Whats My Plec?

[Jonathangerous]

compare this fish:
http/www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/image.php?species=hypancistrus+sp%28l066%29&image_id=2158

with this:
http/www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/image.php?species=hypancistrus+sp%28l333%29&image_id=3774

the angle between the lobes of the caudal are not apparently different (although prone to plasticity, because of the mobility of the fins). The only thing that differentiates the caudal fins is that the lobes in the L-66 are elongated, because, as I stated, it is a longer, more streamlined fish. L-66 does not have a "less forked" tail. It would be misleading to say that.

 

[JenCliBee]

compare this fish:
http/www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/image.php?species=hypancistrus+sp%28l066%29&image_id=2158

with this:
http/www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/image.php?species=hypancistrus+sp%28l333%29&image_id=3774

the angle between the lobes of the caudal are not apparently different (although prone to plasticity, because of the mobility of the fins). The only thing that differentiates the caudal fins is that the lobes in the L-66 are elongated, because, as I stated, it is a longer, more streamlined fish. L-66 does not have a "less forked" tail. It would be misleading to say that.

So basically you have disagreed and then agreed that the tail type is different due to the shape of the fish?, well maybe not the best way of me actually describing but in all honesty what i described isn't all that different to your slightly better description. So in all sense of the meaning and what i originally put the tail on the 66 is more fork liked, yes?. Giving a distinct difference of appearance to the 333.

like i said there shape and length of a fish isn't 'always' the best way to distinguish with every individual fish, to actually say that isn't valid when you have a fish which is very similar in so many other ways and the disguising factors would not only be the shape of every fish but infact tail shape aswell like ive mentioned through the whole of this thread.

Plumpness due to proper feeding and stockiness and sheer girth are different matters entirely.

So this would detwermine shape and form of the fish itself. if, For instance if i had a very over weight 66 which made it look like a 333 body shape ie thivker, stubbier etc. By your reckoning it would make it 333 simpley becasue it was similar shaped.

 

[architempest]

Thanks for all the posts guys - didn't mean it to turn into a heated arguement!!!!!!

Despite cleanign out my tank, he/she is beign shy and i can't get a decent enough pic of it. i will keep trying and when i suceed i will post a better pic. looking at its tail it seems to be more of the shape of the first pic of FishyJake13, with the bottom part of the tail signifcantly longer than the top part.

like i said i will keep trying to take photos, but many thanks so far.

arch

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

its a Prettystomus plecostomus (L-1trillion)


Pink.

 

[Jonathangerous]

So basically you have disagreed and then agreed that the tail type is different due to the shape of the fish?

I did nothing of the sort. I said L-66 has a more elongated tail structure, which is true. You said that L-333 has a shallow fork in its tail, which, imo, is untrue. Saying that the two have different shaped caudals and that one has a more forked (read as, a narrow incident angle) are two different things. We're on completely different pages, only your page is incorrect.


"like i said there shape and length of a fish isn't 'always' the best way to distinguish with every individual fish, to actually say that isn't valid when you have a fish which is very similar in so many other ways and the disguising factors would not only be the shape of every fish but infact tail shape aswell like ive mentioned through the whole of this thread."

...what?


"So this would detwermine shape and form of the fish itself. if, For instance if i had a very over weight 66 which made it look like a 333 body shape ie thivker, stubbier etc. By your reckoning it would make it 333 simpley becasue it was similar shaped."

No because the midsection would be thicker, perhaps, but the caudal peduncle, the porportion of the head to body, the slope and breadth of the head, would all remain unchanged.

 

[JenCliBee]

So basically you have disagreed and then agreed that the tail type is different due to the shape of the fish?
I did nothing of the sort. Saying that the two have different shaped caudals and that one has a more forked (read as, a narrow incident angle) are two different things. We're on completely different pages, only your page is incorrect.

my point exactly as to an earlier post made, you have to make every post so that you are correct, stating that im incorrect just proves what i said earlier ... you have to disgree with literally every post/thread made lol.

Either way weather you think it's this way or not, my answers came from many many sources from PC and PF from many many members (not just my own experiences like you always seem to) that have stated that tail shape would be the determine factor if nothing else is there to distinguish.
Your answer was basically .... your write and i and what i read from many more experienced people than you .... is wrong .

Sorry but you can throw all your fancy pronunciations and meanings as much as you want but i would tend to go with the much more experienced keeper and there personal experiences than something you've either read to be gospel from books or the internet which are often quite wrong (within reason).

Again!! and you do this not only on this forum but virtually everyone your apart of and try and contradict every possible, feasible answer and make it as though your correct and literally everybody else is wrong.

