Bought as L173, maybe L66 or L333 white band?

[macvsog23]

Hello,

please consider hybrids to specify this fish. In my opinion it could be a mixture between L 400 and L 333. Problem is, they are not as nice as usual l-400 and l-333. I have visited several shops in Germany - hybridization is getting a big problem for Hypancistrus.

Regards

I agree as it is in nature as man forces more fish in to smaller areas this will happen.

[apistomaster]

I can see where the possibilities for having a hybrid strain of Hypancistrus is higher than in some genera in captivity but I think true interspecific hybrids in nature are very rare. The numbers of similar looking species in nature is high but not in and of its self evidence of natural hybridizing on a significant scale.
The lower Amazon including the rivers Rio Tocantins, Rio Tapajos and Rio Xingu are within the portion of the Amazon where the delta begins and the main river retains a high enough water level to support all those species willing to migrate where the water levels are their most stable. It seems it is those Hypancistrus associated with the the lower Rio Xingu but the other nearby streams should be considered, too. The most financially desirable species seem to be found higher upstream where there is perennial fast water, at least until quite soon..

You have a species which is apparently related to the others among the smaller species found in the Xingu and near by major tributaries of the Amazon but exactly what they are and where they originated from is probably lost over the years. Hopefully there is an existing description, however cursory which can distinguish these from others. Among all the potential natural hybrids there may be in nature, I believe them to be rare events and your fish are probably one of those which originate in the faster waters found in one the Amazon's tributaries with their mouths located fairly close to Belem.
I do believe many Hypancistrus given L-Numbers are merely normal and examples of naturally variable species and that the L-number count exceeds the numbers of valid species considerably.

[macvsog23]

I can see where the possibilities for having a hybrid strain of Hypancistrus is higher than in some genera in captivity but I think true interspecific hybrids in nature are very rare. The numbers of similar looking species in nature is high but not in and of its self evidence of natural hybridizing on a significant scale.
The lower Amazon including the rivers Rio Tocantins, Rio Tapajos and Rio Xingu are within the portion of the Amazon where the delta begins and the main river retains a high enough water level to support all those species willing to migrate where the water levels are their most stable. It seems it is those Hypancistrus associated with the the lower Rio Xingu but the other nearby streams should be considered, too. The most financially desirable species seem to be found higher upstream where there is perennial fast water, at least until quite soon..

You have a species which is apparently related to the others among the smaller species found in the Xingu and near by major tributaries of the Amazon but exactly what they are and where they originated from is probably lost over the years. Hopefully there is an existing description, however cursory which can distinguish these from others. Among all the potential natural hybrids there may be in nature, I believe them to be rare events and your fish are probably one of those which originate in the faster waters found in one the Amazon's tributaries with their mouths located fairly close to Belem.
I do believe many Hypancistrus given L-Numbers are merely normal and examples of naturally variable species and that the L-number count exceeds the numbers of valid species considerably.

Spot on

[Jools]

with most L numbers being hyb,s from either nature or man

Do I take this to mean you think that the 450 odd L-numbers are mostly (say, 300 or so) hybrids? On what basis?

Jools

[macvsog23]

with most L numbers being hyb,s from either nature or man

Do I take this to mean you think that the 450 odd L-numbers are mostly (say, 300 or so) hybrids? On what basis?

Jools

Not at all as we are discussing Hypan I am saying I agree with several people who say that once a situation arises were this genus has been properly described and documented that only a few will be truly individual Species, the rest will be natural morphs and hybrids.
I used humans as an example a person from China has a totally different look to a person from Africa in fact some one sub Sahara Africa is total different to some one from the cape I am naturally talking about native peoples not European invaders or migrant workers as in The Xhosa or the Arabic invaders from outside sub Saharan Africa.
In fact when I lived in SEA I could tell a persons Tribe or Group from just looking and I can still tell a “Punjabi “from a “Tamil”. But they are all the same spices.

My whole point is that we are far to dependant and blinded by L Numbers, it to me seems that some people think every fish must have an L Number, in fact if your memory is as good as mine you will remember when your involvement with L Numbers was just starting, the idea was to give any fish that was not correctly classified with a scientific name an L number that would be recycled when that fish was classified? This was never going to happen once the rare L Number brigade got a hold of the idea. We now have the price of fish being dependant on not the rarity but the ability of what L Number is hung on them.

