PlanetCatfish.com

Hi,
famous importer Mimbon Aquarium has imported a new kind of Hypancistrus.


Please visit the Homepage of Mimbon:
http://www.mimbon.de/archives/869

This variant looks like L 340 type, but the pattern is great. I missed the chance to get them. They reminds me at some pictures I saw at some japanes pages, usually labeled as L 236. It seems that they came from Venezuela. I hope, I get a second chance.

Very Nice. Hope I get the chance to get a group sometime.

Any indication of what they sold for?

Jools

Very intriguing looking Hypancistrus. If it does come the Orinoco drainage that could be good news, especially if it came from any tributaries in Colombia.
Better yet if it isn't rare where it is found and is not particularly difficult to breed.

Wow! stunning fish

Nice looking fish. It would bee nice seeing this fishes around.

How many fishes did he receive? They were exported from Colombia, but collected in Venezuela? Was they bought as Hypancistrus sp. Platinium or did they come with a shipment of Hypancistrus sp. L-340?

E

What a nice fish! I wouldn't be surprised if the exporter want's to keep the location a secret ;)

There was something similar posted at a Taiwanese website some years ago, labelled "Hypancistrus Mega Crown Venezuela"




...and today, something similar showed up at Japanese importer Aquafin's website, labelled "Mega Crown venezuela"...

http://aquafin.web.infoseek.co.jp/pleco ... o-top.html




Haakon

Roland (Mimbon) has kindly given me permission to use the pictures. for now...

Jools

Hopefully not rare at the location so we could possibly see them on the market at a halfway affordable price. Exciting anyway.

Coloring and pattern is similar to the unknown Leporacanthicus "black and white": http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=32249

Convergent evolution? The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).

Linus_Cello wrote:The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).

I'm not sure I've seen any concrete info on where it lives in the wild. All I have is that's it was exported from Bogotá.

Jools

Linus_Cello wrote:Coloring and pattern is similar to the unknown Leporacanthicus "black and white": http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=32249

Convergent evolution? The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).

It wouldn't be the first case of convergent coloration patterns, as Pseudolithoxus tigris has a similar pattern to L260, H. subviridis has the same pattern as B. demantoides, and tons of loricariids are black with white spots. I don't think you can use color pattern as an indication of whether they live in the same drainage; while H. subviridis and B. demantoides do live in the same drainage, P. tigris and L260 certainly don't. Still, it is an interesting point that you raise.

If anyone checks some of the Japanese/Southeast Asian sale sites often enough, these seem to either be imported in seasonal quantities enough for them to have them available often or smaller quantities imported more often as similar fish are often listed. Most Japanese sites I look at tend to show pics of the actual fish being offered. Regardless, this is the first time I've heard of them being available to anyone in Europe or North America. They've been on my wish list for a couple years, since I first saw them on a Japanese site labeled as L236, but I've never seen them offered anywhere here. I can only hope this means the market is finally going to start spreading to the rest of the world.

Larry

Hi,

the ones above are listed as H. sp. "Platinum/Empereor": http://aquafin.web.infoseek.co.jp/pleco ... o-top.html

More pics on their facebook-page.

As an aside, the next time someone suggests that the l-number system should be scrapped, let's agree and we can stick with calling this Mega Crown Pleco until it's described!

Jools

Sorry, who's facebook page - Mimbon or Aquafin? Do you have a link to that?

Haakon

Hi,

search for "異型俱樂部" in facebook and tick the first one, there you´ll find a gallery with some more stunning Hypancistrus sp. "whatever".

That's top of my list absolutely stunning
I bet they will be priced at Hypancistrus Zebar
prices though.

I looked on the site acanthicus posted-----Holy crap, how do these guys get such a vast selection, its impossible to get that sort of selection here and I have friends that buy direct from importers including Unungy. Probably a good thing so I dont open a second Mortgage to expand my stock and fishroom

As an aside, the next time someone suggests that the l-number system should be scrapped, let's agree and we can stick with calling this Mega Crown Pleco until it's described!

Why not use its local name Corroncho plata (silver pleco)? This would be more useful than an L Number since it is at least descriptive of the fish and tells us where it originates.

From an evolutionary (taxonomic) standpoint Hypancistrus, as currently defined, is making less and less sense to me. The vast majority of described spp (over 90%) are from the Orinoco and Negro (which are connected by the Casiquiare channel) with H. zebra an outlier from a totally different system. I suspect that Hypancistrus will eventually be restricted to the Xingu complex of fishes while we will need a new genus for the Orinoco/Negro fishes. There is just too big of a gap between these drainages (i.e. a lack of Hypancistrus populations) for this to make evolutionary sense, even if the Xingu and Orinoco/Negro fishes share some common characteristics.

This fish is not offered on any of the Bogota lists I normally receive, but I'll ask around and see what I can find out. The use of the term "corroncho" at least tells us that it is an Orinoco spp as further north and west they use the term "cucha." One more reason to stick with names that actually tell us something.

