Farlowella ID help please :)

[Mol_PMB]

I bought four Farlowella from Pier Aquatics today. They weren't the premium priced 'Farlowella XL size' or the mid-price 'Farlowella Paraguay', I went for the cheapy (£5.95) unidentified 'Farlowella sp' expecting vittata. I've never kept twig cats before so I am by no means an expert, and my searches online suggest that the pattern of scales on the belly is an important ID feature, but I haven't yet found any clear diagrams to help the ID. Can someone assist please?

I asked for 2 male and 2 female fish, and the assistant was confident she could sex them and pointed out the wide, short, hairy noses of the males compared to the thinner longer noses of the females. They're all about 4" / 100mm SL.

Now I've got them home and they have settled in, it was immediately apparent that one of the fish was different. Not only was it much darker in colour, but its behaviour seemed a little different and maybe a slightly different shape too. This darker one appears to have 3 rows of belly scales and the others have two.

I have quite a lot of photographs, but can only attach 3 at a time, so over this message and the next one I will put a belly pic of each of the four fish (they were briefly all on the glass at the same time), plus a comparison of the colouration.

Can anyone point me in the direction of an ID for these fish?

Many Thanks,
Paul M-B

P.S. in other happy catfish news today, my first ever fry have come from a Cory melini spawn

[Mol_PMB]

The other pics. See previous message for my query.
Thanks

[Mol_PMB]

I've been looking at my pictures again, and some online info including these links as well as various conversations here on Planet Catfish.
http://www.scotcat.com/images/farlowella_line.jpg
http://www.catfishstudygroup.org/pdf/ve ... owella.pdf

I'm coming to the conclusion that the three lighter-coloured twigs (shown in two of the attached pics) are probably the same species, and probably 1F 2M. The laws of probability suggest that with 2 rows of belly scutes they are F.vittata, although the nose on the males is comparatively short and stubby for F.vittata. Also, on the one with the longer slimmer nose I think I can still see some hairs/odontes. Is this a female, or possibly a male of a different species?

The third twig could perhaps be F.mariaelenae? Any idea of sex? Again, the nose is long and slim but has some very fine odontes. I note that in the middle row of scutes, there seem to be a larger number of smaller scutes than in the outer rows (4 in each outer row, 8 in the middle row). I've tried to enhance one of the pictures to show this and will attempt to get better pics tonight. I don't know if that matters in the diagnosis? It is different from the pictures of F.gracilis that I have seen.

Any thoughts welcome

Is it a problem having mixed Farlowella species in the tank? Should I aim to separate them, or alternatively get more of the dark ones? It's a 120L tank and the only tankmates are 6 juvenile Dicrossus filamentosus. I have another larger tank which I could move some into, but it's much busier and has a couple of L244s.

Many thanks,
Paul

[Karsten S.]

Hi,

can you make pictures of the caudal fin pigmentation of both species ?!

I agree that the first one looks pretty much like F. vittata, very typical are the short pectoral fins but the snout seems to be very (too?) short. In general the snout is longer in females.

I don't know if a hybridisation among different Farlowella species has already been reported, I'm quite sure that it is possible.
As far as I know it even happened between a Farlowella and a Sturisoma species !
However, in their natural habitats you can often find more than one Farlowella species.

Cheers,

[Mol_PMB]

Hi,
can you make pictures of the caudal fin pigmentation of both species ?!
Cheers,

Many thanks for your response. I have attached some photos showing the caudal fins of both the light and dark fish. Some are better than others. I can try again if needed.

I agree that the first one looks pretty much like F. vittata, very typical are the short pectoral fins but the snout seems to be very (too?) short. In general the snout is longer in females.

Thanks. That short snout lead me toward F.acus but that seems really unlikely. Are there other short-snouted species?

I don't know if a hybridisation among different Farlowella species has already been reported, I'm quite sure that it is possible.
As far as I know it even happened between a Farlowella and a Sturisoma species !