The thing that gets me with you is you seem to think you know more than anybody else about pretty much every fish subject when fish are involved, and if you want to challenge this, look back at alot of your previous posts not here but other forums aswell.

I remember a particular scientific post within this forum where you were proved so so many times wrong but yet argued for yet another 3+ pages, trying to tell an 'actual' scientist that he was wrong lol. What have i brought this up i hear you say?. Simply just to show that you will never give up and admit anything weather your wrong or not

Anyways ill stick to what ive previously said and go with it been a 333, from that picture. Colour, shape and lack of forked tail.

Look forward to more pics arch, really does look like a beautiful plec

its a Prettystomus plecostomus (L-1trillion)


Pink.

Could be a new name for a 333 lol

 

[architempest]

This guy is a tad shy and doesn't like his piccy being taken, as every time i get the camera out he legs it and hides. Nem mind here is the latest pic - its still not the best and im still working on hetting better shots but i think its better that the original.

arch

 

[Jonathangerous]

stating that im incorrect just proves what i said earlier ... you have to disgree with literally every post/thread made lol.
No, all it means is that you're wrong. Again, I can only say, as I've said before, that this is exclusively my opinion, and not necessarily fact, but when you sound so much like a tool, I find it irresistible not to tussle with you a bit.


Either way weather you think it's this way or not, my answers came from many many sources from PC and PF from many many members (not just my own experiences like you always seem to)
So you're saying completely reused and regurgitated information trumps having extended, direct experience? That makes it sound as though you are incapable of thinking for yourself. To be fair, I am in relatively frequent contact with many big names in the loricariid hobby, including Seidel, Ekstrom, Schraml (though not as frequently). Do these count as "more qualified"?

In my experience on the internet, I have frequently encountered what I'll call "fishjake syndrome", in which individuals ignorant on a matter will essentially perpetuate incorrect information by peddling it to their equally unobservant friends. Eventually, you accrue enough critical mass that it sounds as though you've got real knowledge going for you when in fact you've got nothing at all. This is what I believe happened in the case where you stated that pretty much everyone else on the internet agrees with you, or so you say.


i would tend to go with the much more experienced keeper and there personal experiences
...which is what I am and what I have, relative to you, at least from what I can perceive.


than something you've either read to be gospel from books or the internet which are often quite wrong (within reason).
...which is what YOU just did. You made discrediting yourself sound so easy.


I remember a particular scientific post within this forum where you were proved so so many times wrong but yet argued for yet another 3+ pages, trying to tell an 'actual' scientist that he was wrong lol.
Heh. What do you know about real science? With what was posted here, I'm pretty sure the answer to that is "nothing". Granted, I have made my peace with whatever mod I had disagreed with previously. I can admit when I am completely wrong, and I have done so numerous times, so if you soundly prove me incorrect, then I can take it like a man. If not, then at least TRY and fortify your claims with something more than "that's what a bunch of guys on the internet told me" (with me fully grasping the irony of the situation).

"The thing that gets me with you is you seem to think you know more than anybody else about pretty much every fish subject when fish are involved."
Oh, not at all. I fully understand that I have much to learn from and am inferior in experience to many, countless hobbyists. You're just not one of them. Not by a longshot.

Anyways ill stick to what ive previously said and go with it been a 333, from that picture. Colour, shape and lack of forked tail.
If you'll see on the more recent post, the fish actually has a more extended and filamentous caudal. I wouldn't necessarily call it L-66 for sure, but that is a more likely candidate than 333, again, imo.

 

[JenCliBee]

Your so so easy to wind up it's actually entertaining to watch lol.

Infact i never said your were wrong, infact i never said I was correct either, if you read from the start i said from my experiecne and from very many experienced keepers lol. You have stated or implied i have no experience because i take my info from other experienced fish keepers lol.... infact that means that i don't just take what I say as gospel and throw it down somebodies throat i listen and take note from others too.

I couldn't really careless what you think my experience with keeping fish or plecs is but ill tell you this ive been keeping fish for as nearly as long as you have been on this earth, yet i still go and see and then 'regurgitate' what other much more experienced keepers have to say and ultimately there experiences.

I'm afraid im not like you in regards to what YOU say and WHAT thoughts you have are ultimately correct and no one else is.

Your reply basically just runs straight into what i actually think about you and that you have written about me is way to close to the way you come across and approach other peoples replies to threads.

Anyways your not really worth the time and effort to argue with and are actually a little simple minded in your replies, try and make friends instead of enemies becasue it seems to me you do that a hell of a lot with every forum your involved in.

By the way the picture even though it still isn't the best shows what i would say as been a 66, the tail been deeply forked from what i see and the more slender type body all point to that, see im not opposed to saying im wrong, just not when someone tries to bully with technical terms as you very often do.

