Brochiloricaria chauliodon

[loachy_406]

I was looking back through old posts and saw this new species being discussed. There is only one species of

Brochiloricaria

on PC atm, which is

Brochiloricaria macrodon

. There is some basic information here - http://zipcodezoo.com/Animals/B/Brochil ... liodon.asp, and here - http://www.fishbase.org/summary/species ... p?id=50639.

Please can you clever people teach me how to link to web pages using 'here', and 'this article'. I've figured out quotes - (quote="the person")hello(quote) =

hello

I tried this with links, but it's not the same, please help me.

[MatsP]

Generally, Jools adds new species when there is a photo available to him - there are exceptions (usually when some species is commonly discussed, and there needs to be a place to hold knowledge on that species - e.g. [clog]Ancistrus temminckii[/clog] didn't have any pictures for a long time).

In this sort of place, I prefer to have the links visible so that I can see what the link ACTUALLY goes to. But if you want to do a link, then you do this:
[url=http://www.somesite.com/pathto/page.html]Link[/url]

I turned off bbcode so that you can see what it looks like.

--
Mats

[loachy_406]

Ok, thanks. PC splashpage Yay!

I guess we'll just have to wait for pics. Google doesn't have any, so who does?

[MatsP]

I'd guess the original description has pictures, so if you can find out who owns those pictures and get them from there, then forward them (together with permission of use) to Jools, it would work. I have done that on more than one occasion with pictures from various publications and/or web-sites [for example Jon Armbruster's site).

--
Mats

[loachy_406]

I'd guess the original description has pictures

What do you mean by this? On Fishbase it mentions 'Isbrücker, 1979'. Is the original description when it was first acknowledged as a new species, by this person? The Fishbase page.

[MatsP]

Yes, the original description, then is:

Descriptions préliminaries de nouveaux taxa de la famille des Loricariidae, poissons-chats cuirassés néotropicaux, avec un catalogue critique de la sous-famille nominale (Pisces, Siluriformes). Revue française d'Aquariologie. v. 5 (no. 4) (1978): 86-117.

However, as it's (nearly) 30 years old, I'd expect that any pictures used in the description are not available in digital form. I'm not even sure if Isbrucker is "available" to help with this sort of inquiry. I thought, because it was discussed recently, that it would be a reasonably recent description of a species, rather than one that was described a few decades ago.

Edit: An idea to follow up is to look for more recent descriptions of species in the same genus - often these have images of other species in the genus for comparisons.

And on a further note: looking for images of fish that is extremely rare in the hobby (if they were more common, there would be pictures in the Cat-eLog, or at least on the web somewhere) is of course pretty unrewarding.

--
Mats

[loachy_406]

Does this help with anything?

chauliodon, Brochiloricaria Isbrücker 1979:90, 102, Figs. 15-17 [Revue française d'Aquariologie. v. 5 (no. 4) (1978); ref. 2302]. Isla El Dorado, Paraná Guaza [Guazú], Argentina. Holotype: ZSM 23342. Paratypes: NMW 45144 (1). Type catalog: Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155]. •Valid as Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979 -- (Isbrücker 1980:119 [ref. 2303], Burgess 1989:444 [ref. 12860], Isbrücker 2001:26 [ref. 25653], Isbrücker 2002:13 [ref. 27178], Ferraris in Reis et al. 2003:331 [ref. 27061], López et al. 2003:45 [ref. 27366], Menni 2004:79 [ref. 28131], Rodríguez & Miquelarena 2005:142 [ref. 28787], Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155]). Current status: Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979. Loricariidae: Loricariinae. Distribution: La Plata River basin, Argentina. Habitat: freshwater.

I don't know what most of it means, but some people can probably make some sense of it.

My head is starting to hurt.

