PlanetCatfish.com

Has anyone heard of a cucuta pleco? One of the lfs has a couple. I tried to look around here and through google, but didn't find much.

IMO, they look an awful lot like a bristlenose pleco. One has a few bristles on its nose (I guessing the male), while the other one has what appears to be two small "barbs" in place of the male's bristles and looks to be somewhat wider. I'm pretty confident that they're BN plecs, but they're only an inch or so long. Any help would be great.

frybabies lists L032 as Ancistrus cucuta, which I'm assuming is my cucuta pleco. Any info beyond the cat-elog?

Hi!

Ancistrus cucuta is not a valid scientific name, but rather a name given by the local people there in Brazil!

L32 comes from the Rio Araguia in Brazil

The requirement for this species are the same for any other Ancistrus species!

Cheers
Yann

Yann,
Are you sure they come from Brazil? Cucuta is the capital of Norte de Santander Department Colombia. I notice they also have "Ancistrus meta (sic)," which I assume is a made up name for an Ancistrus sp. that they are getting out of Meta Department (or even the Rio Meta). There are several Ancistrus spp. described from the Cucuta area. I have spoken with the folks at Frybabies and they import a lot from Colombia. Actually, if you look down their list you will see that over half of the loricariids they offer are exported from Colombia. Someone could e-mail them and clear this up.
-Shane

Shane had it right... those plecos did/do come from Columbia/Venezuela. We're in the process of getting more in, placed the order last week, and going through the *we don't have this do you want that* phase. But we liked both the meta and the cucuta, so they are definites for us.

I can understand Yann's confusion, the Aqualog lists them as Brazilian fish (the L032). We're also getting in the Xenocara (L193??) listed as being from Venezuela, and also the Ancistrus meta, or micheal catfish which I don't have a clue for an *L* number yet.

Hi!

First of all the real L032 comes from the Rio Araguia and nowhere else the similar looking species that comes from other river such ones in Venezuela and Colombia should have another L number or no L number if not referenced yet...

Obviously Frybabies has misid that species as it shows L32 beside the trade name Ancistrus cucuta...I can recomend you to take the L32 out it avoid confusion or possible Hybridation with people that could have the real L32...

Aqualog is sure not the best book to ID a fish...this is why I don't use it especially when I have the chance to have the Datz magazine at reach of my hands!

Secondly Xenocara is now put into synonym with Ancistrus

L193 is believed to be an undescribed species of the genus Acanthicus, coming from the Rio Orituco in Venzuela

Cheers
Yann

Cheers
Yann

Yann,

We didn't mis-id the fish, we merely label it with what we buy it as, but then again we also tell people all the info on the fish. If you remember in the recent past, the thread on the LDA19's that we got in, which were not those fish at all. We appreciate everyone's help in this. I'm no expert on catfish, so I try to give out all the info on each fish as people buy it!

Thanks for everyone's help on this.

Lampy!

I said mis-id regarding the L32 appelation not regarding the name Ancistrus cucuta, still this is a no valid scientific name. The correct appelation should be Ancistrus sp "Cucuta"

I did stop to your website and I had a look at the picture of the LDA 19 or suppose to be...
The fish pictured there are rather L199 than LDA19, L199 comes from the Rio Orinoco in Venezuela, so there is a good chance that it is your fish, but LDA19 is more appealing commercially because of its rare statue

L125 is a Ancistrus species with little white dots ( like L32) coming form the Rio Orinoco in Venezuela and Colombia possibly could be that species as L124, L126, L127,L128 and L129 are all coming from the same region...

Cheers
Yann

@ Yann- AFAIK, L numbers were meant as a guide for ID'ing Loricariids and are simply that a guide to help ID the unclassified. To say that a given L# can only be used for a certain location of any given species of pleco seems ludicrous to me. If this was the case then why do we not yell at everyone who uses L114 and/or calls it Pseudacanthicus Leopardus? Technically in your splitting mentality almost all "L114" in the hobby today are most likely not from the holotype location of British Guyana, but are more likely from Brazil and therefore would need a new L#(not even touching on the "retired" status). I obviously fall on the other side of this arguement w/ the lumpers who don't see the need for a new species every time a nearly Identical fish is found in a different river. I can go into way further detail if you care to discuss this, but that would be better discussed in a seperate post as that is not what this post is about.

btw... the LDA19 were discussed already too...
http://www.forum.planetcatfish.com/viewtopic.php?t=928

I guess I just don't see the need to point fingers and throw out acquisations about a system that's so riddled w/ flaws that it doesn't have 2 legs to stand on.

My 2 cents.

Aeroflight - yes you picked up Ancistrus (Xenocara or what ever synonym you want to use) from Rio Cucuta that has been showing up here in the US fairly commonly for a while now. There a pretty standard "Bristlenose" w/ the males being about an inch larger than the females when fully grown @ about 5" to 6"s TL. For a diet I'd recommend about 75% Veggies to 25% meat until you are looking to breed, then you may want to increase the % of meat. For anything further on there natural habitat I'd recomend searching on dogpile or maybe Shane can tell you more.

Andy

Cartman wrote:@ Yann- AFAIK, L numbers were meant as a guide for ID'ing Loricariids and are simply that a guide to help ID the unclassified.

Yes it is a way to classified undescribed species

Cartman wrote: To say that a given L# can only be used for a certain location of any given species of pl*co seems ludicrous to me.

THat is exactly what they were meant to be each species form each location (river, small river systems) has a proper L#...because so far no scientific work has been done to prove that we are dealing with the same species until this we shoould deal carefully and threated them as seperate species unti it is proven the opposite!

Cartman wrote: If this was the case then why do we not yell at everyone who uses L114 and/or calls it Pseudacanthicus Leopardus? Technically in your splitting mentality almost all "L114" in the hobby today are most likely not from the holotype location of British Guyana, but are more likely from Brazil and therefore would need a new L#(not even touching on the "retired" status).

This topic has been discussed already as well, it apears that L114 and Pseudacanthicus leopardus are not the same fish due to location but also due to several external features, several articles have been published regarding that topic in German aquarist magazine. A scientific work should determine how close or how far these 2 are related, seperated species, subspecies, same species...time will tell...
The real Pseudacanthicus leopardus would not need a L# as like you said it is a way to classified undescribed species , as far as I know Pseudacanthicus leopardus is a valid scientific name...

Cheers
Yann

[/b]

Hi!

Imho you have to take into account when the system was developed under which conditions. With tons of fishes flooding the markets and looking at this situation the idea of giving the numbers like this is pretty genious. Imagine shopping for fish w/o L Numbers...and were not experts enough to cope with the flaws of misid. If you wonna enjoy the advantage you have to accept the flaws. Sounds like im talking about marriage.