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

come on now ladies, this is a friendly forum, not a subtle argument!
have we decided what the fish is??



Pink.

 

[Jonathangerous]

EDIT: If you could provide better pictures, that would be helpful, as it stands, it's not L-333, and most likely L-66. The dorsal also looks like it's been disfigured. Is that true, or is the angle of the shot messing up my perception?


to the other guy--I may or may not be wound up, but do recall, that all I said was that I disagreed with you and you went off on a tangential rant. Hypocrisy is not a good color on you.

There's a difference between taking knowledge for what it's worth, and analyzing purported knowledge for yourself. You don't do the latter, as evidence by the fact that, when I provide you with some semblance of evidence concurring with my argument, the only real retort you have is "that's not what _____ says". Let that sink in. Also, having kept fish for however long you claim to have, and yet still buying into an incorrect notion (again, in my opinion) would make you even more ignorant than you already have put forth, so I'm not sure why you would bring that up, but hey. Whatever you want to do.


it seems to me you do that a hell of a lot with every forum your involved in.

I'm okay with that, especially with that coming from you, mainly because I don't care about my "e-rep" or whatever that entails, since everything I do online is for personal entertainment.

Anyways, I just post what I believe is correct information. This is a process that works for me, as it tends to weed out the crazies. Posters who really want to understand the hobby respond with a logical argument of their own (not; "that's not what these guys said"). If you want to take a decoupling of opinions as a personal attack, that's not my problem.

Oh, and by the way, remember, before calling me a bully, consider exactly the course of events; 1) I disagreed with you 2)you basically called me less experienced and preposterous (and those are pretty much word for word renditions). I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so self-unaware.

 

[JenCliBee]

EDIT: If you could provide better pictures, that would be helpful, as it stands, it's not L-333, and most likely L-66. The dorsal also looks like it's been disfigured. Is that true, or is the angle of the shot messing up my perception?

At last something we agree on.

to the other guy--I may or may not be wound up, but do recall, that all I said was that I disagreed with you and you went off on a tangential rant. Hypocrisy is not a good color on you.

No what you did was not just disagree but in your first post within this thread insisted i was wrong and that my way of IDing was in no way correct in anyways shape or form. That was not disagreeing but blatantly telling me i was wrong.

There's a difference between taking knowledge for what it's worth, and analyzing purported knowledge for yourself. You don't do the latter, as evidence by the fact that, when I provide you with some semblance of evidence concurring with my argument, the only real retort you have is "that's not what _____ says". Let that sink in. Also, having kept fish for however long you claim to have, and yet still buying into an incorrect notion (again, in my opinion) would make you even more ignorant than you already have put forth, so I'm not sure why you would bring that up, but hey. Whatever you want to do.


it seems to me you do that a hell of a lot with every forum your involved in.

I'm okay with that, especially with that coming from you, mainly because I don't care about my "e-rep" or whatever that entails, since everything I do online is for personal entertainment.

Anyways, I just post what I believe is correct information. This is a process that works for me, as it tends to weed out the crazies. Posters who really want to understand the hobby respond with a logical argument of their own (not; "that's not what these guys said"). If you want to take a decoupling of opinions as a personal attack, that's not my problem.

Oh, and by the way, remember, before calling me a bully, consider exactly the course of events; 1) I disagreed with you 2)you basically called me less experienced and preposterous (and those are pretty much word for word renditions). I didn't think it was possible for someone to be so self-unaware.

right seems that im only using this forum to actually reply to this one thread so this will be last from me on the subject.

What ive realized throughout the whole of this thread is you seemed to be making the assumptions, the way you have ID'ed the fish and dismissed my way is on personal experience and by your own opinions (you have said this literally throughout), now if this is the case you were wrong to make the first post you made within this thread and assume my way was wrong if you stand by what you say this is only your opinion.

I'm amazed at you dismissing it tbh beens there has and is alot of experienced keepers that use this method and will stand by it whole heatedly.... few examples....

A thread from pf which you yourself posted on and if you felt so strongly about it not been a correct way of ID'ing why didn't you make it known just like you have within this thread?, is it maybe because you didn't want to be told you were wrong with so many 'experienced' plec keepers commenting and you thought you would so adamantly here because you new there wouldn't be that many out and out plec keepers to try and disprove your notion or know weather info was correct or not?.........

PF.. LINK

A moderator on Planet catfish .... 3rd post down i think... also agrees to my notions on ID, im assuming if he is a moderator on probably the biggest catfish and plec information forum around then he would probably know his stuff.

PC... LINK

A quote from another very experienced plec keeper and a breeder that has pretty much bred anything that is possible....

