PlanetCatfish.com

When I look for images of Otocinclus affinis on the Internet I get pictures of a very different fish to what PlanetCatfish has.

PlanetCatfish :

Fishbase: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Species ... N=11819941

So is Otocinclus affinis on the rest of the wrong wrong or is PlanetCatfish?

I keep seeing images of Otocinclus macrospilus which look identical to most websites of Otocinclus affinis.

Or has it had a species name change?

Wikimedia shows:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image ... ilus_2.jpg

So it's got me confused.

[Mod edit: Use permanent link for O. affinis - Mats]

I'm moving this to the Suggestions and bugs forum, because I think it's not about the identity of an individual fish, but rather about the correctness of the Cat-eLog.

I'll look into your comments further once I've moved the subject and perhaps make further comments.

--
Mats

Fishbase and the rest of the planet is wrong; planetcatfish is right.

Otocinclus affinis is easily recognizable by 1) golden sheen, 2) a very narrow lateral band (it's unusually pale, barely visible in the dead? fish in the Planetcatfish picture), 3) iris diverticulum. It is also, like its close relative O. flexilis, a large species, almost twice the size of most other Otocinclus species.

The fish on the Fishbase image does not have an iris diverticulum or golden sheen, but has a wide lateral pigment band: whatever it is, it's not an affinis.

I've actually mailed Fishbase about the fact that the image for O. affinis shows some other species, but nothing's happened - presumably they're waiting for the designated catfish expert to check.

At the root of the problem is:

a) that pretty much all Otocinclus are sold as "affinis" or "vestitus", neither of which I've ever seen for sale in the trade. My guess is that this is because those are two species early on in Schaeffers key to Otocinclus, and which you get to if you make a mistake on some fairly difficult characters.
...and...
b) that fishbase accepts photos from anyone, and relies on the public to tell them which photos are wrong (if the photo is disputed, the issue is referred to an expert).

If you do a google image search for "otocinclus affinis", you will notice the massive spread in looks of the hits: at least half a dozen different species are sold under that name.

I did however find one other actual affinis on the net, this young male, which shows the narrow pigment band better than the large, and possibly dead, female on the planetcatfish picture does:
http://www.otocinclus.de/affinis.htm

Note the text in Fishbase: "Identification to be verified"

Going by the original description by Steindachner (Here - thanks to the ACSI project), based on my basic understanding of German, it's similar to . Which the picture isn't partiucularly good match for, so I would tend to agree with you on the incorrect ID.

However, I'm not the one identifying the fish for the Cat-eLog (I do some updates now and again, but only on the fish already there).

--
Mats

I can't access the description; for some reason clicking that link causes my internet explorer to quit. If you could mail it to me I'd be much obliged!

Anyway, affinis is not really particularly similar to vestitus; that's one of the small otos in the vittatus group, while affinis is one of the large-bodied otos of the flexilis & mimulus group. It could conceivably be confused with a very pale specimen of one those, but not easily with vestitus.

Let me know if you want me to mail you Schaeffers revision of Otocinclus; also, if you can read German, this is a very good resource on otos: http://www.otocinclus.de/
(but, uh, don't trust his classification too much. He's basing it on a work which has never been widely accepted, partly because it is incompatible with the presented tree)

Another link "For IE" according to ACSI
http://acsi.acnatsci.org/base/pdf_get.pdf?file=793486'

Putting link in clear-text so you can perhaps play with it if it doesn't work right.

If you use Firefox with Googlebar, you can right-click and select Googlebar->Translate to English on any page you like - also you don't need special links in ACSI either...

--
Mats

I've moved this into resolved as I don't think there's anything for me to do here?


Jools

I agree - the Cat-eLog is as correct as it can be on this subject.

--
Mats

This is interesting.

So you're saying the picture on PlanetCatfish looks the same as the one on otocinclus.de?

http://www.otocinclus.de/affinis.htm
But they don't look like the same fish to me.
Or is it me?


Wow. That's a lot of websites with the wrong species.

The image in PlanetCatfish looks very much alive at the time it was taken. Why did people think it was dead?

To MatP - your link leads to a PDF image.
You can't get google to translate image text. Well not unless they've added a OCR program to their list of abilities.


Makes me wonder what species I've got that I've been calling Otocinclus affinis for the last few years actually is then?

Anyone care to comment?
Otocinclus macrospilus perhaps?

http://picasaweb.google.com/stuarthalli ... 4308495378
http://picasaweb.google.com/stuarthalli ... 0345139218

1) Yeah, they look quite different, but barring the possibility that one (or both) of them is of an undescribed species close to affinis, they're both affinis.
The planetcatfish image is of a dead or extremely frightened (because it's so pale) large female; otocinclus.de shows a much smaller and happier male. You can compare to the male & female of O. flexilis pictured here at planetcatfish.

2) Your fish appear to be O. macrospilus, yes. Good pictures, btw.

3) @MatsP: Thanks! The link worked like a charm!
The description sounds like a quite different fish, and the fish in the drawing has no iris diverticulum - but if the capture locality is right then it pretty much has to be affinis. Still, the point is pretty much moot, as affinis has been redescribed twice since then.

I'd like to thank everyone for their contribution to my issue.

I can correct my own images and my Aquarium Wiki Encyclopaedia page on this fish.

So at least there will be 4 sites with the correct picture of this popular fish on it!



Many thanks.