Another breeding form of Ancistrus cf. hologynensis

[fischkringli]

First time I saw them at the "Zierfische & Aquarien 2008" in Duisburg.
Later I bought one at the fish shop. He is called "Pumpkin" because of his colour.
Here are some pictures:

[Borbi]

Hi,

that should be Ancistrus sp. "Super-Red". That one´s bred from the calico variety of the common bristlenose, Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.

Cheers, Sandor

[Jools]

Moved to the loricariidae forum.

Jools

[Mike_Noren]

Ancistrus sp. "Super-Red". That one´s bred from the calico variety of the common bristlenose, Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.

Are you sure of this? Because the Super Reds I've seen didn't really look like common ancistrus to me, the shape looked strange to me. I actually suspected they were a hybrid.

[pleco_breeder]

Mike,

I've been curious about this with the "red marble" strain as well. They just look more elongated to me. With that said, we have no way of knowing whether any of the oddball strains are hybrids. L144 really didn't look like sp. 3 to me. However, someone has been raising long fin types for a couple years now. I doubt we will ever know for sure whether that's a true species, but it is out there.

Larry

[husky_jim]

I saw also that fish in Duisburg during the 2008 show.

In my eyes they looked hybrids and if i remember correctly they where named as 'Super Red'.I 'll try to find pics of them later....

[Borbi]

Hi,

@Mike: if your question is related to the I.D. itself: well, I´m as certain as one can be with a picture of a fish half hiding.. But from what I can see, it´s pretty certain an A. sp. "Super red".

Regarding the question where they come from (in general): the "super red" ones (the real ones; some nicely coloured calicos from the czech republic were also sold under that name recently) were bred by a german breeder that states that they were selected from a strain of calico bristlenoses (which is accepted as a bred strain of the common bristlenose). This has been published that way in at least one german magazine, don´t remember right now, which one. While I don´t know that breeder in person, some others that personally know him confirmed that. So I´m at least pretty sure that they are bred from the calico bristlenose. The other problem IMHO is, what the "common bristlenose" is for people at different places in the world. Due to the massive number of different types/species with that exact colouration, I wouldn´t be surprised if the "common bristlenose" in America, for example, turned out to be different from the one we here in Germany now sometimes term Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus.
Regarding the shape: I don´t know how big that fish in the picture is. But know from personal experience, that young "common bristlenoses" appear to be more elongate than adult ones. Especially the males can turn quite chunky, IMHO.

Hope that clarified some points from my point of view,

Cheers, Sandor

[Mike_Noren]

OK, yes, it does. I didn't doubt these were Super Reds, it's just that their shape looks unusual for commons to me, but if the breeder says they're line bred I have no real reason to doubt that.

[fischkringli]

husky_jim wrote:

I saw also that fish in Duisburg during the 2008 show.

The ones on the show were bad quality. More brown than red.


Borbi wrote:

This has been published that way in at least one german magazine, don´t remember right now, which one.

It was one of the first magazines of the Amazonas I think, but it was written 2006.


My male is 5cm big and I saw him with the name Ancistrus cf. hologynensis orange.


Borbi wrote:

I´m as certain as one can be with a picture of a fish half hiding..

I will try to get better pics , but he is very shy.

[fischkringli]

I hope this pics are better.

[Borbi]

Hi,

I stick to Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus "Super red".

Cheers, Sandor

[fischkringli]

Could it also be, that some fish-shops call them A. sp. "super red" and some call them A. cf. hologynensis "orange"?

[MatsP]

I have never seen Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus called anything like that in shops. I have seen it called MANY things - not specifically A. hoplogenys, but A. temminckii, A. dolichopterus are fairly common. Whilst A. temmickii sort of looks the same, it is not correct. A. dolichopterus is quite obviously wrong!

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

I wonder, too as I saw the post that they saw them with this name.
A. dolichopterus looks very different and I couldnt imagine, that a breeding form of A. dolichopterus is existing.

[MatsP]

I wonder, too as I saw the post that they saw them with this name.
A. dolichopterus looks very different and I couldnt imagine, that a breeding form of A. dolichopterus is existing.

