Revision of Loricaria Linnaeus, 1758 (Pisces, Siluriformes, Loricariidae).

Full text

51
Beaufortia
INSTITUTE
OF
TAXONOMIC
ZOOLOGY
(ZOOLOGICAL
MUSEUM)
UNIVERSITY
OF
AMSTERDAM
Vol.
31
no.
3
October
30,
1981
Revision
of
Loricaria
Linnaeus,
1758
(Pisces,
Siluriformes,
Loricariidae)
I.J.H.
Isbrücker
Institute
of
Taxonomic
Zoology,
University
of
Amsterdam,
P.O.
Box
20125,
1000
HC
Amsterdam,
The
Netherlands
&
Musee
de
Zoologie
de
I'Universite
et
de
la
Ville
de
Nancy,
34,
rue
Sainte-Catherine,
54000
Nancy,
France
Abstract
The
South
American
genus
of
mailed
catfishes
Loricaria
Linnaeus,
1758
is
reviewed.
Almost
all
primary
type-material
and
additional
specimens
are
examined.
Descriptions,
tabulated
morphometric
and
meristic
data,
and
illustrations
are
presented
of
eleven
species:
Loricaria
cataphracta
Linnaeus,
1758
(syn.:
Plecostomus
flagellaris
Gronovius,
ed.
Gray,
1854,
and
Loricaria
carinata
de
Castelnau,
1855),
L.
lata
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889,
L.
simillima
Regan,
1904,
L.
parnahybae
Steindachner,
1907
(syn.:
L.
piauhiae
Fowler
1941),
L.
piracicabae
Von
Ihering,
1907,
L.
clavipinna
Fowler,
1940,
L.
nickeriensis
Isbrücker,
1979,
L.
tucumanensis
Isbrücker,
1979,
L.
apeltogaster
Boulenger,
1895,
L.
prolixa
Isbrücker
&
Nijssen,
1978,
and
L.
lentiginosa
Isbrücker,
1979.
The
nomenclatural
history
of L.
cata-
phracta
is
revised:
contrary
to
the
author’s
previous
(1972)
assumption,
two
syntypes
of
this
species
are
still
in
existence.
Definitions
are
presented
of
the
tribe
Loricariini,
the
subtribe
Loricariina,
the
Loricaria-
and
Pseudohemio-
don-groups,
and
of
the
Loricaria
cataphracta
species
complex.
In
addition,
the
Pseudoloricariina
(new
subtribe),
the
Ricolina
(new
subtribe),
and
the
Planiloricariina
are
defined.
A
key
to
the
genera
of
Loricariinae
with
filamentous
lip
structures
is
given.
A
list
of
species
originally
proposed
as
representatives
of
the
genus
Loricaria,
now
excluded,
is
added
together
with
their
current
identification.
INTRODUCTION
Loricaria
Linnaeus,
1758,
is
a
genus
of
substrate
dwelling,
South
American
primary
freshwater
fishes.
It
is
the
earliest
described
taxon
in
the
family
of
armoured
or
mailed
catfishes,
the
Lori-
cariidae.
A
total
of
61%
of
all
Loricariinae
has
at
some
time
been
assigned
to
Loricaria.
However,
authors
of
important
works
on
this
group,
like
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann
(1889,
1890,
1891),
Regan
(1904),
Eigenmann
(1910),
and
Gosline
(1945)
had
adopted
a
subdivision
of
Loricaria
into
several
subgenera,
each
of
which
is
considered
to
be
of
generic
rank
by
me,
resulting
in
a
considerable
reduction
of
the
number
of
species
in
Loricaria.
Compared
to
the
works
of
Eigenmann
&
Eigen-
mann,
Regan,
and
Gosline,
Bleeker's
(1862,
1863)
subdivision
of
the
Loricariidae
is
surprisingly
modern
—
or
the
recent
subdivision
by
me
(1980)
is
perhaps
conservative
—
in
terms
of
the
number
of
recognized
genera.
A
list
of
nominal
species
proposed
originally
as
members
of
Loricaria
sensu

52
Ricola
Isbrucker
&
Nijssen,
1978,
Paraloricaria
Isbrucker,
1979,
Brochiloricaria
Isbrucker
&
Nijs-
sen,
1979,
Crossoloricaria
Isbrucker,
1979,
Pseu-
dohemiodon
Bleeker,
1862,
Rhadinoloricaria
Is-
brucker
&
Nijssen,
1974,
and
Planiloricaria
Is-
briicker,
1971,
share
a
single
external
character
with
Loricaria,
absent
in
all
other
genera
of
Lori-
cariinae:
numerous
filamentous
labial
barbels
and
subbarbels.
A
key
to
these
genera
is
included.
In
previous
papers
(especially
1971b,
1972)
I
have
attempted
to
point
out
some
historical
dif-
ficulties
in
correctly
naming
specimens
belonging
to
the
type-species
of
the
genus,
Loricaria
cata-
phracta.
Recently,
Boeseman
(1976)
demon-
strated
some
errors
in
these
publications.
With
his
criticism
in
mind
I
have
revised
my
previous
interpretations
(see
Addendum).
ABBREVIATIONS
ANSP
:
Academy
of
Natural
Sciences
of
Philadel-
phia,
Philadelphia,
Perm.
BMNH
:
British
Museum
(Natural
History),
London.
MCZ
:
Museum
of
Comparative
Zoology,
Cam-
bridge,
Mass.
MNHN
:
Museum
National
d'Histoire
Naturelle,
Paris.
MZUN
:
Musee
de
Zoologie
de
l'Universite
et
de
la
Ville
Nancy,
Nancy.
MZUSP
:
Museu
de
Zoologia
da
Universidae
de
Sao
Paulo,
Sao
Paulo.
NMW
:
Naturhistorisches
Museum,
Vienna.
NRS
:
Naturhistoriska
Riksmuseet,
Stockholm.
USNM
:
National
Museum
of
Natural
History,
formerly
United
States
National
Museum,
Washington
D.C.
ZMA
:
Instituut
voor
Taxonomische
Zoologie
(Zoologisch
Museum),
Amsterdam.
ZMB
:
Museum
fur
Naturkunde
der
Humboldt-
Universitat,
Berlin.
hi
:head length
si
:
standard
length
METHODS
The
methods
of
taking
morphometric
and
meristic
data
were
defined
by
Isbriieker
&
Nijssen
(1978a:
180-182).
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Many
persons
have
contributed
importantly
to
this
study
in
many
ways,
particularly
by
the
loan
or
gift
of
specimens,
providing
working
space
in
their
laboratories,
extensive
curatorial
assistance,
or
by
information.
I
am
much
obliged
to
all
these
individuals
for
their
kindness:
Mrs
J.
Abel
(MNHN),
Mrs
Dr
M.
L.
Bauchot
(MNHN),
Dr
J.
E.
Bohlke
(ANSP),
Dr
H.
A.
Britski
(MZUSP),
Mrs
Ph.
Choanier
(MNHN),
Mrs
M.
Clark-McLellan
(BMNH),
Dr
B.
Conde
(MZUN),
Mrs
M. M.
Dick
(MCZ),
Dr
W. L.
Fink
(MZC),
Dr
P.
H.
Greenwood,
Mr
G.
J.
Ho-
wes
(BMNH),
Dr
P.
Kahsbauer
(NMW),
Mrs
S.
Karnella
(USNM),
Mrs
Dr
C.
Karrer
(formerly
ZMB),
Dr
E.
Lachner
(USNM),
Dr
K.
Liem
(MCZ),
Mr
C.
Powell
(USNM),
Dr
W.
G.
Saul
(ANSP),
and
Mr
R.
Schoknecht
(MCZ).
Mr
Howes
and
Mr
A.
Wheeler
(both
BMNH)
criticized
parts
of
the
typescript
dealing
with
the
history
of
Loricaria
cataphracta.
I
am
very
grate-
ful
for
their
suggestions
for
improvement.
Mr
Wheeler
provided
me
with
information
on
the
still
existing
syntypes
of
Loricaria
cataphracta,
and
gave
permission
to
use one
of
his
photographs
(fig.
2
in
this
paper).
I
am
much
indebted
for
the
friendly
and
ex-
tensive
interest,
advice,
assistance,
critical
com-
ments
and
stimulating
discussions
while
working
(in
ZMA)
to
Dr
P.
J.
H.
van
Bree,
Mrs
C.
Lin-
denaar-Sparrius,
Dr
H.
Nijssen,
and
Mr
L.
van
Tuyl;
Mr
L.
A.
van
der
Laan
and
Mr
J.
Zaag-
man
(both
also
ZMA)
prepared
all
but
one
of
the
illustrations
in
this
paper.
Mrs
Drs
F. F.
J.
M.
Pieters
(Artis
Library,
Amsterdam)
provided
me
with
many
of
the
valuable
publications
in
her
care.
I
deeply
appreciate
the
stimulation
given
by
both
Dr
J.
Gery
(St.
Cyprien)
and
Professor
Dr
B.
Conde
(MZUN),
while
proposing
to
present
this
study
to
the
University
of
Nancy
I.
At
an
earlier
occassion
(1978)
I
had
already
dedicated
the
MZUN-scription
containing
the
basis
of
this
publication
to
Dr
H.
Nijssen,
who
strongly
supported
my
study
of
fishes
throughout
many
years:
without
his
support
none
of
my
publications
would
have
been
realized.
With
gratitude
I
acknowledge
the
financial
sup-
port
received
by
a
grant
from
the
K.
F.
Hein
Foundation
(Utrecht)
to
complete
the
present
study.
lato,
presently
assigned
to
other
genera
of
Lori-
cariidae,
is
given
at
the
end
of
the
systematic
part
of
this
paper.

