livingart Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 so full post would be trying to get a definitive answer on I.D. of some of these plecs must be nigh on impossible until you know the distinguishing features that set one from the other, teeth, scaling. buccal flaps, fin shapes, number of fin rays, colouration, patterning, adult size, clouration changes in fish during its development, potential stress colouration, locational varieties, variation in water quality, current vs filtration, and the very possibility that it made it to NZ as unidentified species and is therefore a good price for the importer, we are just conjecturing as to what it may be Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 so we don't know what they are yet? :lol: ill be happy with what ever it is, but i want to know ha ha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firenzenz Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 So you reckon that's gonna fly in the African cichlid section :roll: at least plecs are harder to breed. Mate I"m with flatfish particularly with the lyretail Also L226 a possibility. Lots of wood and fresh veges in their diet Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted July 30, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 they demolished the courgette. all of them did actually. it was quite civil really. no one fought :lol: lots of wood in the tank now too. i add a new piece or 3 for every pleco that goes in there. eventually ill have a juwel 180 for my plecos. then ill be happy and so will they. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 So you reckon that's gonna fly in the African cichlid section it will fly anywhere until the guns come out then it may be a dead duck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted July 30, 2009 Report Share Posted July 30, 2009 You are quite right Firenzenz, the genus Panagolus was proposed by DATZ to group the smaller Panaques, but there were no clear characters to separate these species from their larger relies except size so it was not widely adopted. However Panagolus is referred to in the literature including some of the good pleco books so I believe it is worth putting in brackets as forum members are likely to see this term used. Flash plecos are listed on the import list incorrectly as Panagolus L204. I believe these fish are definitely Panaques based on their dentition (tooth pattern and shape), and based on their body patterning I also believe these fish are one of the so-called ‘tiger plecos’, a terrible term for a number of very similar L-numbers. These ‘tiger plecos’ are either one variable widely distributed species or a few very closely related localised species. The taxonomists will no doubt eventually sort this one out. Fair enough calling it one L-number because it’s supposedly the most commonly available is a mistake. I’ve got the same problem as you Phoenix44 with a group of ‘L169’s’ and a group of ‘L271’s’ which are quite possibly the same species from the same river system. Its just too hard to tell. As for L226. L226 has 6-12 thin dark bands on the trunk (body) (this is taken from the original species description). These fish have 2 possibly three wide dark bands on the body. A different patterning to L226. Regardless they are a nice looking pleco and for my five cents worth they need to be fed as though they are a Panaque – wood, plenty of veggies, and very small amounts of high protein food. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 thanks for all the great advice everyone! these fellas love courgette skins! and have plenty wood to help with digestion. They will be fed on hikari and tetra tabs which have wood in them also. the more I look at theses fish the more im inclined to say they are both L226's. the resemblance is uncanny. this pic if of planet catfish: also have a look at this pic (cant post on here as its too big) http://www.planetcatfish.com/images/ful ... ngae/3.jpg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 Personally I dont think they are L226. L226 has a number of fine dark bands on the body and a generally finer dark banding pattern. Your fish has broader dark bands. Have a look at these two images of an L226 and one of my 'L271's'. My '271's' looks slightly different but not much. I think its one of the 'tiger plecos'. your fish L226 my Panaque 'L271' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 a pic truly says a thousand words. its funny how the fish on PC differ to what we have here in NZ. so seeing what you have opened my eyes. no wonder people have so many issues IDing plecos and the like. ill feed these fellas up well and keep posting pics of them from time to time. now that they have been in the tank and are eating well their colours have changed slightly but over time that may change too. L271's aren't terribly common here in NZ are they? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted July 31, 2009 Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 My fish are not necessarily L271's but they are not L226's. They were sold as L271's but they may be any one of the other similar looking tiger plecos I listed earlier or a new form without an L-number. The pics on Planet catfish are usually but not always the correct species. Also bare in mind that some of the tiger pleco L-numbers are likely to be the same species. Once the taxonomists sort the species out its not uncommon for several L-numbers to be grouped together. The so-called L271's have been imported at least twice. One import was clearly not that species, the second import that I know of (the ones that I have) may be. Theres also the 'tiger plecos' for sale at the moment, which may be the same species (maybe even the same import) or something else. Its all a bit of a mess but you definitely have Panaque 'tiger plecos'. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted July 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted July 31, 2009 ah. so what ive done now is signed up to PC, and will soon post these pics there, and see what they have to make of it. Ill link to these forums and another so they get the gist of what's going on hahaha. