PlanetCatfish.com

Hi all,

This citation is not current, so it's unworthy of posting in science "news". But there are almost no other forum posts and not much other information about on Planetcatfish, so this article is definitely worth adding:

Moodie, E. G. E. & M. Power. (1982). The reproductive biology of an armoured catfish, Loricaria uracantha, from Central America. Environmental Biology of Fishes, 7: 143-148.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00001784

Synopsis
The reproductive biology of one of the poorly known armoured catfishes,

Loricaria uracantha

, was studied in Panama. Natural nesting sites consisted of cavities in pieces of wood, open at both ends and positioned above the stream bottom, but artificial cavities of PVC pipe were readily used. Males possess bony bristles on the head and pectoral fins which contact the female prior to oviposition. Males spawned with up to five females in short succession and remained with the eggs until hatching. Following hatching many initiated another spawning cycle. One male was reproductively active for 73 days during which it completed five distinct reproductive cycles. Spawning extended throughout the year.

If anyone wants to read it, I've got a copy now.

Fascinating observation is made in this paper - the species preferentially spawns in natural (and artificial) tubular objects that were positioned several cm above the stream floor/substrate. When the authors dangled pipes in midwater (10cm-30cm above the stream floor), those pipes were chosen by the pairs. Pipes touching the sand floor were always rejected... Wow, I did not expect that!!!

Perhaps this is a trick worth trying for anyone with an unusual Loricariine that refuses to spawn in conventional pipes and caves laid down on a sandy substrate.

Cheers, Eric

As I investigated this species further, I found this short entry in a paper in Copeia, regarding confusion about the species' identity and distribution: Hubbs, C. L. (1953). Geographic and Systematic Status of the Fishes Described by Kner and Steindachner in 1863 and 1865 from Fresh Waters in Panamá and Ecuador. Copeia, 1953 (3): 141-148

Hubbs wrote:Loricaria uracantha Kner and Steindachner, 1863

Loricaria uracantha, n.— Kner and Steindachner (in Kner, 1863: 228-229; 1865: 56-58, pl. 6, fig. 3), "aus dem Rio Changres, Nordseite von Panama" (1863); "aus Neu-Gradada [properly, Panamá] und dem Rio Chagres" (1865). — Apparently on the basis of Wagner's (1865: 90) probably careless and incorrect statement, Günther (1868: 393, 478), Eigenmann (1910: 413), and others reported this species on both slopes of the Isthmus. As the result of their surveys Meek and Hildebrand (1916: 257) and Hildebrand (1938: 241) doubted the Pacific drainage reports.

A second species "aus dem Rio Chagres" was identified by Kner and Steindachner (1863: 229; 1865: 58-60) with

Loricaria lima

Kner, 1853. Wagner (1865: 90) and Günther (1868: 393) attributed it also to both watersheds of the Isthmus, likeley in error. Eigenmann and Eigenmann (1891: 39) and Jordan and Evermann (1896: 158) accepted the Panamá record, but Meek and Hildebrand ignored it. Regan (1907: 113) referred Kner and Steindachner's L. lima to L. uracantha.

Ref notes for me to follow up on. Don't want to lose these notes:

• Kner, Rud, 1863. Eine Uebersicht der ichthyologischen Ausbeute des Herrn Professors Dr. Mor. Wagner in Central-Amerika, Sitzugsber. Akad. Wissensch. Munchen, 1863, v.2: 220-230 (attributed in text to Kner and Steindachner)
• Kner, Rud & Franz Steindachner. "1864" (1865). Neue Gattungen und Arten von Fischen aus Central-Amerika; gesammelt von Prof. Moritz Wagner. Abh. Akad. Wissensch. Munchen, 10(1): 1-61, pls. 1-6.
• Gunther, Albert. 1868. An account of the fishes of Central America, based on collections made by Capt. J. M. Dow, F. Godman, Esq., and O. Salvin, Esq. Trans. Zool. Soc. London, 6: 377-494, pls. 63-87.
• Meek, Seth Eugene & Samuel F. Hildebrand. 1916. The fishes of the fresh waters of Panama. Publ. Field Mus. Nat. Hist., (Zool. Ser.) 10: 217-374, figs 1-10, pls. 6-32.
• Wagner, Moritz. "1864" (1865). Ueber die hydrographischen Verhaltnisse und das Vorkommen der Susswasserfishce in den Staaten Panama und Ecuador. Ein Beitrag zur Zoogreographie Amerka's. Abh. Akad. Wissensch. Munchen, 10 (1): 63-113.
• Regan, C. Tate. 1905. A revision of the fishes of the American cichlid genus Cichlasoma and of the allied genera (continued). Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., (7) 16: 225-243.

Kner and Steindachner "1864" (1865)

Covaine et al., 2016

Hi all,

bekateen wrote: 13 Apr 2020, 21:52 Fascinating observation is made in this paper - the species preferentially spawns in natural (and artificial) tubular objects that were positioned several cm above the stream floor/substrate. When the authors dangled pipes in midwater (10cm-30cm above the stream floor), those pipes were chosen by the pairs. Pipes touching the sand floor were always rejected... Wow, I did not expect that!!!

