ID please

[PeterUK]

I was looking through a website with part of it detailing expeditions, one in particular with a lot of very good pictures of biotopes of the Northern Pantanal in Brazil.

Fantastic looking fish, anyone ID this ?

EDIT ..... Picture shows a too large image so here is original link, which also shows entire fish. http://www.jbl.de/images/gallery/contai ... 8_2502.jpg

[Shane]

You unknowingly opened a can of worms with this one...
L 310 was assigned to this fish. We have this L number associated with the wrong fish in the Cat-eLog. Armbruster (2003) clearly describes H. cochliodon as "... spots, if present, few or body entirely dark bown without spots." In fact H. cochliodon is one of the few, maybe only, members of the Cochliodon group that does not have spots.

Cat-eLog says,

"Very similar to L137 from the Rio Tapajos and similar to L310 from Bahia; both in Brazil. Previously placed in Cochliodon and now included in the larger genus, Hypostomus as a member of the Hypostomus Cochliodon group. All these species have higher backs than other conspecifics and spoon shaped teeth (like Panaque). See link below."

The above is incorrect, probably due to a typo in DATZ that makes it appear L 310 came from Bahia. The text below in DATZ clearly states that the fish (L 310) comes from the Matto Grosso and should not be confused with the "Red Bruno" (i.e. H. cochliodon).
All of the pics in the Cat-eLog do show H. cochliodon correctly (sensu Armbruster). None of them show the heavily spotted L 310, which is illustrated in the photo above.
-Shane

[MatsP]

Shane, I think I raised this some time ago in the "Bugs" forum - I never quite got a concrete answer as to what is what and how we should proceed to fix it...

Care to give me and in sorting out what's what and what goes were? For example, should we create a new Cat-eLog entry for either of "H. cochliodon" or "H. sp(L310)"? Which picture(s) belong to what? Also for any mixup with L137?

--
Mats

[L-ko]

Hi,

..."Red Bruno" (i.e. H. cochliodon).

But, we understand "Red Bruno" as Hypostomus sp. "Paraguay" (Cochliodon sp. "Paraguay") and not as H. cochliodon (C. cochliodon).
But H. cochliodon don't need to be L310.

Cheers
Elko

[Shane]

Mats,
Lets give folks (like Elko) a few days to weigh in and then we can charge ahead.
This just may be a case of the same common name being applied differently.
-Shane

[L-ko]

Hi Shane,

sorry, I think you have not understood me correctly.
If you are referring to the DATZ, so you should be aware of what we mean by the synonym there.
You can not quote our magazines and draw conclusions only from "your" synonym.

Cheers
Elko

[Shane]

Elko,
I think we are misunderstanding each other.

Please take a look at this thread and tell me what you think.
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... no#p172180

There appears to be a conflict here because Borbi's translation of Kner states,

"The fins show the body colouration at their origin, toward the tips, they gradually become brownish-black,
and are all sparingly covered with black dots on rays and skin."

This would make me think that L 310 is H. cochliodon.

While Armbuster's paper states,

"Color normally almost entirely dark brown with wide, tan
stripes dorsally and ventrally. Tan dorsal stripe on ventral half of dorsal plate row and dorsal
half of supramedian plate row; stripe sometimes crossed by dark saddles or with dark
spots anteriorly. Tan ventral stripe on ventral half of inframedian plate row and entire ventral
plate row. Dorsal stripe forks on nape with one branch continuing straight to eye and
other branch ending at posterior tip of supraoccipital. Tan wedge occasionally present at
base of supraoccipital crest. Dorsal surface of snout light or mottled. Spots on body often
absent, but sometimes present on any part of the body, well separated from one another.
Abdomen colored as sides, but usually slightly lighter. Color entirely dark brown without
spots in some individuals."

This would appear to point away from the heavily spotted L 310 being H. cochliodon.

-Shane