i am the catfish king(wels catfish)
- Thread starter oscar n redtail cat
- Start date
- Status
There is actually a photo which circulates in the net which is entitled to be a huge wels of more than 3m: http://digilander.libero.it/silurus_glanis/images/over200kg_1.jpg
If you are not familiar with this species, you can easily think that it is indeed a wels, but it is not. I actually thought myself at the first time I saw it this would be a wels, so I can really understand why this photo fools so many people.
But there are many things wrong if you look at it. At first the whole body is too boxy, especially the lower part of the head. Its mouth looks also strange for a wels. Interesting is especially the complete absencse of barbels where they should be, just compare it with this photo for example: http://www.angelberichte.de/Angelerlebnisse/Angelerlebnisse_2005_Teil_1/Heikes_Neckarwaller3.jpg
If you look at the shadow over the mouth, you will also realize that something would be wrong with the head if this should be a wels. The eyes are also not visible where they should be.
Actually it is no wels at all, it is a beluga sturgeon. They are no bottom feeders but fish-hunters and have a very big and very wide mouth at the end and not at the underside of the head. And their snout is very short and small for a sturgeon. If you look at the photo at the bottom on this side, you can see a Beluga-sturgeon or Huso lying in a different angle than the fish on the old photo: http://digilander.libero.it/silurus_glanis/before_silurus/index_eng.html
The mouth is really huge for a sturgeon, and looks in this position actually very similar to those of a wels. And it has not the big bony scales like most other sturgeons, but has a very smooth skin. If you take a close look at the region over the middle of the mouth, you can see the small barbels and even the tip of the snout which is as a result of the perspective and the bad black and white qualitiy of the photo not easy to sea.
And there is even another good indication that this is a Beluga. The two men wear clothes which are typical for north-eastern countries, and Belugas were very common in this region before they were so overfished.
If you are not familiar with this species, you can easily think that it is indeed a wels, but it is not. I actually thought myself at the first time I saw it this would be a wels, so I can really understand why this photo fools so many people.
But there are many things wrong if you look at it. At first the whole body is too boxy, especially the lower part of the head. Its mouth looks also strange for a wels. Interesting is especially the complete absencse of barbels where they should be, just compare it with this photo for example: http://www.angelberichte.de/Angelerlebnisse/Angelerlebnisse_2005_Teil_1/Heikes_Neckarwaller3.jpg
If you look at the shadow over the mouth, you will also realize that something would be wrong with the head if this should be a wels. The eyes are also not visible where they should be.
Actually it is no wels at all, it is a beluga sturgeon. They are no bottom feeders but fish-hunters and have a very big and very wide mouth at the end and not at the underside of the head. And their snout is very short and small for a sturgeon. If you look at the photo at the bottom on this side, you can see a Beluga-sturgeon or Huso lying in a different angle than the fish on the old photo: http://digilander.libero.it/silurus_glanis/before_silurus/index_eng.html
The mouth is really huge for a sturgeon, and looks in this position actually very similar to those of a wels. And it has not the big bony scales like most other sturgeons, but has a very smooth skin. If you take a close look at the region over the middle of the mouth, you can see the small barbels and even the tip of the snout which is as a result of the perspective and the bad black and white qualitiy of the photo not easy to sea.
And there is even another good indication that this is a Beluga. The two men wear clothes which are typical for north-eastern countries, and Belugas were very common in this region before they were so overfished.
Acheloos;2288663; said:
Nice post, and i agree the picture shown is a a Beluga. Cant understand all the posts about wels being "king of catfish" i have yet to see any real evidence of a wels over 400lb, heard plenty of rumours about this, but nothing of any real proof. and its my understanding Pangasianodon gigas is the real king of catfish, in fact the largest freshwater fish in the world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8404622/
Sorry to hijack your post Oscar, nice wels.
Do some ringing round, there are places in Uk you can get Arapiama might save you some money.
Actually it's not the angle but the crappy pic... Yes, the wels (only with on "l" 
is really a highly impressive fish and already a true monster. You really don´t need to exagerate it.
is really a highly impressive fish and already a true monster. You really don´t need to exagerate it.
I was always under the impression that the gigas was the true catfish kingwayne the pain;2288671; said:
I personally have NEVER exagerated it's growth, however I don't know much about this beast since it's not on my possibles I have left it off the research list till laterAcheloos;2289189; said:Yes, the wels (only with on "l"
As for the extra l... damn spell check actually corrected it and I didn't notice...
I did not mean that you exagerated, but only that there is no need to exagerate its size in general.
There was a time when these Fish were more abundant than they are today... with some that would have reached Monster sizes that are unheard of today (since the mid 1900's) But I doubt that there are many if any left due to over fishing and the age that these guys would need to be to attain such huge proportions... There isn't any reason that one Can't reach those huge sizes... just Highly unlikly and it would most likley be one OLD Fish
It's Unfortunate that alot of fish get labeled but it's part of the hobby
It's Unfortunate that alot of fish get labeled but it's part of the hobby
- Status
