Spotted Bristlenoses / Rio Ucayali, whatever they are

[mickey_1975]

Hey I wouldnt mind getting some, how much do they go for on average.

[Scottie841]

oh and pleco logs (nutrafin ones eh scotty?)

Yep the Nutrafin ones. The few we got off you they loved so we got more. The sinking tablets we use are the Nutrafin once too

[phoenix44]

Confused by whom and where is this confusion taking place?

Please tell me your comments extend beyond transcribing info off the net.

So are you willing to state categorically that the fish in P44 photo is bonafide Ancistrus sp Rio 'Ucayali' as it reads like that in your post.

Brave call as I would tend to suspect that even those who came up with this ID are now questioning the merits of their methodolgy as they now watch a fish that was juvenile and they ID'd based on adult photo's off the net of a very specific fish grow to be something very quickly that make that ID at the very least questionable.

I'm thinking of running a book now to see how long that name lasts as the penny drops for a few individuals of the

ramifications should Bonafide Sp Rio Ucayali actually get imported.

This has been a very enlightening process to any who wish to look with two objective eyes.

but with that reasoning, we do not ID any pleco then. ill sell my bn's as ancistrus sp. and these guys as ancistrus sp. then all those starlights will be sold as ancistrus spp.

[firenzenz]

Yes, that's exactly would you do!

Mate I wish as much as you do that we were better served by the importers of these fish but we aren't.

I'm not saying that it isn't a lovely fish.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be passionate about them

I'm not saying you haven't the right to call a fish in your tank what ever you want.

What I am suggesting is that the way this particular fish has acquired this name

is based on whimsy, hope and wishful thinking with little or no adherence to any fact particularly in responsible scientific sense and this is, as I see it a bad president.

I accept that you feel otherwise but there we have to disagree.

[phoenix44]

but it has been ID'd as rio_ucyali many times from multiple batches.

if everything was ancistrus sp. then the babies that result from them and the normal bn's would also be ancistrus sp.

then we get a whole bunch of real hybrids that are all called ancistrus spp. then we really don't know what we have.

so while I understand what you mean, because i know the we are technically supposed to ID them based on knowledge based on where they are caught, how is that possible in this case?

The importer ID's them at the point of sale, using a fish atlas or something like that. They were named an. dolichopterus which there is no doubt that these are not.

When I posted on PC, I had no idea what they were, but I knew for fact that they were not an. dolichopterus.

Then I got multiple people steering me towards the Rio_Ucayali route.

but.. phenotypically speaking, these do look exactly like the Rio_Ucayali right?

the juvis look the same, as do the sub adults. I have to wait for the adult phase to make a comparison there.

what to do?

[firenzenz]

Firstly I think you are putting too much weight on the PC ID.

I followed that thread and while I would suggest PC is a wonderful resource and soure of knowlege, to suggest that everything on that site should be taken as gospel would be as much as suggesting every Kiwi male is a potential All Black.

In this case, as in many, we are still talking in the most part keen amateurs who are just as likely to see the first close facsimile of a fish that is suggested and run what they now believe to be the Status quo.

Their knowlege of the fishes origin is as limited as ours and I would suggest in any situation where there is no vested interest such outcomes are even more likely.

Add to that they have no historical knowlege of the issues we have with the dubious origins and naming of many of the plecs we get here and I believe that must be a huge mitigating factor in any conclusions drawn.

I also would note that none of the 'big guns" of PC like Yann, Shane,janne or Silurus who have something like 25,000 posts between them have given an opinion.

MatsP who has 11,000 posts has said only that it "looks likely" and the rest of the ID's that you are basing so much on-AKA 'multiples' - comprise of 3 other members who have 600 posts between them.

It is Human nature it seems on such forums for someone to say " looks like" and before you know, it becomes fact particularly when you have titled one of the threads "Rio Ucayali".

What to do-

No it is not an ideal situation we have here where it is almost in the importers best interest to label something as loosely as they do because a 'new' fish may receive negative reception from authorities.

But it is pure guess work to extend the argument to your conclusions and once again it more a case of smoke and mirrors than rock solid fact.

"Two wrongs don't make a right"

I have no concerns with you personally P44 as I believe we are in agreement on many points here and I wish someone could give us the ID we both are looking for.

But look at your title of this thread " ...whatever they are".

Or your comment in the last post-"looks exactly like".

Neither comment can converted to a "definitely is" situation

Says a lot doesn't it?

But while we discuss this look around and see that this is going to be a load of 'gobbly gook' to others in the thread, and that for many, no matter what the outcome of your research on how those fish turn out, the dye is cast already for many in terms of the name.

That is ultimately the point I am trying to convey.

[phoenix44]

The only reason the title of the thread says what ever they are is because I was acknowledging the fact that you do not think they are rio ...