53
THE
TRIBE
LORICARIINI
The
Loricariini
are
characterized
by
having:
a)
the
origin
of
the
dorsal
fin
about
opposite
to
the
origin
of
the
pelvic
fins;
b)
6
branched
dorsal
fin
rays,
the
last
one
split
to
its
base;
c)
10
branched
caudal
fin
rays;
d)
no
more,
and
usually
considerably
less
than
18
teeth
in
each
premaxilla
in
adults
(against
at
least
27
in
the
adults
of
the
Harttiini);
and
e)
great
differentiation
in
denti-
tions
and
lip
shapes
and
structures.
The
characteristic
dentition
present
in
almost
all
Hypostominae,
Ancistrinae,
Hypoptopomatinae,
all
Harttiina
and
in
the
Farlowellini
(viz.,
very
numerous,
slender,
filiform
teeth
with
a
strongly
curved
and
bilobate
crown),
never
occurs
in
the
Loricariini.
In
spite
of
the
diversity
in
lip
struc-
tures
and
shapes
in
the
Loricariini,
none
is
similar
to
those
present
in
other
Loricariid
groups.
The
outer
(naked)
surface
of
the
upper
lip
is
devoid
of
dermal
ossifications.
The
orbital
rim,
with
few
exceptions,
is
provid-
ed
with
a
more
or
less
conspicuous
posterior
notch.
The
fin
rays
are
usually
dichotomously
branch-
ed.
Often
the
upper
unbranched
caudal
fin
ray
extends
as a
fragile,
extremely
long
filament;
a
similarly
prolonged
lower
unbranched
caudal
fin
ray
is
rarely
encountered,
in
some
of
the
Rine-
loricariina
only.
Within
the
Loricariini,
several
different
types
of
secondary
sexual
dimorphism
have
evolved.
These
include
(a)
excessive
growth
of
odontodes
in
certain
areas
of
the
head,
on
dorsum
of
the
body
in
front
of
the
dorsal
fin
origin,
and/or
on
dorsum
of
the
pectoral
fin,
(b)
change
in
the
shape
of
certain
minute
odontodes
—
for
example,
those
on
the
spines
of
the
pelvic
and
anal
fins
—
(c)
change
in
the
shape
of
the
teeth,
and
(d)
the
development
of
a
very
long
and
broad
lower
lip.
All
these
changes
occur
in
the
male
of
the
various
representatives
of
the
Loricariini.
The
dimorphism
indicated
under
(a)
is
restricted
to
the
more
primitive
genera,
that
indicated
under
(d)
is
found
only
in
the
more
specialized
sub-
tribes.
In
addition,
secondary
sexual
dimorphism
is
unknown
in
various
species
and
may
prove
not
to
exist
at
all
in
various
instances.
The
Loricariini
are
the
sistergroup
of
the
Harttiini.
The
more
generalized
representatives
of
both
tribes
do
not
appear
to
be
very
distantly
related
to
each
other,
although
the
probably
most
primitive
genus
of
the
Loricariini
(Ixinandria)
is
more
advanced
than
the
probably
most
primitive
genus
of
the
Harttiini
(Harttiella).
There
appears
to
be
more
variability
among
the
Loricariini
than
among
the
other
tribes
of
the
Loricariinae
(Hart-
tiini,
Farlowellini,
and
Acestridiini).
The
Loricariini
are
subdivided
into
8
subtribes:
the
Rineloricariina,
Ricolina
(new),
Loricariina,
Planiloricariina,
Reganellina,
Pseudoloricariina
(new),
Loricariichthyina,
and
the
Hemiodontich-
thyina.
Various
species
of
Loricariini
reach
a
larger
size
than
most
other
Loricariinae,
many
reaching
over
300
mm
in
si
(e.g.,
some
Rineloricariina,
Loricariina,
Pseudoloricariina,
and
Loricariich-
thyina).
Anal
fin
with
1,4
rays,
last
one
split
to
its
base;
pectoral
fin
1,6;
pelvic
fin
1,5.
Thirteen
genera
of
Loricariini
differ
from
the
Rineloricariina
(consisting
of
Ixinandria,
Rine-
loricaria,
Dasyloricaria,
and
Spatuloricaria),
from
the
Harttiini
(
(Harttiella,
Harttia,
Cteniloricaria,
Lamontichthys,
Pterosturisoma,
Sturisomatich-
thys,
Sturisoma,
and
Metaloricaria)
and
from
the
Farlowellini
(
(Farlowella
only)
by
the
apparent
absence
of
prominent
odontode
development
in
mature
males:
Ricola,
Paraloricaria,
Loricaria,
Brochiloricaria,
Crossoloricaria,
Pseudohemiodon,
Rhadinoloricaria,
Planiloricaria,
Reganella,
Lima-
tulichthys,
Pseudoloricaria,
Loricariichthys,
and
Hemiodontichthys.
The
absence
of
this
sexual
dimorphism
needs
confirmation
in
several
of
these
13
genera
(not
all
species
are
known
from
both
sexes,
rendering
the
conclusion
preliminary).
PSEUDOLORICARIINA
new
subtribe
Type-genus:
Pseudoloricaria
Bleeker,
1862
The
subtribe
Pseudoloricariina
as
here
proposed
is
equivalent
to
the
genus
Pseudoloricaria
sensu
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1976b.
At
that
time,
Pseudo-
loricaria
was
considered
to
contain
two
species,
but
since
then
(Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
in
Isbriicker,
1979a)
we
established
Limatulichthys
to
accom-
modate
the
second
species.
Limatulichthys
(a
less
specialized
genus
than

54
the
next)
and
Pseudoloricaria
probably
are
de-
scendants
of
some
Rineloricaria/
Dasyloricaria-
like
lineage,
which
gradually
lost
the
ability
to
develop
masculine
odontode
enlargement
during
maturation.
This
dimorphism
became
replaced
by
a
tendency
towards
improvement
of
the
masculine
lower
lip
enlargement.
It
appears
that
the
Pseudo-
loricariina
are
intermediate
between
Rinelorica-
riina
and
Loricariichthyina.
The
latter
subtribe
shows
a
much
higher
specialization
in
dentition
and
lip
structure,
restricted
to
a
single
genus,
Loricariichthys.
As
a
definition
of
the
Pseudoloricariina,
our
previous
(1976b)
diagnosis
of
Pseudoloricaria
is
still
valid.
RICOLINA
new
subtribe
Type-genus:
Ricola
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1978
Ricola
consists
of
a
single
species,
R.
macrops,
occurring
in
the
Rio
de
la
Plata
and
higher
up
the
Rio
Parana,
in
Uruguay
and
Argentina.
Ricola
macrops
may
reach
a
standard
length
of
219
mm.
It
is
characterized
by
three
features:
a)
it
is
strikingly
similar
in
appearance
(shape
of
head
and
body,
structure
of
the
odontodes,
arrangement
of
scutes
and
development
of
abdom-
inal
scutelets,
and
colour)
to
species
of
Loricaria,
particularly
of
the
Loricaria
cataphracta-g
roup;
b)
its
dentition
is
strikingly
reminiscent
(shape
and
number,
as
well
as
relative
size
of
the
teeth)
of
a
Rineloricaria,
particularly
of
the
Rinelori-
caria
platyura-g
roup;
c)
it
is
unique
among
Loricariidae
by
the
struc-
ture
of
its
lips
and
barbels.
These
barbels
are
not
only
very
numerous
(like
in
Loricaria
and
related
genera),
but
many
of
them
are
further
subdividing
into
minute
branches.
The
upper
lip
is
narrow;
a
series
of
about
5
barbels
at
either
side
along
the
posterior
edge
of
this
lip,
increasing
in
length
towards
the
maxillary
barbel.
Posterior
to
these
series
are
three
thick,
deeply
branched
barbels
present
along
the
outer
surface
of
the
premaxillae.
Outer
side
of
the
maxillary
barbels
with
a
series
of
long
barbels
(actually
being
a
continuation
of
the
series
ante-
rior
to
the
premaxillae),
each
barbel
being
provid-
ed
with
numerous
small
barblets
in
a
linear
series.
Inner
side
of
producing
part
of
the
maxillary
barbels
likewise
with
several
long
barbels
with
small
barblets.
Lower
lip
narrow,
the
anterior
half
consisting
of
a
thick,
semicircular
cushion-like
structure.
This
structure
bears
irregular,
low
papillae
on
the
surface.
The
posterior
part
of
the
lower
lip
has
numerous
slender,
simple
papillae
or
subbarbels
on
its
surface
(like
those
in
Loricaria
spp.).
Edge
of
the
lower
lip
with
numerous
long
barbels,
each
provided
ventrally
with
shorter,
slender
sub-
barbels.
A
short,
thick,
triangular
papilla
between
premaxilla
and
dentary.
Three
long
papillae
in
the
buccal
cavity
posterior
to
the
premaxillae,
one
in
the
middle
and
one
at
either
side.
Ricola
has
up
to
15
teeth
in
each
premaxilla
and
up
to
14
teeth
in
each
dentary.
Those
in
the
premaxillae
are
about
twice
as
long
as
those
in
the
dentary.
They
have
a
prominent
inner
lobe
and
a
smaller
outer
lobe.
Ricola
tends
to
have
many,
sometimes
slightly
more
lateral
body
scutes
(37-39)
than
the
Lori-
cariina
(32-38).
Secondary
sexual
dimorphism:
The
pectoral
fin
spine
is
thicker
in
the
male
than
in
the
female,
just
like
in
males
of
Loricaria.
Tooth
lobes
in
mature
males
become
broader
and
more
rounded
at
the
tip
than
in
females
and
juveniles,
which
have
acute
tips.
This
type
of
change
in
tooth
shape
also
occurs
in
males
of
various
other
sub-
tribes
of
Loricariini
(e.g.,
Rineloricariina,
Lori-
cariina,
Pseudoloricariina,
Loricariichthyina,
and
Hemiodontichthyina).
Considering
the
three
mentioned
characters
of
Ricola
macrops,
it
can
neither
satisfactorily
be
included
within
the
Rineloricariina,
nor
within
the
Loricariina.
I
propose
a new
subtribe
for
Ricola,
because
it
is
hard
to
imagine
that
this
genus
evolved
from
some
Loricaria-like
ancestor
which
secondarily
would
have
attained
the
primitive
dentition,
compared
to
the
Loricariina.
One
could
judge
Ricola
as
some
highly
specialized
derivation
of
the
Rineloricariina
stock
which
retained
its
ancestral
dentition
and
attained
its
unusual
lip
structures
plus
the
Loricaria-
like
appearance
in-
dependently
from
the
Loricariina.
Because
of
the
combination
of
characters
(general
appearance
of
Loricaria,
dentition
of
Rineloricaria
,
and
unique
barbel
structure)
I
think
it
is
justified
not
to

