PlanetCatfish.com

Hi,

I have a little update for

Size: 120 mm
pH: 5,5 - 7,5
Temperature: 25 - 29 °C
Feeding: Herbivore wafers, rarely carnivore wafers and frozen food.

Breeding:
The fish breeds in caves. The male guards the brood. Male was greater than 100 mm in size.
Female was about 90 mm in size.
There were maximal 12 eggs. Many eggs are dead. Maximum 4 catfishes survived.
The spawn occurred in the following water parameters:
Temperature 28°C,
pH: 6.0 - 7.0
NO3: < 10 mg/l
KH: <2 °dH, GH: <3 °dH
Conductivity: 210 - 240 µS/cm

Greetings
Elko

wow. 28 C?

I'm keeping my L239 in a 26 C temp tank with sultan plecos so that's too low for them? I thought that it was the max threshold for those guys?

Proteus wrote:wow. 28 C?

Mine were at 29.0 - 29.5

I don't think I have had them at less than 28 for a while now.
I kept them for about a year at 25 - 27 in another tank and they seemed quite happy.

It's quite interesting to look at the fishes in Rio Ventuari, the range is min 22-25 and max 25-29.
If we look at Rio Guiavare, the range is 21-24 and max is 24-33.

I'm sure some of that is because some of the fishes are distributed over a wider area, and that for example Corys listed are found in small forest streams that are not getting much sunlight.

In general, plecos seem to tolerate moderately warmer temperature than "recommended" better than too low temp.

--
Mats

Elko: Just to make sure, are you saying this fish grows to 120 mm Standard Length, or Total Length? If it's the latter, could we have a photo with measurement please, as I like to have some sort of documentation for any "size is bigger than the Cat-eLog says".

The rest I will add to the Cat-eLog in a bit.

--
Mats

Hi Mats,

sorry, 120 mm Total Length, 90 mm Standard Length.

Greetings
Elko

So, I suspect the caudal fin is around 30mm, which means that it's not very far between the size we have recorded and the 120mm size. I'd say it's not worth fixing, as we are perhaps 10% off - unless you fancy taking a picture with a tape-measure/ruler under one of your large fish...

--
Mats

Have I missed something?

Why do people keep referring to this fish as "Baryancistrus" beggini?

racoll wrote:Have I missed something?

Why do people keep referring to this fish as "Baryancistrus" beggini?

Good question. Probably because wasn't Baryancistrus in the DATZ/Aqualog...

--
Mats

Probably because wasn't Baryancistrus in the DATZ/Aqualog...

And DATZ has priority over a peer reviewed scientific paper?

racoll wrote:And DATZ has priority over a peer reviewed scientific paper?

Absolutely not in my book. But I'm trying to make some sort of sense out of something that doesn't make sense to me, so I'm trying to find an explanation.

However, from a scientific standpoint, Baryancistrus is not a "clear" genus - even Nathan Lujan et.al (Copeia 2009), in the discussion, say that it's not clear what a Baryancistrus is/isn't, and say (my paraphrasing) "Baryancistrus beggini fits better in the genus Baryancistrus than anywhere else, but it's not a perfect fit" - and further "it based on two key features that are found in other species, but not together". As aquarists, we tend to go by body shape and general "looks" features when placing fish, and I'm by no means sure that all we can find in the Cat-eLog that is currently called Baryancistrus will fit in that genus when it finally gets described [if ever - for example some of the Xingu species may disappear before they get described...]

--
Mats

krazyGeoff wrote:

Proteus wrote:wow. 28 C?

Mine were at 29.0 - 29.5

I don't think I have had them at less than 28 for a while now.
I kept them for about a year at 25 - 27 in another tank and they seemed quite happy.

have you been able to breed yours in that temp?

MatsP wrote:It's quite interesting to look at the fishes in Rio Ventuari, the range is min 22-25 and max 25-29.
If we look at Rio Guiavare, the range is 21-24 and max is 24-33.

I'm sure some of that is because some of the fishes are distributed over a wider area, and that for example Corys listed are found in small forest streams that are not getting much sunlight.

In general, plecos seem to tolerate moderately warmer temperature than "recommended" better than too low temp.

--
Mats

So its much more safer for me to keep mine at 26 C?

Proteus wrote:have you been able to breed yours in that temp?

Geoff just had his spawn in the last week. Check this thread.

Proteus wrote:So its much more safer for me to keep mine at 26 C?

I would recommend a temp range of between 26 and 30C for this species, with 27-28C being best for general maintenance.

This applies to almost all ancistrine L numbers.

Hi,

Probably because wasn't Baryancistrus in the DATZ/Aqualog...

I wouldn´t blame that on DATZ. And of course, DATZ has no priority over scientific descriptions.

However, a lot of people (me included) believe that this fish belongs to an as-yet undescribed genus.
Even Lujan hints at this in his description.
Ergo, it´s "Baryancistrus" beggini. The same applies for "Baryancistrus" demantoides, by the way.

Cheers, Sandor

If we start using quotes [in the catelog] then half the site would change. Well, not that much but there would be a lot of changes. So, use them in the forum if you wish, but I think its a little misleading - it's a Baryancistrus but Baryancistrus is ill defined. What I would be happier with is a note in the cat-elog (akin to that we use for Cochliodon group Hypostomus) suggesting that this fish (and B. demantoides) have some differences and, if it does, effects their care.

Jools

It is also worth considering of the 24 in the Cat-eLog, there are 4 described species, and 20 undescribed species. The TWO species that are not B. beginni and B. demantoides I believe are very rarely seen in the hobby. So who are we to say that the undescribed ones are not the "odd ones out".