I wonder if it reduces eggs predation from strictly benthic catfish?

I can see a situation where the preferred nesting site was in a wood tangle, which would elevate the "cave" above the river bed and might also provide protection from larger predators (birds, open water cichlids etc.)

Not directly relevant to spp. but a while a go I gave (inactive member) "thegeeman" a branch of Robinia pseudoacacia with a natural central cavity. It still had the bark on it (the bark is very persistent and "corky") and this is what he said.........

Yeap its a piece you gave me. Its never sunk so floats around my 6ft all day. Never thought about floating caves before but now the 325s and the Queens spawn in them.

cheers Darrel

Where have I seen this before, maybe it was clown loaches, can't be sure. Or it could be in the Sands Catfishes of the World books. Anyway, interesting paper, look forward to giving it a read.


Jools

dw1305 wrote: 14 Apr 2020, 11:51I wonder if it reduces eggs predation from strictly benthic catfish?

I can see a situation where the preferred nesting site was in a wood tangle, which would elevate the "cave" above the river bed and might also provide protection from larger predators (birds, open water cichlids etc.)

In the paper, the authors stated that four of the five natural spawning sites they encountered were inside hollowed-out branches, with the fifth being within a split along a thick log. These were tangled near the shore, dangling above the river floor. The authors inspeculated that the avoidance of substrate-level tubes was to decrease the risk of egg destruction when sand and debris might be washed forcefully through the breeding tube as a result of strong currents (and to that point - the authors noted that the parents always selected tubes which were oriented "in-line" with the stream water currents, presumably for maximum aeration of eggs).

dw1305 wrote: 14 Apr 2020, 11:51Not directly relevant to

Rineloricaria

spp. but a while a go I gave (inactive member) "thegeeman" a branch of Robinia pseudoacacia with a natural central cavity. It still had the bark on it (the bark is very persistent and "corky") and this is what he said.........

Yeap its a piece you gave me. Its never sunk so floats around my 6ft all day. Never thought about floating caves before but now the 325s and the Queens spawn in them.

cheers Darrel

Interesting - I have a couple of pieces of natural "driftwood" which have been in my tanks for years and refuse to sink. But neither of them has a hollow passage, and the tanks are deep enough that no catfish bother to swim up to them. I have no clue what type of wood they are - no bark remains so I can't explain away the prolonged floating due to cork. Honestly, I'd like to have a supply of aquarium-safe floating wood for making natural (not foam-based) planting structures on the water surface. I can envision nano Anubias, small ferns and Crypts, and other plants with their roots in the water but their stems and leaves entirely above the water. I have something like that now with one of my wood pieces. I really like the effect.

Cheers, Eric

It's bamboo or something similar found in that locale. I have found them and Ancistrus spp. in this in the wild.

Jools

Good morning

A similar behaviour can be observed in what is called "L 10a". When using these triangular "shrimp-cave-houses" consisting of +/-10 tubes, they always use the second or third row from below. And I am going with Jools that it's about avoiding the eggs getting covered in debris, and therefore also make sure they are always in an area with a good oxygen level. It's not that different in many Hypancistrus, Peckoltia etc., if kept in a tank with several levels made of e.g. slate, they often spawn in the middle. I can not recall though if there are significant differences between tanks with sand and those without any substrate.

Hi all,

bekateen wrote: 14 Apr 2020, 19:46.....In the paper, the authors stated that four of the five natural spawning sites they encountered were inside hollowed-out branches, with the fifth being within a split along a thick log. These were tangled near the shore, dangling above the river floor. The authors inspeculated that the avoidance of substrate-level tubes was to decrease the risk of egg destruction when sand and debris might be washed forcefully through the breeding tube as a result of strong currents (and to that point - the authors noted that the parents always selected tubes which were oriented "in-line" with the stream water currents, presumably for maximum aeration of eggs).

That would make sense.

bekateen wrote: 14 Apr 2020, 19:46.........Honestly, I'd like to have a supply of aquarium-safe floating wood for making natural (not foam-based) planting structures on the water surface. I can envision nano Anubias, small ferns and Crypts, and other plants with their roots in the water but their stems and leaves entirely above the water. I have something like that now with one of my wood pieces. I really like the effect.

You can buy cork bark tubes for vivariums etc. They would probably float too high in the water.

I don't know if Devin Biggs (Hydrophyte) still has his company "Riparium Supply"? It wouldn't be made of wood, but he used to sell all sorts of rafts etc that fulfil the function you want.

cheers Darrel

My first litter with Rhinelocicaria was when I isolated a carrying Gymnogeophagus female. I had not noticed the male sitting on his eggs. This was under a flagstone, leaning to the intermal filter. Eggs were some 20 cm from the sand - as high as possible in this place.

It seams like quite a few examples of Rhineloricaria trying to breed as far from the sand as possible have been found.

As stated before, this could be a trick to be added to the trickbook for spawning Loricarids

For years I've have a small bamboo cave attached by suction cups to the side glass of my 20-gallon high tank. The Panaqolus maccus use it often, but the Hypancistrus sp. L201 big spot never touch it.

I'll try it in more tanks.

Cheers, Eric