L310 = H. cochliodon??
- MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My cats species list: 117 (i:33, k:0)
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:97)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
L310 = H. cochliodon??
H. cochliodon is supposedly from Rios Parana and Paraguay. However, as a "common name", it's also listed as L310, which is from the Bahia region in Brazil. Now, it's either a very widespread fish, or L310 is _NOT_ H. cochliodon.
It is further confounded by the fact that Fishbase lists H. cochliodon as occurring all over South America (as far apart as Guyana and Peru down to Paraguay - I think the only countries not mentioned are Argentina and Chile).
What is then even more confusing is that the "identification" section refers to L310 as if it is a separate species...
Does anyone have any comments on this?
--
Mats
It is further confounded by the fact that Fishbase lists H. cochliodon as occurring all over South America (as far apart as Guyana and Peru down to Paraguay - I think the only countries not mentioned are Argentina and Chile).
What is then even more confusing is that the "identification" section refers to L310 as if it is a separate species...
Does anyone have any comments on this?
--
Mats
-
- Expert
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 13:18
- My articles: 4
- My images: 64
- My cats species list: 32 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 20
- Location 1: Easton, PA
- Location 2: United States
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
Hi,
I would have some comments regarding this question:
first, regarding the origin: where does the location come from that you quote (Parana and Paraguay)?
According to the description by Kner, the type specimen (four) stem from the Rio Cujaba (spelled like that in Kner, 1854). That should be in Brazil, state of Bahia (unless there are several Rio Cujaba, of course).
As I have the desciption open right now, anyways, let me translate the color description by Kner:
However, I have the strong opinion that the fish steming from said Rio Cujaba, designated to be L 310 and pictured by H.-G. Evers (http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showp ... roduct/325) is a closer match to the description than any fish that is pictured in the eLog for this species (didn´t bother to look there until just a minute ago; but none of the fish shown there acutally fits to what I would expect to look like L 310 or Hypostomus cochliodon, for that matter). If I had to place those pictures, I would add them all to Cochliodon (Hypostomus) sp. "Paraguay" (you don´t have something like that in the eLog if I´m not mistaken, this is what I refer to as C. sp. "Paraguay": http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showp ... 922/cat/52), with the exception of the Armbruster picture and the one by Jools which is unjudgable as only the underside is visible.
My personaly hypothesis regarding this "issue" is:
for most of the time, the commonly imported Cochliodon (the "Red Bruno" standard one) were simply referred to H. cochliodon for whatever reason, and as such, "nobdy knows" or cares regarding ID, as they already have a name, and thus pictures were supplied under that name to Jools, and we find out only later that this was a missidentification from the ancient time. Wouldn´t be the first time we experience something like that..![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon/wink.gif)
Hope that helps a little,
cheers, Sandor
I would have some comments regarding this question:
first, regarding the origin: where does the location come from that you quote (Parana and Paraguay)?
According to the description by Kner, the type specimen (four) stem from the Rio Cujaba (spelled like that in Kner, 1854). That should be in Brazil, state of Bahia (unless there are several Rio Cujaba, of course).
As I have the desciption open right now, anyways, let me translate the color description by Kner:
Now, I would state that it is of course very important how "splitty" or "lumpy" one is, as to the question which "species", varieties or L-Numbers one subsumes under this description and I would prefer to leave this question to you guys.(Translation by myself): Colouration: J. Natterer in his notes bescribes this species most detailed among all of them [apparently, the notes contain several species, comment by the translator], and reports: skin colour yellowish-greybrown, rather light, the head, especially the crest, covered sparingly with blackish, small round dots, only roughly 3-4 of those along the torso. The fins show the body colouration at their origin, toward the tips, they gradually become brownish-black, and are all sparingly covered with black dots on rays and skin. The pupil is specifically mentioned to be sharply halfmoon shaped and the Iris is pale gold with greyish-brown markings.
However, I have the strong opinion that the fish steming from said Rio Cujaba, designated to be L 310 and pictured by H.-G. Evers (http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showp ... roduct/325) is a closer match to the description than any fish that is pictured in the eLog for this species (didn´t bother to look there until just a minute ago; but none of the fish shown there acutally fits to what I would expect to look like L 310 or Hypostomus cochliodon, for that matter). If I had to place those pictures, I would add them all to Cochliodon (Hypostomus) sp. "Paraguay" (you don´t have something like that in the eLog if I´m not mistaken, this is what I refer to as C. sp. "Paraguay": http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showp ... 922/cat/52), with the exception of the Armbruster picture and the one by Jools which is unjudgable as only the underside is visible.