55
unite
the
Rineloricariina
with
the
Loricariina
on
account
of
Ricola.
PLANILORICARIINA
Planiloricaria
Isbriicker,
1971
Planiloricaria
is
known
only
from
the
holotype
of
P.
cryptodon,
214
mm
in
si,
originating
from
the
Rio
Ucayali
near
Pucallpa,
Peru.
Superficially,
it
is
reminiscent
of
a
Pseudo-
hemiodon
with
a
disk-like
head
shape
in
dorsal
and
ventral
view,
and
much
depressed
in
lateral
view.
It
differs
not
only
from
that
genus
but
also
from
all
other
species
of
the
tribe
Loricariini
by:
—
its
produced
dorsal
fin
spine,
2.4
in
si
(against
3.4
or
more);
—
its
small
eyes,
13.
1
in
hi
(against
9.6
or
less);
—•
its
long
maxillary
barbels,
1.0
in
hi,
each
with
about
20
subsidiary
barbels
(maxillary
barbel
is
1.1
in
Rhadinoloricaria
and
more
in
other
Loricariini);
—
its
24
long,
papillose
barbels
along
the
posterior
edge
of
the
lower
lip,
2.6
in
hi
(against
at
least
4.5);
—
its
numerous
lateral
body
scutes,
40
(against
27-39);
and
—
the
absence
of
premaxillary
teeth
and
its
reduced
number
of
mandibular
teeth,
3
(against
up
to
18
and
up
to
34,
respectively).
Planiloricaria
has
no
orbital
notch;
no
dorsal
flap
on
the
pupil;
its
lower
lip
is
very
narrow,
11.5
times
in
hi;
numerous
filaments
and
papil-
lose
extensions
about
the
(rudimentary?)
pre-
maxillae;
a
smooth
dorsum
of
head
and
snout,
except
for
a
feeble
coalescing
double
ridge
running
anterior
as
well
as
posterior
to
the
supraoccipital
process;
head
and
snout
are
devoid
of
prominent
odontodes;
a
very
long
upper
caudal
filament;
no
produced
pelvic
fin
spines;
abdomen
almost
com-
pletely
covered
with
minute
scutelets.
Planiloricaria
shares
the
absence
of
premaxil-
lary
teeth
with
Reganella
and
with
Hemiodon-
tichthys;
with
both
it
does
not
seem
to
have
a
close
relationship.
Secondary
sexual
dimorphism
is
not
known.
LORICARIINA
With
the
exception
of
the
Ricolina
and
the
Plani-
loricariina,
the
Loricariina
embrace
the
other
genera
of
the
Loricariinae
with
numerous
long,
fleshy
filaments
on
the
surface
and/or
along
the
outer
edges
of
both
the
upper
and
the
lower
lips.
Loricariina
have
up
to
9
premaxillary
and
up
to
11
mandibular
teeth
(Ricolina
have
up
to
15
and
14,
respectively;
Planiloricariina
have
no
premaxillary
teeth
and
3
in
each
dentary).
The
number
of
lateral
body
scutes
ranges
in
the
Lori-
cariina
from
31
to
38;
in
the
Ricolina
there
are
37-39
and
in
the
Planiloricariina
40.
The
Loricariina
occur
all
over
tropical
South
America.
The
largest
member
of
the
subfamily
belongs
here:
Paraloricaria
vetula,
which
reaches
437
mm
in
si.
All
members
of
the
subfamily
Loricariinae
(like
those
of
the
other
subfamilies
of
Loricarii-
dae)
have
replacement
teeth.
Specimens
of
species
now
assigned
to
other
genera
than
Loricaria
(e.g.,
Paraloricaria,
Crossoloricaria)
may
be
found
with
five
or
less
teeth
in
each
premaxilla.
The
teeth
are
embedded
between
axial,
fleshy
lamellae,
and
counting
these
lamellae
results
in
a
higher
number
of
(potential)
teeth.
A
difference
in
tooth
shape
and
relative
size
is
usually
asso-
ciated
with
differences
in
the
structure
of
barbels
and
other
soft
parts
of
lips
and
in
the
buccal
cavity.
I
am
of
the
opinion
that
these
differences
are
not
necessarily
related
to
feeding
habits,
but
to
the
different
trends
in
the
evolution.
The
subtribe
Loricariina
may
be
further
divided
into
two
genus-groups,
presumably
representing
distinct
phyletic
lineages,
which
I
here
informally
refer
to
as
the
Loricaria-group
(also
including
Paraloricaria
and
Brochiloricaria),
and
the
Pseu-
dohemiodon-group
(also
including
Crossoloricaria
and
Rhadinoloricaria).
The
Loricaria-g
roup
seems
to
be
rather
close
(perhaps
more
so
than
the
Pseudohemiodon-
group)
to
the
Rineloricariina.
The
ancestor
of
the
Loricaria-
group
probably
was
a
Rineloricariina
which
developed
a
tendency
towards
(a)
fewer
teeth;
(b)
slightly
larger
lips,
especially
the
lower
lip
becoming
longer;
(c)
more
numerous
and
more
prominent
papillae
which turned
into
fila-
ments;
(d)
more numerous
lateral
body
scutes,
tending
to
coalesce
more
posterior
than
in
the
Rine-
loricariina
stock;
and
(e)
a
gradual
loss
of
the
secondary
sexual
dimorphism
in
the
odontode
development
in
the
males.

56
The
LORICARIA-
and
PSEUDOHEMIODON-groups
The
genera
of
the
Loricaria-g
roup
have
larger
and
less
premaxillary
teeth,
and
the
teeth
in
the
dentary
are
likewise
more
robust
than
in
the
Pseu-
dohemiodon-group
genera.
The
teeth
of
the
Pseudohemiodon-group
are
rather
inconspicuous,
either
simple
or
bilobed,
and
more
or
less
spoon-
shaped.
The
filaments
on
the
surface
and
along
the
posterior
edge
of
the
lower
lip
are
longer
(some-
times
bifid
or
trifid)
and smooth
in
the
Loricaria-
group.
In
the
Pseudohemiodon-group
the
fila-
ments
may
be
almost
absent
on
the
surface
of
the
lower
lip,
sometimes
being
reduced
to
small,
elongate
papillae.
The
long
filaments
on
and
especially
along
the
lower
lip
are
not
smooth,
but
more
or
less
papillose;
frequently
these
papillae
are
elongate.
The
snout
of
the
Loricaria-
group
genera
is
not
produced;
in
the
Pseudohemiodon-group
the
snout
is
hardly
or
not
produced
in
some
species
and
quite
produced
in
others.
The
following
comparison
of
166
specimens
of
Paraloricaria,
Loricaria,
and
Brochiloricaria
with
46
specimens
of
Crossoloricaria,
Pseudohemiodon,
and
Rhadinoloricaria
was
made.
Those
of
the
Loricaria-
group
are
given
first,
followed
between
parentheses
by
those
of
the
Pseudohemiodon-
group:
standard
length
up
to
437
mm
(246.5
mm);
postdorsal
length
1.6-1.8
(1.6-2.1);
length
first
dorsal
fin
ray
3.6-6.6
(5.1-7.3);
anal
spine
length
4.6-7.2
(6.0-13.2);
pectoral
spine
length
2.2-6.6
(5.0-6.6);
pelvic
spine
length
3.9-7.3
(6.0-8.7);
upper
caudal
fin
spine
1.0-7.4
(0.4-6.9);
lower
caudal
fin
spine
4.9-8.7
(6.1-9.9);
ventrorostral
length
nihil
(4.2-25.8);
length
lower
lip
3.7-9.4
(3.9-10.6);
cleithral
width
1.0-1.5
(°-8-i-3);
supracleithral
width
r.
5-2.1
(r.3-1.9);
head
width
1.0-1.5
(0.8-1.3);
head
depth
1.9-3.1
(2.5-3.5);
body
depth
at
dorsal
fin
origin
1.6-3.2
(2.2-3.5);
length
maxillary
barbel
x.5-7.4
(1.1-2.4);
length
longest
barbel
of
lower
lip
5.6-26.0
(4.5-
12.1);
lateral
body
scutes
32-38
(31-34);
coalescing
lateral
body
scutes
17-26
(13-21);
thoracic
scutes
4-13
(5-11);
premaxillary
teeth
up
to
6
(up
to
9).
KEY
TO
GENERA
OF
LORICARIINAE
WITH
FILAMENTOUS
LIP
STRUCTURES,
TRIBE
LORICARIINI
ia
No
teeth
in
upper
jaws
.
(Planiloricariina)
Planiloricaria.
ib
Teeth
in
both
upper
and
lower
jaws
.
2.
2a
Upper
jaws
with
6
or
more
teeth
on
each
side
3.
2b
Upper
jaws
with
5
or
less
teeth
on
each
side
4.
3a
Upper
jaws
with
up
to
9
teeth
on
each
side;
maxillary
(=
rictal)
barbels
with
subbarbels
which
are
not
subdivided
into
minute
branches
(Loricariina)
5.
3b
Upper
jaws
with
up
to
15
teeth
on
each
side;
maxillary
barbels
with
subbarbels
which
are
subdivided
into
minute
branches
.
(Ricolina)
Ricola.
4a
Teeth
in
upper
jaws
long,
about
twice
the
length
of
teeth
in
lower
jaws
.
Loricaria.
4b
Teeth
in
upper
jaws
about
r/3
longer
than
those
in
lower
jaws;
teeth
in
lower
jaws
about
as
long
as
teeth
in
the
upper
jaws
of
Loricaria
........
Brochiloricaria.
5a
Abdomen
naked,
or
covered
with
different
pat-
terns
of
scutelets,
not
however,
arranged
into
a
single
median
strip
6.
5b
Abdomen
naked
except
for
a
single
median
strip
of
small,
roundish
scutelets
Crossoloricaria.
6a
A
ventrorostral
extension
present
.
.
7.
6b
No
ventrorostral
extension
.
Paraloricaria.
7a
Sides
of
head
and
snout
more
or
less
trian-
gular
in
dorsal
view;
cleithral
width
0.8-1.i
in
hi;
supracleithral
width
1.3-1.7
in
hi;
head
depth
2.5-3.3
i
n
hi;
maxillary
barbel
1.4-2.4
in
hi;
depth
caudal
peduncle
12.3-17.3
in
hi
Pseudohemiodon.
yh
Sides
of
head
tapering,
of
snout
narrow
and
somewhat
concave
in
dorsal
view;
cleithral
width
1.2
in
hi;
supracleithral
width
1.9
in
hi;
head
depth
3.5
in
hi;
maxillary
barbel
1.1
in
hi;
depth
caudal
peduncle
9.7
in hi
Rhadinoloricaria.

