Differense beetwen Panaque suttnorum and..

Thomas W · Post by **Thomas W** » 27 Jan 2004, 17:45

Can this be the differense beetwen a Panaque suttonorum and a Panaque cochliodon.

As you can see on this picture
http://www.scotcat.com/images/suttonorum3.jpg
the panaque suttonorum has a more square type of body than the Panaque cochliodon have http://www.transfish.de/Loricariidae/Pa ... liodon.jpg

can this be true?

I also think that the Panaque suttonorum has a more clear blue eye than the cochliodon. The body colour locks more darker too on the suttonorum.

Best regards: Thomas Wiborg

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 27 Jan 2004, 20:01

Hi,

I think it was AndrÃ© (or Arthur?) Werner who figured out first, that the Blue-Eyed Panaque was all the time wrong identified for aquarium uses as Panaque suttonorum (or suttoni, both seems to be allowed, according to Eschmeyer). This species is Panaque cochliodon. Also both specimen in your pictures.

At the moment I am not sure which one is P.suttonorum. In the original description made by Schultz one can read, that this species owns a white bar at the caudal peduncle. So my guess was to compare L191 from Colombia with this species. Unfortunately is from the original pattern of the holotype of P.suttonorum not much left. Comparision just using pictures is therefore not possible.

Shane told me recently that he also has searched for the real P. suttonorum. Shane, maybe you can tell some details of your research?

Erwin

Thomas W · Post by **Thomas W** » 27 Jan 2004, 21:40

Yeah I see.

BR: Thomas Wiborg

Post by **Shane** » 27 Jan 2004, 22:50

I just finished an article on this topic that will run soon in TFH. Eschmeyer told me that P. suttoni did not have to be changed to suttonorum (see article 32), but that suttonorum may become the new name as its usage is becoming widely accepted. (as Erwin pointed out)

No one has ever seen the real P. suttonorum. My friend Edgar Ruiz in Maracaibo has looked for years and never come across a specimen. According to Jon Armbruster, no additional specimens have ever been found.

L 191 is probably not P. suttonorum, but may a close relative and, at a minimum, demonstrates that there are other Panaque with a pattern similar to what Schultz described.

-Shane

Walter · Post by **Walter** » 27 Jan 2004, 23:31

Hi,
well, and IÂ´ve heard (from AndrÃ© Werner and Claus Schaefer), that P. suttonorum is wrong and they conclused (according with IsbrÃ¼cker), that the singular form P. suttoni is the correct one (two years ago they told different, they hat made "a fault")
It was AndrÃ©, who took a look on SteindachnerÂ´s P. cochliodon in Naturhistorischen Museum Vienna and came to the conlusion, this is our "Blue Eyed".

Mika · Post by **Mika** » 28 Jan 2004, 11:15

just finished an article on this topic that will run soon in TFH

How soon?

Thomas W · Post by **Thomas W** » 28 Jan 2004, 18:16

Shane are your job to work with catfish?
I want to get a job were i can work with loricariidae. Is that possible?

BR: Thomas Wiborg

Post by **Shane** » 28 Jan 2004, 22:31

Walter,
Neither P. suttoni nor P. suttonorum is wrong under the rules. Schultz named his fish P. suttoni. Isbrucker realized that under the current rules the name should be suttonorum. The scientific and hobby communities adapted to suttonorum and thus this is probably the most correct name. If everyone had refused to use suttonorum, we could have kept on using suttoni and it would be just as valid. The key is "prevailing usage."

The following is from Escmeyer,

"Since suttonorum has been used in recent literature, then suttoni
in essence has not attained prevailing usage, so I think you now have
to use suttonorum. I have found these changes to be quickly
accepted.
I do have other examples where the "incorrect" spelling has reached
prevailing usage (especially with old names), and we suggest continued
usage of the name in prevailing usage. The names have been in use
much longer than suttoni and have much more information
accumulated around the name in its "incorrect" form. Most recent
names, on the other hand, can be changed to the correct spelling."

Mika, I am not sure when the article will run. But Dave said soon.

Thomas, My job is not working with catfishes.

scotcat · Post by **scotcat** » 29 Jan 2004, 00:03

Hi Thomas,

I actually have a factsheet which is titled Panaque CF suttonorum . Shane very kindely provided input to this page and you can find most of what has been said on this thread.

http://www.scotcat.com/photo_gallery_page.html

Regards

Allan.

scotcat · Post by **scotcat** » 29 Jan 2004, 00:06

Sorry wrong address

http://www.scotcat.com/factsheets/panaq ... onorum.htm

Regards,

Allan[/url]

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 29 Jan 2004, 00:09

I'll be changing it to Panaque cochliodon when I get around to it.

Jools