Thanks Tina, good spot, this is because Peckoltia multispinis has a junior synonym of Ancistrus multispinis as well as there being a species entry for Ancistrus multispinis in its own right. Does anyone have any view on why that is? I will look into it if not...
Holly described an "Ancistrus" multispinis, which was identified as a Peckoltia species by Armbruster in his revision. This Peckoltia multispinis was described from a market in Belem, so it is not clear beyond doubt which of the Peckoltia forms we know from that area is in fact P. multispinis. Even before Holly´s description, Regan described an Ancistrus multispinis (1912), which indeed is an Ancistrus, from the eastern coast of Brazil. So we have a Peckoltia multispinis with Ancistrus multispinis as a junior synonym, and an Ancistrus multispinis, both as currently valid species.
Hope that helps and Cheers, Sandor
"What gets us into trouble is not what we don´t know. It´s what we know for sure that just ain´t so." --Mark Twain
It does make sense Sandor, in fact I think there is a post on it somewhere now that I think about it. So, the issue is not a data issue as I first thought but a real bug in the sense that Planet displays the picture belonging to the species with the matching synonym with priority over a valid species.