My personaly hypothesis regarding this "issue" is:
for most of the time, the commonly imported Cochliodon (the "Red Bruno" standard one) were simply referred to H. cochliodon for whatever reason, and as such, "nobdy knows" or cares regarding ID, as they already have a name, and thus pictures were supplied under that name to Jools, and we find out only later that this was a missidentification from the ancient time. Wouldn´t be the first time we experience something like that..
![Wink ;-)](./images/smilies/icon/wink.gif)
Hope that helps a little,
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´s what we know for sure that just ain´t so."
--Mark Twain
- MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My cats species list: 117 (i:33, k:0)
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:97)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
I'm _GUESSING_ that the distribution information comes from Catalog of Fishes and/or Fishbase, both of which agree.
You are correct, we do not have a fish called H. sp "paraguay", or anything else that would correspond to this.
Rio Cuiaba is, according to my understanding [and this is how it's entered in the Cat-eLog body of water hierarchy, but that's also potentially wrong], in the (Upper) Paraguay drainage, so it's the distribution is at least not "impossible".
[Actually, there appear to be a Rio Cuiaba in the Mato Grosso area, and another in the state of Rio de Janeiro].
Yes, I do agree that this question is obviously one of "lumpers vs. splitters", and I'm not sure how to call this [if I knew myself for certain, I would "just fix it"].
Thanks for your information.
--
Mats
You are correct, we do not have a fish called H. sp "paraguay", or anything else that would correspond to this.
Rio Cuiaba is, according to my understanding [and this is how it's entered in the Cat-eLog body of water hierarchy, but that's also potentially wrong], in the (Upper) Paraguay drainage, so it's the distribution is at least not "impossible".
[Actually, there appear to be a Rio Cuiaba in the Mato Grosso area, and another in the state of Rio de Janeiro].
Yes, I do agree that this question is obviously one of "lumpers vs. splitters", and I'm not sure how to call this [if I knew myself for certain, I would "just fix it"].
Thanks for your information.
--
Mats
- Janne
- Expert
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: 01 Jan 2003, 02:16
- My articles: 10
- My images: 244
- Spotted: 73
- Location 2: Belém, Brazil
- Contact:
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
Rio Cuiaba is in Mato Grosso and belongs to Rio Paraguay drainage... "Red Bruno" comes from a supplier in the city Cuiabá and thats far from Bahia... either did Kner spell the river name wrong (if not they changed the name later when they built the city Cuiabá) or Sandor is correct.Rio Cuiaba is, according to my understanding [and this is how it's entered in the Cat-eLog body of water hierarchy, but that's also potentially wrong], in the (Upper) Paraguay drainage, so it's the distribution is at least not "impossible".
[Actually, there appear to be a Rio Cuiaba in the Mato Grosso area, and another in the state of Rio de Janeiro].
Janne
- MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My cats species list: 117 (i:33, k:0)
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:97)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
As far as I can tell, the old spelling is Cujaba, with the new spelling being Cuiaba (actually, should have i with accent, but that's too much work for my English keyboard). If I search for "Cujaba", the first hit is this post, then there are verious documents with information of the type "Cuiaba [Cujaba]", indicating that the author provides alternative spelling.
So I think the Cat-eLog body-of-water tables are correct, and the Cuiaba we want is the one in Mato Grosso.
--
Mats
So I think the Cat-eLog body-of-water tables are correct, and the Cuiaba we want is the one in Mato Grosso.
--
Mats
-
- Expert
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 13:18
- My articles: 4
- My images: 64
- My cats species list: 32 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 20
- Location 1: Easton, PA
- Location 2: United States
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
Hi,
regarding the question which Cujaba could be ment:
scrolling through Kner 1854, Natterer appears occasionally "around" the H. cochliodon desciption. And there, one also finds mentioning of the Mato Grosso (and rivers therein). Thus, assuming that Kner described the species provided by Natterer in a row (they are not in alphabetical order), it appears at least reasonable to assume that they are all grossly from the same area (i. e., the Mato Grosso). Not hard proof, but at least it´s a hint..
Cheers, Sandor
regarding the question which Cujaba could be ment:
scrolling through Kner 1854, Natterer appears occasionally "around" the H. cochliodon desciption. And there, one also finds mentioning of the Mato Grosso (and rivers therein). Thus, assuming that Kner described the species provided by Natterer in a row (they are not in alphabetical order), it appears at least reasonable to assume that they are all grossly from the same area (i. e., the Mato Grosso). Not hard proof, but at least it´s a hint..
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´s what we know for sure that just ain´t so."
--Mark Twain
- MatsP
- Posts: 21038
- Joined: 06 Oct 2004, 13:58
- My articles: 4
- My images: 28
- My cats species list: 117 (i:33, k:0)
- My aquaria list: 10 (i:8)
- My BLogs: 4 (i:0, p:97)
- Spotted: 187
- Location 1: North of Cambridge
- Location 2: England.