[MatsP]

chauliodon, Brochiloricaria Isbrücker 1979:90, 102, Figs. 15-17 [Revue française d'Aquariologie. v. 5 (no. 4) (1978); ref. 2302]. Isla El Dorado, Paraná Guaza [Guazú], Argentina. Holotype: ZSM 23342. Paratypes: NMW 45144 (1). Type catalog: Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155]. •Valid as Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979 -- (Isbrücker 1980:119 [ref. 2303], Burgess 1989:444 [ref. 12860], Isbrücker 2001:26 [ref. 25653], Isbrücker 2002:13 [ref. 27178], Ferraris in Reis et al. 2003:331 [ref. 27061], López et al. 2003:45 [ref. 27366], Menni 2004:79 [ref. 28131], Rodríguez & Miquelarena 2005:142 [ref. 28787], Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155]). Current status: Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979. Loricariidae: Loricariinae. Distribution: La Plata River basin, Argentina. Habitat: freshwater.

Let's pick it apart:
Species name:
chauliodon,
Genus name:
Brochiloricaria
Author of original description:
Isbrücker
Year of publication, pages relevant to this species:
1979:90, 102,
Figures relevant to this species:
Figs. 15-17
Publication where the original description was published:
[Revue française d'Aquariologie. v. 5 (no. 4) (1978); ref. 2302].
Type location (where the type specimen was collected):
Isla El Dorado, Paraná Guaza [Guazú], Argentina.
The holotype (the type specimen, and where it's held [in this case Muenchen - see a list here: http://research.amnh.org/herpetology/am ... ations.php]):
Holotype: ZSM 23342.
Other specimens of this species:
Paratypes: NMW 45144 (1).
Where we can find this type of information:
Type catalog: Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155].
What is/has been the valid name:
Valid as Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979 --
References to this species in other publications:
(Isbrücker 1980:119 [ref. 2303], Burgess 1989:444 [ref. 12860], Isbrücker 2001:26 [ref. 25653], Isbrücker 2002:13 [ref. 27178], Ferraris in Reis et al. 2003:331 [ref. 27061], López et al. 2003:45 [ref. 27366], Menni 2004:79 [ref. 28131], Rodríguez & Miquelarena 2005:142 [ref. 28787], Ferraris 2007:227 [ref. 29155]).
The currently valid name
Current status: Brochiloricaria chauliodon Isbrücker 1979.
Family and subfamily
Loricariidae: Loricariinae.
Where it can be found (as far as has been published):
Distribution: La Plata River basin, Argentina.
What kind of conditions it lives in:
Habitat: freshwater.

--
Mats

[loachy_406]

And does this actually help us much, apart from the locality and conditions?

[MatsP]

And does this actually help us much, apart from the locality and conditions?

Depends on what you mean by "helping". We could look in those other publications and/or contact the authors of such.
I can personally rule out:
Ferraris in Reis et al. 2003:331
Ferraris 2007:227
As both of those have absolutely no pictures (I have soft copy of both parts of the latter and a hard copy of the former).

I suspect the same applies to:
López, H. L., A. M. Miquelarena and R. C. Menni
as the publication is:
Lista comentada de los peces continentales de la Argentina. ProBiotA, Serie Téchnica y Didáctica, División Zoología Vertebrados, Museo de La Plata No. 5: 1-85.
[My (note: not always reliable!) spanish-to-english translator makes that a "list of fishes in continental Argentina" - so again not published specifically about Brochiloricaria].
Menni, R. C. 2004 seems similar for the same reason.

This:
Rodríguez, M. S. and A. M. Miquelarena 2005
Una nueva especie de Loricaria (Siluriformes, Loricariidae) para la cuenca del río San Francisco. Anales Acad. Nacional de Cs. Fis. y Nat. v. 55: 139-149.
Sounds a bit more possible - but it's describing a new species of Loricaria, so it's probably just mentioning the species here "in passing".

So I would say that it's unlikely that we'll find a picture any time soon.

Also noting that the species comes from Argentina, it's not exactly in the "tropical" area any longer, so it's less likely to appear in a "tropical fish hobby trade" because of the location.

--
Mats

[loachy_406]

So we're not abandoning our search for Brochiloricaria chauliodon, but we're not doing any more until we get any pictures? As you say, none of those sources look particularly promising, and without any additional information we're kinda stuck for the moment.