57
THE
GENUS
LORICARIA
LINNAEUS,
1758
Loricaria
Linnaeus,
1758:
307-308
(type-species,
by
mono-
typy,
Loricaria
cataphracta
Linnaeus,
1758).
Fusiloricaria
Fowler,
1940a:
247
(subgenus
of
Loricaria;
type-species,
by
original
designation
and
monotypy,
Loricaria
(Fusiloricaria)
clavipinna
Fowler,
1940).
Loricaria
consists
of
11
valid
species,
which
occur
in
a
wide
range
of
localities
in
Surinam,
French
Guiana,
Brazil
(States
of
Para,
Amazonas,
Mato
Grosso,
Acre?,
Roraima),
Paraguay,
Uruguay,
Argentina,
Bolivia,
Peru,
Ecuador,
Venezuela,
and
Guyana.
The
distributions
shown
in
figs.
14-15
include
examined
material
only.
Loricaria
is
unique
among
Loricariidae
in
its
dentition.
There
are
up
to
5,
usually
3
or
4,
teeth
in
each
section
of
the
premaxilla, distinctly
longer
(about
twice)
than
the
teeth
in
the
dentary.
In
juveniles
and
females,
these
teeth
have
a
large,
oblong
crown
with
a
more
or
less
rounded
tip.
Small
specimens
(e.g.,
one
of
29.1
mm
in
si)
already
have
a
completely
developed
number
of
teeth.
The
teeth
are
either
simple,
or
bilobate,
usually
with
a
much
smaller
outer
lobe.
In
each
section
of
the
dentary
there
may
be
up
to
11
(usually
less)
teeth.
Generally,
the
crowns
of
the
mandibular
teeth
have
a
much
shorter,
broader,
and
more
rounded
inner
lobe
and
a
more
con-
spicuous
outer
lobe
than
the
premaxillary
teeth.
The
upper
lip
is
short,
its
margin
with
numerous
slender,
simple,
bifurcate
and
rarely
trifurcate,
barbels,
subbarbels
and
long
papillae.
Cirrhi
are
present
on
its
ventral
surface,
around
the
base
of
the
teeth,
in
the
buccal
cavity,
and
on
the
surface
of
the
maxillary
barbel.
The
lower
lip
is
well-developed,
usually
with
a
more
or
less
deep
median
notch.
Posterior
to
the
dentary
the
surface
of
the
lip
usually
has
a
cushion
bearing
low
papillae.
Posterior
to
this
cushion,
the
lip
has
many
long,
simple
filaments
which continue
along
the
posterior
margin.
A
mostly
inconspicuous
posterior
orbital
notch
is
usually
present.
The
pelvic
fin
spine
is
almost
always
longer
than
the
adjacent
branched
ray.
The
upper
un-
branched
caudal
fin
ray
often
extends
as a
fragile
filament
as
long
as,
or
exceeding
the
standard
length.
The
abdomen
may
be
naked,
or
is
partially
or
entirely
covered
with
small
scutelets,
which
de-
velop
with
age.
There
are
specific
differences
in
the
speed
of
development
of
these
scutelets:
some
species
are
fully
covered
at
an
earlier
stage
than
others.
In
the
late
development
of
these
scutelets,
Loricaria
apeltogaster,
L.
prolixa,
and
L.
lentigi-
nosa
are
reminiscent
of
the
Paraloricaria
spp.
and
of
Brochiloricaria
macrodon.
The
morphometric
and
meristic
variation
within
155
specimens
representing
all
species
of
Lori-
caria
is
summarized:
standard
length
29.1-346
mm;
axial
length
31.7-377
mm;
total
length
35.0-515
mm;
smallest
mature
male
103.8
mm;
head
length
3.7-5.2;
predorsal
length
2.9-3.7;
postdorsal
length
1.6-1.8;
postanal
length
1.8-2.2;
dorsal
spine
length
3.4-6.5;
length
first
dorsal
fin
ray
3.6-6.6;
anal
spine
length
4.6-7.2;
pectoral
spine
length
2.2-6.6;
pelvic
spine
length
3.9-7.4;
length
upper
caudal
'spine'
1.0-7.4;
length
lower
caudal
'spine'
4.9-8.7;
snout
length
r
.7-2.1;
length
lower
lip
3.7-9.4;
thoracic
length
1.1-1.8;
abdominal
length
1.2-2.0;
maximum
orbital
diameter
4.2-9.2;
interorbital
width
4.3-6.4;
cleithral
width
1.0-1.5;
supracleithral
width
1.5-2.1;
head
width
1.0-1.5;
head
depth
1.9-3.1;
body
depth
at
dorsal
fin
origin
1.6-3.2;
body
width
at
dorsal
fin
origin
1.1-3.2;
body
width
at
anal
fin
origin
1.1-3.3;
depth
caudal
peduncle
12.0-21.1;
width
caudal
peduncle
3.6-9.9;
length
maxillary
barbel
2.0-7.4;
longest
barbel
along
the
lower
lip
5.6-26.0;
lateral
scutes
32-37;
coalescing
lateral
scutes
17-26;
thoracic
scutes
4-12;
premaxillary
teeth
up
to
5;
mandibular
teeth
up
to
TT.

58
Secondary
sexual
dimorphism.
—
Mature
males
of
Loricaria
(of
the
L.
cataphracta-group,
which
excludes
L.
apeltogaster,
L.
prolixa,
and
L.
lenti-
ginosa)
have
hypertrophied
pectoral
fin
spines,
blunter
odontodes
on
the
pelvic
and
anal
fin
spines,
and
shorter,
more
rounded
tooth
lobes
than
females.
Rarely,
males
have
long
and
broad
lips
(e.g.,
a
male
of
L.
clavipinna
in
USNM
124930,
from
the
Rio
Ampiyacu
in
Peru,
156.5
mm
in
si,
has
the
lower
lip
shape
suggestive
of
those
Lori-
cariidae
which
protect
their
eggs
by
the
enlarged
lower
lip:
Dasyloricaria,
Limatulichthys,
Pseudo-
loricaria,
Loricariichthys,
and
Hemiodontichthys).
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro
(1912:
10)
reported
a
specimen
of L.
cataphracta
from
S.
Manoel,
Tapa-
joz,
"...
com
uma
placa
de
ovos
sobre
a
lado
ab-
dominal."
Males
of
Loricaria
apeltogaster,
L.
pro-
lixa,
and
of
L.
lentiginosa
are
unknown;
maybe
it
is
more
appropriate
to
say
that
they
have
not
yet
been
recognized.
THE
LORICARIA
CATAPHRACTA
COMPLEX
The
majority
of
the
examined
specimens
of
Lori-
caria
belong
to
this
complex.
They
are
charac-
terized
by
an
early
development
of
the
scutelets
which
cover
the
abdomen
usually
completely
with
age.
The
complex
includes
L.
cataphracta,
L.
lata,
L.
simillima,
L.
parnahybae,
L.
piracicabae,
L.
clavipinna,
L.
nickeriensis,
and
L.
tucumanensis.
Excluded
species
are
Loricaria
apeltogaster,
L.
prolixa,
and
L.
lentiginosa.
They
share
the
poor
development
of
abdominal
scutelets,
but
this
can-
not
serve
as
a
synapomorphy.
It
remains
to
be
demonstrated
whether
the
three
latter
species
are
mono-
or
polyphyletic.
Most
species
of
the
L.
cataphracta
complex
are
incompletely
known.
It
is
possible
that
additional
studies
will
demonstrate
that
species
like
L.
cataphracta
and
the
closely
related
L.
simillima
are
indeed
polymorphic
with
phenotypically
dif-
ferent
populations.
It
is
also
possible
that
more
taxa
become
distinguishable
within
such
species.
Likely,
the
Loricaria
cataphracta
complex
is
a
very
specialized,
recent
monophyletic
lineage
which
is
still
rapidly
evolving.
Many
species
of
this
complex
show
few
distinc-
tive
characters
when
all
populations
combined
are
considered.
Easily
distinguishable
sympatric
species
pairs
exist
(e.g.,
L.
cataphracta
with
L.
simillima,
and
L.
cataphracta
with
L.
parnahybae).
Sufficiently
large
and
complete
samples
(in-
cluding
freshly
preserved
juveniles
and
adults
of
either
sex),
which
would
enable
recognition
of
specific
variation,
are
not
available.
Study
of
such
material
is
needed
before
a
key
to
the
species
can
be
prepared.
Extensive
data
are
assembled
into
tables,
containing
all
morphometric
and
meristic
information.
These
data
together
with
the
des-
criptions
and
illustrations
are
the
best
means
to-
wards
identification
that
can
be
offered.
Loricaria
cataphracta
Linnaeus,
1758
(figs.
1-2,
14;
tables
Ia-c,
II-III)
Loricaria
dura
Linnaeus,
1754:
79-80,
pi.
29
(description;
pre-1758,
invalid),
—
Bleeker,
1862:
3
(ex-Linnaeus,
1754;
invalid
nomen
novum
for
Loricaria
cataphracta),
—
Bleeker,
1863
:
80
(listed
as
type-species
of
Loricaria;
L.
cataphracta
included
as
a
junior
synonym),
—
Blee-
ker,
1864:
18-20
(description;
6
specimens;
Surinama,
Mejico),
—•
Boeseman,
1972: 311-312
(discussion;
4
syn-
types;
type-locality:
Surinam),
—
Isbriicker,
1972:
164-
166,
178
(discussion;
a
junior
synonym
of
L.
cata-
phracta),
—
Boeseman,
1976:
160
(type-status
of
Blee-
ker's
specimens
denied).
Plecostomus
no.
69
Gronovius,
1754:
26-27
(description;
no
locality),
—
Gronovius,
1756:
16
(diagnosis).
Loricaria
cataphracta
Linnaeus,
1758:
307
&
308
(original
diagnosis;
in
part;
type-locality:
in
America
meridionali;
2
syntypes
—•
2
species
—•
in
NRS;
neotype
in
ZMA),
—
Linnaeus,
1766:
508,
and
Linnaeus,
ed.
Gmelin,
1789:
1363
(same
as
Linnaeus,
1758).
—
Bloch,
1794:
76-79,
pl-
375
figs-
3-4
(description;
discussion;
comparison),
—
Cuvier,
1816:
211
(synonymy),
—
Cloquet,
1823:
208
(discussion),
—
Bory
de
Saint-Vincent,
1826:
504-505
(discussion),
—
Hancock,
1828:
247
(comparison),
—
Linnaeus,
1758.
Dorsal
view
of
neotype.
Fig.
1.
Loricaria
cataphracta

