Welcome to the Loaches Online Forum Archives, full of historical information on loaches and other freshwater tropical aquarium fish from 1998 to 2005. You may want to use the Search Engine to find what you're looking for, or browse the other archives: (Archive 1) (Archive 2) (Archive 3) (Archive 4) (Archive 5) (Archive 6)

Don't forget to visit the new Loach Forum when you're finished!

View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg

The Loach Forum Archives (2)

yet more questions...

Posted By: Dave Guest <d.s.guest@cableinet.co.uk>
Date: Wednesday, 9 February 2000, at 7:42 a.m.

In Response To: Re: Thanks Steve and Apologies to BB! (BB)

First off, it doesn't get boring!

The article mentions 3 species in the Sinibotia subgenus but you don't mention which 3 species they are. I'm assuming sidthimunki but what are the other two? It says Sinibotia can all be found in the Upper Mekong and Upper Yangtze drainages and Kottelat's article states nigrolineata can be found at Upper Xe Bangfai, Mekong basin in Laos. Are these the same place? If they are does that mean nigrolineata falls in the Sinbotia subgenus?

How about this for a thought: When was nigrolineata discovered (I mean while it was still being mistaken for sidthimunki)? How long before 1987 in other words. If sidthimunki has 3 pairs of barbels and nigrolineata (maybe) has 4 pairs, how long did it take for an icthyologist to notice this and declare the nigrolineata as a separate species?

Now for the picture comparisons:

The three pictures on JD's site. I haven't read the actual article but nowhere in the accompanying text does it say that they are three pictures of the SAME fish. All it says is "this a 49.1mm specimen and this is a 71.1mm specimen etc". Does the article itself clear this up? I view all those fish as being rather blunt-nosed in appearance but the middle photograph shows a fish with pointed finnage wheras the other two show fish with rounder fins. Also look at the length of the pectorals on the middle fish in comparison to the other two. They're a lot longer relative to the other fins which are all in proportion across all three pictures. I therefore propose that perhaps they're not the same fish and there may be a little sexual dimorphism evident. Also look at the position of the vertical bars relative to the placement of the dorsal fin in those two fish.

The pictures at LOL. The pictures taken by Ken show fish that have pointed faces and in some cases more angular finnage. The really interesting thing though is that the largest specimens in the pictures still have their vertical barring whereas the smaller fish are barless. (That's bar Iris, not bra :) So if sids lose their bars as they grow shouldn't the largest fish be the barless ones??? Also, they have 9 or 10 bars which (although we've sort of agreed that this is purely speculation) is too many to make them sidthimunki. On a side note; what the heck is that lower caudal extenditure on Ken's striata pic???

OK, I'm still dubious about sids growing past 2" despite all the stories. How about those breeders that Hans mentioned in his book? They must have been adults so if you're reading Hans, please let us know if the author stated the size.

I think we're probably talking about several subspecies here. Maybe the two main species (sid and nig) have been crossed...

Dave


 

Messages In This Thread

View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next&