happens already with other hybrids (synos, pims, etc). I don't see why the loricariids are special in this regard; "hybrid 1", "hybrid 2", "hybrid 3" is good enough.

I think we can not compare loricariid hybrids with e.g. pim hybrids. Pim hybrids are difficult to breed and it’s not “just happening” in a tank. Loricariid hybrids are as easy to breed as a good species. Just imagine a child buying one L 66 and one L 201 because both are pretty and it can’t decide on one. This child might have hybrids a year later.
The LH number (or any other hybrid system) is not for the people writing here, it’s for the ones who don’t know that much and who don’t remember or don’t care about scientific names. If you buy a fish with a number you will remember it more likely than buying a fish with a complicated name (thats the sad thing if a species is finally described, like Shane said above). But if you sell this particular fish you will know what it is and won’t have to browse the internet to find a fish “almost matching” the one and selling it as a good species again.

Okay, so if it's just going to be a free-for-all, with breeders experimenting however they like to get all kinds of Hypancistrus colour patterns, then who cares what they are called?

I don't care, and I'm sure the 'average customer' that just wants a pretty fish doesn't either. The husbandry will be identical for all of them, so let them just make up crazy names to sell them. The serious hobbyist will simply just buy wild caught fishes, and ignore the captive bred stock.

I think this is just creating a problem where none exists ...