I do wish to stress that I am not trying to belittle or rubbish any of the work done by collector hobbyists or people in the fish breeding trade. All I am saying is this one genus that has produced some of the most exciting fish and is one of the easy to keep and breed groups is being misunderstood from a point of identification and the L Number system is being used to add to this confusion.
It is no different to the situation in the 1960,s were some one would describe a fish and hang a name on it with no interest apart from profit. I do not need to mention the main protagonist and would not wish to add to his troubles.
The main reason for my opinion and it is just that an opinion is the easy way that Hypans can be spawned and crossed.
If it can be done in a tank it can be done in nature a flash flood a natural movement of earth not to mention the intervention of the most destructive organism on the planet man.
Hypans are found in small groups in areas that are now isolated but a few hundred years ago could have been connected. Look how quickly we have produced around 10 different variants of the ANCISTRUS. In 1967 I saw a photo of a albino pleco it was the only recorded specimen now you trip over them.

[Jools]

OK, so there are around 32 Hypancistrus L-numbers. How many are hybrids?

The point about species migrations made above doesn't take account of barriers such as waterfalls. Experts working in the field have also suggested to me that your average small pleco (<10cm) would be hard pushed to migrate across more than a few miles upstream but could spread if conditions are OK for breeding in the adjoining spaces.

Much better theory might be that the species ancestor evolved in fast head waters and spread out downstream (possibly following geoactivity more robust than erosion) where it found suitable pockets of fast water over rocks then it set up camp and speciated.

Anyway, and I apologise, that's all just conjecture.

If "they all hybridise in the wild", then doesn't that prove that fact worthless in terms of classification? For example,

Hypancistrus zebra

and

L260

have proven to hybridise in captivity. So, does that mean they're the same species? I don't think so.

I know you are not advocating this, but this line of reasoning promotes less care in avoiding hybrisiations from the less than scrupulous. Because legal Brazilian wild exports of many species have stopped, it means it gets harder and harder to track what you have.

There will always be idiots and mercenaries, but wouldn't it be better to keep them categorised individually until some are proven species and so on - as such the l number system is useful.

Jools

[macvsog23]

From your post I seem to see you’re worried about hybridisation in the aquarium trade and its negative impact on the genetic pool?
If so sorry but your fighting a battle your never win
Why? Because if some one can make money they will if it involves poking nature it will not stop them as I said in less than 10 years we have one of the most disgusting examples, long fin albino fish. In nature they would die just as I suspect most tank breed hybrids.
But back to my main point that is not about hybrids but this obsession of seeing every hypan that has an L Number as a separate Species. I believe they are morphs not hybrids, but just like humans as they have spread they have changed to suite the situation but are still the same species.
We will have to wait and see once we have this genus classified and named then we will see.
For now it is all conjecture and opinion.

[macvsog23]

Just to make a point

You ask

OK, so there are around 32 Hypancistrus L-numbers. How many are hybrids?
I say and how many are true independent species?

I say over 75% will be just a variant and not a species.
So hanging an L number on every morph or variant is crazy.

[Borbi]

Hi,

So hanging an L number on every morph or variant is crazy.

I´m sorry, but from this (and your answers above) I gather that you did not fully understand the concept of an L-Number. An L-Number is a picture of a fish (which should be not yet scientifically described and "sufficiently" different from other L-Numbers from the same area) in connection with a location. Only fish from the same location and the "same" outer appearance deserve to belong to that L-Number (as an example: there are several L-Numbers assigned to fishes currently called Peckoltia sabaji [or is it Hemiancistrus?] which can be differentiated by their origin).
This system does not attempt to replace scientific nomenclature in any way and perfectly fits to different L-Numbers for different "variants" (where it is certainly arguable what a "variant" is).
As a sidenote: not all authors contributing to L-Numbers agree on the difference and hence validity between certain L-Numbers (L399/400 is an example), but that is irrelevant in this very context, because it is only the editor of DATZ that makes the ultimate decision.

Cheers, Sandor

[macvsog23]

oh yes L 200 worked well did it not?

[Birger]

oh yes L 200 worked well did it not?

