PlanetCatfish.com

I received an order of supposed royal farlowellas. One was a royal and the other does not appear to be. The body shape is like a royal farlowella, but the straight black lines on either side and the extended nose and short finnage and triangular shape of the dorsal tell me it's something different. I'd like to know what.

my new fish in question top view


side view


bottom view


picture of royal farlowella female top view



Thanks

Steve

It doesn't look like a <i>Sturisoma</i> to me. As best as I can tell using Retzer & Page's revision of <i>Farlowella</i>, your fish looks like <i>F. taphorni</i>.

Hi,

No Farlowella imo, but like Steve said a Sturisoma. Could be Sturisoma nigrirostrum. A typical feature of Sturisoma nigrirostrum is the black underside of the rostrum, which your fish shows.

Achim

Actually, I am inclined to agree with Heok Hee that the top fish is one of the short nose Farlowella (there are a number of spp.) A good picture of the belly scute arrangement would certainly help. I have been meaning to research this topic, but have not had time. Sometimes it is hard to tell where Sturisoma ends and Farlowella begins.
-Shane

Hi,

Anyone have the ref. for that paper?

Retzer, M. E. & Page, L. M. 1996
Systematics of the Stick Catfishes, Farlowella Eigenmann & Eigenmann (Pisces, Loricariidae)
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 147: 33-88

I would have put money on that fish being a Sturi.

Me too. The fish looks nothing like a Farlowella from the Farlowella curtirostra group to me. But maybe i am wrong .

edit:
I just checked Fowlers description of Sturisoma nigrirostrum. It doesn't really help, but i scanned the tables some time ago, so i thought i just post it:

[Sturisoma nigrirostrum from Fowler 1940, page 248, figs 48-50]
AFAIK copyright on printed media expires after 50 years, so posting the table shouldn't be a problem. If i am wrong, tell me and i will remove the picture.

The Paper says (topline on every 2nd page) its from 1939, whereas fishbase and others list it from 1940. Does someone know why?

Achim

As far as I can see:
All three top pics:
Sturisoma barbatum
bottom (last pic, of the female):
Sturisoma aureum (=S festivum)
no Farlowella at all...

The Paper says (topline on every 2nd page) its from 1939, whereas fishbase and others list it from 1940. Does someone know why?

The paper appeared in the journal scheduled for 1939. However, it was actually published in 1940. Since the rules of zoological nomenclature state that the date of publication is the date from which the name is available (regardless of what the date says on the paper), the correct citation should be Fowler (1940).

The paper appeared in the journal scheduled for 1939. However, it was actually published in 1940. Since the rules of zoological nomenclature state that the date of publication is the date from which the name is available (regardless of what the date says on the paper), the correct citation should be Fowler (1940).

ic. Thanks for the explanation.

Achim

Well here is the deal, I sent these to Steve and I bought them from a guy in Florida that I usually get albino bristlenose from. He told me he had about 100 royal farlowellas he has raised and I said I will take them all, when I got them they were in awesome shape and I know they were not wild caught. Could this guy be crossing two different adults and getting these fish? I always get wild caught royals so when I got these fish I thought this is a easy to sex race of royals and assumed the differant markings were male and female! lotsoffish

The breeder thought they were Sturisoma Aureum

Here's a better picture of the underside of the unknown fish.


Thanks for the help.

Steve

Hi Steve,

like i said before, imo this is Sturisoma nigrirostrum. The black underside of the rostrum is typical for that species.

Greetings... Achim

Hey Lotsoffish,

Did you send me 2 of these as well with those hoplos? They both look like those pics. So this topic is very interesting to me!!





SH