Loaches Online Forum

A few of our LPS have just got in the Ugliest clowns I have ever seen. they are longer and skinnier than usual with a pale yellowish, orange, stripes about 1/3 thinner than usual, these end just before they reach the belly, the stripes also arnt quite black and have a dirty grainy look to them, they also have a slight silvery sheen on the flanks under the colour and a much pointyer face, almost like if a yoyo was painted like a clown. If it is a variation/subspecies then I can see why it doesnt end up in tanks very often.

Azmeaiel wrote: If it is a variation/subspecies then I can see why it doesnt end up in tanks very often.

sounds more like very sick fish to me

Matches at least partially what I've seen here in the fall.

How big were they? And what about their tail shape?---for me it was the worst thing about them.

No Clown is ugly IMO.

I totally agree with Cybermeez on this one.
The words "Clown Loach" and "Ugly" just don't go together at all.

Emma

Would it be ok to say that some CL's are less attractive than others?

In my search for #5 I came across a batch of 3"-5" CL's that were
* skinner and longer than average
* had narrow (and as I recall, lighter) stripes
* had a rather different tail shape: it resembled a shark more than a CL.
The tail shape was the most serious deviation from a "normal" CL, and created a different perception of the fish.

I have no idea where did these ones come from, but somehow they felt like members of the East German Olympics team from a couple of decades ago... Given the CL's pricing it is not totally impossible that someone is playing with steroids or growth hormones.

i just bought 2 yo yo's 3 weeks ago i got then from scotlands number 1 aqua store and i have noticed that 1 of them is longer and very skinny compared than the other 1 but his health is very fine but i just feel that he is not as attractive as the other

Loach folk,

In reading some of the linked lit. on this site incl. discriptions of colour variations for Cl from different islands and now this variation i wonder if the CL is more of a group of sister species/sub species rather then just the one.

I've picked up a couple of tiny CL recently and colour patterns are (according to link description) from different island. If these were marine gobies or damsels or something more studied they'd be put into different spp groups at at minimum the sub species level.

I listen to this description of longer bodied clowns with different tails and heads and it's either a mutation for which an entire batch of juveniles came into the collector's net (or are captive bred) or it's a new critter/sub spp.

Does any body know if these different islands/mophs will breed? is thsi potentially another drama in the difficulty in breeding clowns?

Andyroo

PS:
If availible please send photographs.

A

andyroo wrote:Loach folk,

In reading some of the linked lit. on this site incl. discriptions of colour variations for Cl from different islands and now this variation i wonder if the CL is more of a group of sister species/sub species rather then just the one.

I've picked up a couple of tiny CL recently and colour patterns are (according to link description) from different island. If these were marine gobies or damsels or something more studied they'd be put into different spp groups at at minimum the sub species level.

I listen to this description of longer bodied clowns with different tails and heads and it's either a mutation for which an entire batch of juveniles came into the collector's net (or are captive bred) or it's a new critter/sub spp.

Is it not great that the answer is unknown and obviously not forthcoming?

Does any body know if these different islands/mophs will breed? is thsi potentially another drama in the difficulty in breeding clowns?

Andyroo

I've asked a very similar question in the dilutic clown loach thread a few days ago.

Breeding is not something you can test quickly, but there is a more answerable question: will different morphs be even accepted as part of a shoal? For example, if you put a short-bodied CL into a group of 5 "common", will it become a part of the group?

The smart thing to do is to try to accumulate pictures; unf. I don't think I can contribute anything: it has been about four months...I'll recheck that store again next time I'm in the area, but it is probably hopeless. Perhaps the author of this thread can make some pictures?

What I did do today was to go to the store where I got Spot (see the My clown buying experience) thread to look at the remaining clowns. There are no real body shape issues there (a mix of short-faced and long-faced, but this probably is no a sub-species); but they do have a number of CL's with strange dorsal stripes, one actually had a stripe that goes down, then up, then down. Pretty cute, but unf. I'm really out of the clown space....

Finally, it is very possible that loach classification is incomplete/messed up in a number of other places. One example: do we know beyond any doubt that Yoyos/Polkadots/Histrionica are really three species?

Finally, it is very possible that loach classification is incomplete/messed up in a number of other places. One example: do we know beyond any doubt that Yoyos/Polkadots/Histrionica are really three species?

In 2004 fish ichthyologist Maurice Kottelat had a paper published by Zootaxa, which described a new species, Botia kubotai, from Myanmar. This paper was "Botia kubotai, a new species of loach (Teleostei: Cobitidae) from the Ataran River basin (Myanmar), with comments on botiine nomenclature and diagnosis of a new genus", Zootaxa 401:1-18. Much morphometric data was used to compare B. kubotai with other Botia, and it was found to be a new species. He also states that due to the geographic position of B. kubotai, it has no immediate relationship with species from India (of which Yoyo's are an example).

Hope this helps,
Emma

Emma,

No, it does not help.

Please note that I said "know beyond any doubt".

Morphometric data and geographic arguments only attest to the likelihood of these being two species. It is no proof.

For descriptive data, consider Horses and Donkeys.

For geographic arguments, observe that two related species should share a common ancestor. It the common ancestor lived 100m years ago, you have much of the proof. But if lived 1m years ago, you don't know anything for certain.

---

Just in case: I'm not arguing that these are the same species. I'm only arguing that this is not something we know for a fact.

================

Also, please do note the way I asked the question:

One example: do we know beyond any doubt that Yoyos/Polkadots/Histrionica are really three species?

How do you know, for example, that Kubotai is one species? For all we know right now, the answer may be four... or five.. or seven.

WHATEVER.

The problem here is that there was no real study, and descriptive arguments are decades out of date.

For an example of a real study using more modern techniques, consider this piece:

Genealogy of scaly reptiles rewritten by new research

Hmmmm, lets see. What should I believe...Dr. Maurice Kottelat, well known expert on the fishes of Asia...or speculation.....Hmmmmm.