bagarius bagarius adult size

[Charney]

I don't intend to get one, but think they are awesome fish. I have been reading up on them and there has been a lot of discrepancy on their adult size. even within the same articles! How big does the bagarius bagarius get? I am pretty sure it is supposed to be the smallest of the group.

 

[wayne the pain]

From what i remember the one i had years ago got to about 8" max. Got some pix somewhere if i remember i will dig them out and post them up.

 

[Chicxulub]

I am utterly convinced that Bagarius cf "Thai yarelli" is in fact two other species of fish. One is B. rutilus as we discussed in the "Jeff Rapps goonch" thread recently and I feel the other species is in fact B. bagarius. That being said, I also feel that B. bagarius is capable of reaching 3' or so just like yarelli and rutilus. I hold PCF's support of the species in doubt as well. For example, the fish that is included on the B. bagarius page which was photographed by Ben Lee displays key diagnostic traits that would identify it as a young rutilus: oval eyes, distinct stripes with little to no spots and in the dorsoventrally oriented subaquatic image as posted below, the fish clearly has yellow fins, a diagnostic trait of very young rutilus. Rutilus are known to grow much slower than yarelli and are less aggressive. Could it be that when someone gets a very young rutilus, they confuse it with B. bagarius based on the lack of overly vivid fin coloration at its small size, lack of aggression in relation to what yarelli is known to have and slower growth thanks to a different metabolism and total growth potential? I find this to be quite likely.

If there are Bagarius that truly only reach 8", where are they? I've been searching for convincing evidence of them for six years and haven't seen anything beyond speculation and hearsay so far.

I understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, however. I am simply a pragmatic individual who needs to see evidence to believe something. When you have noted scientists who work with these fish saying the genus is in need of revision, we should probably stick with attempting to diagnose those species for which we have access to diagnostic traits which contain more detail than "the smallest species".

It is the humble opinion of this ignorant hobbyist that B. bagarius should be considered a nomen dubium until further evidence becomes available.

The supposed B. bagarius:

 

[wayne the pain]

Three years, 8" max, oval eyes, with spotting, this seems to be throwing a spanner in the works. Any ideas?

 

[Chicxulub]

Three years, 8" max, oval eyes, with spotting, this seems to be throwing a spanner in the works. Any ideas?

Indeed. lol

Fascinating post, good job. This is the type of stuff I love to see, it makes me think. How old was this guy when he stopped growing? Did he grow quickly to 8" and plateau? Did he grow slowly but steadily to 8" at which point you sold him?

Based on the pictures, he looks MUCH larger than 8", I'd say about 15-18. Judging from the quality of the images, you clearly have some skill with a camera and doubtlessly know how easy it is to create an illusion of size (be it intentional or unintentional), so looks don't matter so much. I do know this, however: that is a very nice looking fish.

I suppose this issue is going to give me cause to dig off in the journals and do another round of extensive research of the type that I did for African tiger fishes. That could be fun. I do know that people over on PCF feel that this genus needs revision, but I suppose that I could make a guide on Bagarius based on currently available data. At least suchus will be easy! lol

 

[Charney]

very interesting thanks for the info. A lot of source list 8 inch max and then you see 9 inch plus fish for sale. I always wonder how well they are correctly labeled.

 

[wayne the pain]

Bought from a friend at about 7" hardly grew at all in the time i had it, i sold it on when i was moving. Will look for some more pictures later, all on disc.

 

[Chicxulub]

Bought from a friend at about 7" hardly grew at all in the time i had it, i sold it on when i was moving. Will look for some more pictures later, all on disc.

Fascinating. I look forward to more pics.

 

[lix.ma14]

I am utterly convinced that Bagarius cf "Thai yarelli" is in fact two other species of fish. One is B. rutilus as we discussed in the "Jeff Rapps goonch" thread recently and I feel the other species is in fact B. bagarius. That being said, I also feel that B. bagarius is capable of reaching 3' or so just like yarelli and rutilus. I hold PCF's support of the species in doubt as well. For example, the fish that is included on the B. bagarius page which was photographed by Ben Lee displays key diagnostic traits that would identify it as a young rutilus: oval eyes, distinct stripes with little to no spots and in the dorsoventrally oriented subaquatic image as posted below, the fish clearly has yellow fins, a diagnostic trait of very young rutilus. Rutilus are known to grow much slower than yarelli and are less aggressive. Could it be that when someone gets a very young rutilus, they confuse it with B. bagarius based on the lack of overly vivid fin coloration at its small size, lack of aggression in relation to what yarelli is known to have and slower growth thanks to a different metabolism and total growth potential? I find this to be quite likely.

If there are Bagarius that truly only reach 8", where are they? I've been searching for convincing evidence of them for six years and haven't seen anything beyond speculation and hearsay so far.

I understand that the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence, however. I am simply a pragmatic individual who needs to see evidence to believe something. When you have noted scientists who work with these fish saying the genus is in need of revision, we should probably stick with attempting to diagnose those species for which we have access to diagnostic traits which contain more detail than "the smallest species".

It is the humble opinion of this ignorant hobbyist that B. bagarius should be considered a nomen dubium until further evidence becomes available.

The supposed B. bagarius:

View attachment 882321

Is the jeff rapps gooch a B bargarus?

 

[Chicxulub]

Is the jeff rapps gooch a B bargarus?

Are you talking to the one in that 16 page thread? If so, we determined it was a rutilus.