Can you explain what you mean a bit better.

[apistomaster]

The L-Number or C-Numbering system has its flaws but given the diversity of the fishes that have been discovered and became popular in the absence of a formal description and a binomial species name lacking it has been system which has helped speak a more common language across the world when discussing these fish.
Without some interim identification system for these catfish there would be even more chaos and confusion.
Numbers are given as more differences are noted but there are instances like the L128/L200 complex where there are gradations from North to South which causes confusion anyway. Besides, much depends on one's preferred definition of what constitutes of species and these issues are rarely decided by only a single worker's studies as not everyone uses the same definitions
There is the high or shark fin version of L200 and the more typical representatives.
There are intermediate regional varieties and some may conclude there is a single or at least two super-species and the regional races may become subspecies. Of course that is only one possible out come. Taxonomic splitters may find there are 3 to 5 valid species. For quite some time we will be forced to draw our own conclusions until we have more empirical evidence which is solid enough to minimize any doubts that exist between different taxonomic schools of thought.
The L200 situation is far from unique and only time will result in a widely held consensus. The only certainty is that we will have many more years of living with and making the best of the flawed L-number system.
The best ethical breeders can do is to prevent similar but not obviously identically appearing L-number fishes from being interbred.
This issue has long been even more confusing among Killiefish but in their case collectors use collecting location information a part of their fishes identification, often down to the actual GPS coordinates of the body of water they were collected. We never get that degree of accuracy from SA commercial OTF fisherman. The Killies are often found to begin diverging from the named species genetically enough that fish of the same species but from isolated collection locations prove to become nonviable breeders after few generations. The short life of most killies makes it much easier to see the effects of interbreeding isolated populations and they are generally an easier group of fishes to breed than the long lived plecos which often appear quite different as juveniles than from their final adult forms. Killiefish hobbyists can operate at this level of collection locale specificity because many collectors are scientists/advanced hobbyists willing to risk venturing into some infamously politically unstable regions or are in all but degree(s) they may hold. It is unlikely to get such specificity about catfish except until someone describes the species and cites the collection locations of the fish which were studied and preserved.
These are fascinating, this group of fish from a taxonomic POV, but until someone tackles them as a group and hopefully incorporates molecular genetic differences and similarities into their conclusions doubts will remain. As such the identification issues among this complex will simply be subjects of hobbyists' speculations. Even once many more species are described there will still be many doubts among many hobbyists.
I have noticed that Heiko Bleher, one who certainly knows his fish better than most, is very reluctant to name any new fish. He will go so far as printing the name as, Apistogramma cf. agassizi, for an example, so he hedges his bets. Not a bad practice given the diversity of similar looking species out there. We could use a similar method, eg, Hypancistrus cf. L333 when there is still so much doubt. Such a practice indicates the naming party's level of uncertainty and avoid excessive scathing criticism.

[Bas Pels]

I think many L numbers are given to 1 and the same species. L 128 is the same species as one of the L200 species

And yes, as we have 2 species in L 200 this is obviously not what it is supposed te be.

But L numbers do not even pretent to be descriptions. If a loricarid is found somewhere where it has not been found before, it gets a number. The idea is to have origin in the number, while species do not.

Why? Because we will only know what fishes belong to the same species after someone took the time describing the species - and by then, we don't need the L numbers anymore

Many L numbers will turn out to be the same species as other L numbers, but hybrids? Natural hybrids are very rare, everyone who knows sais. And how much? I will not even try to guess

[macvsog23]

I think I have kicked up enough smoke and trouble folks.
I will just state my position one last time, because it seems some people think I am advocating hybrid breeding and I don’t agree with the L Number system.

Both are wrong assumptions.
I do however believe you will never stop hybridisation in the aquatics trade look at the long fin golden bristle nose yuck.
I also see the L number system for what it is, a commercial system to aid the collector and importer. But this is the best we have.
My point was that we as aquarists have become a bit too blind by L numbers. It seems to me that a lot of people think that two fish that look slightly different have to have to be different species. I believe that with the group of fish we call Hypans will at one point be seen as having around 10 different species and hundreds of variants caused by what ever means nature has at its disposal.
This constraint jumping up and down and saying this fish is L??? Because the stripes run across its nose and this fish is not because the eye is bigger is crazy. Look at the money being asked just because some one believes it is this or that L number.
The trouble is that this L number thing has become so important and now the first question a person asks is “What is the L Number?”
On web sites everywhere value is the main point of discussion husbandry seems second.
L 200 was the best example I could think of two fish so different even I could see it and they had the same L Number???