59
Cuvier,
1829:
301,
and
1836:
545
(same
as
in
1816),
—
Guichenot,
in
Guerin
(ed.),
1836:
494
(discussion),
—
Valenciennes,
in
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes,
1840:
459-
466
(Paris
ed.),:
339-344
(Strasbourg
ed.)
(descrip-
tion;
Surinam,
Cayenne;
discussion),
—■
Robert
H.
Schomburgk,
1841:
136-137
(discussion),
—
Cuvier,
1842:
253
(synonymy;
genus
misspelled
as
Loricario),
—
Richard
Schomburgk,
1847:
370
(British
Guiana,
Rupununi;
ecology),
—
Miiller
&
Troschel,
in
Schom-
burgk
(ed.),
1848:
831
(Rupununi,
an
den
Sandbanken),
—Bleeker,
1858:
331
(listed),
—
Giinther,
1864:
255
(description;
Surinam
and
northern
Brazil),
•
—
Klin-
ckowstrom,
1892:
104
(listed;
Surinam,
in
rivers
and
swamps),
—
Regan,
1904:
291
(description;
9
speci-
mens;
R.
Amazon,
Guiana;
note
on
p.
270;
in
dis-
tributional
table
on
p.
196;
in
key
on
p.
274;
in
sub-
genus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann
&
Bean,
1907:
665
(in
part;
9
specimens
from
Amazon
River;
listed),
—
Eigenmann,
1910:
415
(in
part?;
listed;
Amazons,
Guiana,
Paraguay;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Eigen-
mann,
1912a:
243-244
(description;
3
specimens;
British
Guiana,
creek
in
Mora
Passage,
mud-flats
Demerara,
Crab
Falls;
also
recorded
on
pp.
17,
24,
66,
77),
—
Starks,
1913:
36
(listed;
3
specimens;
Para),
—
Fowler,
1915:
241
(description;
1
specimen;
Surinam),
—
Bhatti,
1938:
29-30,
pi.
5
fig.
67,
pi.
6
figs.
68-70
(integument
and
dermal
skeleton,
in
part
based
upon
BMNH
1923.8.11:
31-40,
240
mm),
—
Schultz,
1944:
329
(listed;
in
key
on
p.
323;
table
23;
Amazon),
—
Gosline,
1945
:
106
(in
part
?;
listed;
Amazonas,
Guiana,
Paraguai),
—
Van
der
Stigchel,
1946
&
1947:
170-172
(in
part?;
description;
14
specimens;
Surinam,
Suri-
nam-Brazil?,
South
America),
—
Puyo,
1949:
107
(in
part?;
description;
Guyane
frangaise,
Tonate,
region
de Kourou,
riviere
du
tour
de
l'lle,
Kaw
et
l'Approuage;
vernacular
names:
goret
fouet,
siscioua),
—
Holm,
r
957
:
45
(statement
of
missing
type-material),
—
Whee-
ler,
1958:
214-215,
pi.
28
fig.
I
(redescription
of
Grono-
vius'
specimen
of
Plecostomus
no.
69;
doubtful
iden-
tification;
discussion),
—
Lowe
(McConnell),
1964:
141
(listed;
in
small
sandy
pools
of
Rupununi
River,
Gui-
ana),
—
Boeseman,
1968:
5
(identification
of
Plecosto-
mus
no.
69
Gronovius),
—
Boeseman,
1971
:
15
(notes),
—
Isbrucker,
1971a:
275,
281
(listed;
comparison),
—-
Isbriicker,
1971b:
10,
15-16
(history),
—
Isbrucker,
1972:
163-170,
172-175,
186-187,
figs-
1-6,
I2c-h,
table
I
(history;
designation
of
neotype;
discussion;
type-loca-
lity
restricted:
Surinam,
Marowijne
River
near
Galibi;
Marowijne
River
near
Mopikondre,
Suriname
River
system),
—
Isbrucker,
1973:
172, 173,
181
(discussion),
—
Boeseman,
1976:
156-160,
fig.
2,
pi.
1,
table
1
(in
part?;
discussion;
Surinam,
Marowijne-,
Suriname-,
Nickerie-,
and
Corantijn
River
basins;
Guyane,
Stoupan,
Mahure
River
basin;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Boese-
man,
in
Bruijning,
Voorhoeve
&
Gordijn
(eds.),
1977:
44
(popular
account;
illustration
of
a
$
;
Surinam;
vernacular
name:
basjafisi),
—
Isbrucker
&
Nijssen,
1978a:
184-185
(comparison),
-—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
86-
87, 98,
102,
no
(listed;
comparisons;
indication
of
the
lectotype),
—
Isbrucker,
1979b:
in,
figs.
1-2
(popular
account),
—
Isbrucker,
1980:
115,
116-117
(listed;
notes
on
type-material).
Linnaeus,
1758.
Dorsal
view
of
lectotype
(top),
and
of
the
paralectotype
(bottom),
the
latter
probably
representing
Fig.
2.
Loricaria
cataphracta
Loricariichthys
maculatus
(Bloch,
1794).

