On the difficulty of correctly identifying your Goonch. (Bagarius)
- Thread starter Chicxulub
- Start date
Bagarius Rutilus is the current species name for it
but the question is what truly is a dwarf goonch? The rutilus maximum size is unknown. Bagarius Bagarius (southern Indian) max size is also unknown. My Rutilus is past the 9 inch mark and steadily putting on weight and size. In regards to a Bagarius Yarrelli anything less than 6 foot would be considered a dwarf in the genus. So your dream of owning a "dwarf goonch" could actually housing a 3 foot monster. As Rob has stated Dr.Ng feels that the Rutilus is the dwarf species, however as I stated above it may not be what you think of as a dwarf. As a result anyone planning on keeping one of these cats MUST have the funds available to make big tank upgrades.Sent from my DROID BIONIC using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
None on true record. I have put aside a few thousand to try and get each of the known species of goonch cats. I will be taking a trip to india in the summer to fish and work.
Sent from my DROID BIONIC using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Ah ah ah...
I see that I was not clear enough in my explanation. For this, I apologize. Let me clarify.
Bottom line up front:
B. bagarius- Yes, giant north Indian species.
B. yarrelli- Yes, giant south Indian species.
B. rutilus- Yes, medium SE Asian species.
B. lica- Yes, large SE Asian species.
B. suchus- Yes, medium SE Asian species.
B. cf. dwarf- Yes, separate from all the others, unnamed, SE Asia.
There IS a dwarf species that doesn't get over eight inches. This is very well documented in the literature with adult, sexually mature fish in the 6-8 inch range. These fish do not exceed 8" however. When either Dr. Ng or myself refer to a dwarf goonch, this is the fish about which we are speaking.
Roberts in 1983 wrote a description of a dwarf species. Based on morphological similarities of the spine and the fins to the previously written description of B. bagarius, he called his dwarf B. bagarius.
However, the original 1822 description of a northern giant as B. bagarius was likely correct after all. The northern giant fish exactly match the original description which would make the older name valid. This would mean that the northern giants are B. bagarius, not B. yarrelli.
This also leaves the dwarf species, which IS known to exist, nameless. Just because it doesn't have a scientific name doesn't make it less real. Look at your Peruvian dragon cat for example.
Interestingly though, the southern Indian goonches actually match the description that Roberts wrote for B. yarrelli. They are a separate species and they can get very large also, 5'+.
Rutilus lives in east Asia and is very well documented in science. It is sexually mature at about 2' and normally doesn't exceed 3' as an adult. It IS NOT the dwarf species. Calling rutilus a dwarf species based on the Indian giant is like calling a Brachyplatystoma juruense a dwarf Pim based on Brachyplatystoma filamentosum. It might be dwarfed by the giant species, but it is a rutilus, not the dwarf. The dwarf is separate.
The fourth large and ambiguous species is B. lica from extreme southeast Asia and Indonesia. This was rolled into B. yarrelli based on the same data that caused him to fail to ID rutilus and to roll up the two Indian species into one: body part size ratios and the ignoring of habitats. This is another 5'+ species that is warm water living and extremely heavily spotted.
We also have B. suchus which is quite obvious and doesn't warrant further explanation.
Finally, there is a distinct possibility that there are more species of goonch out there that are presently unknown to science. These further complicate the issue.
Estarego, If your fish is 9-10 inches that tears it then. I thought your fish was smaller than that and I told Dr. Ng that it was 7-8 inches. Yours can't be a dwarf goonch as the dwarfs do NOT exceed 8". The orange is coming in very nice on its fins now, too. As its over 8" with orange on the fins, that means there are two possibilities: rutilus or an new species. I find rutilus to be more likely.
rob have you done any research on the supposedly extinct gigas? I have tried to find all info possible and come up with absolutely nothing? Are there any preserved specimens? was the species actually recognized by the scientific community and who described it? when did it go extinct is there a possibility it could actually be what you and Dr. Ng describe as bagarius bagarius?
I know of it but I haven't researched it.
If it turns out to be the same thing as the B. bagarius then B. gigas would be a junior synonym. As near as I can tell gigas was only described in 2007, so the older name would have precedence.
I'll look into this if I can find the time.
Nevermind, B. gigas was described in 1879 by Gunther. B. bagarius would still have precedence if they prove to be the same thing however.
