S. eupterus? (Was: New to the board)

blairthebrave · Post by **blairthebrave** » 15 Mar 2003, 20:18

I havent any webspace but hope you can get an idea of my synodontis with this pic:
http://tropicalfish.site5.com/tfc/attac ... tid=205622

He is around 4 inches at the moment and is great with other fish.
A bit of a fuzzy pic sorry.
Thx
Nik

DeLBoD · Post by **DeLBoD** » 15 Mar 2003, 20:23

That looks just like my synodontis eupterus did about 3 months ago .
Could it be?

blairthebrave · Post by **blairthebrave** » 15 Mar 2003, 20:28

I don 't know DelBod could it be?

On here there is a pic of the Eupterus with network patterning.
The pattern does look similar but maybe not the main color
He's chocolaty brown

Post by **Silurus** » 15 Mar 2003, 21:34

If you can get a picture of the whole fish (hopefully one a little sharper as well) including both the dorsal and caudal fins, I might be able to identify it with more confidence.
Right now, I would say it's Synodontis aterrimus, because S. eupterus would have lost the reticulate pattern at 4 inches.

Post by **Dinyar** » 15 Mar 2003, 22:35

I strongly suspect your fish IS synodontis eupterus (and doubt it is really 4").

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 16 Mar 2003, 03:18

There are some indications that it may not be a juvenile S. eupterus. The reticulations are thinner (S. eupterus has thicker retiiculations that generally grade into spots except in very young fish) and the bands on the anal fin are much thinner than usually seen in juvenile S. eupterus. The dorsal fin is also not as distinctly banded as the fish in the picture. If the colors are accurate, I have not yet seen a brown juvenile S. eupterus...they tend to be much grayer.
Finally, the last clue that this may not be a juvenile (the possible incorrect size notwithstanding): the eye is too small (juvenile fish have large eyes). Proportionally, the eye looks more like that of a sub-adult or adult, though the pic isn't really sharp enough to confirm.
A complete picture of the whole fish should provide more clues.

blairthebrave · Post by **blairthebrave** » 16 Mar 2003, 12:25

Thanks for your time guys, it is appreciated, ive got another 2 pics hope there a little better:
http://tropicalfish.site5.com/tfc/attac ... tid=205871
http://tropicalfish.site5.com/tfc/attac ... tid=205869
Thanks
Nik

DeLBoD · Post by **DeLBoD** » 16 Mar 2003, 12:35

I,m no expert like some guys about here,but the second picture is deffo(mabie?) synodontis.e without the whisp at top of dorsal the fin .
Also the lighting might be colouring the fish ,you have red or blue spectrum lights?.
Red light will give the chocolate colouring.

Post by **Silurus** » 16 Mar 2003, 14:06

The new pics tell me that that fish is not S. aterrimus (the prolonged upper lobe of the caudal fin is not present in this species).
However, I remain unconvinced that this is S. eupterus. There are some subtle things that are not quite right. The extremely prolonged upper lobe of the caudal fin and the shape of the dorsal fin (tall enough, but too narrow compared to the S. eupterus I have seen).
Unfortunately, no other species of Synodontis I know has a reticulated pattern like that, so I'm out of clues.

blairthebrave · Post by **blairthebrave** » 16 Mar 2003, 17:01

Is he a freak then? A hybrid?

Or maybe he will change his colour/markings.
Thanks for taking the time to look.
NIK

Post by **Dinyar** » 16 Mar 2003, 17:24

I agree with Silurus that there are some details about the subject fish that are not quite right for S. eupterus.

There are a large number of S. eupterus x Brachysynodontis batensoda hybrids on the market. There was a thread on this subject, with pictures, but I couldn't find it when I just looked. Perhaps it was on the old forum.

Silurus, take a look at pictures of B. batensoda, then "hybridize" them in your imagination with the fish in this thread. You will see a congruency. I'm not (yet) saying this IS the solution, only that it's a plausible solution.

Better pictures would help clinch the argument. Among other things, the eupterus x batensoda has the "bug eyes" characteristic of batensoda.

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 16 Mar 2003, 17:56

My gut feeling on this is that it's not a hybrid, but probably an undescribed Synodontis. When I hybridized S. eupterus and B. batensoda in my mind, the result was nothing like the fish in the picture. Of course, interspecific hybrids sometimes have features that are present in neither parental species.
I wouldn't be so quick to blame the Czechs on this one. There is so little we understand about mochokid diversity that I would expect undescribed species to show up in the trade fairly frequently.
I think we should consider the most parsimonious solution (i.e. that this is an undescribed Synodontis) rather than concluding that the Czechs have done it again.

Post by **Dinyar** » 16 Mar 2003, 18:27

Parsimony by all means, and yes, let's not blame the Czechs for everything we can't identify, but "new species" strikes me as even less parsimonious an explanation than "hybrid". I'm sure that there are undescribed species of Synodontis -- I've even advocated this proposition myself -- but I don't believe there are LOTS of them, and especially not in the trade.

To my mind, the most parsimonious explanation is "S. eupterus". So what if there are some minor anomalies? It would take "splittism" to an extreme to say that every mildly anomalous fish pointed to a new species.

I was merely raising "batensoda x eupterus" as another alternative. BTW, this hybrid is IMO an E. Asian hybrid, as I see it mostly in Chinatown and Little Korea pet stores. And it is quite common, as far as hybids go.