This is my last post on this matter.

[Jools]

Don't take the huff! If you're going to express an opinion you have to be willing to talk it over. I think I agree, but I'm (hopefully reasonably) looking at it from a slightly different viewpoint.

I think what you're getting at is something we talked about years ago, the so called pokemon effect. These numbers are (individually) collected, and, yes, I think that's obviously true within a certain section of fishkeepers. Status symbols first, living creatures second and its easier to learn a number than a latin name.

Maybe the blindness you talk about happens at less catfish specific sites - I'm not sure and some quoted examples rather than generalisation would assist. In my view, using lake Tanganyikan synos as a current example, I think it'd be worse if the l-number system wasn't there and even more splitting would occur. Splitting = "something new/different" = price hike. As to discussion forums everywhere talking about prices, all I can talk about is this site and I note we have zero price information in the catelog but quite a but written about husbandry.

I'd offer a different point of view about value. While it might be vulgar, to take an expensive but not rare pleco such as

Hypancistrus zebra

as an example, it's future is pretty safe in captivity. There are breeders everywhere. Just thinking about it 5 of the last 6 serious fishrooms I've been in had this fish. In the past I have certainly bought a single zebra pleco as a trophy fish. However, I now keep a group. At least amongst peers the emphasis seems to have shifted to keeping groups.

It is, certainly in my mind, this sites aspiration to encourage more group keeping. In support of that, working out what l-number something is has a fundamental purpose to me and that is to avoid hybridisation through splitting marginally different imports into groups.

Jools

[macvsog23]

not got the huff just did not see any point in carrying on afer stating my point.
I do wish you the best at stopping hybreds. .

[Jools]

not got the huff just did not see any point in carrying on afer stating my point.
I do wish you the best at stopping hybreds.

I really hope we make a difference but it will be a big problem I fear. This is why we're working towards the online breeding register which is about 80% complete. Certainly it will be up and running well before the next l-number convention and hopefully I can get some feedback on its usefulness.

It will be interesting to see how many lower Amazon Hypancistrus we end up with. Just my 2p, but I think the whole use of Hypancistrus is flawed. It's all based on the reduced dentition of the type species being a common feature with smaller plecos that are otherwise pretty different; the first extension of this to include

Hypancistrus inspector

in the genus and it might have been a step in the wrong direction. Anyway, time will hopefully tell.

It's been roughly 25 years of l-numbers so far, I think we've got another 25 to go...

Jools

[Jools]

To, maybe(!) bring this back to the topic but with a nod to the past page or so of posts. For me,

L066

,

L173

and

L333

are different species. They are as different as

Corydoras adolfoi

,

Corydoras imitator

and

Corydoras serratus

in terms of morphology and distribution. However, L173 is, I think part of a group of a few L-numbers that might end up being a species; same with L066.

Sadly, my crystal ball is at the cleaners.

Jools

[macvsog23]

Your post is a good example of my point you state 3 different fish as being different species?
Now I am not being nasty but why?
They have not been described so they are variants or hybrids not species.
You’re basing your assumption of them being different species from shape pattern and size?
I am a different size to a African Pigmy a different pattern to a Hmong from the planes of jar in SEA and a different shape to a person with dwarfism am i a different species?

[MatsP]

Your post is a good example of my point you state 3 different fish as being different species?
Now I am not being nasty but why?
They have not been described so they are variants or hybrids not species.

They are UNDESCRIBED fish - so technically, they are "nothing" - there is no classification for a fish that hasn't been described. So UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE they are hybrids (by for example DNA analysis), then saying they are exports from Mars is just as valid as saying they are hybrids - I'm sure more people would believe they are hybrids than from Mars, but from a scientific standpoint, the two statements are equally proven as of right now.

You’re basing your assumption of them being different species from shape pattern and size?
I am a different size to a African Pigmy a different pattern to a Hmong from the planes of jar in SEA and a different shape to a person with dwarfism am i a different species?