60
Plecostomus
corpore
aculeato;
ore
cirrato:
dorso
monop-
terygio
Artedi,
in
Seba,
1759:
88,
not
pi.
29
fig.
14
(description;
non-binominal,
invalid;
the
figure
likely
is
of
a
Loricariichthys
maculatus
(Bloch,
1794)).
Plecostomus
no.
392
Gronovius,
1763:
127
(diagnosis;
same
as
Plecostomus
no.
69
Gronovius,
1754).
Draad-Staart
[obsolete
Dutch
vernacular
name]
Hout-
tuyn,
1765:
125-126
(description;
discussion).
[Plecostomus
s.
Loricaria]
Loricaria
Meuschen,
in
Gro-
novius,
1781,
in
index
following
p.
380
(based
upon
Plecostomus
no.
392
Gronovius,
1763;
invalidated
in
Hemming
(ed.),
1954b),
—•
Whitley,
1929:
305
(listed;
reference
to
index
by
Meuschen).
Loricaria
Cirrhosa
Bloch
&
Schneider,
1801:
xxxii
&
125,
pi.
34
(nomen
novum
for
L.
cataphracta).
Loricaria
cirrhora;
Cuvier,
1829:
301,
1836:
545,
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes,
1842:
253
(listed
as
a
junior
synonym
of L.
cataphracta;
misspelling).
Loricaria
setifera
Lacepede,
1803:
140
&
141
(descrip-
tion
;
nomen novum
for
L.
cataphracta
of
several
authors,
including
Linnaeus,
1758;
likely
not
based
upon
actual
specimens).
Loricaria
setigera;
,
Cuvier,
1816:
211
(a
junior
synonym
of
L.
cataphracta
;
misspelling),
—
Cuvier,
1829:
301,
1836:
545,
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes,
1842:
253
(same
as
Cuvier,
1816),
—
Valenciennes,
in
Cuvier
&
Valen-
ciennes,
1842,
pi.
100
figs.
2-2a
(description;
disposal
of
illustrated
specimen
unknown).
Loricaria
Dentata
Shaw,
1804:
37
(description;
nomen
novum
for
L.
cataphracta;
Indian
seas).
Plecostomus
flagellaris
Gronovius,
ed.
Gray,
1854:
158
(original
diagnosis,
based
upon
Plecostomus
no.
69
Gronovius, 1754;
no
locality).
Loricaria
flagellaris
;
Isbriicker,
1972:
163-170,
175-177,
186-187,
figs.
7,
I2a-b,
table
1
(history;
discussion;
redescription
of
the
holotype;
comparison).
Loricaria
carinata
de
Castelnau,
1855:
46,
pi.
23
fig.
3
(original
description;
holotype;
type-locality:
De
la
riviere
des
Amazones),
—
Kner,
1858:
349
(discussion),
—
Regan,
1904:
292
(in
part;
description;
8
specimens,
including
the
holotype
—
see
also
under
L.
lata and
L.
simillima
—
in
distributional
table
on
p.
196,
in
key
on
p.
274;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Bertin
&
Esteve,
r
9So:
74
(listed;
holotype;
as
L.
cataphracta),
—
Is-
briicker,
1972:
170-171,
178-179,
187,
figs.
8,
I2i-j,
table
i
(discussion;
description
and
illustration
of
the
holotype).
The
following
records
need
confirmation:
Loricaria
cataphracta;
Kner,
1854a:
77-79,
pi.
1
figs.
2a-c
(description;
Cujaba
and
Guapore;
also
mentioned
on
pp.
68,
70,
74-7S,
76,
77,
79-80,
80-81;
“heterodon”
a
better
name
than
cataphracta),
—
Peters,
1877:
471
(listed;
Venezuela,
Calabozo;
vernacular
name:
agu-
jeta),
—
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889:
36
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria
;
Vigia,
Sao
Cong
alio,
Cameta,
Manaos,
Para,
Rio
Negro,
Coary,
Villa
Bella,
Gurupa,
Rio
Preto,
Tajapuru,
Porto
do
Moz,
Teffe,
Maranon
Ucayale,
Obidos),
—
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1890:
382-384
(description;
48
specimens;
same
localities
as
listed
in
1889;
in
key
on
p.
364,
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—-
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1891:
39
(listed;
in
sub-
genus
Loricaria
;
Rio
Preto,
Amazons,
Guiana;
by
typographical
error,
the
synonymy
was
placed
under
L.
nudiventris),
—
Pellegrin,
1899a:
158
(listed;
Vene-
zuela,
Apure),
—-
Pellegrin,
1899b:
406
(Manaos),
—
Eigenmann,
McAtee
&
Ward,
1907:
150
(listed;
Para-
guay
basin),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1911:
122,
pi.
33
fig-
3
(description;
in
key
on
p.
116a;
references
on
p.
427;
Rio
Amazonas
e
Paraguay,
Goyaz,
Matto
Grosso,
Cuyaba,
Guapore,
Vigia,
S.
Gongalo,
Cameta,
Manaos,
Para,
Coary,
Villa
Bella,
Gurupa,
Rio
Preto,
Tajapuru,
Porto
do
Moz,
Teffe
e
Obidos;
Surinam;
Peru
e
Republicas
do
Sul;
misspellings
in
synonymy:
L.
cotaphracta,
Lorioaria
cataphracta,
and
Liricaria
cirrhosa),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1912:
10
(23
speci-
mens;
Manaos,
Porto
Esperidao-Jauru,
Caceres,
Para-
guay,
M.
Grosso,
S.
Manoel
(Tapajoz),
—
Bertoni,
1914:
8
(Paraguay),
-—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1918:
719
(listed;
Matto-Grosso,
Comm.
Rondon;
Rio
Jurua,
Amazonas),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1920:
9
(listed;
probably
from
Aripuanan
or
Jamari),
—
La
Monte,
!93S
:
7
(listed;
Rio
Jurua),
—
Pearson,
1937:
112
(in
distributional
table),
—
Bertoni,
1939:
53
(listed;
Asuncion,
Paraguay),
—
Fowler,
1940a:
286
(listed;
Ucayali
River?;
genus
name
misspelled
as
Loracaria),
—Eigenmann
&
Allen,
1942:
208-210
(description;
Rio
Huallagas,
Yurimaguas,
Rio
Itaya,
Iquitos,
Gosulima-
cocha,
Rio
Paranapura),
—
Devincenzi,
1943:
2
(in
key
to
the
Loricaria
spp.
of
rio
de
la
Plata),
—
Fowler,
1945:
105
(listed;
Peru,
Yurimaguas,
Rio
Itaya,
Iquitos,
Gosulimacocha,
Rio
Paranapura,
Brasil,
Guayanas),
—
Fernandez
Yepez,
1946:
6
(listed;
Rio
Guarico,
Rio
Apure;
vernacular
name:
aguja),
—
Gosline,
1947:
84,
85,
86,
88,
90,
91
(notes
on
dissecting
material
in
Mus.
Rio
de
Janeiro),
—
Fowler,
1954:
92-93
(references;
Amazonia,
Peru,
Paraguay,
Guianas,
Venezuela;
ver-
nacular
name:
pilote),
—
P.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1964:
3
(listed;
2
specimens,
Rio
Araguaya),
—
Mago
Leccia,
1967:
257
(listed;
Venezuela;
vernacular
name:
paleta),
—
Tovar
Serpa,
1967:
221
(listed;
also
listed
on
p.
222),
—
Ovchynnyk,
1968
:
258
(in
part?;
Rio
Anzu,
at
Puerto
Napo,
tributary
of
Rio
Napo,
Prov.
Napo-Pastaza;
Rio
Bogota,
tributary
of
Rio
Tulubi,
tributary
of
Rio
Santiago,
Prov.
Esmeraldas),
—
Mago
Leccia,
1970:
85
(listed;
Venezuela;
vernacular
names:
paleta,
tabla).
Specimens
examined:
Surinam
ZMA
109.616
(neotype,
??),
District
Marowijne,
mouth
of
Marowijne
River
near
Galibi,
05°45'N,
54°oo'W,
fresh
water
(due
to
the
rainy
season
while
collecting),
coll.
H.
Nijssen
(Brokopondo
Research
1966/1967)
&
W.
Vervoort,
1/2-VI-
1966;
—
ZMA
110.722
(topotype),
ZMA
106.230
(8
topotypes),
same
data
as
neotype;
—
ZMA
106.231
(topotype),
District
Marowijne,
Maro-
wijne
River
near
Mopikondre
(=
Maria's
Hoop),
30
km
S.
of
Albina,
05°30'N,
54°I5'W,
seine
in
sandy
bay,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
17-VI-1966.
ZMA
106.232
(1),
District
Brokopondo,
Suriname

61
River
system,
creek
at
right
bank
of
Sara
Creek,
31
km
S.
of
village
Dam,
running
water,
sand-
bottom,
depth
40
cm,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
12-X-1966;
—
ZMA
106.233
(7),
si
89.2-106.9
mm,
District
Brokopondo,
Suriname
River
system,
Sara
Creek,
27
km
S.
of
village
Dam,
running
water,
depth
150
cm,
loam,
sand,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
14-X-1966;
—
ZMA
106.234
(8),
District
Brokopondo,
Suri-
name
River
system,
Marowijne
Creek
(=
Gran
Creek),
63
km
S.
of
Afobaka's
artificial
dam,
running
water,
sand,
depth
150
cm,
coll.
H.
Nijs-
sen,
20-X-1966.
BMNH
1866.8.14:125
(1),
BMNH
1866.8.14:
129
(1),
BMNH
1866.8.14:130
(1),
BMNH
1866.
8.14:156
(1),
BMNH
missing
register
number
(1),
si
148-307
mm,
Surinam,
purch.
of
Damon;
—
BMNH
1860.11.10:14
(1,
<5),
si
265.5
n
1111
'
and
BMNH
1870.3.10:9
(r,
5?),
si
273.5
n™*
Surinam,
purch.
of
Kappler.
French
Guiana
BMNH
1926.3.2.:765-782
(21),
Prov.
Guyane,
Fleuve
Oyapock
at
St.
Georges,
03°55'N,
5i°47'W,
coll.
C.
Ternetz;
—
MNHN
1900.159-163
(5),
si
95-115.5
mm,
Fleuve
Oyapock
at
St.
Georges,
coll. F.
Geay;
—
MNHN
A.9557
(2),
Prov.
Guyane,
Cayenne,
04°55'N,
52°I8'W,
coll.
Frere,
before
1840.
Guyana
BMNH
1974.5.22:524-528
(5),
si
103.5-131
mm,
Rupununi
River,
in
sandy creek,
coll.
R.
H.
Lowe
(McConnell);
—
BMNH
1977.10.4:1
(1),
ZMA
1
15.132
(1),
Anarika
near
Rockstone,
Essequibo
River,
coll.
G.
J.
Howes,
31-I-1976;
—
BMNH
1876.10.4:2-3
(2),
si
133-135.3
mm,
Demerara,
purch.
of
Cutter.
Brazil
BMNH
1923.8.11:31-40
(19),
ZMA
115.133
(2),
si
230-276
mm,
Est.
Para,
Ilha
de
Marajo,
coll.
W.
Ehrhardt;
—-
BMNH
1895.3.29:40
(1),
Est.
Para,
Belem
(formerly
Para),
oi°27'W,
presented
by
Goldi.
MNHN
A.9562
(holotype
of
Loricaria
carinata),
Rio
Amazonas,
coll.
F.
de
Castelnau;
—
USNM
52574
(8),
Est.
Para/Amazonas,
Rio
Amazonas,
Belem
(=
Para)
to
Manaus,
coll.
J.
B.
Steere,
1901.
South
America
ZMB
3160
(1),
described
by
Bloch,
1794
and
—
erroneously
—
designated
as
the
lectotype
of
L.
cirrhosa
Bloch
&
Schneider
by
Isbriicker,
1972;
—
BMNH
1853.11.12:
195-196
(2
parts
of
the
holotype
of
Plecostomus
flagellaris);
—
MZUN
unregistered
(i).
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
presented
in
tables
and
are
not
repeated
here.
Marowijne
River
specimens
(table
Ila-d)
Anus
surrounded
by
a
relatively
large
naked,
roundish-oval
area,
reaching
the
naked
ventral
base
of
pelvic
fins
by
a
narrow
connection
of
skin.
Anterior
to
base
of
last
pelvic
fin
ray,
the
ab-
domen
is
usually
completely
covered
with
small
polygonal
scutelets
(occasionally
lacking
in
small,
isolated
areas
about
the
pectoral
fin
base),
usually
decreasing
in
size
anteriorly.
Two
specimens
in
ZMA
106.230
(si
267
and
250
mm)
differ
in
having
relatively
large
scutelets
between
base
of
pectoral
fins.
The
scutelets
reach
just
posterior
to
the
inner
side
of
gill
opening,
leaving
a
naked,
or
roundish
median
notch.
Together
with
the
posterior
thoracic
scute,
the
larger
scutes
ante-
rior
to
naked
anal
area
form
an
inflexible
plate.
The
smaller
scutelets
between
the
prominent
thoracic
scutes
allow
lateral
as
well
as
dorsal
and
ventral
movement
of
this
part
of
the
body.
The
small
scutelets
in
front
of
this
complex
again
form
an
inflexible
area.
There
is
individual
variation
in
the
pattern
of
abdominal
scutelets.
Ventral
side
of
head
naked,
except
for
a
series
of
narrow,
mostly
square-like
marginal
scutes
extending
from
dorsolateral
and
dorsofrontal
sides
of
the
head.
Posteroventral,
mostly
second,
scute
may
extend
beyond
margin
of
head.
Minute
odontodes
(=
dermal
denticles,
or
in-
tegumentary
teeth)
on
all
dermal
ossifications,
including
fin
spines
and
rays.
These
odontodes
are
more
prominent
in
the
following
areas:
(i)
on
supraoccipital
process,
in
two
longitudinal
rows,
which
may
run
from
almost
parallel
to
slightly
diverging
posteriorly,
(2)
on
the
three
subsequent
middorsal
(predorsal)
scutes,
in
two
longitudinal
rows
on
the
first
and
second
scute,
and
in
a
single

