newest S lucipinnis pix are no lucipinnis

[sidguppy]

These two pix:
lucipinnis1
and
lucipinnis2

aren't S lucipinnis at all; not even members from the "petricola group"like the petricola or the lucipinnis (syn: S petricola 'dwarf')

They have black dorsal spines, black pectoral spines with only the tiniest lighter margin, a horselike elongated bent snout and coppery eyes.

they're "dwarf dhonti's" (or irsacae) or a member of the "Synodontis polli"-group. given the bright white margin on the back of the dorsal and the jetblack anterior part, my money's on "dwarf dhonti"/irsacae.

I have no access to making posts in the catelog group, so I'd better post it here, as it is a taxonomical issue.

[lfinley58]

Hi all,

For what it is worth I am in agreement with sidguppy on the pictures in question.

Lee

[Dinyar]

Me three. I agree with the honorable gentlemen who have previously opined on this subject.

[Silurus]

Since the inner mandibular barbels are branched, this cannot be S. irsacae. I'd go with S. polli.

[Jools]

Since the inner mandibular barbels are branched, this cannot be S. irsacae. I'd go with S. polli.

I'll change it soon, promise!

Jools

[lfinley58]

Silurus wrote:
"Since the inner mandibular barbels are branched, this cannot be S. irsacae. I'd go with S. polli."

Hello all.

The one thing that we all seem to be in agreement on is that the fish in question is not S. lucipinnis. That is a good start. From there the situation seems to get a bit more complicated.

In the Wright and Page revision the following comments are made in regards to the inner mandibular barbels (which they call medial mandibular barbels):

1. S. irsacae: "...with 4-5 pairs of tuberculate branches; secondary branches present."
2. S polli: "...with 3-5 pairs of of tuberculate branches; many secondary branches."

Silurus: With the above in place that both species have branched inner mandibular barbels, I have to admit that I do not understand your comment. I would appreciate if you might follow up on this and clarify it for me.

To further look into this I captured photo number 1 and enlarged it to the maximum of focus usefulness. Personally, I cannot see anything that I would consider to be secondary branching. In that Wright and Page note "many secondary branches" for S. polli, the picture would seem to go against considering this fish as that species. Likewise, the same could be said for considering it as S. irsacae which was my initial opinion.

As a side note I will state that the length of the maxillary barbel (photo 2) would also seem to be against calling it S. polli.

The Wright and Page work is certainly serving as a new starting place for the consideration of the Lake Tanganyikan Synodontis. But I still think, as I have in the past, that the diversity of these catfishes in the Lake far surpasses what is even known now. In trying to place all of the fishes that we see into one of the species of Wright and Page we are confronted with a blivet of sorts. For any unfamilar with this word, it can be defined as "Trying to put 10 pounds of #%&* into a 5 pound bag." To put it more kindly, to some extent or the other we are all whistling in the dark. This is not to say that we shouldn't try to put names on various fishes based on available photographs. We have to, but it does carry certain problems with it. But, hey this is what we do for fun.

Jools - Would it be possible to contact the photographer and see about getting a good close up ventral view of the barbels for addditonal viewing? This might be of additional help.

Well, that does it for right now on this topic for me. I will look forward to any additional comments that the parties involved have to make. I love a good discussion.

Lee

[Dinyar]

Hear, hear!

[Jools]

I'll move them into <em>S. irsacae</em> for now.

Jools