KrazyGeoff

My imported GBA from 5 years? ago have had descendents that have had black dots/splotches I think it comes down to the "debate" about Albino being pigmentless Golden being "normal" without the brown pigment and "normal" being, well, golden with brown pigment (if you see what I mean). I see the dots / splotches very much the same as a birth mark. There is a small amout of discussion in this thread also http://www.fnzas.org.nz/fishroom/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=44186 Geoff

Hi There is no greater chance of one with black spots passing them on to their offspring than there is of totally golden ones having offspring that have black spots.

Thanks Everyone. "They are worth whatever anyone is willing to pay" is of course the golden rule. pixies2; I'll pm you with the guys details later tonight when I have his details avaliable. Thanks

Hi, I met a guy tonight that has some clown loaches for sale. There are 6 of them. The small ones are about 7+cm, and the others are about 14(ish) cm Does anyone have any idea what they may be worth? They looked very healthy to me. Sorry if this is the wrong forum. Thanks Geoff

don't worry firefish. It is quite normal for the "spot" to fade on the GBA. Technically speaking I have read many discussions about L144 (GBA) and most are along the lines of there perhaps only ever been one specimen actually caught, and the GBA that are in the trade today are in fact a gold cultivated form of the BN. But that discussion aside (because I can't find the reference to the discussions) about 0.5 - 1% of GBA have a brown / black dot somewhere on them. They all tend to fade as the fish grows older, and some fade quite quickly. If you breed from that one then there is the same 0.5-1% chance that the offspring will have a dot. I have one that has 1/2 of its face as a black dot. Well it did have. Now it looks like it is wearing half of spidermans mask. Quite cool. You may also find that the gold fades too. Cheers Geoff

Love a good id game. Pic 1 and 2 is P.Maccus - (L104, L162, LDA22). Ignoring of course all the debate regarding locality as a differing feature. It may have been purchased in NZ as a Leopard Frog (at Leopard Frog prices), or a Pretty Peckoltia (at a good price), or it may also have been purchased as a Clown Pleco about 2 months before the "Leopard Frogs" were here at a price in the middle of the two. Most likely a female. Pic 3 is a King Tiger Pleco (L066) and this is your dominant male. Pic 4 is also a King Tiger Pleco (L066) and is a male too. Pic 5 is a Chocolate Zebra (L270,L307,LDA76) and is a (young?) male.

yup. What P44 said. Cheers

Hi P44, L018 it is. Spots to big for L081, and spots to many for L177. 30-35cm, if you treat it nice

Hi P44, Yes I am sure they were $130.00 Cheers

They have got some adult L204 at the moment 8)

Looks like a male Peckoltia brevis LDA78 (if from Brazil) else L205 Peckoltia sp. (if from Peru), but they are both referenced on Planet Catfish by the same page. The orange on the leading edge of the tail fin is pretty distinctive http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/species.php?species=peckoltia+brevis&species_id=1339 More important, in my opinion, is that it is not a panaque. Cheers

Thats the stuff. I pour the recommended dose directly on the algae, and then the next week a bit more etc etc etc. Here is another thread that may be usefull, and a long link in that one. excel-staghorn-algae

Pretty peckoltia vs. Panaque Maccus This particular Pretty peckoltia is Panaque Maccus L104, L162, LDA22 Prior to the 11th special edition of Datz L-Numbers the L104 and L162 were thought of as a different fish, and that they were Peckoltia sp. Specifically in the 1995 Aqualog they are clearly labeled this way. In the 11th special edition of Datz L-Numbers (2004) They have become Panaqolus sp, but still different fish (L104 vs. L162 that is). Panaqolus was the term used for smaller / dwarf Panaque, but this classification was dropped in late 2003 early 2004 in favour of Panaque. In the 2008 publication "Back to nature guide to L-Catfishes by Ingo Seidel" L104 has been dropped altogether in favour of L162. So; as these fish came out of Germany, I would suspect that the literature used for identification pre dated the 2004 Datz publication hence Peckolita. In March 2009 these were also imported into NZ as L134 Leopard Frog (as mr pleco indicated), but with a Leopard Frog price so $40.00 for these ones is a great buy. Note that at the same time they were showing up in Sweeden also labeled as L134, so that would indicate that it was an exporter that got it wrong that time. I am not sure that I would call these fish mislabeled, given the evolution of their identification throughout the literature. Cheers Geoff

Yes I should; but mr pleco, firenznez, and a few others usually say approximately what I'm going to say, so it seems obsolite. A victory for the turtle...

adodge: I've found someone who lost a turtle in your neck of the woods! http://www.petsonthenet.co.nz/ads/index.php?a=2&b=31684 There is a reward, but this thread has been priceless!