Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

All posts regarding the care and breeding of these catfishes from South America.
Post Reply
sturiosoma
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 May 2008, 23:40
My cats species list: 6 (i:0, k:0)
My aquaria list: 3 (i:3)
My BLogs: 6 (i:4, p:175)
Spotted: 10
Location 1: United states, Ohio
Location 2: united states,elyria

Check this out

Post by sturiosoma »

My Sturisomas in the act of spawning
Big Daddy on the front of the tube
Big Daddy on the front of the tube
Female on the back depositing eggs
Female on the back depositing eggs
, I'm going to post a few quick pics and do a video

Jeanne
User avatar
bekateen
Posts: 8879
Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 17:50
I've donated: $40.00!
My articles: 4
My images: 127
My cats species list: 139 (i:102, k:36)
My aquaria list: 40 (i:17)
My BLogs: 44 (i:149, p:2653)
My Wishlist: 37
Spotted: 174
Location 1: USA, California, Stockton
Location 2: USA, California, Stockton
Contact:

Re: Check this out

Post by bekateen »

Nice!
Image
Find me on YouTube and Facebook: http://youtube.com/user/Bekateen1; https://www.facebook.com/Bekateen
Buying caves from https://plecocaves.com? Plecocaves sponsor Bekateen's Fishroom. Use coupon code "bekateen" (no quotes) for 15% off your order.
sturiosoma
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 May 2008, 23:40
My cats species list: 6 (i:0, k:0)
My aquaria list: 3 (i:3)
My BLogs: 6 (i:4, p:175)
Spotted: 10
Location 1: United states, Ohio
Location 2: united states,elyria

Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by sturiosoma »

https://youtu.be/SaiDBOXpfes

All of my panamensis 7 in total were purchased as juveniles in 2 separate buys from 2 separate breeders the first buy was made on 07-20-2019, which Big Daddy is a result of and you'll see more of Big Daddy in the video, the 2nd. buy was made on 09-24-2022 for the remaining 6 juveniles all juvies were around 2in tl at time of purchase, Big Daddy who I consider to be a fully grown, sexually mature male is now 6.5in.sl, and my largest sexually mature although not fully grown male is around 3.5in.sl and my suspect female also from the second buy is around 4in.sl, and the spawn had to take place around 12 days ago because the eggs have hatched in my 125gal. tank, good luck with that right and in reading reports from other breeders they are only wigglers for around 2 days before going free swimming, will any survive I don't know and also what I thought was a female depositing eggs was actually my young male so there were 2 males caring for the eggs Big Daddy and the little feller pretty cool a, other tanks mates include my Bahuja, a pair of eigenmanni, some dwarf chain loaches and guppies this spawn was totally unexpected as I did not think the younger group was old enough, guess you really do learn something new everyday

Water parameters at time of spawn
Ph 7.2
Tds 229
Temp 81
User avatar
Jools
Expert
Posts: 15951
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
My articles: 197
My images: 943
My catfish: 238
My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
My Wishlist: 21
Spotted: 447
Location 1: Middle Earth,
Location 2: Scotland
Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
Contact:

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by Jools »

They look great.

IIRC I think I suggested before that these ain't S. panamensis. Look like to me.

Jools
sturiosoma
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 May 2008, 23:40
My cats species list: 6 (i:0, k:0)
My aquaria list: 3 (i:3)
My BLogs: 6 (i:4, p:175)
Spotted: 10
Location 1: United states, Ohio
Location 2: united states,elyria

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by sturiosoma »

Jools wrote: 02 Mar 2023, 19:58 They look great.

IIRC I think I suggested before that these ain't S. panamensis. Look like to me.

Jools
Don't quite know how to respond to this Jools back when you sent me a PM to advise me that Panamensis has never been imported do mean ever and that you thought my fish were Leighton, and know Aureus, here are 2 of my best pictures of my mature male that measures 6.5in sl, let me know your thoughts

Jeanne
User avatar
Jools
Expert
Posts: 15951
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
My articles: 197
My images: 943
My catfish: 238
My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
My Wishlist: 21
Spotted: 447
Location 1: Middle Earth,
Location 2: Scotland
Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
Contact:

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by Jools »

Sorry Jeanne, I am confused too.

