Ancistrus multispinis misspelled in Cat-eLog

[MatsP]

It is supposed to be one n, not two.

--
Mats

[Marc van Arc]

Correct, which goes for the synonym as well. Synonym has been changed. Sloppy.....

[Marc van Arc]

While looking into the A. nationi matter, something else struck me.
When following FB the current Ancistrus multipinis data sheet is correct (author Regan, synonyms etc)
When checking on species level, you get quite a different story for A. multipinis. Not only does it have a different author (Holly), but it is also invalid and should be Lasiancistrus multipinis.
To make things even worse, the Lasiancistrus article (see nationi thread) states that L. multipinis is a synonym for L. schomburgkii.
This is way to confusing for an amateur like myself.
Could one of the scientists pls join in?

[Borbi]

Hey all,

I´m not an expert, but in the light of the new Peckoltia-paper I would like to bring this one back to attention.
Especially, since it´s not become easier by now.. I rechecked with fishbase just now, and I found two different entries: there is Ancistrus multispinis (Regan, 1912) (also called A. multispinus) and also Ancistrus multispinis Holly, 1929. This one got synomymized with Lasiancistrus schomburgkii by Armbruster. Now, it appears to end up as a valid Peckoltia.
If you then check this image of P. sp. "L 49" from the catelog: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/im ... ge_id=5082 you will find that this specimen shows the fimbriae mentioned by Armbruster as a unique feature of this fish. Which brings me to the question how certain the ID of the present fish is. The type locality should fit, at least.
This would make P. sp. "L 49" a good candidate for P. multispinis, provided, again, the ID of the fish is certain.

Anyone got a P. sp. "L 49" at hand for a decent mouth picture to compare..?

Who is the poor guy that has to unravel all this mess for the catelog..?

Cheers, Sandor

[Jools]

Who is the poor guy that has to unravel all this mess for the catelog..?

That would be me. I've fixed the Ancistrus misspelling for now.

Jools

[MatsP]

Is there something still to be done here?

If so, what?

--
Mats

[Jools]

Is there something still to be done here?

If so, what?

--
Mats

Yes, L049 becomes P. multispinis and text is required for the identification section on that species.

Jools

[MatsP]

Rename done - however, it seems like it's not worked right... Possibly because of the error message I got about "missing files" for sizing in the rename page...

--
Mats

[Jools]

Mmmm, and what about the text? I'll go check what's going on with the rename.

Jools

[Jools]

OK, it's back where it was. No more renames until I more fully test the todays upload (constants etc) in the live environment.

Jools

[MatsP]

I have just updated the constants for PC. I think that should fix it. In the meantime, I'm trying to locate the Peckolta paper to see if I can add the identification details...

--
Mats

[Jools]

The one that counts for the catelog are the fimbrations on the oral sucker.

Jools

[MatsP]

Yes, I realized that - but I wanted to find the document itself, so I didn't just make up my own words for that is described. And we should link to the Zootaxa paper itself.

--
Mats

[MatsP]

I have renamed and updated the species data sheet now.

Edit: And added the synonym Ancistrus multispinis Holly, 1929

--
Mats