TwoTankAmin
Fish Maniac
I began downsizing my tanks for a few years now. Most of what I no longer have are my Hypancistrus pleco breeding groups and their related grow tanks. However, I kept one breeding group. I originally acquired this 10 fish group Oct. 8, 2015 almost all were at or close to a spawnable age/size. These are a pretty slow growing species so I assume they were close to 1 being 5 years old when I got them. So, I have to believe they are at least 15 years old now. I also have two grow tanks with their offspring. I have been reluctant to sell the one growing out until I knew thet I either had another spawn or concluded they were done spawning. The last spawn from them was about a year ago.
I was getting ready to do maint. and a WC on the breeding tank. I normally do a cave check on breeding tanks before I start this work. I have had males intwo caves recently but no sign of spawning, until today. I am overjoyed to report I have babies in one cave. The male is pretty big and quite adept at hiding the kids from view. But I finally managed to see around him and to confrim fry. I did not get enough of a look to know how much of their youk sac remained, It looked like thy e are close to free swimming but O could not see clearly enough to confirm this.
The breeders are wild caught fish and used tobe one of the only such groups in the country. There were other groups which were tank born and I had some of their offspring as the fpundation for a second group. The species is not yet identified and are the L173. When I talked with Hans-Georg Evers at a CatCon weekend at least 8 or 9 years ago we discussed this fish and L236. I said my feeling was thet 236 would not become an identified species but that 173 was likely to become one. To my surprise, Hans agreed with this opinion.
It turned out we were both partially wrong about the L236. In the past year it was identified as a variant of what is now known as Hypancistrus sedeli. This species is comprised of the following variants which had been classified as L numbers: 66, 236, 287, 333, 399 and 400. All of these L numbers are considered to be the same species. So 236 was not identified as a single unique species but as one of 5 variants of the now identified H. seideli (named after Ingo Sidel. The published paper on this as well as Hypancistrus yudja, new species. The paper can be found here:
https://www.scielo.br/j/ni/a/VVCvG6vydwJXhgQ5z3gYpJb/?lang=en
What I can report is what caused me to feel 236 would be identified as a unique species and that 173 would be so was was two factors. One was the patterning of the two fish. 236 was highly varied and 173 had a lot of similarity in appearance. More important to me was that all of the 173 I saw all had gold eyes while the 236 I worked with had mostly gold eyes but about 20% of them did not.
Ay any rate i have been doing the happy fish dance today and am very happy for my Xmas present in that cave.
I was getting ready to do maint. and a WC on the breeding tank. I normally do a cave check on breeding tanks before I start this work. I have had males intwo caves recently but no sign of spawning, until today. I am overjoyed to report I have babies in one cave. The male is pretty big and quite adept at hiding the kids from view. But I finally managed to see around him and to confrim fry. I did not get enough of a look to know how much of their youk sac remained, It looked like thy e are close to free swimming but O could not see clearly enough to confirm this.
The breeders are wild caught fish and used tobe one of the only such groups in the country. There were other groups which were tank born and I had some of their offspring as the fpundation for a second group. The species is not yet identified and are the L173. When I talked with Hans-Georg Evers at a CatCon weekend at least 8 or 9 years ago we discussed this fish and L236. I said my feeling was thet 236 would not become an identified species but that 173 was likely to become one. To my surprise, Hans agreed with this opinion.
It turned out we were both partially wrong about the L236. In the past year it was identified as a variant of what is now known as Hypancistrus sedeli. This species is comprised of the following variants which had been classified as L numbers: 66, 236, 287, 333, 399 and 400. All of these L numbers are considered to be the same species. So 236 was not identified as a single unique species but as one of 5 variants of the now identified H. seideli (named after Ingo Sidel. The published paper on this as well as Hypancistrus yudja, new species. The paper can be found here:
https://www.scielo.br/j/ni/a/VVCvG6vydwJXhgQ5z3gYpJb/?lang=en
What I can report is what caused me to feel 236 would be identified as a unique species and that 173 would be so was was two factors. One was the patterning of the two fish. 236 was highly varied and 173 had a lot of similarity in appearance. More important to me was that all of the 173 I saw all had gold eyes while the 236 I worked with had mostly gold eyes but about 20% of them did not.
Ay any rate i have been doing the happy fish dance today and am very happy for my Xmas present in that cave.
= 
+
