PlanetCatfish.com

Hi!
I've bought these as Astroblepus cf. cyclopus. They are from Cundinamarca, Colombia.
I'd love to hear the expert opinions on identity of these fish. If, of course, my poor pics would allow to do so.
My other question is under what species should I add them to "my fish"?
Thanks ahead!
Dmcat

Wow, remind me an awful lot of African Euchilichthys (of which I think I have 4) and Chilogalnis spp. !

Hi dmcat,

I'm curious, why are these ID'd as Astroblepus "cf." cyclopus instead of simply ? I am naïve on this, but I've always been under the impression that the cf. statement was added to a fish when something was out of the ordinary for that particular fish, e.g., either the collection location was outside the known range of the fish, or there was something peculiar about the appearance of the fish. As far as I can tell, if your fish is from Cundinamarca, Colombia, then it is within the territory where Astroblepus cyclopus has been collected. Does it not match the species description? (which can be found here, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k6 ... age.langEN, if you can read French )

I ran the paragraph describing the fish through Google translate and I obtained this:

Humbolt in 1805 wrote:This new species of pimelode has depressed body, olive color, mixed with small black spots: the mouth, who's on the tip of the nose, is very large, furnished with two barbs attached to the jaws; the nostrils are tubular; eyes, very small, are placed around the middle of the head: the skin of the body and the tail is coated with abundant phlegm: the mouth is filled with very small teeth: the gill membrane has four spokes as the pimelodus chilensis; pectoral pinne are nine, ventral five first dorsal six, seven fin of anus; that of the tail, which is forked, twelve spokes. The first rays of all fins is serrated by outside: the second pinne dorsal fat and placed near the tail. This small pimelodus, found in lakes, up to seventeen thousand feet high, is probably the fish that lives in the highest regions of our globe. The usual length is barely ten centimeters (4 inches); but there are varieties that do not appear to five centimeters (2 inches) long.

Cheers, Eric

If you ask me, I think it looks more like .

The photos above certainly don't appear to show the strongly forked tail illustrated by Humbolt for Astroblepus cyclopus.

bekateen wrote:The photos above certainly don't appear to show the strongly forked tail illustrated by Humbolt for Astroblepus cyclopus.

No Astroblepus possesses a forked caudal fin as drawn, so it is safe to assume that the drawing is inaccurate (as with many from that era).

Thank you, Silurus.

Cheers, Eric

In case OP is interested, here is the photo of Astroblepus cyclopus from Fishbase.org:

To me these are A. grixalvii, but I am no expert. The adipose fin on your fish looks noticebly larger than that of the A. cyclopus pics online, which is more like the grixalvii; also the cyclopus are from the Pacific side of the mountains (according to fisbase).The more I look at your pics, the more I lean towards A. grixalvii. Ultimately I think only time will tell...Really cool fish, I hope they do well for you!

Huge thanks to everybody for comments and suggestions. Special thanks to Eric for original description and pics. I have counted the fin rays: pectotral - 11, ventral - 5; anal - 6 (that's was hard); dorsal - 7; caudal - 13. I have also noticed that the adipose fin is not quite as on original illustrations but was thinking that it maybe a fault of sketchy old drawing as Silurus said. But after Eric posted the photo from fishbase it looks that the adipose fin is truly different. Thus, for now I'd inclined to follow Silurus and Dconnors and name my fish A. grixalvii.
Originally I used "cf." just because that was as I bought them. I guess the seller or supplier had doubts...
The fish are doing really well (knock knock knock on wood Surprisingly very active eaters and are not shy at all. I have 4 of them (2 around 8 cm and 2 around 2cm).
Thanks again to all of you for the discussion. (Finally I've bought tripod and remote shutter for my camera and will try to photo my other cats for id)
Cheers,
Dmcat

Just so everybody understands, I'm not arguing for or against any specific ID, in particular cyclopus vs. grixalvii. Actually I've continued to add info on this page about these fish out of sheer curiousity and interest spurred on by the OP's predicament.

I've had a lot of fun researching, finding, reading and trying to translate the original French documents on these two species of cats.

dconnors wrote:cyclopus are from the Pacific side of the mountains (according to fisbase).

So here's where my geographical ignorance comes into play. Is Cundinamarca on the "Pacific side of the mountains?" According to GBIF.ORG, cyclopsis can be found East of Bogata, within the Cundinamarca region. So that's why I said the geography would align with the OP's information.

One of the last things I discovered was the etymology for the name grixalvii: "Named in memory of a Don Mariano Grixalva, a "respectable scholar" who cultivated an interest in the physical sciences in Popayan, Colombia" (there was a LOT of discussion of volcanoes in that paper). Interesting huh? Don Mariano has a small claim to fame!

Thanks to you all for the little excursion.

Cheers, Eric

dmcat wrote:...for now I'd inclined to follow Silurus and Dconnors and name my fish A. grixalvii.