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
So let me explain how I see what is being said in this thread:
What we have on pictures in the Cat-eLog is not H. cochliodon, but "Red Bruno", aka H. sp. Paraguay.
H. cochliodon and H. sp. paraguay both originate from Rio Paraguay drainage.
L310 is from Bahia, which is much further north than Rio Paraguay drainage - rivers here either enter the Atlantic directly, or flow into the Amazon [this is to the best of my understanding, may be wrong].
--
Mats
What we have on pictures in the Cat-eLog is not H. cochliodon, but "Red Bruno", aka H. sp. Paraguay.
H. cochliodon and H. sp. paraguay both originate from Rio Paraguay drainage.
L310 is from Bahia, which is much further north than Rio Paraguay drainage - rivers here either enter the Atlantic directly, or flow into the Amazon [this is to the best of my understanding, may be wrong].
--
Mats
- Janne
- Expert
- Posts: 1765
- Joined: 01 Jan 2003, 02:16
- My articles: 10
- My images: 244
- Spotted: 73
- Location 2: Belém, Brazil
- Contact:
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
My resumé would be that H. cochliodon = "Red Bruno", aka H. sp. Paraguay, and whom say that L310 is from Bahia?Sandor wrote:scrolling through Kner 1854, Natterer appears occasionally "around" the H. cochliodon desciption. And there, one also finds mentioning of the Mato Grosso (and rivers therein). Thus, assuming that Kner described the species provided by Natterer in a row (they are not in alphabetical order), it appears at least reasonable to assume that they are all grossly from the same area (i. e., the Mato Grosso). Not hard proof, but at least it´s a hint..
Janne
-
- Expert
- Posts: 497
- Joined: 13 Aug 2006, 13:18
- My articles: 4
- My images: 64
- My cats species list: 32 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 20
- Location 1: Easton, PA
- Location 2: United States
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
Hi,
the quintessence of my view would be the following:
- the pictures you have in H. cochliodon (except the Armbruster and Jools´ picture) are of what is commonly referred to as the "Red Bruno" and was assigned as Cochliodon (Hypostomus) sp. "Paraguay" in my surroundings and according to my notion of these species would deserve a new species entry. H. sp. "Paraguay" (or H. sp. (10)-something in PCF nomenclature) should be qualified by looking like H. soniae, but no blue eyes and generally no spots on head or body (that´s not a full fletched ID guideline, of course).
- Hypostomus cochliodon is identical to L 310 and I could not find a picture of a living specimen in the eLog (with the possible exception of the Armbruster picture [even though it´s dead], I have no opinion regarding that one). H. cochliodon should show a number of spots on the head, (almost) none on the body, but spots in all fins (on rays and skin). Additionally, the body colour should be rather light, more greyish than the reddish-brown looks of H. sp. "Paraguay". Of course, there are quite a few other species of Cochliodon (Hypostomus) presenting spots, everything else would be way too simple..
but, as I said, that´s just my view of this issue.
Cheers, Sandor
the quintessence of my view would be the following:
- the pictures you have in H. cochliodon (except the Armbruster and Jools´ picture) are of what is commonly referred to as the "Red Bruno" and was assigned as Cochliodon (Hypostomus) sp. "Paraguay" in my surroundings and according to my notion of these species would deserve a new species entry. H. sp. "Paraguay" (or H. sp. (10)-something in PCF nomenclature) should be qualified by looking like H. soniae, but no blue eyes and generally no spots on head or body (that´s not a full fletched ID guideline, of course).
- Hypostomus cochliodon is identical to L 310 and I could not find a picture of a living specimen in the eLog (with the possible exception of the Armbruster picture [even though it´s dead], I have no opinion regarding that one). H. cochliodon should show a number of spots on the head, (almost) none on the body, but spots in all fins (on rays and skin). Additionally, the body colour should be rather light, more greyish than the reddish-brown looks of H. sp. "Paraguay". Of course, there are quite a few other species of Cochliodon (Hypostomus) presenting spots, everything else would be way too simple..
![Cool 8)](./images/smilies/icon_cool.gif)
but, as I said, that´s just my view of this issue.
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´s what we know for sure that just ain´t so."
--Mark Twain
- Jools
- Expert
- Posts: 15993
- Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
- My articles: 197
- My images: 941
- My catfish: 238
- My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
- My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
- My Wishlist: 23
- Spotted: 447
- Location 1: Middle Earth,
- Location 2: Scotland
- Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
- Contact:
Re: L310 = H. cochliodon??
This has moved on a bit in 11 years and I think the data is now correct or at least reflects current thinking.
Cheers,
Jools
Cheers,
Jools
Owner, AquaticRepublic.com, PlanetCatfish.com & ZebraPleco.com. Please consider donating towards this site's running costs.