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryl Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 and if you keep holding their noses like that they will end up looking like flatfish's avatar! :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted August 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 LOL. :lol: i know im not supposed to hold them like that, but I just grabbed them, took 2 pics of each one, chucked them into the bag - packed them up and drove 550km to palmy straight after, so it was all done in a rush ha ha. (only used one hand to handle the fish as the other hand was holding the camera) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zev Posted August 1, 2009 Report Share Posted August 1, 2009 and if you keep holding their noses like that they will end up looking like flatfish's avatar! :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firenzenz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I have to say that this thread is in many ways a great illustration of issues we have here in NZ with plec ID's Page one is full of guesses on the ID of the fish with a number of possibilities put forward, but no resolution. Page two is a little more scientific in it analysis and while probably determining a genus determines that the information could not 100% ID the fish. Page three offers some more options but I believe they have resulted by "fact based on opinion" as much as "opinion based on fact". One of the real issues I have is the practise of giving imported plecs an L# after the fact. What I mean by that is that a worrying percentage of fish are comming in with no designated L#'s- check the import lists-the importer giving them a name only and often this is based roughly on a fish whose genus is known, and before we know it we have an L#. This is even more worrying when one of the factors in the ID is "how common" that ID might make that fish. The desire to have something more exotic in our tank is understandable but it shouldn't cloud our decision making or influence it. If L226 has 6-12 bars on body then that is 100% variation. Are we sure then there is no species with 15 or indeed 4. L271- Were these imported with that L# or was one designated to them here? Using the net as a resource you could question that ID. Funnily enough by the amount of barring on the dorsal and pectoral fins. Two imports- one definitely "not L271" and one "maybe", yet the L# has remained. The same question for the other L#'s quoted here. I'm not looking to dismiss anyones research. It is great to have impassioned people taking such a vested interest. But surely the truth is that we can't 100% ID many of these fish, particularly when it comes to genus like these and many of the spotted Ancistrus species and I would suggest that the lack of positive ID is often a influencing for these fish making our shores in the first place. If we know this fish comes under the umbrella of fish called tiger Peckoltia then surely any further designation is purely speculative. As much as it makes it "common" surely that is as far as we can go without creating future issues, like if a bonafide batch of L271 did actually come in. I wonder what the demand for many bonafide species is in Germany or UK or USA- The fact that NZ got "show" specimens of L200 and L128 that were only male is more than just coincidene. The unsexable juvi's were going for the same price, the problem is that they would require yrs of nuturing before getting to breeding age. Ask Harvaad Store from PC what he paid for his adult females L200' that went onto to breed for him in a number of weeeks and then determine how many here would have the means or the willingness to pay the same. The more research we do then the less mistakes will be made and God forbid the importers might figure out they need to be more diligent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simian Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 CAN I GET AN AMEN! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 AMEN, praise the firenzenz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted August 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 thank you so much for that enlightening post! perfectly said. im asking them on PC as well, some suggest they may be clown panaques. imm update on here when I find out more on there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I agree Firenzenz and I don’t think the situation will ever sort itself out. As with Africans, Apistogrammas, etc. if there are lots of similar morphs, and if the taxonomists can’t agree how are we ever likely to. Combine this with exporters (who presumably are not taxonomists) matching the hatch and grouping similar L-numbers together or calling it another similar L-number to avoid the export bans and you have a mess. It certainly doesn’t help when you have a New Zealand importer assigning L-numbers or making up common names. And add hybrids into the mix and it’s a nightmare. At least many plecos are hard to breed. Unfortunately New Zealand is a very small market and we are unlikely to ever get many top quality desirable named plecos, unless they are commonly available, and I’m sure this wont be the last problem pleco or similar discussion around it. Although I think this is a useful discussion to have. The best we can do is to make informed judgements and try and breed fish together from the same import. As for the tiger plecos, I thought I made it clear that it could have been anyone of a number of similar L-numbers. I don’t know what Phoenix44’s tiger plecos or mine for that manner were imported as, hence the quotations used when referring to the L-numbers. I don’t think my ‘L271’s’ are that L-number and I think there’s a good chance that my ‘L169’s’ are the same thing. I’m getting them DNA tested to try and get a few answers. I’d at least like to know if I can breed them together. As for not being an L226, sure that’s my opinion, but I did go to the original species description for Panaque changae (being a marine biologist and fish geek it was inevitable) and I did base my judgement on the criteria given by the taxonomists that described it. In the absence of other information that’s the best I could do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 I’m getting them DNA tested to try and get a few answers now you are talking, so long as you have a reference to correlate you will get a positive ID Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firenzenz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 When a Moderator from Planet catfish who ihas been on that forum since 2004 and 10,000 post can't give a definitive ID could back up the reason we have them. I can understand his call on L104 because others I've seen on PC were way cleaner than the ones known as and sold as "clown" here. This doesn't mean it isn't a great fish or maybe even a uncatergorized species or subspecies. Phoenix - your fish appears to be quite uncommon- or as least as far as science is concerned.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 here are three illustrations of how difficult species id can be. Each pic is of a different species that we caught on a fisheries trawl survey in Oman. All ids were based on counts of fin rays, scales, fin positions and size, tooth patterns, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
firenzenz Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Yes and all are one of many species in a particular genus. Isn't the threadfin Jack in the same family as our trevally? -wicked looking fish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatfish Posted August 3, 2009 Report Share Posted August 3, 2009 Yeah they get much more difficult when you start sorting out species in each family: trevally and jacks; the tropical groupers; and the sweetlips. The threadfin jack is related to our trevally and there is a related species, the Indian threadfin which we also caught which looked very similar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smidey Posted August 4, 2009 Report Share Posted August 4, 2009 you L# catfish keepers are worse off than us african peacock keepers & thats saying something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.