Hope I get the chance to get a group sometime. 
I'm not sure I've seen any concrete info on where it lives in the wild. All I have is that's it was exported from Bogotá.Linus_Cello wrote:The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).
It wouldn't be the first case of convergent coloration patterns, as Pseudolithoxus tigris has a similar pattern to L260, H. subviridis has the same pattern as B. demantoides, and tons of loricariids are black with white spots. I don't think you can use color pattern as an indication of whether they live in the same drainage; while H. subviridis and B. demantoides do live in the same drainage, P. tigris and L260 certainly don't. Still, it is an interesting point that you raise.Linus_Cello wrote:Coloring and pattern is similar to the unknown Leporacanthicus "black and white": http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=32249
Convergent evolution? The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).
Why not use its local name Corroncho plata (silver pleco)? This would be more useful than an L Number since it is at least descriptive of the fish and tells us where it originates.As an aside, the next time someone suggests that the l-number system should be scrapped, let's agree and we can stick with calling this Mega Crown Pleco until it's described!
Suckermouth wrote:It wouldn't be the first case of convergent coloration patterns, as Pseudolithoxus tigris has a similar pattern to L260, H. subviridis has the same pattern as B. demantoides, and tons of loricariids are black with white spots. I don't think you can use color pattern as an indication of whether they live in the same drainage; while H. subviridis and B. demantoides do live in the same drainage, P. tigris and L260 certainly don't. Still, it is an interesting point that you raise.Linus_Cello wrote:Coloring and pattern is similar to the unknown Leporacanthicus "black and white": http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=32249
Convergent evolution? The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).
The vast majority of described species being from the Orinoco is sampling bias, not an effect of the actual distribution of Hypancistrus. Using the likely incomplete knowledge of Hypancistrus distributions would be a poor reason to separate the genus. Furthermore, there are some undescribed Hypancistrus from other rivers between the Orinoco/Negro and the Xingu (according to the Cat-eLog), such as the Madeira and the Tapajos, so the distance is not quite so great as Orinoco vs. Xingu.Shane wrote:From an evolutionary (taxonomic) standpoint Hypancistrus, as currently defined, is making less and less sense to me. The vast majority of described spp (over 90%) are from the Orinoco and Negro (which are connected by the Casiquiare channel) with H. zebra an outlier from a totally different system. I suspect that Hypancistrus will eventually be restricted to the Xingu complex of fishes while we will need a new genus for the Orinoco/Negro fishes. There is just too big of a gap between these drainages (i.e. a lack of Hypancistrus populations) for this to make evolutionary sense, even if the Xingu and Orinoco/Negro fishes share some common characteristics.
I could believe this.Yann wrote:Hi!!
I higly believe these are just aberrant pattern of "common" species...it happened quite often...especially among Hypancistrus.
Cheers
Yann
Milton,The vast majority of described species being from the Orinoco is sampling bias, not an effect of the actual distribution of Hypancistrus.
Since we are talking about undescribed spp, which the cat-eLog has no official authority to assign a genus, we can't say that there animals that are or are not Hypancistrus. Only proper descriptions will tell. Regardless, it is a long way from the Orinoco/upper Negro to the southern Amazonian tributaries with Hypancistrus (sensu lato) absent from a huge piece of that real estate.Furthermore, there are some undescribed Hypancistrus from other rivers between the Orinoco/Negro and the Xingu (according to the Cat-eLog), such as the Madeira and the Tapajos, so the distance is not quite so great as Orinoco vs. Xingu.
Larry,This is no different than dozens of genera...
That seems sensible, but it's already being sold by the other names. However, the other point, that of locality, I am not sure of. I am told you can now buy Corroncho zebra (L046) and Corroncho Diabolo (L025) from Bogotá... I am not saying this fish isn't from the area, but I am suggested we don't know where it is from for sure.Shane wrote:Why not use its local name Corroncho plata (silver pleco)? This would be more useful than an L Number since it is at least descriptive of the fish and tells us where it originates.
Absolutely. Although where the described fishes are from may more be to do with no-one "description hogging" (e.g. That fish is from my country and you foreign lot can't describe it, but I am going to take 20 years to do it) rather than anything to do with the fish. But yes, at least two professionals who have written descriptions have told me they are not monophyletic but would be if certain species were removed. I am not sure about the restriction to the lower Amazon tributaries though, , for example, might fit in the monophyletic group.Shane wrote:From an evolutionary (taxonomic) standpoint Hypancistrus, as currently defined, is making less and less sense to me. The vast majority of described spp (over 90%) are from the Orinoco and Negro (which are connected by the Casiquiare channel) with H. zebra an outlier from a totally different system. I suspect that Hypancistrus will eventually be restricted to the Xingu complex of fishes while we will need a new genus for the Orinoco/Negro fishes. There is just too big of a gap between these drainages (i.e. a lack of Hypancistrus populations) for this to make evolutionary sense, even if the Xingu and Orinoco/Negro fishes share some common characteristics.
It is a fair point that we can't control common names, but I am glad we got to see the original one before silly trade names and a useless alphanumeric designator (which is sure to come) became common use. In the case of the other two fishes you mention we both know why those are sold that way and it happened long after we had good data on those fishes.That seems sensible, but it's already being sold by the other names. However, the other point, that of locality, I am not sure of. I am told you can now buy Corroncho zebra (L046) and Corroncho Diabolo (L025) from Bogotá.
Given the country we are talking about I agree that we should consider this. However, there is no way to put a number on it for analytic purposes.Although where the described fishes are from may more be to do with no-one "description hogging"
Larry, I do not have the data to say this with any certainty and Jools and Milton offer some possible explanations why it may not. However, based on the known scientifically described spp it is something I would strongly consider if I were working on these fish. It is also worth considering that their ranges, even in their home drainages, are not broad, but restricted to small localities. There are not Hypancistrus throughout the Orinoco drainage, they are pretty much localized near the Rio Ventuari. I am not as familiar with the Xingu (I never collected there) but my understanding is that it is a similar case, hence all the concern about the Belo Monte dam. So it is not just a case of the two Hypancistrus populations being divided by drainage, but also that they have very restricted distribution even within their home drainages.I am understanding that you believe the Hypancistrus that are found in the Orinoco drainage and headwaters of the Rio Negro are a different genus than those found in the Rio Xingu? Just a case of convergent evolution?
/g/s/1.jpg)