62
row
on
the
third
scute,
(3)
in
two
longitudinal
rows
along
coalescing
and
parallel
lateral
body
scutes,
including
some
larger
odontodes
on
clei-
thrum,
(4)
medianly
on
the
first
three
to
five
scutes
between
predorsal
and
dorsolateral
body
scutes,
(5)
on
dorsoanterior
part
of
orbital
rim,
(6)
along
ventral
snout
margin,
including
latero-
posterior
part
of
preoperculum.
Orbital
rim
oval
in
shape,
with
a
small
dorso-
posterior
notch,
preceded
dorsoanteriorly
by
some
prominent
odontodes.
Pectoral
pore
present
in
skin
just
ventral
to
the
anterior
part
of first
lateral
body
scute.
Simple
pores
of
the
sensory
canal
system
on
dorsum
of
head,
as
short
curved
or
as
long
straight
canals,
usually
between
fusions
of
the
dermal
ossifica-
tions.
Bifurcate
pores
are
present
between
odon-
tode
rows
along
coalescing
scutes,
just
ventral
to
the
dorsal
row.
Between
odontode
rows
along
parallel
lateral
body
scutes
the
pores
are
mostly
simple.
Upper
lip
narrow,
the
anterior
margin
to
base
of
the
maxillary
(
=
rictal)
barbels
with
numerous
simple,
bifurcate,
rarely
trifurcate
or
quadrifur-
cate,
long
and
thick
subbarbels.
A
large
number
of
similar
barbels,
usually
simple
and
shorter,
on
the
surface
posterior
to
this
margin
at
either
side
of
the
origin
of
premaxillae,
reaching
base
and
ventral
surface
of
maxillary
barbel.
Along
inner
side
of
maxillary
barbels,
a
narrow
area
Loricaria
cataphracta,
Table
I.
Measurements
in
mm
and
counts
of
(a)
holotype,
(c)
neotype,
(b)
Plecostomus
flagellaris,
Loricaria
lata,
Loricaria
par-
nahybae,
Loricaria
carinata,
holotype,
(d)
lectotype,
(e)
Loricaria
simillima,
lectotype,
(f)
lectotype,
(g)
Loricaria
piauhiae,
holotype,
(h)
Loricaria
piracicabae,
Loricaria
clavipinna,
holotype,
(i)
holotype,
(k)
Loricaria
tucumanensis,
Loricaria
apeltogaster,
holotype,
(j)
lecto-
type,
(n)
Loricaria
nickeriensis,
holotype,
(m)
Loricaria
prolixa,
holotype,
(o)
Loricaria
lentiginosa,
holotype.
specimen
a
b
c
d
e
fg
h
i
j
k
m
n
0
mature
male
~b
+ + +
?
+
+
+
standard
length
292.0
l8l.9
228.0
267.0
162.5
103.2
131-0
I68.O 142.0
118.
6
122.3 177.0
295.0
292.5
axial
length
3144
I96.O
—
174.
1
HI.1
139-5
1530
—
132.6
191.
0
322.0 321.0
total
length
—
363.9
—
—
172.0
— —
>236.0
495-0
442.5
head
length
62.3
35-9
48.4
594 334
21.7 26.6
394
3i.5
24.1
29-5
35-7
62.9 63.7
predorsal
length
89.9
53-1
66.6
86.4
49-5
30.5
38.3
54-8
43-2
349
41.4 52.2 90.5 92.0
postdorsal
length
1744
III.O
I4I.5
154.6
98.2
62.5
82.0
96.7
86.2 74.o
68.1
109.2
176.0
173-4
postanal
length
148.9
101.5 122.8 128.1
84.4
55-i
70.6 76.4
74-7
65-4
57-7
90.0
143.6
142.4
dorsal
spine
length
—
45.8
— —
21.7
26.4
—
33.1
25.3
27-5
45-9
50.0
55-8
first
dorsal
ray
67.4
44.0
—
51.5
34-8
20.7
24.1
—
32.4
24-5
26.0
39-1
48.4
53-i
anal
spine
length
54-6
27.1
—
44.1
27.9
16.8
20.5
—
24.9
22.2
23-4
32.7
52.2
50.9
pectoral
spine
length
51.7 32.3
>36.4
55-0
32.7
17-4
21.9
—
28.2
21.0
24.4
52.8 81.9
72.2
pelvic
spine
length
55-4
28.5
42.2
47-3
27.2
17.3
21-5
26.1
25.9
19.6
20.9
35-3
70.2
64.9
upper
caudal
spine
—
>
182.0
— —
68.8
—
— — —
>59.0
206.0
150.0
lower
caudal
spine
43-2
33-6
—
22.9
15-6
— — —
—
36.0
53-2
46.4
snout
length
33-5
18.9
26.7
33-8
17.7
II*3
14-5
21.8
17.2
12.0
16.1
18.5
36.0 364
lower
lip
150
— —
11.3
4.0
4.4
3.7 6.2
—
6.5
5-7
3-9
132
16.7
thoracic
length
45-3
—
34-4
46.6 26.7
16.1
I9.0
28.7
24.3
18.1
22.1
32.4
5i.3
45-9
abdominal
length
38.0
24.4 30.4
44.1
21.8
131
17.2 27.1
18.4
15-3 17-5
28.0 50.4
47-5
max.
orbital
diameter
10.3 7-3
8.9
9-7
6.1
4.7
5-1 5-9
6.6
5-4 4-4
5-8
7-6
8.3
interorbital
width
14.3
6.6
10.3
11.4
6-3 3-6
4-9
6.6
5-6
4.1
6.4
6.6
11.1
11.9
cleithral
width
49.6
33-9
40.9
50.6
26.2
15.8
20.3
32.9 25.4
16.2
23.1
31.6
63.1
63-5
supra-cleithral
width
37-0 24-3
28.8
36.7
19.9
11.0
14.6
23-5
17.3
11.7
16.9
21.2
42.2
43-4
head
width
46.4
32.3 40.9 49.0
26.2
15.8
193
31-4 23-4
15-9
22.0
30.5
59-°
59-7
head
depth
3I.I
—
20.5 24.4
132
8.7
II.0
12.6
12.1
8.7
11.2
13-6
22.5
25-5
body
depth
at
dorsal
34-0
—
23.1 27.2
15.2
8.7
II.5
12.4
130
8.7
11.4
16.9
24.1 28.2
body
width
at
dorsal
41.0
33-4 33-4
48.5
20.9 11.6
16.9
23.8
18.0
130
17.6
25-3 53-2 53-2
body
width
at
anal
35-8
23.1 26.1 41.0 19.0
10.2
136
19.2
14.8
11.7
14.1
24-3
52.7
51-5
depth
caudal
peduncle
5-2
—
3-1 4-3
2.1
13
1-5
2.3 1.8
1-3
1.4 2.7
4-7 4-9
width
caudal
peduncle
10.9
6-5
8.1
11.4
5-6
2.9
4-2
6.2
4-5 3-4
4.0
7-7 14.1
12.2
rictal
barbel
22.2
— —
23.9
14.0
8.8
9-7
—
11.8 11.4
9.0
12.6
28.5
—
lower
lip
barbels
6.8
— — — —
i.7
———
33
—
2.0
4-9
"•3
lateral
scutes
35/35
35/35
35/35
34/34
35/35
34/33 34/34 36/37
35/35
34/34
32/32 35/35 36/35 35/35
coalescing
scutes
I7/L8
19
?/18
20/19 21/22
20/21 19/19 18/18
25/23
18/17 17/19
19,19
18/19
22/21
22/21
thoracic
scutes
IO/IO
9/9
10/8
9/8
10/10
7/8
7/8
9/8 8/9
10/7
8/8
11/10
9/9 8/7
teeth
upper
jaws
3/2 4/4 3/3
3/2
4/3 3/4 3/3 3/4 3/4 2/4 4/3 2/2 2/3
3/3
teeth
lower
jaws
8/5
4/3
6/5 5/6 7/7 6/6 7/9 2/4
10/11
6/7 6/7 7/7 8/5 5/6