As you started a new post I'd (incorrectly?) guessed this was an update on other fishes. I suggested S. aureus as that's almost always what the incorrectly identified species turn about to be and I can't tell for 100% from the video. I had a look for a prior post on this but as you say it was a PM (I'd forgotten).

The picture in your my cats entries under S. panamensis does look like S. leightoni. If the fishes in the video in this thread are the same as the fish we talked about in the PM, then sure, I'd say they're S. leightoni.

This new post is labelled S. panamensis and your "my cats" entry remains listed the same. They're not that species and so I was a little curious as to why.

Jools
sturiosoma
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 May 2008, 23:40
My cats species list: 6 (i:0, k:0)
My aquaria list: 3 (i:3)
My BLogs: 6 (i:4, p:175)
Spotted: 10
Location 1: United states, Ohio
Location 2: united states,elyria

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by sturiosoma »

Jools wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 08:19 Sorry Jeanne, I am confused too.

As you started a new post I'd (incorrectly?) guessed this was an update on other fishes. I suggested S. aureus as that's almost always what the incorrectly identified species turn about to be and I can't tell for 100% from the video. I had a look for a prior post on this but as you say it was a PM (I'd forgotten).

The picture in your my cats entries under S. panamensis does look like S. leightoni. If the fishes in the video in this thread are the same as the fish we talked about in the PM, then sure, I'd say they're S. leightoni.

This new post is labelled S. panamensis and your "my cats" entry remains listed the same. They're not that species and so I was a little curious as to why.

Jools
Morning Jools I would like to continue this conversation as I understand your desire to have accurate information in your data base and I would like to do that on the front page and not via a PM as this is a forum of hobbyist looking to learn and help each other out, so with said the reason I did not change my post is because, the fish I purchased were listed as Panamensis as juveniles not imports from 2 separate breeders now maybe they were both wrong I don't know and now the first thing I did upon realizing my spawn was to go to the data base, breeders logs specifically, of every species of Sturisomatichthys, mainly to see what was to come and I found at least one inaccuracy and I don't really care to go into detail as I'm not looking to call anyone out but the individual was awarded points which I don't agree with for breeding a specific species and the photos in the log show beyond a reasonable doubt that it is not that species, and so now that I have some of my opinions out of the way lets get to my fish my youngest group 6 in total and I know that sexually they mature early at around 1yr. because I have 1 male and 1 female and 4 unknowns but the but the actual species cannot be positively identified until fully grown there's just tooo many variables as juveniles, so I'm thinking lets put the juvies on the back burner for now and concentrate on my pimping big daddy who I believe to be fully grown and at least 3.5yr. and I have added more photos so take a look let know and I will either change my post or delete it I don't want any conflict I would just as soon leave the forum

Jeanne
DSCN0797.JPG
DSCN0787.JPG
DSCN0784.JPG
Attachments
DSCN0789.JPG
User avatar
Jools
Expert
Posts: 15951
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
My articles: 197
My images: 943
My catfish: 238
My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
My Wishlist: 21
Spotted: 447
Location 1: Middle Earth,
Location 2: Scotland
Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
Contact:

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by Jools »

Hi Jeanne,

This forum has been running 20 years. It's funny, in that time I've interacted with literally thousands of fishkeepers and unfortunately fallen out with a few folks over one thing or another despite, I hope, trying to be a friendly knowledgeable guy who's just trying to help. Thus far, I've found folks I don't really know take umbrage at being corrected out in the open and so when a correction is made I tend to do it privately especially when the person in question looks like a serious fishkeeper as is the case here.

Happy to discuss this out in the open, as you say, because I hope we can figure it all out.

There are several species in the hobby that are almost always (99.99% of the time) incorrectly identified. , , and are all good examples and certainly . For as long as fish books have been published, this has been wrong.