-Shane

Hypancistrus contradens Orinoco
Hypancistrus debilittera Orinoco
Hypancistrus furunculus Orinoco
Hypancistrus lunaorum Orinoco

Hypancistrus inspector Rio Negro

Hypancistrus zebra Xingu

Just wait 'til our mapping project is complete (in about 2018 at the going rate! ;) ) and you can just post a link to the search results for "show me on a map the distribution of all species in this genus (or family)".

And I have added both "Mega Crown Pleco" and "Corroncho Plata" as common names for this species.
I've also added that the common name in Spanish hints that it's from the Rio Orinoco basin.

--
Mats

Suckermouth wrote:

Linus_Cello wrote:Coloring and pattern is similar to the unknown Leporacanthicus "black and white": http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=32249

Convergent evolution? The Hypan and the Lepora are both from Venezuela (maybe similar drainage?).

It wouldn't be the first case of convergent coloration patterns, as Pseudolithoxus tigris has a similar pattern to L260, H. subviridis has the same pattern as B. demantoides, and tons of loricariids are black with white spots. I don't think you can use color pattern as an indication of whether they live in the same drainage; while H. subviridis and B. demantoides do live in the same drainage, P. tigris and L260 certainly don't. Still, it is an interesting point that you raise.

Hi!!

I higly believe these are just aberrant pattern of "common" species...it happened quite often...especially among Hypancistrus.
Cheers
Yann

Shane wrote:From an evolutionary (taxonomic) standpoint Hypancistrus, as currently defined, is making less and less sense to me. The vast majority of described spp (over 90%) are from the Orinoco and Negro (which are connected by the Casiquiare channel) with H. zebra an outlier from a totally different system. I suspect that Hypancistrus will eventually be restricted to the Xingu complex of fishes while we will need a new genus for the Orinoco/Negro fishes. There is just too big of a gap between these drainages (i.e. a lack of Hypancistrus populations) for this to make evolutionary sense, even if the Xingu and Orinoco/Negro fishes share some common characteristics.

The vast majority of described species being from the Orinoco is sampling bias, not an effect of the actual distribution of Hypancistrus. Using the likely incomplete knowledge of Hypancistrus distributions would be a poor reason to separate the genus. Furthermore, there are some undescribed Hypancistrus from other rivers between the Orinoco/Negro and the Xingu (according to the Cat-eLog), such as the Madeira and the Tapajos, so the distance is not quite so great as Orinoco vs. Xingu.

Yann wrote:Hi!!

I higly believe these are just aberrant pattern of "common" species...it happened quite often...especially among Hypancistrus.
Cheers
Yann

I could believe this.

The vast majority of described species being from the Orinoco is sampling bias, not an effect of the actual distribution of Hypancistrus.

Milton,
What data do you have to support this conclusion? Just because hobbyists want to distinguish every Hypancistrus from the Xingu based on a single stripe difference (so that 1: They add another card to their Pokeman collection and 2) feel that they paid a reasonable price for the fish.) does not make them valid scientific spp. The variation (speciation) we see amongst the Xingu Hypancistrus is nowhere near as clearly defined what we see among the known Orinoco/Negro Hypancistrus. In fact, based on spawnings reported by hobbyists, the Xingu black and white pleco complex may just demonstrate the H. zebra is in fact widely distributed in the Xingu drainage and variable in pattern/coloration depending on location.

Furthermore, there are some undescribed Hypancistrus from other rivers between the Orinoco/Negro and the Xingu (according to the Cat-eLog), such as the Madeira and the Tapajos, so the distance is not quite so great as Orinoco vs. Xingu.

Since we are talking about undescribed spp, which the cat-eLog has no official authority to assign a genus, we can't say that there animals that are or are not Hypancistrus. Only proper descriptions will tell. Regardless, it is a long way from the Orinoco/upper Negro to the southern Amazonian tributaries with Hypancistrus (sensu lato) absent from a huge piece of that real estate.

I understand (and appreciate) you argument about sampling populations, and I am not just trying to be contradictory, but based on the currently described spp (which is all we can really take into account since DATZ isn't exactly a peer reviewed journal) Hypancistrus is very heavily skewed to the Orinoco despite its type being a single sp described from the Xingu.

-Shane

I don't know if the wide distribution of Hypancistrus tells us much except that when the Amazon and Orinoco drainages were part of one inland fresh water sea they were everywhere. This is no different than dozens of genera but to name a few, Paracheirodon, Heros, Mesonauta, Apistogramma, Hyphessobrycon,Hypostomus, Corydoras, Pimelodella, Hemigrammus, Copella, Nannostomus, Pterophyllum and Dicrossus. I could go on but I think I made my point.

This is no different than dozens of genera...

Larry,
It is very, very different as those genera show contiguous distribution. Several loricariids demonstrate this between major drainages: Otocinclus, and Rineloricaria are good examples of genera distributed through both the Amazon and Orinoco drainages. As are many of the genera you mention above like Apistogramma.