Hi dmcat,

The photos you have are really nice. Would you mind if we used these (or others, if you want to take more) to add to the species Cat-eLog page (CLOG page)? We don't have many photos of these fish.

Cheers, Eric

Hi Eric,
Thanks for even more info. I have one more and rather naive question. According to fishbase there are 56 valid Astroblepus species totally and 24 are known from Colombia. Could it be something else beside cyclopus and grixalvii? Just theoretically.
And thanks for considering my photos of appropriate quality. It will definitely encourage me to do more. Yes, sure! You can use any of these photos.
Cheers,
Dmcat

dmcat wrote:Hi Eric,
According to fishbase there are 56 valid Astroblepus species totally and 24 are known from Colombia. Could it be something else beside cyclopus and grixalvii? Just theoretically.

Hi dmcat,
That's a good question, and one I can't answer. You'll have to wait for some of the experts to answer that.

Cheers, Eric

Yes. There is probably one species for every second mountain stream. So locality is vital. They're also incredibly good at changing shape and colour as they mature. Astroblepus today is where the Hypostominae were in the 1940s. The best we can do is record what we have, where it came from (if we can) and trust that the future will help us unravel them all.

Jools

Thanks, Jools!

Dmcat

Silurus wrote:No Astroblepus possesses a forked caudal fin as drawn, so it is safe to assume that the drawing is inaccurate (as with many from that era).

Here is an interesting side note about this author (Humbolt). He described and illustrated both A. cyclopus and A. grixalvii in the same paper (although at the time, Humbolt gave the former a different generic name). Humbolt drew the tail of cyclopus to be very forked, but he drew the tail of grixalvii relatively accurately (how odd):

That's made me wonder too - he saw the tail correct in one species and didn't in another. Though there is no (visible) adipose fin in A. grixalvii on his drawing...

dmcat wrote:That's made me wonder too - he saw the tail correct in one species and didn't in another. Though there is no (visible) adipose fin in A. grixalvii on his drawing...

I'm not sure I would worry about the apparent lack of an adipose fin too much. The drawing is so poor, or at least it's digital reproduction is, that I can't make out much detail with confidence. If it were in the original drawing, I'm not sure I could see it... or maybe it's just my old eyes. That said, I don't recall reading anything about the adipose fin of grixalvii in the original description either, although the author did mention the adipose fin of the other species.

You have to remember that many of these drawings are made of long-dead (often poorly) preserved material, so features that shrink or are damaged readily on poor preservation (e.g. adipose fins, rayed fins) are not immediately apparent to the artist.

Yes, of course. Thanks again.

Here's a more recent publication with some pics.

Jools

Thanks, Jools! Now I even more inclined that mine are not A. cyclopus.
Dmcat

Jiménez-Prado, P., W. Aguirre, E. Laaz-Moncayo, R. Navarrete-Amaya, F. Nugra-Salazar, E. Rebolledo-Monsalve, E. Zárate-Hugo, A. Torres-Noboa y J. Valdiviezo-Rivera. (2015). Guía de peces para aguas continentales en la vertiente occidental del Ecuador. Pontificia Universidad Católica del Ecuador Sede Esmeraldas (PUCESE); Universidad del Azuay (UDA) y Museo Ecuatoriano de Ciencias Naturales (MECN) del Instituto Nacional de Biodiversidad. Esmeraldas, Ecuador. 416 pp.

According to Google translate, Guía de Peces Para Aguas Continentals en la Vertiente Occidental del Ecuador wrote:

Key to the determination of the species belonging Astroblepidae to family on the western slope of Ecuador (Based on Boulenger, 1890; Regan, 1904, 1913; Steindachner, 1907, Pellegrin, 1909, 1931; Schultz, 1944). NOTE: The question mark corresponds to a kind of presence likely, but not verified yet.

1. a) Adipose fin with a well-developed, free and mobile spine, united the caudal peduncle by a semi-transparent membrane.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
b) Adipose fin with or without the presence of a spine, if present It is small and underdeveloped, or is covered by skin, whole or partly.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2. a) The insertion of the ventral fins below inserting dorsal fin; ventral fins reach the vent.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) Insertion of the ventral fins is slightly ahead of the insertion of the dorsal fin; the ventral fins not reach the opening anal, reaches 2/3 of its distance.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Astroblepus chimborazoi

3. a) external teeth bicuspid or obtuse series premaxilar type incisor.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
b) external teeth series mostly premaxilar unicuspid more or less pointed or rounded, but never with obtuse edge; You may have 3 or 4 means bicuspid teeth type (As in Astroblepus mindoense).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

4. a) external teeth bicuspid series premaxilar all.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) external teeth obtuse series premaxilar, incisive sort.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (?)