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 16 Mar 2003, 19:44

I'm sure that there are undescribed species of Synodontis -- I've even advocated this proposition myself -- but I don't believe there are LOTS of them, and especially not in the trade

I consider the situation somewhat analogous to what one can see for L-numbers. We have more than 300 of these, many of which are probably undescribed, so to say that there are at least 20 undescribed Synodontis out there is a conservative estimate. The only reason why Synodontis (and many other Old World catfishes) don't appear as they diverse to us is because:

(1)There are huge tracts of Africa in which practically nothing is known about the ichthyofauna, and given the fact that many of these areas are too dangerous or inaccessible in many ways (hostile inhabitants, killer diseases, etc.), this problem is not one to go away in the near future. Endemism in African freshwater fishes is very high (see Lundberg et al., 2000).

(2) Synodontis aren't as sexy to many as loricariids are. Because of lower demand, the incentive to look for new, attractive species for the aquarium trade is lower.

Having worked on Southeast Asian catfishes for a number of years now, I am still struck by how poorly we know the freshwater fish fauna of the region. Southeast Asia is certainly a lot smaller than Africa, but there are still fairly large areas (e.g. the center of Borneo) where little is known of the ichthyofauna. A recent examination of catfishes collected in the extreme northern tip of Sumatra (where it is still not safe to mount a large-scale scientific expedition) showed that practically every species there was undescribed, including large riverine species like Hemibagrus.

Finally, I would expect undescribed species to show up in the trade, albeit not very often. And they don't even have to show up as entire shipments....one or a few contaminant individual(s) will do. And all it takes is for someone to get lucky and buy the contaminant(s) and voila!

Perhaps the ACSP will make a difference to our understanding of catfish diversity, perhaps not.

In any case, this paper makes for interesting reading regarding our curent knowledge of freshwater fish diversity worldwide:
Lundberg, J. G., M. Kottelat, G. R. Smith, M.L.J. Stiassny & A. C. Gill, 2000. So many fishes, so little time: an overview of recent ichthyological discovery in continental waters. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 87: 26-62.

SynoPetri · Post by **SynoPetri** » 16 Mar 2003, 20:44

What do you think of the idea that this fish is also S. eupterus but it just looks different. Look at the S. petricolas. Just some days ago I saw that Dinyar some pictures (thank you Dinyar, very informative) of different S. petricola. As you can see there the shape of the body is not always the same. One has bigger spots, the other has smaller or one has a bigger snout than the other.

What do you think about this idea?

Post by **Silurus** » 16 Mar 2003, 20:45

Ahh, the petricola problem. IMO, there is more than one species involved.
Rusty is working on this, and should be able to give us some answers in a few months' time.

Post by **Dinyar** » 17 Mar 2003, 03:17

I think in our own layman's way, we have come across the "lumper-splitter" problem. I open the issue for discussion not because I am silly enough to aspire to resolve anything, but because practical examples like this one can often make theoretical issues come alive for "the rest of us.

Maybe we should take this to the taxonomy forum?

See here: http://forum.planetcatfish.com/viewtopi ... =7835#7835

Dinyar

blairthebrave · Post by **blairthebrave** » 17 Mar 2003, 15:15

Can i just say thank you for time, and your obviously passionate replies.
I am a newbie to catfish, ( I HOLD MY HANDS UP ) and spend most of my time reading about fish. I must confess i already like catfish, and find them more fascinating, than anything i've ever seen.
I hope one day i've got half the knowledge you guys have, i am genuinely
respectful of your skills.
I must admit i would love to know about my syno (btw i went back to the lfs and questioned him for a while and he told me the same thing as when i bought him : "i'm sellling him as an angelicus or angelicus zonatus, but im not convinced"
I will endeavour to get a better pic, and if i've missed any info about him, i.e habits etc i would be extremely glad to help.
Many thanks
Nik

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 01 Apr 2003, 21:35

Silurus wrote:Right now, I would say it's Synodontis aterrimus, because S. eupterus would have lost the reticulate pattern at 4 inches.

Just of the phone to a CSG member who has been reading these posts and has a group of 6" (15cm) Synodontis that look exactly like the pictures posted in this thread (albiet some what more in focus

).

The fish were purchased around 18 months ago and at 1" SL were dark brown/black with creamy beige stripes. The fish are now 6" SL and almost look at is the pattern might negate!

Plans are afoot to get some pictures online, but it is a bit tricky as the person in question isn't online (yet!) and doesn't have access to a digital camera.

Will report back, but can I ask at this stage - isn't 6"SL a bit big for S. atterimus?

Anyone think that only male S. eupterus go silver and spotty? Females remain brownish... or is it me...

Jools

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 01 Apr 2003, 21:39

Dinyar wrote:Among other things, the eupterus x batensoda has the "bug eyes" characteristic of batensoda.

Dinyar

This the puppy? Got more pics if you like.

Jools

Post by **Silurus** » 01 Apr 2003, 21:57

Will report back, but can I ask at this stage - isn't 6"SL a bit big for S. atterimus?

Yes, 6" SL seems a little big for S. aterrimus (the largest specimen reported was only 4.5" TL), but it might be possible that the species grows bigger (there weren't that many specimens collected).

Post by **Dinyar** » 02 Apr 2003, 03:31

Yup, I'm pretty sure this is a S. eupterus x batensoda. I've seen quite a few of 'em in NYC LFS.

Dinyar