PlanetCatfish.com

Trying to use the Vari et al. revision to identify some of the cetopsids in the Cat-eLog. Here's what I have so far:

Cetopsis umbrosa: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/ce ... /938_f.php

Denticetopsis praecox: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/ce ... 1006_f.php

Denticetopsis seducta: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/ce ... 1159_f.php

Pseudocetopsis macilenta should be .

Marc sent me some synonym data on this family too. One of his notes reads Pseudocetopsis macilenta - misspelled in CateLog ; must be Pseudocetopsis macilentus (Eigenmann, 1912) - synonym Hemicetopsis macilentus Eigenmann, 1912.

So, should this now be Denticetopsis macilentus or macilenta?

Also, http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/ce ... 1047_f.php was previously mooted to be Pseudocetopsis othonops (see http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=51 ) - is that still valid?

Jools

It should be macilenta.

As for the other fish in question, it's probably not Cetopsis othonops. Might be C. motatanensis.

Silurus wrote:it's probably not Cetopsis othonops. Might be C. motatanensis.

That seems unlikely given the fact it's from the Lago Maracaibo basin and that fishbase appears to show a mottled fish.

From fishbase...




Jools

I'm not too sure what it is. It doesn't match the description for C. othonops. Cetopsis pearsoni is another possibility, although I think some of the characters also don't quite match this species.

Well, I'd better not guess and leave it where it is for now.

Cheers,

Jools

I think (hope!) I now have all these updated as suggested.

Jools

You might want to move that unidentified fish to Cetopsis. Looks more like a Cetopsis than a Denticetopsis (although it's hard to tell externally).

Silurus wrote:You might want to move that unidentified fish to Cetopsis. Looks more like a Cetopsis than a Denticetopsis (although it's hard to tell externally).

Yeah, done in today's 2nd upload.

Jools