Why not? I agree that I haven't seen one, but there is nothing inherent in A. dolichopterus that would prevent the same genetic defect from occuring there. It's just a case of sufficient inbreeding, and most animals will turn funny colours and have other weird things (long or short fur/fins, deformed bodies, etc). The key here is that the common bristlenose has been bred in captivity for a long time. More exotic Ancistrus species are less commonly bred, so the genetic information is more like in the wild.

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

A. dolichopterus was the scientific for the common Ancistrus with the most keepers long time, but I thought everybody know now, that it is anoter species.
It is hard to say what species it is, and I dont know other keepers of this breeding form, I could ask.

[MatsP]

A. dolichopterus was the scientific for the common Ancistrus with the most keepers long time, but I thought everybody know now, that it is anoter species.
It is hard to say what species it is, and I dont know other keepers of this breeding form, I could ask.

Yes, Ingo Seidel wrote quite a bit on the subject in this article in Shane's World. Unfortunately, I didn't have enough time to talk to Ingo at the CSG Convention, but the article makes it quite clear that we may never know where they originally came from.

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

This is the reason, why its A. cf. hoplogynensis and not A. hoplogynensis.
(I dont know why, but Ive always written hologynensis. In the headding too. )

[Borbi]

Hi,

..the cf. wouldn´t make it better. It´s still a relative (or identical to) of Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus and has nothing to with A. hoplogenys.

Cheers, Sandor

[fischkringli]

Its crazy. The most popular catfish and no scientific name .

[Mike_Noren]

Its crazy. The most popular catfish and no scientific name .

If it's a man-made hybrid it doesn't have a scientific name.
However, best ID so far says it's Ancistrus cirrhosus, although the author didn't feel confident about the ID.

[fischkringli]

Mike_Noren wrote:

If it's a man-made hybrid it doesn't have a scientific name.

I mean the common Ancistrus, not the breeding form. But you are right. It is man made so it wont get a scientific name.

[MatsP]

Mike_Noren wrote:

If it's a man-made hybrid it doesn't have a scientific name.

I mean the common Ancistrus, not the breeding form. But you are right. It is man made so it wont get a scientific name.

I think what Mike meant was that if the common Ancistrus is a cross-breed of multiple species, it will not have a scientific name - it would be called Ancistrus name1 x Ancistrus name2 if we knew what species where the parents. But if we follow this line of "common ones are hybrids", then it's most likely that we will never know who the original parents are, since the off-spring are quite well mixed up by now.

The red form, to the best of my understanding, is just another line-bred variety, just like long fins, albino, calico etc. It's a genetic defect that has been stabilized by inbreeding (breeding fish from the same parents with each other, so that the genetic variation is reduced because both of the second generation fish have the same/similar genetics).

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

Yes thats right. An interesting think.
The orange form is perhaps a cross breed between the yellow form and the brown form.

[apistomaster]

Yes thats right. An interesting think.
The orange form is perhaps a cross breed between the yellow form and the brown form.

If only it were that simple. It almost certainly is not.

[MatsP]

If only it were that simple. It almost certainly is not.

I definitely agree with that. It is another genetic "deformity" in another gene. Most fish have a red form, but what gene it is will be more difficult to say.

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

So if you breed and breed and breed, you get some catfish babies with colour- or fin abnormalities and if they are not bad, you use this specimen to get more of them. In this way this breeding form began to exist.

[MatsP]

So if you breed and breed and breed, you get some catfish babies with colour- or fin abnormalities and if they are not bad, you use this specimen to get more of them. In this way this breeding form began to exist.

Exactly. Just like white rabbits, cats and dogs with black or giner or long hair, etc.

--
Mats

[fischkringli]

Why this breeding forms always come from Russia, Poland and the rest of east-europe?

[MatsP]

Why this breeding forms always come from Russia, Poland and the rest of east-europe?

Because no one in the western world can be bothered to breed fish that costs $1 in wholesale?

--
Mats