L66 have a very C forked tail where as the L33 just have a curved tail fin I will try had get some pictures of both of my adult 333 / 66 tails to show the difference although the L333 are stubbier they are no means smaller my L333 Alpha male is a total monster of a hypan a comparable overall size to my biggest L66 male

I could go on all day long and post threads with other 'well respected' forum and plec keepers commenting on tail shape etc etc but what would be the point, you will just say i or they don't know anything still.

Some pics for you.....

66

333

66

333

66

333

Sorry forgot to mention, pictures are courtesy of Planet catfish

Again i could post pics all day long but i feel i don't have to ..... or are all these 333's tails frayed aswell?

Seems to me that not only from the threads and comments ive posted that im not so wrong in IDing these fish this way but clearly by the photo's it's a very plausible way of doing so.

Anyways like i said enough from me because quite frankly im bored and bored of your silly little idea of trying to disprove something that you yourself said it's just your opinion.... for you to say that makes your claim in the first place that im wrong unfounded and your continuing to argue pointless.

 

[loraxchick]

while i dont know much about plecs themselves from the "pointers" given (on both sieds of this debate) on what to look for (caudal/dorsal charactersitics), i have to agree with fishyjake on this one. ive IDed fish for a living for a while (river samples in estuaries on the Hudson River in NY..sunfish can be a beast to ID when young, but there are certain "giveaways")...

the dorsal notch is not close enough on th OPs pic (even tho its not the best you can see it) to be a 66. 66 is practically non-existent (ie practically no space between the main dorsal fin and the "little" one behind it-without being to technical) from the photos provided by fishyjake from planet catfish. they also have differently shaped dorsal fins (even if slight, but it is consistant between both species.
and even tho there is variation on the caudal notch (the "fork" in question) in the photos, even among the same species, it is not forked enough for 66.
of course a better photo would be of much help, but from what i can tell, 333.
just my two cents and a humble third-party observation. not looking to get in the middle of it.
cheers!

 

[Jonathangerous]

As far as those pictures go, you're only proving my point. Tail forkage appearances are entirely based on the degree of extension of the fin (note how janne's L-66 pic on the top has no fork at all, but a rounded edge, which is because the caudal is fully flared and by comparison is not nearly as forked as the 4th pic of the L-333) a largely unproductive measure of I.D. Plus, that second pic is of L-401, not 333, so that particular piece of data is irrelevant. If you take away the length of the tail filaments and examine only the incident angle of the "fork", when fully extended, it's not a highly correlative measure.

Disagreeing is the holding of the opinion that the opposition's belief is incorrect. Yeah, I said you were wrong, because I thought you were wrong, which means I was disagreeing with you. How is this a difficult concept to grasp. As far as assumptions go, that's pretty much all you've been doing in this thread, so you've really got no logical ground to make that argument.

As for my lack of a response on the thread, not that it's any of your business, but it's probably because I didn't care enough to point it out, and frankly, probably because I like Jo, Windy, and matt a whole lot better than I do you. But, per your request, I did just post in the aforementioned thread, just for kicks.

Again, I'm not saying my opinion might not be up for counterarguments or even just straight up wrong, but my problem with you is you literally have no personal analytical ability. Hell, you even presented pictures that are counterproductive to your point. What you do have is the unique ability to take someone else's words and preach them as your own, as though you were an authority on the matter (again, I fully grasp the irony). If you're going to attempt this, you should at least survey the issue yourself, because, like I said, all the supposed "proof" you've given me is basically a bunch of pictures that show caudals at different degrees of opening, which make them incomparable, plus a link that has no context in this argument. Wow. Really?



"A moderator on Planet catfish .... 3rd post down i think... also agrees to my notions on ID, im assuming if he is a moderator on probably the biggest catfish and plec information forum around then he would probably know his stuff."

The thread that you linked me to was IDing L-401, so it's not applicable. Also, I'm on pretty good terms with Matts, but I'd have to disagree with him, here. L-333 clearly have forked tails, as seen above.

and for future reference, that last pic has the lobes of the caudal compounded on one another, so it looks like a continuous fin, but what it actually is is this:

http/img.photobucket.com/albums/v398/Kleevage/fishyjakeiswrong.jpg


right seems that im only using this forum to actually reply to this one thread so this will be last from me on the subject.
Thank god. Sweet, sweet victory.


just my two cents and a humble third-party observation. not looking to get in the middle of it.
cheers!


Don't worry about it. If you disagree with my evaluation, which you seem to, that's fine, and feel free to say it. It was the fact that the aforementioned poster basically whined and ranted that I thought he was incorrect that led us down this path.

 

[Jonathangerous]

Incidentally, and perhaps humorously, I had found that L-401 does tend to have a reasonable shallow caudal indentation.