[MatsP]

As you say, it doesn't seem very likely that we will quickly find a picture of this fish. And whilst Jools can add new species without a picture, there's every chance that there are plenty of new species in his "inbox" already waiting to be added. Have a look at the "Recent species updates" under the Cat-eLog menu, and you'll see how many new species have been added recently (although the list is sometimes a bit misleading, as if one of us Cat-eLog updaters [I think me and Marc Van Arc [[Marc does all the synonyms and names of authors, amongst other things - I tend to update type locations, distribution, size. Amanda (BronzeFry) does updates to the etymology]] are the most active ones] post a new update to Jools, it will change from "New species" to "Updated", and that often happens within 24 hours - you can see when a species was added at the very bottom of each species page).

So for example, there are 7 species listed as "new", but there's also 9 new species of Rineloricaria in the list, but they have been updated since they got added, so they are not listed as "new" (the way that "tag" works it that a species is "new" when the creation date and the last update date are the same - which is only the case until the first update of that species).

--
Mats

[Norman]

Hi Mats,

if they were more common, there would be pictures in the Cat-eLog, or at least on the web somewhere

There are pictures of Brochiloricaria in the web!

best regards
Norman

[loachy_406]

Ah, but not chauliodon.

[Norman]

Hi,

Thats right!
As I am informed rightly, there where no commercial exports of B.chauliodon until now.
Just B.macrodon was exportet once, some years ago.

best regards
Norman

[loachy_406]

Even now I still don't really think we can say it is commercially exported. There isn't a single picture on Google, and no real writing about the species other than that it exists... somewhere. Actually it says in La Plata River basin, Argentina.

[racoll]

Am I missing the point here?

Why is it so important to have information on B. chauliodon?

There was 3093 species of catfish at the last count, and there are currently 2113 species profiles in the cat-elog.

So, bloody good going, but still a fair way off.

The site is primarily for the hobbyist rather than the taxonomist, so effort is mainly concentrated on functionality and content for aquarists (e.g. the my aquaria feature).

Brochiloricaria are large, cool water loricariids that are very unlikely to be popular aquarium fish, even with die-hard plec fans. B. chauliodon isn't even pictured in Evers and Seidel's Wels Atlas I, so we are not likely to see these fish any time soon.....

[loachy_406]

But it's still a catfish that could one day go in the Cat-eLog. That is the point. 2113 is very good going, but there can always be more. All the species that are of mainstream interest to the general hobbyist are already added to the site, but we can still improve it. In the end our goal is be be the best catfish site for ever and ever... most will say that we already are, but it can always get better. The species might be unpopular, if not kept at all, but as I said, it is still a catfish.

[MatsP]

I think racoll's point is more to the effect that we should concentrate on fish that are LIKELY to be encountered in the hobby, not obscure ones that have never ever been seen. And I'm sure that with some effort you can find some picture(s) of fishes that are NOT in the Cat-eLog, then get the photo owners permission to use it in the Cat-eLog. I don't know how many pictures I've supplied by doing just that, but it's certainly more than a dozen (no, I don't get any credit for that, since I'm not the photographer).

--
Mats

[racoll]

It would be incredibly time/computationally consuming to create data for the c. 1000 species not currently represented. This is not a reason to never include them, but [correct me if i'm wrong Jools] it is not the idea to compete with resources like FishBase and the Catalogue of Fishes for coverage for coverage's sake.

What is desirable is to track down photos for frequently traded species, that lack photos in the cat-elog.

Examples are

Ancistrus sp(l213)

or

Hypostomus sp(l266)

.

You may notice that I have two

Ancistrus sp(l213)

, but the problem is getting a confident ID on them as L213, as Ancistrus with small white spots are similar and many.

They're also nigh on impossible to photo as they are in a blackwater tank

[MatsP]

On a side-note, if 3193 known species doesn't include "undescribed species", then we probably have just over half of the known species in the Cat-eLog, as there are 485 species that the Cat-eLog determines are "undescribed" [I think that is determined by "no author", but I can't quite remember the exact criteria].

Of course, some of the "undescribed" species may actually be described species, just not recognized as such.

--
Mats

[racoll]

Good point. Thanks for correcting my sloppy calculations Mats.

