L Numbered Catfish

A

Anonymous

Guest
Anyone entering an aquarium shop of any repute will usually find some form of L numbered catfish. These fish are caught in the wild and have not yet been given scientific designation, thus in my logic the shops are selling cryptids.
I find this a bit disturbing, how many are left in the wild? If there are so few in the wild that science has not yet recognised them, shouldn't they be protected by CITEES or whatever its called. Also, how do we know that the last relic population of this species has not just been wiped out to provide someone with a fish-tank curio?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
On the other hand, the population might actually grow by controlled breeding. After all, if I'm selling mice, f.ex., I'm not going to just sell a few and stop if they're hot sellers; instead, I'll breed more in order to sell more. My question is why aren't they designated with a name yet? This seems like someone's asleep at the wheel, if they aren't even classified properly. Maybe you should "discover" them yourself, RD...fame awaits!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
This does sound odd. I think a lot of scientist love being the one to discover a new species. So it shouldn't take long before somebody finds the thing, untill it is recognised as a new species. But I don't think you can claim an animal as an endangered species untill it has been scientifically classified. So it is possible it there aren't many of them left, but that they can't legally do anything to stop them. But I would like a bit more info first.
 

mejane

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,370
Reaction score
50
Points
69
Um, sorry thick non fish-owner here: what does "L numbered catfish" mean?

Catfish are known to science, so are you just talking about individuals with different markings? If so, they're not a different species or sub-species and so obviously don't need a new classification. I do find it worrying that pet fish are still being caught from the wild though... why?

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A lot of them don't breed well in captivity.

I think he just means a new sub species. Like a Calico-fish.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
L#'s are suckermouth catfish of the family Loricariidae
. Although a lot of the the L#'s are not listed with true scientific names, there aer a lot of L#'s that do have true scientific names, eg, Hypancistrus zebra - Imperial Pleco, L046, L098, Zebra Pleco, Panaque nigrolineatus - Gold Line Royal Pleco, L027, L027b, L027c, Royal Pleco.

For more information upon L#'s I suggest a visit to http://www.planetcatfish.com . They there have a superb pictorial guide to many of the 'known' L#'s. Some of these fish can be very expensive with the average price for a 2-3" H. Zebra being between £50 - £60 !!!!!

BTW quite a few of the L#'s have been successfully bred in captivity ( including H. Zebra) but as already stated, most are wild caught specimens (hence the high price tags).
 

ogopogo3

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Oct 25, 2001
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
31
Points
69
TorgosPizza said:
On the other hand, the population might actually grow by controlled breeding. After all, if I'm selling mice, f.ex., I'm not going to just sell a few and stop if they're hot sellers; instead, I'll breed more in order to sell more. My question is why aren't they designated with a name yet? This seems like someone's asleep at the wheel, if they aren't even classified properly. Maybe you should "discover" them yourself, RD...fame awaits!

Actually, there are several species of aquarium fish that have never been bred in an aquarium setting. (The Glass Catfish for one.) So the new have to come from somewhere, i.e. probably its natural habitat.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Originally posted by Ogopogo
Actually, there are several species of aquarium fish that have never been bred in an aquarium setting.

Why not, Ogo? I'd think we could control the environment enough we could replicate a perfect breeding situation. Is this not the case with certain fish? If not, why not? I don't get it. Have they tried wooing the fish, or do they just stick them in a tank and hope they take a shine to one another?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mejane said:
I do find it worrying that pet fish are still being caught from the wild though... why?

Jane,
This is just the tip of the iceberg, well over 50% (I think) of marine fish sold in pet shops have been collected form the wild.
Breeding fish is not always that easy, some can be more infuriating than pandas. Also with fish such as L numbers you'd need a very big tank, and knowledge of how to sex them, plus most shops only ever seem to stock one of these due to the immense price. It's not worth starting a breeding project as for example panda catfish were first imported about 5 years ago and cost about £50 each, you can now get them for about £2.50. You'd have to breed one hell of a lot to get your £100 back.

Wild caught fish have more about them than artificially reared ones. There are gross instances of in-breeding to the stage where you only have to look at some fish and they'll go belly up. 20 years ago guppies were regarded as being hardier than goldfish, now through constant in-breeding to achieve certain colour strains they are considered very delicate to the point that you shouldn't put them in a new tank.
 

Bullseye

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 8, 2002
Messages
925
Reaction score
305
Points
99
Breeding fish

There are quite a few fish spieces that have become extinct in the wild ,due to pollution etc, the only ones living and breeding are in aquaria, there are hopes to reintroduce them to suitable habitats.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
TorgosPizza said:
Why not, Ogo? I'd think we could control the environment enough we could replicate a perfect breeding situation. Is this not the case with certain fish? If not, why not? I don't get it. Have they tried wooing the fish, or do they just stick them in a tank and hope they take a shine to one another?

The reason why is that nobody knows what exact conditions are needed to get the fish into a spawning condition. Once Biologists figure ut what is needed to create the perfect conditions, to breed previously unbred in captivity species, then the fish most likely will be captively bred and sold onto the shops at a much lower cost than wild caught fish.

The breeding of fish (with the exception of livebearers and other very easily bred species) is not a case of adding males & females & water. in fact a lot of fish do require specific water temperatures, pH values, specific water hardness, and other changes to spur them into spawning.
 

rynner2

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,158
Reaction score
9,206
Points
284
Red Dalek said:
It's not worth starting a breeding project as for example panda catfish were first imported about 5 years ago and cost about £50 each, you can now get them for about £2.50. You'd have to breed one hell of a lot to get your £100 back.

Tell that to Henry Ford and his followers! That's the whole point! In the words of some other entrepreneur, pile 'em high, sell 'em cheap!

(Oddly, as I type this, the News is on about fish stocks in the North Sea...)
 

mejane

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jan 17, 2002
Messages
1,370
Reaction score
50
Points
69
I had no idea that the world of aquarium fish was so complicated! Facinating stuff.

I thought that different species can't procreate (eg sparrow + pigeon = no chance); sub-species can procreate, but the resulting hybrid is usually sterile (eg horse + donkey = mule). So, are these weird and wonderful new catfish really new species? Or sub-species? Or has my vague knowledge of biology has let me down again. :confused:

But... Red Dalek, if I understand you correctly, you say that aquarium bred fish tend to be less viable (in Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest terms) which suggests that they are the same species deliberately inbred to promote certain "desirable" characteristics - the same way that dogs (for example) are too often bred to exacting "pedigree club" standards.

Hmm, I need to think about this some more.

Jane.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
mejane said:
But... Red Dalek, if I understand you correctly, you say that aquarium bred fish tend to be less viable (in Darwinian survival-of-the-fittest terms) which suggests that they are the same species deliberately inbred to promote certain "desirable" characteristics - the same way that dogs (for example) are too often bred to exacting "pedigree club" standards.
It's a bit more complicated than that. You also have the situation where Johnny goes down to the fish shop and buys a pair of fish x from the same tank, these most likely have the same parents. By luck or judgement these breed, Johnny has too many fish, so sells some of the young back to the shop. Dave comes along and buys a pair, these breed... I presume your getting the picture. Also because the fish come from an environment in what in our terms would be like an oxygen bubble, when placed in a new tank they are suddenly exposed to lots of different microboses etc, that they have no immunity to either from their original enviroment or passed on from the parents.
Thus, certain breeders prefer wild caught specimens.
 
Top