I personally do think they are. I shudder to think what the reaction would be if i said I know these are rio... just as I can say I know the normal bn's are cirrhosus - but few would query that statement.

Thing is we get a lot of plecs that come in with other names. The big band tiger plecos (L288) are infact peckoltia species. I can't possibly get a fish and not ID it, or even come close to an ID.

what do you think these are?

I have no concerns with you personally P44

believe me, nor do I with you. I personally like your posts and think they are extremely insightful, so keep them coming. I have learnt a lot, and its good to know that someone else out there is passionate about plecos too.

[Rabbit]

Yes, that's exactly would you do!

Mate I wish as much as you do that we were better served by the importers of these fish but we aren't.

I'm not saying that it isn't a lovely fish.

I'm not saying that you shouldn't be passionate about them

I'm not saying you haven't the right to call a fish in your tank what ever you want.

What I am suggesting is that the way this particular fish has acquired this name

is based on whimsy, hope and wishful thinking with little or no adherence to any fact particularly in responsible scientific sense and this is, as I see it a bad president.

I accept that you feel otherwise but there we have to disagree.

Mate i neglect to see in any of your post a shrap of fact, if you would like to talk loricariidae with me please join me on a Loricariidae dedicated site and see how quickly an empty comment such as that will go.

www.plecoplanet.com

[firenzenz]

But this thread is here ??

[N1CK]

But this thread is here ??

I'm confused about that as well :lol:

I picked them up today found another 3 in the tank. bringing my total to 8 :bounce:

[Rabbit]

But this thread is here ??

In this case, as in many, we are still talking in the most part keen amateurs

If you feel so it only seems common sense you speak to those who may have the answer, more so the up-close experience's.

So tell me what you think this fish is? If it is not as i have a stated as you have seemingly implied in this comment

Brave call as I would tend to suspect that even those who came up with this ID are now questioning the merits of their methodolgy as they now watch a fish that was juvenile and they ID'd based on adult photo's off the net of a very specific fish grow to be something very quickly that make that ID at the very least questionable.

[firenzenz]

Mate

This isn't a 'He said, she said" scenario

I'm not looking to ID the fish further than has already been discussed.

I agree with the your cooment that "dedicated" pleco sites "MAY" help with an ID.

P44 has done this and that is cool.

The fish was imported has an Ancistrus species, it is sold in shop as "spotted Ancistrus".

I am questioning the process of looking to ID a fish as something very particular when only 'possibly' and "looks likely'

are the best answers that come from even those "dedicated" sites.

Clearly you have experience enough to feel your ID is 100% water tight and I respect that fact.

But, I Don't have to agree with you, nor do I feel the necessity to cover old ground because of that.

I'm bemused though by the suggestion that my opinion is less valid because I haven't visited certain sites.

You have already commented on "pretty peckoltia" on another thread.

What is your comment on that name given.

What about "Blue spot ancistrus"

What about "leopard frog pleco" that was imported here with no L#, but was given L#134 almost immediately because of that name.

This is Scarlet Pleco here

Would you call it L#25?

This came in as "Flathead Gold nugget"

Abnd this was imported as L128 blue phantom.

And these two as Ancistrus species

All the fish mentioned above have come through the same importer.

As you can see there are advantages for having such ambiguous criteria for importation.

Whether the true ID of these fish were ommited intentionally to get them in, or it was never known, or was part of marketing is up for conjecture, but they do serve as historical reference in that I believe we should be very careful here in NZ before rushing to positions such as yours.

Particularly when the best that can be offered is 'Looks Likely"

If someone is privy to information about the fish being discussed here that would cement their position further then that is great, and it would good to hear it.

Cheers!

[Adrienne]

I picked up another 4 today which now brings my total to 6 and I probably won't get any more due to tank space and the uncertainty as to how much they grow. Its interesting but mine don't look like P44's pic in that while they certainly have the spots they are much more blotchy. However, maybe this is due to different tank conditions.

While mine were being caught in the shop today I thought I saw some small bristles on the nose of one of the ones in the tank. Interestingly enough, the guy who was catching them for me mentioned that he thought he had seen some as well.

Also, some of my pretty peckoltias are very different in their markings at this stage.

[N1CK]

All of mine have some kind of bristles on their gum... The page on PC says that the Rio females get Bristles along them gum but not on the face... ill see if i can get a pic of it

[N1CK]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/29252334@N03/4277106187/sizes/o/(bigger pic if you want a better look)

your ones have more of an orange tinge to them...and mine have more spots only little though

[Adrienne]

All of mine have some kind of bristles on their gum... The page on PC says that the Rio females get Bristles along them gum but not on the face... ill see if i can get a pic of it

These were on the face so I am wondering how old they might be.