I'd rather avoid inter-breeding if I can. I presume they usually prefer to mate with their own kind which is why I was wondering about trying to get another dark one.

Thanks again - any more info would be very welcome

[Mol_PMB]

A few more tail pics attached - 2 of the light twigs and one of the dark.

[Karsten S.]

Hi,

this pic shows a member of the nattereri group (pigmentation of caudal fin), the length of the pectoral fins (pic in previous post) rules out F. gracilis with same pigmentation pattern.

If we look at the origin of the members of this group I think we can restrict it to four species mentioned below.
The main characters for distinction mentioned in the genus revision for these (length of the snout in comparison to pectoral fins and snout to headlength) don't give a clear result or it's difficult to see it good enough in living specimen.

- F. hasemani, snout profile does not fit IMHO
- F. nattereri, should have a longer snout/rostrum
- F. isbrueckeri, comes close
- F. jauruensis, fits best

Without being sure I would say this might be F. jauruensis.

Cheers,

[Mol_PMB]

Hi Karsten

That's brillant - many thanks. That species has no images on the planet catfish profile, and no registered keepers. In fact that seems to be the case for all four of the species you suggest apart from nattereri has one photo. Should I conclude this is a fairly rare species?

I have an opportunity to go back to the shop on Thursday evening and I could buy some more, especially now I know the distinguishing features. Hmmm....

[Karsten S.]

Hi,

as for the other species it is also not easy.
The caudal pigmentation perfectly fits to acus species group.

In F. vittata the length of the pectoral fin should be a bit shorter and snout longer.
In other species the length of the snout shorter.

It could be a not described species of acus group or a described one with deviating proportions.
I think it is closest to F. vittata.

Cheers,

[Mol_PMB]

Thanks again for the benefit of your knowledge

I will try to buy some more of the dark ones ;)

[Karsten S.]

Hi,

the problem with Farlowella species is that you often find in the shops different species all with the same name F. acus and most people don't really care about the scientific name.
As they are very difficult to ID it is not surprising not to find pictures in a serious data base; if you don't know the catching location you shouldn't put pictures.

It could be that this species is really rather seldom in the hobby. I would recommend in any case to buy some more. You never know if you might be able to get more of them and if you really can tell them apart then. I guess no one can really tell how many different species there are in this genus. There are certainly some more undescribed ones.

Cheers,

[Mol_PMB]

Thanks

The shop just had them labelled as Farlowella sp. Most were the lighter colour but there were several dark ones too. I'll look at the belly scutes and the tail and see if I can get some more dark ones with the same features

Thanks again for your help and advice!

Paul M-B

[Shane]

Paul,
You have 3 F vittata (2 m and 1 f) as you suspected. The fourth fish is F mariaelenae. These two spp have overlapping ranges in Colombia and Venezuela and are thus collected in mixed groups for export. I did try to get the exporters in Bogota to start sorting them, but once they found out that both spp sold for the same price they lost their motivation I would not be too concerned about hybridization as these two spp do not hybridize in nature.

Your tank looks perfect for Farlowella.

A note on F vittata. There is a lot of variation in this "sp" because as currently defined it encompasses what were once described as five separate spp. I covered this in the paper you linked above.

-Shane

[Mol_PMB]

Shane,

Many thanks for your message and confirming that, which seemed most likely. Is the F mariaelenae a female?

Would it be OK to add 1 or 2 more Farlowella to this 120L tank or will I have territorial problems?

Thanks again,
Paul


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mol_PMB]

I was just looking at the species diagnosis table in this paper (toward the end), and now I'm even more confused!

http://www.stri.si.edu/sites/publicatio ... _Genus.pdf

Forgive my ignorance, but which are the 'anterior lateral plates'?

Feeling a bit out of my depth here...

Thanks,
Paul

[Shane]

I can't sex the mariaelenae for certain. Maybe Karsten can (I am on a mobile). I would add 1-2 more without hesitation depending on filtration and frequency of water changes. If you get pairs of both spp I would separate them. Not because of hybridization fears but to ensure the best chances of spawning from both.
-Shane

[Mol_PMB]

Many thanks.

