Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

nvcichlids · Post by **nvcichlids** » 02 Oct 2010, 02:51

I was trying to look up Yann's suggestion for what Jacksters ancistrus might be and noticed L371 and 372 are missing. Is there a reason for this (are they now described?)

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 02 Oct 2010, 05:11

Probably because nobody has submitted a photo yet.

can be difficult to ID, so being sure it is LXXX and not LYYY is not easy unless you can provide bona fide locality data, which is also not easy to get.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 02 Oct 2010, 05:16

I don't think there is any particular reason they are not in the Cat-eLog.

When I'm not watching motorbike racing this weekend, I'll try to fix this along with the Peckoltia bachi that was pointed out elsewhere (need a new species to replace the old one anyways).

--
Mats

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 02 Oct 2010, 10:34

That's great. Note also that I think Sandor is going to add L400+ missing ones.

Jools

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 23 Oct 2010, 10:49

This is now done..

--
Mats

Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog

Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog