PlanetCatfish.com

, but it looks like the barbels are a bit worn down (they normally grow back, but if there is sustained damage, the scar tissue will prevent them from forming correctly). The second one looks better.

--
Mats

I bought these as a pair. I have one more that is a little larger and probably doing the damage. I was wondering if the first one is a male picta and not a thoro. Pretty sure the second one is a female Meg. thoro.

I wouldn't think it's M. picta - this should have clear lines in the caudal (tail) fin, which your picture doesn't appear to have.

--
Mats

Hope they are the same but not sure. The eyes look smaller also. Took a bunch of pics but they are hard to get clear. I'll probably take him out just in case as he is sub-dominant to the other male. I was going to get rid of them and sell the tank but wanted to make sure they were what they were supposed to be. Thank you again.

First picture looks like a male thoracata.
Second picture looks like a female picta.

zenyfish wrote:First picture looks like a male thoracata.
Second picture looks like a female picta.

Mmmm, I'd say they both look like to me. They do not have the vertical black bar (that Mats mentions) in the caudal fin that is characteristic of .

Jools

Jools wrote: Mmmm, I'd say they both look like

Megalechis thoracata

to me. They do not have the vertical black bar (that Mats mentions) in the caudal fin that is characteristic of

Megalechis picta

.

Jools

You might be right, as this one's tough for me. Banding on the caudal isn't always so distinct as in this pic:

Picta does seems to show banding on the body as well:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/images/ful ... icta/3.jpg

Whereas thoracata has more random spots on the body:


But there seems to be some overlap on the features, and the caudal on the female in the picture isn't clear.

Edit: I took a second look, and I think Jools is correct.

[Mod edit: make pictures show directly in post, rather than as links --Mats]