This little beautiful dwarf Panaque
) has been available in the trade since Datz introduced this species in 1996 and gave them their L-number L204; despite that, it has not been scientifically described yet. Differing views exist concerning if this group of smaller species should belong to their own genus Panaqolus
which was introduced by IsbrÃ¼cker & Schraml in 2001, again in Datz, but is rejected by Jon Armbruster, who claims that the differences between them are to small to place them in their own genus and they should belong to the same genus as their bigger relatives. My personal opinion is that these dwarf Panaque
are much more closely related to Peckoltia
species then they are to the bigger Panaque
, they share almost the same body shape and their odontodal growths are identical, they also share the same breeding behaviour; what they don't share is the shape of their teeth and, logically therefore, their diet. This is maybe not enough to place them in their own genus but it makes them very different to the larger examples in the genus Panaque
. I don't mean to say what is right or wrong but it shows us how hard it can be for a hobbyist to understand how ichthyologists function and what preferences they use to differ one species from another and between genera.
Please read the full article at PlanetCatfish. View full article.
Article written by: Janne EkstrÃ¶m
Photos by: Rush2112
Edited by CanadaPleco, 24 October 2009 - 02:43 AM.