I'm not saying scientists are always right, but I don't think we should undo their work by forming our own naming system. The scientific name of this particular fish is Baryancsitrus beginni.

--
Mats

Hi,

If we start using quotes [in the catelog] then half the site would change. Well, not that much but there would be a lot of changes. So, use them in the forum if you wish, but I think its a little misleading - it's a Baryancistrus but Baryancistrus is ill defined. What I would be happier with is a note in the cat-elog (akin to that we use for Cochliodon group Hypostomus) suggesting that this fish (and B. demantoides) have some differences and, if it does, effects their care.

I totally agree, sorry if my explanation was misleading. My personal opinion is that these two are not Baryancistrus sensu stricto (i. e., taking the type species as "hallmark") and I´m hesitant to use that genus for these two species.
Even though this is a little distracting now: especially so with B. demantoides, I found that the feeding requirements of this species markedly differ from "real" Baryancistrus. In fact, I found their constitution deteriorating if fed like "real" Baryancistrus. Only with an appropriate (i.e., markedly more than I would apply for a Baryancistrus) amount of protein in their diet they were thriving.

To avoid this kind of misleading generalizations, I prefer to use "Baryancistrus", for demantoides as quoted above, for B. beggini it´s more a size question, really. "True" Baryancistrus tend to grow massive, while this species stays rather small.

So for me it is mostly a way to signal that "there is something odd" and shouldn´t be treated like the typical thing.

Cheers, Sandor

MatsP wrote:I don't think we should undo their work by forming our own naming system. The scientific name of this particular fish is Baryancsitrus beginni.

While there are clearly reservations with the inclusion of this species as a Baryancistrus, I'm a bit uneasy about referring to the genus in inverted commas here.

I think PlanetCatfish has done really well in forging links between scientists and hobbyists, and I worry that this kind of thing looks like we're undermining their work, reinforcing the "them and us" attitude.

Having said that, I didn't read the paper in detail, and was not aware of the issue, so I learned something here. There definitely should be a note in the cat-elog to this effect, especially regarding feeding of B. demantoides.

racoll wrote:

MatsP wrote:I don't think we should undo their work by forming our own naming system. The scientific name of this particular fish is Baryancsitrus beginni.

Having said that, I didn't read the paper in detail, and was not aware of the issue, so I learned something here. There definitely should be a note in the cat-elog to this effect, especially regarding feeding of B. demantoides.

Well said, and I think we should HELP scientists where we can, rather than try to undermine them. And I don't think it should be a "them & us" situation. Yes, scientists, to some extent, work on a different level than us, and I wish they would have more pictures/descriptive text of real living fish in the papers, but they do provide us with a lot of useful information too.

I will update B. demantoides data sheet.

--
Mats

Yes, it very much jumped out at me that the literature for the L Numbers convention in Germany used hobbyist created genera published in glossy aquarium magazines vice the accepted scientific nomenclature from peer reviewed journals.
I think this is one area where German pleco hobbyists tend to strongly diverge from both the academic community and the rest of the hobby.
-Shane

Shane wrote:Yes, it very much jumped out at me that the literature for the L Numbers convention in Germany used hobbyist created genera published in glossy aquarium magazines vice the accepted scientific nomenclature from peer reviewed journals.
I think this is one area where German pleco hobbyists tend to strongly diverge from both the academic community and the rest of the hobby.
-Shane

Not really in response to Shane, but just a general view.

It would appear to be a case of using the best tool to hand. We all know they eat different things, do different things within the cave reproduction framework and have different care requirements. I was at that convention and I constantly found myself using these junior synonyms in conversation when it was necessary to talk about different groups of fish in relation to others. This wasn't becuase everyone else was, it was simply to avoid confusion generated when groups of fishes with very different parameters are lumped into one genera. I mean, it's just easier to say Cochliodon or even Panaqolus than Hypostomus of the Cochliodon group or dwarf hairy Panaque. It was easier to use the synonyms than it was to be academically correct when interacting with genus experts that all spoke different languages. As a wider example, how much more useful would "My Cats" data be, if we used the disputed genera???

It's a bit like using swear words when with friends. You know it's bad, but you can get your point across much more effectively.

They are not hobbyist created genera (despite being hobbyist propogated) - their proponents would point to Isbruckers involvement despite his being retired and said (brief) descriptions being published in grey literature and indeed I'd suggest their usage is better described as continental european than just German.

However, the "Planet view" is that we have to, in the main, remain, academically correct. I point I also banged on about to anyone who would listen.

Jools

It's a bit like using swear words when with friends. You know it's bad, but you can get your point across much more effectively.

Brilliant (and spot on) analogy.

I have said it before and will repeat it again. 1) The authors were some of the most knowledgeable loricariid experts around 2) They are very familiar with scientific convention 3) For the most part, their proposed genera could have been proven valid with a little more proper scientific work.

Unfortunately, and despite 1-3, they elected to write an article for an aquarium magazine rather than publish a proper paper in a peer reviewed journal.

PS I would not compare Cochliodon to Panaquito (Panaquito = "little Panaque," what Panaqolus should have been named since we are discussing nonexistent genera). Cochliodon was, for many years, a valid and widely accepted genus of wood-eating hypostominae.

Plus Panaquito albomaculatus rolls from the tongue with a beautiful sound. Sounds like something your Latin lover might whisper to you across the pillow. Ole!

-Shane

... and with that thought from Shane I shall put this topic to bed.

I am still very close to re-ordering the cat-elog to things like Panaque(Panaqolus) and Panaque as two different genera. It's not something I will do soon however.

Jools