[MatsP]

Good point. Thanks for correcting my sloppy calculations Mats.

I actually don't think it makes that much difference to the point you are making if there is ~1000 or ~1500 species "missing" in the Cat-eLog. The point is that we should concentrate on:
1. Fishes that are relatively commonly seen in the trade/hobby.
2. Fishes where we already have pictures of.

These two categories overlap to a large extent, but if someone went to Argentina on a "fishing trip" and on this trip happened to find and photograph the

Brochiloricaria chauliodon

, then I see no reason why it couldn't/shouldn't be added to the Cat-eLog. Just like Silurus that photographed a number of fishes in Sumatra which I believe are rarely or never seen in the trade, which are being/have been added to the Cat-eLog now.

Racoll, do you have a "photo tank"? Maybe you could get a shot of your L213 in such a setup?

--
Mats

[racoll]

Racoll, do you have a "photo tank"? Maybe you could get a shot of your L213 in such a setup?

I'll be re-doing the tank soon, so I will catch them and get some shots. However, I'm not sure how confident I am in their id as L213. I wouldn't stake my reputation on it, especially as I have no locality information other than "Brazil"

[Jools]

So for example, there are 7 species listed as "new", but there's also 9 new species of Rineloricaria in the list, but they have been updated since they got added, so they are not listed as "new" (the way that "tag" works it that a species is "new" when the creation date and the last update date are the same - which is only the case until the first update of that species).

If it helps the team, I'd say this could be changed to keep status as "new" even if updated - stick it in suggs & bugs if you think changing it would help.

Jools

[MatsP]

Racoll, do you have a "photo tank"? Maybe you could get a shot of your L213 in such a setup?

I'll be re-doing the tank soon, so I will catch them and get some shots. However, I'm not sure how confident I am in their id as L213. I wouldn't stake my reputation on it, especially as I have no locality information other than "Brazil"

Well, that is of course another more difficult question to solve. And may I guess that these are from MA and sold as L183 - at least I have seen "L183" with 8 dorsal rays, which I believe are L213.

Anyways, we've side-tracked..

--
Mats

[MatsP]

So for example, there are 7 species listed as "new", but there's also 9 new species of Rineloricaria in the list, but they have been updated since they got added, so they are not listed as "new" (the way that "tag" works it that a species is "new" when the creation date and the last update date are the same - which is only the case until the first update of that species).

If it helps the team, I'd say this could be changed to keep status as "new" even if updated - stick it in suggs & bugs if you think changing it would help.

Jools

I don't think that's necessary - I was just trying to prove the point that there are more new species than there may appear to be.

--
Mats

[Jools]

I would rather add information to species that already exist, augmented by CotM and Shane's World articles than add new species. However new species and pictures of new species are more forthcoming.

Jools

[MatsP]

I would rather add information to species that already exist, augmented by CotM and Shane's World articles than add new species. However new species and pictures of new species are more forthcoming.

Jools

Amen to that. And I'm sure you appreciate the help from everyone supplying that sort of information. But once the basics that can be found in databases and perhaps books have been exhausted, it really need someone's personal experience to fill in the data...

I try to beef up any Cat-eLog entry when I see information on the forum that is relevant (and reliable as judged by myself).

--
Mats

[Birger]

One thing I would like to add though is that lets take Parauchenoglanis for example, there were only three species before we added 6 more, some of those added have no pictures but have basic descriptions...if someone less knowledgable comes along to identify their Parauchenoglanis from the cat-eLog without posting a picture, they might have just chosen one of the three available at the time, knowing there are more choices would lead them to do more research or submit a picture for identification and they may find they have one of those other species. (and then we would have that picture)

Now of course there are species that we will most likely never see, or should not see, (too large, specific conditions, etc.) but it is not that uncommon for a unknown species to gain a following, take the case of the Anchariidae from Madagascar...almost totally unknown a short while ago and they now have a couple of us searching for them and willing to go to great lengths for information or better, acquire some, in a few years there could be husbandry reports and then maybe breeding reports, who knows.(I can dream you know) The point is we would not be chasing them if there were not even the information we have seen.

Birger