L340 pictures - are they really L340?

[MatsP]

I don't like doing this (much I do apologize to ALL involved on three accounts:
1. I do not want anyone to feel like "I know better" - I don't - I'm raising the question because I think the pictures show (at least) two different species.
2. If this has been brought up before, and I've missed it somehow.
3. I'm certain that anyone who has submitted images (or Jools placing them on the site) has done so in good faith, and do actually believe that the fish they photographed IS indeed L340. So I'm not trying to find someone at fault here. Just trying to make sure that the site is as accurate as possible, and that the fish in the pictures are actually what the label says.

There has been several posts regarding

Hypancistrus sp(L340)

and other species looking more or less similar.
Some of the pictures in L340 definitely looks very different from some other pictures. And I don't doubt for a moment that there is a wide range of variation in this species.

However, I find some of the pictures are VERY close to the

Hypancistrus debilittera

, and not very much like the pictures that clearly DO NOT depict H. debilittera.

Examples of what I think is genuine L340:



Examples of doubtful ones:




Note how the first set NEVER has any dots of white in the dark sections, and that it looks more like a light-coloured fish with dark stripes than a dark fish with light markings. The latter, on is definitely like a dark fish with light markings, and has some spots - something we also see in H. delibittera.

Again, I'm not an expert - I just get the feeling when looking at the pictures.

--
Mats

[Yann]

Mats!!

I can understand you doubt on some of the pictures!!
Regarding mine, as it one of them, I had a confirmation of ID from Andre Werner, Ingo Seidel and Erwin Schraml if I remember right...

This "species" is highly variable in matter of colouration...some are not as beautiful as the one pictured by Erwin...

Jon Armbruster eventually suggested that L340 would fit into the Hypancistrus debilittera...so....

Cheers
Yann

[Borbi]

Hi Mats,

..I would like to make it even more complicated :

According to my own experience, L 340 and H. debilittera (wouldn´t be surprised if some L 340 were under the type material of H. debilittera, but let´s consider them two different species) cannot be distinguished solely based on their colouration.

I (and others; see for example the description of L 340 in the Wels Atlas2) find two different criteria for differentiation:
1. Head shape: the head of L 340 looks more like a duck´s beak than that of H. debilittera. Unfortunately, that is (in part) also one way of sexual differentiation in Hypancistrus. However, if you ever saw a group of L 340 from above, you notice that one immediately. It only gets tricky with pictures from different angles (and there starts the problem with ID from pictures).
2. Teeth count: L 340 have "significantly" (as in statistical significance) less teeth in their jaws than H. debilittera. This one I found most useful in identification of my own group of them. I´ll have to see if I can post some example pictures of them (gave them away some time ago), unfortunately, there´s definitely no pictures of their mouth.

But in that group (ID based on head shape as well as teeth count) and their offspring I had individuals of almost all "types" you posted in the pictures (except the Schraml-one, of course..).
Which is why I don´t comment on the IDs of the respective pictures. I consider it impossible to judge those fish solely from these pictures.

Although it didn´t help,
Cheers, Sandor

[MatsP]

Interesting. So we they have the same body pattern - which is the essential key used in describing H. debilittera - as far as I understand there wasn't sufficient morphometric data to support different species in that case.

--
Mats

[Borbi]

Hi Mats,

I actually did find some ancient pictures to illustrate my point(s) a little more:

Here´s half of my group of H. sp. "L 340" when I got them, seen from above:


There you can see the duck´s beak type of snout form.
Note especially that the fish on the left actually turned out to be a (very fertile) female. Based on my former experience with Hypancistrus, I was dead sure that it really was a male when I got them.

Pattern is also quite variable:




Unfortunately, I don´t have any pictures where the dentition is discernible.

But, for comparison, a few weeks later I got some H. debilittera (sold as L 340; gave them away soon after):


Note, again, the form of the snout: That fish should also be a female (though not guaranteed, since I didn´t keep them until breeding).

And here, just for reference, the mouth of the H. debilittera:


Even the uncompressed picture is way too fuzzy to clearly count the teeth, however. But that would be the type of picture suitable to check the dentition.

I hope I could underline a little my notion that colouration is not a sure-fire way to differentiate between L 340 and H. debilittera. But, as you can see, with some good pictures of the headshape, it´s (while not 100% sure) quite possible (well, that doesn´t exclude other experiences or other "methods", of course!).

Cheers, Sandor

[Jools]

So, are we content that these are all L340 then?

Jools

[MatsP]

I guess so.

--
Mats