From time to time I have a look at these species, and similar, and move out all the information folks have input for them because, always, it's for the wrong species. I've done this now for S. panamensis, moving all user data into S. aureus.

This doesn't mean I am certain your fish is S. aureus, but what it does is reflect the fact none of these are S. panamensis. Hopefully that means we're clear to talk about what your fish is Jeanne.



Cheers,

Jools
sturiosoma
Posts: 293
Joined: 30 May 2008, 23:40
My cats species list: 6 (i:0, k:0)
My aquaria list: 3 (i:3)
My BLogs: 6 (i:4, p:175)
Spotted: 10
Location 1: United states, Ohio
Location 2: united states,elyria

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by sturiosoma »

Jools wrote: 03 Mar 2023, 18:36 Hi Jeanne,

This forum has been running 20 years. It's funny, in that time I've interacted with literally thousands of fishkeepers and unfortunately fallen out with a few folks over one thing or another despite, I hope, trying to be a friendly knowledgeable guy who's just trying to help. Thus far, I've found folks I don't really know take umbrage at being corrected out in the open and so when a correction is made I tend to do it privately especially when the person in question looks like a serious fishkeeper as is the case here.

Happy to discuss this out in the open, as you say, because I hope we can figure it all out.

There are several species in the hobby that are almost always (99.99% of the time) incorrectly identified. , , and are all good examples and certainly . For as long as fish books have been published, this has been wrong.

From time to time I have a look at these species, and similar, and move out all the information folks have input for them because, always, it's for the wrong species. I've done this now for S. panamensis, moving all user data into S. aureus.

This doesn't mean I am certain your fish is S. aureus, but what it does is reflect the fact none of these are S. panamensis. Hopefully that means we're clear to talk about what your fish is Jeanne.



Cheers,

Jools

Jools I don't know that it was so much that I took umbrage whatever the heck that means to a correction but rather the manner in which the correction was applied, that AIN'T Panamensis, really, and I think you failed to understand my reasoning for posting as Panamensis is because that is what I was told I had at point of purchase but you said no, and I was good with that, but you never gave me a definite so that I could even change my post you said looks like Leighton or I think it's Aureus that being the most common or it may even be Reginae, and now I see You have taken the pleasure of changing my information and I don't know if you took the three possibilities and put those in a hat and drew one or if you just opted to go with the most common or easiest choice because you really don't know, now had you taken the time to look at the pics and you look at nothing but the pectoral spine even I can tell you and I'm no EXPERT that my fish AIN'T Aureus, so I have removed myself as a keeper of Sturisomatichthys, but I don't know how to remove my name from the breeders log, and I did this to help insure the accuracy of your database, where I have spent countless hours especially with breeders logs looking for little tidbits, anything that I may be able to use with what I am doing and I hope that will find the inaccuracies especially where you award points, this is the only forum that I belong to that has a point system, the last job I had, had a point system and when I got 7 points I was awarded with a pink slip, best day of my life, how about a point system for membership participation, every time I log in there's more advertisers on line then members, you have a good day Jools and kick one back for me

Respectively

Jeanne
User avatar
Jools
Expert
Posts: 15951
Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
My articles: 197
My images: 943
My catfish: 238
My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
My Wishlist: 21
Spotted: 447
Location 1: Middle Earth,
Location 2: Scotland
Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
Contact:

Re: Sturisomatichthys panamensis update

Post by Jools »

Sorry Jeanne, if I've offended you it's far from my intent.

With more pictures the male looks like S. aureus but I'm not certain. I'm sure it's not anything else that's commonly found because it's not a very high-backed species. What does the female look like?

I don't really understand what else I can do but here to help. I'll just leave this here unless any questions are forthcoming - as ever happy to help.

Cheers,

Jools

PS It wasn't just your entry I updated, I moved the other 23 incorrect IDs/use of this species too.
Post Reply

Return to “South American Catfishes (Loricariidae - Plecos et al)”