If we go a step back we find even older loricariid groups that are still present in drainages that were cut off from the main Amazon drainage (circa 10 million years ago) like Panaque, Hypostomus, Loricaria, and Chaetostoma. These old genera were present when the Amazon/Orinoco sea was one body of water. We know that Corydoras, for example, did not exist that far back as they are absent from all drainages cut off from the proto-Amazon by the rise of the Andes. There are no Corydoras in the Magdalena drainage, Maracaibo drainage, or west of the Andes. Therefore we know they are "new" in an evolutionary sense.

As comparison, because I know you are a cichlid guy, cichlid genera found are Aequidens (aka Acara), Geophagus, and Petenia (aka Cichlosoma). Every modern Amazonian cichlid genera likely evolved from one of these original genera. So we know Apistogramma likely did not exist 10 million years ago, but it had evolved by the time the Orinoco separated from the Amazon (since it is found in both).

For the Hypancistrus of the Orinoco/upper Negro to be congeners with those of the Xingu, I believe we should see a contiguous distribution of the genus Hypancistrus between the two areas like we see with Farlowella, Ancistrus, or Loricaria. We don't though. That may be because we lack that data (Milton's postion) or because they are not actually congeners and just demonstrate some shared evolutionary traits.

-Shane

Shane wrote:Why not use its local name Corroncho plata (silver pleco)? This would be more useful than an L Number since it is at least descriptive of the fish and tells us where it originates.

That seems sensible, but it's already being sold by the other names. However, the other point, that of locality, I am not sure of. I am told you can now buy Corroncho zebra (L046) and Corroncho Diabolo (L025) from Bogotá... I am not saying this fish isn't from the area, but I am suggested we don't know where it is from for sure.

Shane wrote:From an evolutionary (taxonomic) standpoint Hypancistrus, as currently defined, is making less and less sense to me. The vast majority of described spp (over 90%) are from the Orinoco and Negro (which are connected by the Casiquiare channel) with H. zebra an outlier from a totally different system. I suspect that Hypancistrus will eventually be restricted to the Xingu complex of fishes while we will need a new genus for the Orinoco/Negro fishes. There is just too big of a gap between these drainages (i.e. a lack of Hypancistrus populations) for this to make evolutionary sense, even if the Xingu and Orinoco/Negro fishes share some common characteristics.

Absolutely. Although where the described fishes are from may more be to do with no-one "description hogging" (e.g. That fish is from my country and you foreign lot can't describe it, but I am going to take 20 years to do it) rather than anything to do with the fish. But yes, at least two professionals who have written descriptions have told me they are not monophyletic but would be if certain species were removed. I am not sure about the restriction to the lower Amazon tributaries though, , for example, might fit in the monophyletic group.

My, very personal, view is their common ancestor was something like which was very widespread. Some authors think that genus very close to , so that would tie in too.

Jools

I agree that the genus Hypancistrus is probably a rather young one in geological time.

I am understanding that you believe the Hypancistrus that are found in the Orinoco drainage and headwaters of the Rio Negro are a different genus than those found in the Rio Xingu? Just a case of convergent evolution?

I do wonder that some fish presently considered to be in Hypancistrus may belong to an as of yet to be described new genus. I wonder about those which are large and bulky versus those that are small and more gracile in build may belong to different genera upon that review I'm sure we will have in 2 or 3 decades from now.

That seems sensible, but it's already being sold by the other names. However, the other point, that of locality, I am not sure of. I am told you can now buy Corroncho zebra (L046) and Corroncho Diabolo (L025) from Bogotá.

It is a fair point that we can't control common names, but I am glad we got to see the original one before silly trade names and a useless alphanumeric designator (which is sure to come) became common use. In the case of the other two fishes you mention we both know why those are sold that way and it happened long after we had good data on those fishes.

Although where the described fishes are from may more be to do with no-one "description hogging"

Given the country we are talking about I agree that we should consider this. However, there is no way to put a number on it for analytic purposes.

I am understanding that you believe the Hypancistrus that are found in the Orinoco drainage and headwaters of the Rio Negro are a different genus than those found in the Rio Xingu? Just a case of convergent evolution?

Larry, I do not have the data to say this with any certainty and Jools and Milton offer some possible explanations why it may not. However, based on the known scientifically described spp it is something I would strongly consider if I were working on these fish. It is also worth considering that their ranges, even in their home drainages, are not broad, but restricted to small localities. There are not Hypancistrus throughout the Orinoco drainage, they are pretty much localized near the Rio Ventuari. I am not as familiar with the Xingu (I never collected there) but my understanding is that it is a similar case, hence all the concern about the Belo Monte dam. So it is not just a case of the two Hypancistrus populations being divided by drainage, but also that they have very restricted distribution even within their home drainages.

-Shane

But Hypancistrus from Rio Xingu are definitely closely related to Rio Orinoco ones, as they can hybridise with fertile off-spring. If these fish were not relatively close related in an evolutionary sense.

I'm not saying there aren't possibly some "odd ones" in the group, but I'm not convinced that the argument that "they come from far apart, so can't be the same genus".

I took some time to add markers to a Google Map for where the currently known (including L-numbers - and some of the markers represent a single species and others a whole group).

Map here

It wouldn't surprise me if, given some time, we find that there are more Hypancistrus in other regions further west in the Amazon basin.

--
Mats