FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I have 4 Otocinclus cats, 2 of which I'm fairly sure are O. vittatus. The other two I can't figure out. They may be O. hoppei and O. huaorani respectively, but that's just a guess.

http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mar08008gb4.jpg

http://img444.imageshack.us/my.php?image=mar08007fq4.jpg

What do you think?

I vote! Do you?

They all look like O. affinis to me. They're kind of variable in coloration, so the cosmetic differences don't necessarily mean they're different species. I have seen O. affinis with spots down the side instead of the solid stripe. I don't know about you, but the LFSs around here pretty much sell O. affinis exclusively, very rarely will we get one of the different species that has vertical or diagonal stripes. There are a few other species that look similar to affinis, but you're probably not going to be able to tell without dissecting a dead fish, key in hand. Unless you're planning on breeding them, I don't see it being important. All the similar species get about the same size, and there aren't really differences in their care, to my knowledge.

><>

I'm pretty sure many of the Otocinclus are exceedingly hard to distinguish.

Judging by the pics on PlanetCatfish and with my untrained eye... The fish in your first pic look like O. vittatus, and the fish in the second pic is comparable to some of the pics of O. huaorani. O. hoppei in their images always seems to have the spot disconnected from the stripe, which if it is an accurate trait of the species would rule that species out.

They could possibly be something else altogether that isn't on PlanetCatfish.

I am not sure Otocinclus affinis is the species that is actually commonly sold, similar to the case of Corydoras julii being C. trilineatus and Pareutropius debauwi being P. buffei. I've never taken the time to identify them at the LFS, though. On the other hand, PlanetCatfish's O. affinis doesn't really look like anyone else's, and I'd wager for a good reason. In any case, one of the papers I have claims that the stripe in O. affinis is always well-defined. Many closely related species do not have a well-defined stripe that may be divided into blotches. Otocinclus are indeed quite difficult to identify...

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

They are had to distinguish, yes! Of the 70~ species in the Otocinclus genus, up to 20 reach hobbyists, either by design or mistake. According the the Lalkakas' article on Shane's World, "The most commonly imported species are Otocinclus mariae, O. macrospilus and O. vittatus." So, I'd be surprised if they're O. Affinis.

Call me crazy (you'd not be the first ), but I'd love to try breading these darlings, if I can get a sufficient quantity of compatible otos. I don't know how well they cross-breed between species, or if that's even desirable though.

I vote! Do you?

There aren't more than 20 described species of Otocinclus.

Hybridization is not generally desirable. Otos are not impossible to breed, so it's not entirely crazy. You'd need to get a lot more Otos to increase your chances, though, because not only do you need males and females, but you need them of the same species, which is difficult with such hard to identify species.

--------------------------------------------
The aquarist is one who must learn the ways of the biologist, the chemist, and the veterinarian.

I hear they like to lay eggs on Cardamine

I want O cacoma one of these days (Tiger otos)

The Amazon Nut...

I am not entirely convinced the second animal on PC's affinis profile is in fact affins. More likely, it is macrotoncinclus sp. "Sao Paulo".

Also, as shin stated, these are very likely o. hoppei.

Also, in a relatively recent reorganization by Schaeffer, there are no longer that many otocinclus. Many have been reclassified under other genera. In 1997, there were 14, and as of now, there are around 16ish, 18 if you include the macrotocinclus that are commonly believed to warrant a separate genera for themselves, and more for some hisonotus that desperately need to be reclassified.

Also, the second fish (it didn't load for me at first, so I assumed it was the same animal) is huaorani-man, you're good!

Yep, I have outdated knowledge. I see that, "In essence many species formerly considered as Otocinclus have now been reassigned into the genera Microlepidogaster (the largest asylum for Otocinclus refugees), Parotocinclus, Otothyris, Pseudotothyris, and Nannoptopoma. Five very similar looking (to the aquarist) new species of Otocinclus are also introduced in the paper." Such a dynamic hobby is fishkeeping. Schaeffer must have really had his hands full tackling that!

Thanks, Cup!

I vote! Do you?