L191'S

[JenCliBee]

250mm (9.8") according to Planet catfish , probs a bit smaller.

The larger one which i have is similar gets to 340mm (13.4") which is a 190

I mentioned above PC's sizes are estimates of SL, for total length (TL) with such big fish would add 2- maybe 3 inch of tail which infact is pretty much the size ive said all through the thread.

Just to clarify aswell PC is very outdated in respect of up to date info so size etc can be different to what it actually does state, i also think PC works on an average of that plec not the actual POTENTIAL size or reported size it could or has reached.

 

[Nick16]

why is tail length necessary? the tail does not affect stocking as it does not produce waste.

the 'run of the mill' plecs are not all the same, they are massivley varying. This is what i mean about people saying its just a 'common plec'.

so what if one or two fish have been known to get to a strange length, i put that down to poor interbreeding or a rogue chromosome. That is common in humans. Im still sticking by the 10 inch answer. If planet catfish is so badly wrong, why do hundreds of plec lovers/collectors and hobbyists use it? if it was wrong to the tune of 6 inches, do you not think it would have been corrected buy the thousands of people that keep these 16 inch mosters? you welcome to send them an email.

 

[loraxchick]

i cant believe you guys are still going on about this...its down to conditions and GENETICS. hence the variation. simple as that. (also explains why humans are not all the same size..even from 100 years ago we are on the whole a much taller bunch these days...down to better diet, medicine and GENETICS!).
i just feel sorry to the OP for not getting a suitable answer...just an argument trying to prove the other wrong.
sorry i cant tell you how big they get..i dont keep plecs. but know plenty about biology.
cheers

 

[JenCliBee]

why is tail length necessary? the tail does not affect stocking as it does not produce waste.

the 'run of the mill' plecs are not all the same, they are massivley varying. This is what i mean about people saying its just a 'common plec'.

so what if one or two fish have been known to get to a strange length, i put that down to poor interbreeding or a rogue chromosome. That is common in humans. Im still sticking by the 10 inch answer. If planet catfish is so badly wrong, why do hundreds of plec lovers/collectors and hobbyists use it? if it was wrong to the tune of 6 inches, do you not think it would have been corrected buy the thousands of people that keep these 16 inch mosters? you welcome to send them an email.

You really are out to just argue ain't you, you've asked questions, ive answered them and your still trying to disprove lol, the fact that 3 inches of tail matters is nothing to do with bio load where you got that from i don't know lol, 3 inches would count for tank suitability. The OP asked how large the fish got, nothing to do with bio load, nothing to do with fish size minus the tail lol. You trying to start 1 argument after another.
You go by the 10 inch fish if you like, keep it to your self lol, your not correct and your not even correct by PC measurements. As said the fish size isn't given with a tail measurement, add 3 inches onto the size PC gives and what do you have nearly 13 inches of fish, isn't that pretty much what i said lol, you said 8-10 inches, yes?. So your continuing to argue based on a website your stating is BANG ON correct and yet your measurement are still wrong accordingly???..... trust me alot of info isn't quite right on PC, believe it or not is completely your choice but it's fact lol, do you think i make things up to make myself correct?, i answer questions i know and give factual answers, if im unsure i make it clear im unsure. You basically make statement to the extreme as though your right and everyone else is wrong. As i said you can have an opinion, but that's all it is and opinion becasue your arguing about something you clearly know nothing about.

You know what makes me laugh, you said that it's unlikely for the OP to have the L191 and stated that it was probably a 27 yes?, well what were your fish?.... im thinking by your comment 27's and in the fact of all this your fish should reach a size of at least 14/15 inches.

i cant believe you guys are still going on about this...its down to conditions and GENETICS. hence the variation. simple as that. (also explains why humans are not all the same size..even from 100 years ago we are on the whole a much taller bunch these days...down to better diet, medicine and GENETICS!).
i just feel sorry to the OP for not getting a suitable answer...just an argument trying to prove the other wrong.
sorry i cant tell you how big they get..i dont keep plecs. but know plenty about biology.
cheers

Nope not at all, if you read, i was asked questions which i tried to answer, i never argued just replied back to what was asked. Was there any need for you post?, you said you know nothing about the size but yet you made a reply regarding something that didn't concern you. In fact by getting involved haven't you just made things even worse?, now im having to write this to you which for me was very unnecessary beens it really had nothing to do with the thread whatsoever.

 

[Jonathangerous]

"this species of panaque grows to about 10 inches mate. It is quite unlikely you will find this very species but some LFS's do import some random things. It is more likely you will come accross the L27."