5. a) Adipose fin weak or poorly developed; pectoral spine fails the middle portion of the ventral fin.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
b) Adipose fin strong and well developed (fleshy); pectoral spine comes close to the middle of the ventral fin and in some cases may overcome it (there may be female Astroblepus theresiae whose pectoral fin not reaches the middle of the ventral fin, but has very well defined and developed the caudal fin).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

6. a) Adipose fin without spine (spina not check for embedded the skin).
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
b) Adipose fin with a small spine, completely covered by skin in adults, it can be barely noticeable to the touch (verify
Thorn presence embedded in the skin).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

7. a) dorsal fin length between 75 to 85% of the length of the head; barbells long, ranging from 75 to 80% of the distance between them and the gill opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) no greater length dorsal fin 65% of the length of the head; short barbells, below 65% of the distance between these and gill opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andean Catfish

a) The ventral fins long, extending between 75 to 85% of the insertion distance between the anal opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
b) The short ventral fins, extend up to 65% of the distance between insertion and anal opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

9. a) The first elongated dorsal radius reached 65% of the length of the head; usually with small pale spots along the pored lateral line.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) The first dorsal elongated within just over 50% of the head length; not distinguished difference in coloration sideline.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Astroblepus regani

10. a) long barbells, ranging up to 80% of the distance between these and gill opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) very short barbells, below 65% of the distance between these and gill opening.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Andean Catfish

11. a) Adipose fin with a small nodule embedded half postero-superior of it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) Adipose fin without any node.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

12. a) very long pectoral fins, their radios can reach the opening anal and even exceed it.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Astroblepus longifilis
b) shorter pectoral fins, their radios do not reach the opening anal, may extend to the posterior third of the ventral fin.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

13. a) interocular distance less than the distance between the eye and nostril later.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
b) interocular distance equal or greater than the distance between the eye and posterior nostril.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

14. a) All the outer row teeth of the maxilla are unicuspid; The nostrils are prolonged as a small barbel reaching up 33% of the length of the head; no dark bars on the caudal fin.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Astroblepus theresiae
b) The outer row teeth are maxillary unicuspid except about 3 or 4 located in the middle; Nostrils, less developed, They may be prolonged as a short barbel, but do not reach 30% the length of the head; It has a dark bar on the caudal fin.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Astroblepus mindoense

dmcat,

Did you get my PM?

Jools

Jools: Yes, I've got it and just sent my reply. Sorry for delay.

Eric: Thanks for the key translation. Don't want to be a parasite but do you think you can get some pictures of the character states. Let's say for the first pamphlet as a start. I see a some kind of spine in my fish (see the pics) but have troubles interpreting it. I'd say I have to follow 3.

Cheers,
Dmcat

Hi Dmcat,

Sorry, I don't have such illustrations handy. Have you been able to look at the source that I referenced, and which Jools placed a link to, above? It's free to download if you register with the website.

I have been looking into this more, and I found another old illustration that compares several spp. side by side, and it might be helpful: http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page ... 1/mode/1up.

This same author, Regan, wrote up a key to the genus (some of the fish which he called Arges instead of Astroblepus). That key, while it predates the key I included above, may still be helpful because it is not specifically examining only species from Ecuador; it includes a wider range of species within the genus. The key can be found starting here:
http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page ... 3/mode/1up.

Cheers, Eric

P.S., yes, I'd follow #3 in the first key also.

P.P.S., I didn't catch this in the first place, but grixalvii is left off of Regan's key, so in regard to grixalvii, this latter key is useless. It's excluded by Regan from the key because Regan placed it in a different genus from the other spp. (Astroblepis instead of Arges). He makes the distinction that grixalvii is different from the others because according to Regan (citing Humbolt), grixalvii did not have pelvic (ventral) fins. (This explains why the original description and illustration of grixalvii by Humbolt included no ray count for the pelvic fins). But as far as I can find, all the modern photos of grixalvii have pelvic fins (e.g., the photos in the publication cited by Jools in an earlier post; or see the photos fishbase.org, or see the first few photos of grixalvii which are available on this website). Regan suggested (here) that if Humbolt's specimen of grixalvii were missing pelvic fins by accident, then it may actually be a specimen of (rather than still being a unique species). But so far I haven't found anybody else entertaining that notion more recently... Okay, so perhaps this isn't really useful information, but maybe you'll find it interesting. Cheers!

Thanks, Eric!
What do you think on this statement "Adipose fin with a small nodule embedded half postero-superior of it" in relation to my fish?
Cheers,
Dmcat
P.S. I've checked the teeth - the most anterior row is mostly unicuspid (only few weakly bicuspid), all rows after clearly bicuspid.

Hi Dmcat,
I'm not quite sure what that should look like, since I've looked at several photos of chotae (which has the nodule) and I don't see the nodule well defined. But I really don't see anything like a nodule in your fish, so I went to the next step, which led me to grixalvii.

Cheers, Eric