I think my external filtration should be fine and I do weekly water changes about 30%. With lots of fast-growing floating plants my nitrates tend to stay very low in this tank anyway.

I'll go back to the shop on Thursday and see if I can tell the difference between the sexes of the mariaelenae there, and judge which sex mine is.

Regards,
Paul

[Mol_PMB]

Banjo cat? F vittata enjoying some salad

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mol_PMB]

This evening I have added two more F.mariaelenae (I think!). Not as sure on sex as I was on species, they weren't so obviously distinguishable as the vittata. Hopefully I have a mix.

Pier Aquatics seem to have 4 different species of twigs in at the moment if anyone wants some.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mol_PMB]

Here are my three F mariaelenae plus one of the vittata and a photo-bombing Dicrossus filamentosus.

Any ideas on sexing the mariaelenae? I couldn't see much difference between the 10 or so they had in the shop. The biggest one I have (at the bottom of the pic) has a longer nose but that might just be because it is bigger. All the noses have very fine odontes as far as I can see. Is there anything else to look out for?

Many thanks,
Paul

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Karsten S.]

Hi,

The fourth fish is F mariaelenae.

hmm, yes the overall appearance does look like F. mariaelenae.
The only thing that irritates me as it doesn't match at all the description of Reitzer&Page is the caudal fin pigmentation.
That's the only reason why I ruled out this species right from the start without looking at it more carefully.

Shane, is this species variable in this character ?!

Cheers,

[Mol_PMB]

I'm intrigued now...
All three of the dark twigs I've now got have the same patterns on the caudal fin. Broad black bands top and bottom and fainter markings between.

The largest fish (~6" SL) has quite an impressive tail but doesn't show it off very often - I'll try to get a good pic and post it up.
Unfortunately it's half concealed by the front of the tank in this pic:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Shane]

Karsten, the markings change slightly between populations. Keep in mind that the original description (and thus described markings) were of specimens from Cojedes State, Venezuela while those that turn up in the hobby are collected near Villavicencio, Meta Department, Colombia. This is a distance of about 800 miles (1200 km). I would expect slight differences in markings in any two populations of loricariids separated by such a distance.
-Shane

[Karsten S.]

Hi Shane,

in general I totally agree.

But as the marking of the caudal fin is one of the features which is (acc. Reitzer & Page) uniform in all species groups:
char. state 1: acus group, curtirostra group
char. state 2: kneeri group
char. state 3: amazona group
char. state 4: nattereri group
I assumed that is not such a variable character in this genus.

For F. mariaelenae in the appendix only state 1 is given, but in the species description I found this:

Reitzer & Page: Recently preserved specimen [of F. mariaelenae] ...character state 2

Unfortunately the origin of these "recently preserved specimen" is not given or not clear.

So, do you think nevertheless caudal fin pattern is not decisive in Farlowella ?!
I'm a bit confused...

Cheers,

[Shane]

What I will say is that, with all due respect to the authors, I would not have used these markings as defining characteristics for species level identification without a broad number of preserved specimens from throughout each species' natural range. In other words, with access to a larger number of specimens from across each species' range the authors would have concluded that such markings are not uniform enough to use as a diagnostic characteristic.
-Shane

[Mol_PMB]

Thanks guys. Sorry, no more photos yet, the fish are being shy!

Is it better to use a diagnosis tree based on scale patterns like the one toward the end of the paper linked below?
Forgive my ignorance, but which are the 'anterior lateral plates'?

http://www.stri.si.edu/sites/publicatio ... _Genus.pdf

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mol_PMB]

I've finally got a photo of the caudal fin of my biggest Farlowella. Here it is.
This is one of the three dark ones that we think are F.mariaelenae but shows colouration of the fin which doesn't match the description.
Don't know if it helps?

In the meantime, my female F.vittata is getting quite tubby. Is there a chance she is full of eggs?

Thanks again,
Paul