For someone so combative, at the very least you should give out correct information. L-191 "morphs" of what may or may not be p. nigrolineatus can hit well over 14". There is no exact upper limit here because data on these larger fish are deficient and come mostly from hobbyist imports. I have personally seen dark, unidentified fish at 14", reputed to be 191. Either way, while it is true that 191 do not appear in the hobby with any consistency as large fish, to unequivocally say that these fish max out at ten inches when fish of the same line can hit twice that is irresponsible--far moreso than ballparking it.

Here's the big shocker: PC's databases for lengths come from exclusively documented sources (this is an arbitrary phrase, though). They try to make it as scientific as possible, but a lot of the information is just anecdotal. Because the L's are not described species, and because science does not strive to look for "upper limits of growth in particular loricariidae species", the numbers on the site are just hobbyist measured figures. Taking their profile's words for fact is not a good thing. I love the site and I contribute regularly, but that's just a fact of life.

 

[loraxchick]

why is tail length necessary? the tail does not affect stocking as it does not produce waste.

the 'run of the mill' plecs are not all the same, they are massivley varying. This is what i mean about people saying its just a 'common plec'.

so what if one or two fish have been known to get to a strange length, i put that down to poor interbreeding or a rogue chromosome. That is common in humans. Im still sticking by the 10 inch answer. If planet catfish is so badly wrong, why do hundreds of plec lovers/collectors and hobbyists use it? if it was wrong to the tune of 6 inches, do you not think it would have been corrected buy the thousands of people that keep these 16 inch mosters? you welcome to send them an email.

You really are out to just argue ain't you, you've asked questions, ive answered them and your still trying to disprove lol, the fact that 3 inches of tail matters is nothing to do with bio load where you got that from i don't know lol, 3 inches would count for tank suitability. The OP asked how large the fish got, nothing to do with bio load, nothing to do with fish size minus the tail lol. You trying to start 1 argument after another.
You go by the 10 inch fish if you like, keep it to your self lol, your not correct and your not even correct by PC measurements. As said the fish size isn't given with a tail measurement, add 3 inches onto the size PC gives and what do you have nearly 13 inches of fish, isn't that pretty much what i said lol, you said 8-10 inches, yes?. So your continuing to argue based on a website your stating is BANG ON correct and yet your measurement are still wrong accordingly???..... trust me alot of info isn't quite right on PC, believe it or not is completely your choice but it's fact lol, do you think i make things up to make myself correct?, i answer questions i know and give factual answers, if im unsure i make it clear im unsure. You basically make statement to the extreme as though your right and everyone else is wrong. As i said you can have an opinion, but that's all it is and opinion becasue your arguing about something you clearly know nothing about.

You know what makes me laugh, you said that it's unlikely for the OP to have the L191 and stated that it was probably a 27 yes?, well what were your fish?.... im thinking by your comment 27's and in the fact of all this your fish should reach a size of at least 14/15 inches.

i cant believe you guys are still going on about this...its down to conditions and GENETICS. hence the variation. simple as that. (also explains why humans are not all the same size..even from 100 years ago we are on the whole a much taller bunch these days...down to better diet, medicine and GENETICS!).
i just feel sorry to the OP for not getting a suitable answer...just an argument trying to prove the other wrong.
sorry i cant tell you how big they get..i dont keep plecs. but know plenty about biology.
cheers

Nope not at all, if you read, i was asked questions which i tried to answer, i never argued just replied back to what was asked. Was there any need for you post?, you said you know nothing about the size but yet you made a reply regarding something that didn't concern you. In fact by getting involved haven't you just made things even worse?, now im having to write this to you which for me was very unnecessary beens it really had nothing to do with the thread whatsoever.

i did not like the confrontational side that the thread has brought out. there is truly NO need. if I were the OP, i would not even bother to LOOK for the correct info in this thread as it has been taken over by banter which no one is winning (although i assume you think you are). there is no need for rudeness. be tactful folks. and my was in no way intended to be an attack against you or anyone else, simply a reminder to be polite. i was interested in the post, read it. and did not like the "tone" so i chimed in. i also included a VALID statement that may reassure the OP of why there is so much variation in the size.so yes, it was worth posting.
too much of this nonsense around here recently and i dont think the MODS should tolerate it to the extent that they are. and there is a fine line between debate and argument- i think you've crossed that line unfortunately, and by quoting my reply in the manor in which you have, i think that speaks for itself. im sorry youve got all this pent up frustration. that is clear. just dont "take it out" here.
perhaps i should not have replied, or even RE-replied, but seriously im sorry you feel ive wasted you time..im sure the OP feels the same way about many of the rambling answers provided in the thread. and truly, im sorry to have been a part of the "time wasting".
cheers

 

[Big_eyes]

WOW! I really pushed a snowball over the top of the hill here eh!

 

[Nick16]

mmm i think so. i guess this is the reality of fishkeeping, everyone has had different experiances of each fish. i guess thats what sparks deep debates in the scientific section. Its the same for plants.