Right, so this is a complex matter. But most scientists studying humans agree that Homo sapiens is a widely variable species. And when it comes to differences in for example colouring, look at goldfish - they come in all manner of colours from white, through various red forms to black. This is the same as human differences in skin colour. I think there is also very good DNA evidence that humans are a single species.

From the way I understand it, humans are one species because there is no distinct break between different forms found in different places - for example, you can find every variant of skin colour from very dark in the middle of africa, to very white in northern europe. In nature, fish are usually found to be isolated populations that are distinctly different. L066 are ALWAYS larger than L333, and always diffferent head-shape - for them to be the same species, we'd have to find a bunch of intermediate forms "part-way between" the current known forms. [This may of course be because no one is catching the fish inbetween these forms - so more research may prove that they are indeed the same species - I'm just explaining how it looks right now!]

--
Mats

[Borbi]

Hi,

I am a different size to a African Pigmy a different pattern to a Hmong from the planes of jar in SEA and a different shape to a person with dwarfism am i a different species?

for purely ethical reasons, this is not a valid question.
When it comes to humans, the pure biological reasoning must step behind the ethical problems linked with the question if there might be different species of "human beings". Therefore, there cannot be different human species, there is only one. No matter what a taxonomic analysis would yield. And it is good like that.

A valid question, if you don´t like the Corydoras example given by Jools, is whether Tiger and Lion are different species?
They are "large cats", they can interbreed, but they look different.
Are they one species or two?
And what do you base your assumption on?

Cheers, Sandor

[Bas Pels]

Dear macvsog23,

If in relation to species and evolution people start comparing anything with people, the discussion is getting messed up rather quickly

The whole genetic diversity amongst humons - all 6 billion of them - is less than between 2 gorillas from Zaire - which look almost identical to us

Humans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more. The smaller types, such as the Pigmees in Africa, and some Indian tribes in America evolved rather recently, and genetically they are still closely related to much larger peoples living nearby. Apparently some of them did have more intimate relations than trade

Even if people were more than 1 species - which we are not - I would never accept that. We've seen whar racism can do - let alone specieism.

All these political troubles are not needed in discussing fishes, and therefore I think it is better to leave them out of the discussion.

Compare fish with lions, or horses. Darwin used pidgeons as material to explain matters. These species are not as sensitive, politically, as humans

[macvsog23]

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

[macvsog23]

Please do not hint at racism or eugenics you are very unaware of my feelings or behaviour on this matter.
If you don’t wish to look at humans they dogs or cats?

[Jools]

Please do not hint at racism or eugenics you are very unaware of my feelings or behaviour on this matter. If you don’t wish to look at humans they dogs or cats?

You chose humans! We have objectively discussed the matter - don't bring your feelings or behaviour into it please or unnecessarily raise the temperature of the debate. I saw zero hint at racism or eugenics. We're all muggles here! I do see the beginnings of a provocative response however, and that wouldn't be good. Dogs and cats are a bad example too for the reasons given for humans. And, anyway, big cats were mentioned. Or do you mean domesticated dogs & cats - I am not sure why that is suggested? Perhaps we could look at the fish example I provided or suggest why it is a bad example please?

Additionally fish can't walk and can only live in water which is why I used a fish example and of fishes all found in the Rio Negro (Brazil) biotope thus equating to the Xingu

Hypancistrus

.

Anyway, macvsog23, you asked my why I thought the three mention l-numbers would become species. Well, some of that is because of discussions I've had with ichthyologists working on the group. But, FWIW, in my opinion and very briefly, L066 is the large sized, elongate (body length versus height) with relatively small eyes (to head size) and scribble pattern (as opposed to spots and stripes). L173 is a

Hypancistrus

in the sense of H. zebra. Caudal fin morphology also the same, but not the blue eyes of H. zebra. L333, is short bodied, cranial morphology similarly adapted and also more fecund.

I chose the

Corydoras

examples very careful to be very similar parallel examples of described species.

Jools

[Jools]

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

You've posted the same thing twice above. Maybe we should all just drop off this topic for a few hours and then come back to it? Meantime, I'd be obliged if you could tidy up your post and perhaps expand a bit more on what you were getting at?

