I dunno...different specimens, genders, ages, origins, photo angles...I think there are way too many variables that may come into play to even try to determine hard and fast identities of these fish from pictures like this. Are the differences you describe really being illustrated here...or are you just hoping and imagining you see them? I'll be honest, even with you pointing them out, I sure can't see 'em.
Are these wild-caught fish? Or are they farmed? If the latter, the ever-present spectre of possible hybridization rears its head.
We have a genus of large and very similar-appearing catfish, found over a broad range, whose physical proportions and appearance likely changes considerably over the course of their long lives. We absolutely, positively must assign "correct" scientific designations to them because, hey, that's what aquarists and scientists do. These supposedly correct designations will almost immediately be challenged, debated, scrutinized, altered, re-organized, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but I don't think there is the slightest hope of doing so based upon a bunch of casual snapshots taken by assorted amateur anglers and fishkeepers. This will take detailed observations, measurements, possible disections...and even then nothing remains engraved in stone.
It's trendy today to talk about species vs subspecies, about clades and species complexes and all kinds of sciency stuff...but it's all just artificial semantics. The fish are the fish, we will never come to permanent agreement what they are or should be called, we will forever debate where the lines are drawn between and within species within the same genus, subspecies within the same species, etc.
Relax...don't worry...be happy.
Are these wild-caught fish? Or are they farmed? If the latter, the ever-present spectre of possible hybridization rears its head.
We have a genus of large and very similar-appearing catfish, found over a broad range, whose physical proportions and appearance likely changes considerably over the course of their long lives. We absolutely, positively must assign "correct" scientific designations to them because, hey, that's what aquarists and scientists do. These supposedly correct designations will almost immediately be challenged, debated, scrutinized, altered, re-organized, blah, blah, blah. Sorry, but I don't think there is the slightest hope of doing so based upon a bunch of casual snapshots taken by assorted amateur anglers and fishkeepers. This will take detailed observations, measurements, possible disections...and even then nothing remains engraved in stone.
It's trendy today to talk about species vs subspecies, about clades and species complexes and all kinds of sciency stuff...but it's all just artificial semantics. The fish are the fish, we will never come to permanent agreement what they are or should be called, we will forever debate where the lines are drawn between and within species within the same genus, subspecies within the same species, etc.
Relax...don't worry...be happy.
Last edited:
