PlanetCatfish.com

Hello.

Are Farlowella acus or Farlowella gracilis?

Thanks

, I think.

I'm no good at identifying Farlowella, but I'm pretty confident that your fish is NOT - it is by far the most commonly labeled name, but the area where this fish comes from (near Caracas in Venezuela) is not fished for the trade of ornamental fish, and the distribution of that fish is by no mean large enough to reach into areas that DO get fished for trade.

For another way of wording what I said, click on the link to F. acus above.

By the way, if you read the F. acus page, you will notice that it's got a blunt rostrum - your fish has a fairly long rostrum, so obviously not that species.

I'm unsure as to the difference between F. gracilis and other species, but I'd hazard a guess that it's not very commonly imported, based on what other species originate from Rio Caqueta.

How did you get this fish? If it was bought from a shop advertising it as F. acus, my guess would be that it is

HH is correct. This is F. vittata.
-Shane

Shane, I was thinking about sending you a PM on the subject of F. vittata identification, but as you are "on this thread", I'll ask here: The identification section of says:

There are at least 25 [Retzer & Page, 1997] species of Farlowella that, in the main, look very similar. The species was identified by its distinctive rostrum and ventral plates arrangement.

It would be very helpful for us mere mortals that do not know by heart the differences between different species of Farlowella to know what the distinctive features of the rostrum and ventral plate arrangement.

--
Mats

Thanks to all.


They are subjects in possession of my friend who has a shop for ornamental fish. To him they were sold as Farlowella sp.

Any idea where they came from (ideally which river).

I think Shane is the resident expert, but a capture location would likely strengthen or weaken the ID depending on the actual location.

Generally, Farlowella are pretty difficult to ID (like several other genera in the Loricariidae family), as their features are pretty much the same, only small details make them different species.

By the way, does anyone have a PDF of the Retzer & Page, 1997 review of the genus?

--
Mats

Mats,
I could probably best treat the issue in an article with accompanying photos, but as all my papers, etc are in transit it will have to wait. Colombia is by far and away the largest supplier of Farlowella for the trade and about 80% of these are F. vittata with a fair number of F. mariaelenae mixed in as bycatch (F. mariaelenae looks almost the exact same from the top, but is easily distunguished by its three rows of bellly scutes vs two in F. vitatta). In fact there is a very good chance that anyone keeping a fair sized group of Farlowella actually has both spp mixed together.

In the above photos, numbers 1 and 2 show the long thin rostrum of F. vittata , odontodes on the rostrum, and typical coloration for that sp. Photo #3 confirms the ID showing the distinct two rows of belly scutes.
-Shane

By the way, does anyone have a PDF of the Retzer & Page, 1997 review of the genus?

It isn't available as a pdf from the publishers, but I had been after this paper for a while, and when I eventually had access to it, I found it was vast and in a small page format, so lots and lots of pages. I never got round to scanning, or even photocopying it.

Shame, as it would have been helpful.

racoll wrote:It isn't available as a pdf from the publishers...

Not quite true. You can purchase the pdf here.

Not quite true. You can purchase the pdf here.

Glad to hear it, and I don't need to purchase!

Mats, PM me your email address (not sure if I have it) and I will send you a copy.