Cheers,

Jools

[MatsP]

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

Hypans have adapted to their surroundings, but nothing more

And if you show us the WILD intermediate forms between L333 and L66, that will be accepted as a single species. As it stands, I don't believe such evidence exists.

Of course, speciation starts out with local adaption to surroundings. Once the two groups are sufficiently different, they are different species.

And strictly speaking: A species is a species because one or more scientists say it is so. If other scientists don't agree, then they will publish a paper saying "these two groups are one species". This can be based on morphology (body shape, etc), DNA evidence or for example how the fry develop in early stages - often several differnet pieces of evidence are put together to make a consistant result. Describing a new species is about 3-4 months worth of effort, but often takes a lot longer in actual time, because the process involves for example borrowing specimens from a different collections at museums, finding documents about similar species (and possibly borrowing those from a university library etc).

--
Mats

[macvsog23]

And strictly speaking: A species is a species because one or more scientists say it is so. If other scientists don't agree, then they will publish a paper saying "these two groups are one species". This can be based on morphology (body shape, etc), DNA evidence or for example how the fry develop in early stages - often several differnet pieces of evidence are put together to make a consistant result. Describing a new species is about 3-4 months worth of effort, but often takes a lot longer in actual time, because the process involves for example borrowing specimens from a different collections at museums, finding documents about similar species (and possibly borrowing those from a university library etc).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

[MatsP]

Not sure what the purpose of quoting my post and the link to Wikipedia is - the wikipedia article doesn't even discuss "how to define a species", it just discusses the groups into which the taxonomic groups fall into.

--
Mats

[apistomaster]

Lions and Tigers have been geologically isolated for much of their evolution by continents unless there were some areas where they did share some of the same habitats in fairly recent prehistoric times. Tigers exist(barely) as about 8-9 subspecies but all hybrids with Lions have been produced only in captivity and to the best I can remember, their offspring are always infertile.
This is a good example of the biological species definition. Of cats there have been revisions so now instead of only 2 genera Panthera, the roaring cats and Felis, the purring cats, have been increased to several more recently described genera.

The Salmonids are among better studied groups of fishes. However, size alone is not in and of itself a good guide. For example, the Cutthroat trout populations or subspecies range from 6 to 40 inches. Their morphology is very consistent within the genus regardless of population or subspecies. And I do not disagree with their current classifications.
I have a more open opinion when it comes to the L-numbered plecos. It may be that many L-numbered Hypancistrus are not even necessarily of the same genus because the morphological differences are considerable. And others like the Panaque also run a larger gamut of morphological and maximum sizes are currently lumped in the genus Panaque. I think the smaller forms are more likely a different genus and the proposed genus "Pangolous" is the name I favor for the smaller "Panaque"species but I use Panaque as it is used in the cat-elog for any of my written opinions in discussions of them among other pleco hobbyists.
The definition of what constitutes a species varies widely within the biological sciences and is a concept which has a lot of fluidity. When it comes to the frustrations of the L-number catfish I take these designations with a grain of salt but at the same time there is the common sense approach of "I know one when I see one". That may be the best we can expect for many years to come. That is sufficient for my level of personal involvement with this group for now. I have no doubt whether L66 and L333 are distinct species despite the variations seen in color patterns among L333 populations. I do not have any experience with keeping L173 so I haven't formed any opinions about where it fits within Hypancistrus except to say I believe it is consistent with the descriptions for what constitutes one. It appears to be closely related to L260,and H. zebra but that is only my impression.

For me the problems of species descriptions is older and goes back for as long as I have kept and bred Apistogramma and Killiefish but I have to say that progress with formal species descriptions seems to move faster among the Killiefish than the Apistos and Plecos. There are also an extraordinary number of qualified icthyologists working with Killiefish as both scientists and hobbyists, at least when you consider the relatively small numbers of all people who keep and breed Killies. than there are for Plecos and Apistos and that undoubtedly has hastened the formal description of species of Killiefish. At least as many new Killies are discovered annually as new Plecos. Research on Brazilian fish is more complicated due to the State's regulations which define who is allowed to carry out the necessary research. A Brazilian scientist must be a part of or the lead researcher in Brazil. Few other countries have such restrictions let alone so much diverse life forms to be classified.