 

[JenCliBee]

i did not like the confrontational side that the thread has brought out. there is truly NO need. if I were the OP, i would not even bother to LOOK for the correct info in this thread as it has been taken over by banter which no one is winning (although i assume you think you are). there is no need for rudeness. be tactful folks. and my was in no way intended to be an attack against you or anyone else, simply a reminder to be polite. i was interested in the post, read it. and did not like the "tone" so i chimed in. i also included a VALID statement that may reassure the OP of why there is so much variation in the size.so yes, it was worth posting.
too much of this nonsense around here recently and i dont think the MODS should tolerate it to the extent that they are. and there is a fine line between debate and argument- i think you've crossed that line unfortunately, and by quoting my reply in the manor in which you have, i think that speaks for itself. im sorry youve got all this pent up frustration. that is clear. just dont "take it out" here.
perhaps i should not have replied, or even RE-replied, but seriously im sorry you feel ive wasted you time..im sure the OP feels the same way about many of the rambling answers provided in the thread. and truly, im sorry to have been a part of the "time wasting".
cheers

Your are quite right in the fact that there are so many people that get involved with threads and argue for no apparent reason, you may not think so but you have been the biggest contributor so far.

The facts of what the OP asked was for correct advice, yes?... well i gave that to the best of my knowledge and then somebody came along and gave not only wrong advice but continued to argue about the whole thing. He then persisted in asking nonsense questions to try and prove himself correct. Was that me that done that?, was it me that got all pent up over been told they weren't quite correct?.. basically no. This forum is about trying to give correct advice yes?, well if the correct advice isn't actually correct shouldn't somebody step up and make the OP know the advice he is been given is wrong. By what your saying i should have just left it at been told im wrong, let the OP think that a fish he brought could get potentially smaller than it really does maybe resulting into later problems with tank suitability.

This is why the forum is going down hill, people like nick16, constantly bickering with bad advice, trying to be clever on something he clearly knows nothing about and then YOU having a go at somebody that initially was trying to give the best advice possible to aid the fish living within the best conditions as possible.

You have to admire how somebody that can come into a thread weather or not you think you did or not but attack members for discussing/arguing or debating when in fact what they have done out weighs anything that has happened within the post up to that point.

OP sorry about the way your thread went, i think ill start refraining from helping people in future if when i help i get slated for trying to give advice i feel and know to be correct and then pull somebody up for clearly giving wrong advice.

Good luck with the plec anyways, stunning fish

Ill leave you in the obvious capable hands of nick and loraxchick

 

[Big_eyes]

I am very grateful for all involved's help though! Just to be sure is the pic I posted actually an L191?

 

[Nick16]

whats wrong with a friendly debate/argument? it just aids the understanding of the hobby. the fact that me and jake didnt resort to frankly inappropiate words for a family forum is very good indeed. (unlike one post in this forum, that i recommend gets edited, children read this forum mate) As said both keepers have had different experiances, that doesnt make each other wrong. im not even going to get started on bad mouthing me on the forum. why do it? fair enough haveing a good argument, but blantantly bad mouthing, come on, below the belt.

i have to laugh though, it gets all blamed on me
im the one thats bringing this forum down, not the strage banning of some incredibly knowledgable people leaving a lack of help for the new comers....

anyway, let this one rest.

we will call this 1-1 jake

regards,

 

[hihi100202]

what exactly does potential size mean? is that in relation to limiting factors? you seem to reel these words off without much explantion. and i didnt claim to be experianced but personal experiance with the fish is better than none at all, we can all agree on that.

Potential means exactly what it says, potential for the fish depends on the particular fish. As ive said some will get to much larger than whatever the next persons has hence the no definitive answer and the vagueness of either my reply or goggles reply.Not sure what you mean .... is that in relation to limiting factors? .... fish of any sort shouldn't be purchased if they can not be accommodated correctly, there would be o limiting factors involved.Commons would be a good example to why it can be so vague, some have reached 24 inches plus, other struggle to reach 15 inches, how would you try and describe that in the sense of your reasoning?

here is the meaning for potential

Main Entry: 1po·ten·tial
Pronunciation: \pə-ˈten(t)-shəl\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English potencial, from Late Latin potentialis, from potentia potentiality, from Latin, power, from potent-, potens
Date: 14th century
1 : existing in possibility : capable of development into actuality <potential benefits>
2 : expressing possibility; specifically : of, relating to, or constituting a verb phrase expressing possibility, liberty, or power by the use of an auxiliary with the infinitive of the verb (as in “it may rain”)

 

[loraxchick]

i wont ruin the thread anymore than to say-
sorry OP...hope you found what you were asking about. i know i didnt see a conclusive answer
oh well...that plec is NICE btw.
cheers

knuckelheds will rule the world i suppose