63
devoid
of
such
subbarbels.
Surface
of
the
entire
connected
lower
lip
with
numerous
slender
papil-
lae.
Edge
of
lower
lip
with
a
median
notch,
and
with
about
20-24
l°
n
g
papillae,
or
subbarbels.
Surface
of
premaxillae
with
4-6
axial
fleshy
lamellae,
allowing
replacement
teeth
to
elevate
in
position.
Just
posterior
to
origin
of
functional
teeth,
these
lamellae
are
provided
with
one
or
two
thick,
acute
papillae,
as
long
as
or
shorter
than
premaxillary
teeth.
Between
both
premaxillae
the
surface
is
papillose,
bearing
two
prominent
papil-
lae
in
median
position,
followed
posteriorly
by
two
papillae
in
transverse
position,
as
well
as
one
large
papilla
at
either
side
of
the
latter.
Teeth
in
premaxillae
about
twice
as
long
as
(or
longer
than)
those
in
the
dentary.
Teeth
in
both
jaws
usually
with
a
small
to
minute
outer
lobe
and
a
conspicuous
inner
lobe.
Inner
lobe
of
premaxillary
teeth
usually
oblong
with
or
without
a
rounded
tip,
or
slightly
conical.
Inner
lobe
of
teeth
in
the
dentary
with
an
oval
or
roundish
tip,
which
rarely
is
slightly
conical.
Tip
of
supraoccipital
process
blunt
or
acute.
Eye
dorsally
covered
with
a
narrow
pigmented
flap
of
skin.
Iris
with
a
small,
mostly
acute
or
somewhat
roundish
dorsal
flap.
Colour
in
alcohol.
—
Ground
colour
of
all
ossi-
fied
parts
light
yellowish
tan,
ground
colour
of
naked
parts
whitish.
Pigment
almost
absent,
except
for
diffuse
greyish
chromatophores.
Such
chroma-
Table
II.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of
(a)
neotype,
Surinam,
Marowijne
River
system,
(b)
i
male,
topotype,
ZMA
110.722,
(c)
8
topotypes,
ZMA
106.230,
(d)
1
topotype,
ZMA
106.231,
(e)
9
speci-
mens,
Surinam,
Suriname
River
system,
ZMA
106.232
and
106.234,
(f-j)
4, 1, 1, 7,
and 8
specimens,
respectively,
arranged
according
to
size,
French
Guiana,
Fleuve
Oyapock,
BMNH
1926.3.2:765-782.
Measurements
expressed
at
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
cataphracta:
specimen(s)
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
mature
male
+
I
?
3
— —
standard
length
292.0 27I.O
250.0-280.0
182.5
62.9-122.3
261.5-273.0
189.O
132.7
101.1-123.7
65.6-
94.0
axial
length
3144
291.8
268.4-301.5
194.3
up to
121.4
282.3-295.0
204.0
—
108.6-132.4
70.9-101.5
total
length
— —
up to
209.3
up to
447.0
—
up to
174.7
88.8-118.3
head
length
4-7 4-7
4-7-5-2
5.0
4-7-5.0
4.5-5.0
5.0
5-
1
4.8-5.0 4.6-4.8
predorsal
length
3-2 3-3
3-4-3-6
3-4
3-4-3.5
3.1-3.3
3-5
3-6
3-4-3.5
3-3-3.6
postdorsal
length
1.7
1-7
1.6-1.7
1.6
1.6-1.7 1.6-1.7
1-7
1.6
—
—
postanal
length
2.0 2.0
1.8-2.0
1.9
1.8-1.9
1.9-2.0
1.8 1.8
— —
dorsal
spine
length
—
—
4-0-<4-7
5-5
4.4-5.0
3-4-3-8
3-9
4.4
4.4-4.8
4-5-5-I
first
dorsal
ray
4-3
4.2
4-2-5-1
5-7
4.7-5.2
3.6-3.9
4-2 4-5
4.7-5.1
4-7-5.5
anal
spine
length
5-3 5-3
5.3-6.2
—
5.7-6.2
4.8-5.1
5-4
5-6
5-7-6.1
5.8-6.8
pectoral
spine
length
5-6
5-3
5.2-6.1
6.6
5.5-6.3
4.8-5.2
5-4
5-8
— —
pelvic
spine
length
5-3
5-6
5-5-6-3
6.1
5-5-6.2
4.8-5.4
5-8
5-6
5.9-6.4
5.7-6.9
upper
caudal
spine
— —
up to
<3.3
—
up to
1.0
up to
1.4
— —
up to
<
1.4
up to
2.8
lower
caudal
spine
6.8
6.3
6.5-7.2
7-3
6.8-7.7 5.8-6.0
6.4
—
7-3-7.6
7.0-7.5
snout
length
1.9 1.9
1-9
i-9
1.9-2.I
1.8-1.9
2.0
1.9
—
—
lower
lip
4.2
4-4
4-0-5-3
4.9
3.8-4.7
4.6-5.0
5-1 4-9
5-0-5-7
4.8-6.0
thoracic
length
1.4
1-3
12-I.3
i-3
1.2-1.5 1.2-1.3
1-3
1.3
1.3-1.4
I.3-1-5
abdominal
length
1.6 1.6
I-5-I-7
i-4
1.5-1.8
1.5-1-7
1.6
1-7
— —
max.
orbital
diameter
6.0
5-9
5-3-5-8
4.9
4.4-4.9
5-4-6-0
5-4
5-6
4-6-5.0
4.4-4.8
interorbital
width
4.4
4.9
4.3-4.8
5-2 5-3-6.4
4.8-5.3
5-3 5-2
5-I-5.6
5-I-5-7
cleithral
width
1-3 1-3
i-3 i-4
I-4-I.5
1-3
i-3
1.4
— —
supra-cleithral
width
1-7
1.8
1.7-1.8
1.8
1.9-2.1
1.7-1.8
1.8 1.8
— —
head
width
1-3
1.4
1.3-1-4
1-4
I-4-I-5
I-3-I-4
1.4 1.4
— —
head
depth
2.0
2.4
2.1-2.3
2.4
2.5-2.8
2.1-2.3
2.3 2.4
2.4-2.7
2.5-2.7
body
depth
at
dorsal
1.8
2.2
1.9-2.1
2.0
2.3-2.8 1.8-1.9
1.9
2.2
2.2-2.5
2.5-2.7
body
width
at
dorsal
1-5
1-7
1.4-1.7
1.6
1.8-2.3
I-4-I-5
1-5
1.7
1.8-2.0
2.0-2.1
body
width
at
anal
1.7 1.9
1.7-1.9
1.8
2.0-2.5
1.7-1.8
1-9
2.1
2.1-2.4 2.2-2.8
depth
caudal
peduncle
12.0
14.6
12.3-15-4
14.6
16.9-19.3
13.8-15.8
17.3
15-4
15.0-19.2 16.6-20.6
width
caudal
peduncle
5-7 5-7
4-9-5-6
6.4
6.2-7.5
5-6-6.3
6.1
7-3
— —
rictal
barbel
2.8 2.4
2.3-2.5
2-5
2.3-3-3
2.0-2.3
—
2.8
— —
lower
lip
barbels
9.2
11.6
8.5-10.3
12.2
I0.5-I3-9
10.5-14.6
12.3
13.7
8.7-14.0
9.8-15.3
lateral
scutes
35/35 35/35
35/35-36 35/35
33-34/33-34 34-35/34-35
35/35
36/36
35-36/35-36
35/34-35
coalescing
scutes
17/18
19/19
17-18/17-19
19/19
l8-I9/l8-20
17-19/18-19
17/18
19/19
18-20/18-20 18-19/18-19
thoracic
scutes
10/10 10/10
8-12/
6-10
10/9
7-10/
7-9
7-9
1
7-10
IO/II
9/9
— —
teeth
upper
jaws
3/2 3/2
2-4
/
2-4
2/3
2-4
/
2-4
1-4
/
3-5
3/4 5/5
4/
4-5 3-5
1
4-5
teeth
lower
jaws
8/5
7/9
6-7
/
6-7
9/10
6-9
/
5-8
6-8
1
5-9
8
17
8
17
5-7
/
7-8
6-8
/
7-8

64
tophores
may
be
more
abundant
on
dorsum
of
the
paired
fins,
especially
on
the
membrane.
Only
one
of
the
ten
topotypes
(ZMA
110.722,
a
male)
has
a
faint
pattern
in
the
caudal
fin,
con-
sisting
of
alternate
brownish
grey
blotches
on
lower
caudal
fin
spine,
and
brown
pigment
on
distal
ends
of
rays
in
the
lower
caudal
fin
lobe.
This
specimen
displays
secondary
sexual
dimorph-
ism
in
having
the
pectoral
fin
spine
quite
thick,
especially
at
about
two
thirds
of
its
length.
The
tips
of
the
teeth
are
not
rounded
more
than
in
females.
In
the
specimen
in
ZMA
106.231
the
abdominal
scutelets
are
absent
in
a
V-shaped
area
com-
mencing
halfway
base
of
pectoral
fin,
reaching
to
about
halfway
last
(inner)
pectoral
fin
ray.
Comparative
notes:
Surinam,
Suriname
River
system.
—
The
speci-
men
in
ZMA
106.232
(si
87.2
mm;
table
He)
has
a
light
pale,
yellowish
colour
all
over,
without
markings.
Abdominal
scutes
incompletely
devel-
oped.
Orbital
notch
very
small.
The
seven
juveniles
in
ZMA
106.233
(
89.2-
106.9
mm)
have
a
greyish
tan
ground
colour
of
dorsum
of
head
and
body.
Base
of first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray
with
faint
brownish
pig-
mentation,
continuing
transversely
on
the
scutes.
A
faint,
rather
broad,
brownish
transverse
stripe
may
be
present
just
posterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray.
In
some
of
the
specimens
a
similar
stripe
midway
between
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray
and
caudal
fin
base.
Faint
brownish
spots
on
dorsal
fin.
Upper
caudal
fin
spine
spotted
with
brown.
Posterior
half
of
lower
caudal
fin
lobe
may
bear
brown
pigment,
like
the
three
triangular
scutes
on
caudal
fin
base.
The
eight
juveniles
in
ZMA
106.234
(si
62.9-
122.3
mm;
table
He)
are
like
the
preceding,
but
dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray
has
five
to
seven
faint
transverse
stripes
of
varying
width.
A
stripe
near
first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray
may
continue
anteriorly
oblique
on
the
dorsum
of
body,
to
about
the
dorsal
row
of
odontodes
along
the
lateral
body
scutes.
The
larger
specimens
have
the
abdominal
scutes
fairly
com-
pletely
developed.
The
dimensions
in
table
II
(showing
differ-
ences
in
maximum
orbital
diameter,
interorbital
width,
cleithral
width,
supra-cleithral
width,
head
depth,
body
depth
and
width
at
dorsal,
body
width
at
anal,
and
depth
and
width
of
caudal
peduncle)
likely
are
due
to
allometry.
The
Suriname
River
population
tends
to
have
less
lateral
body
scutes
and
more
coalescing
scutes.
There
are
no
larger
specimens
from
this
river
system
available
for
comparison,
nor
smaller
ones
from
the
Marowijne
River
system.
French
Guiana,
Fleuve
Oyapock
(table
Ilf-j).
—•
Of
the
four
largest
specimens
(261.5-273
mm
si),
two
have
a
shallow
notch
in
the
medio-anterior
series
of
abdominal
scutelets.
In
a
specimen
of
269
mm
si
it
is
shallowly
V-shaped,
in
the
speci-
men
of
261.5
mm
rounded.
There
is
a
median
con-
vexity
between
the
nostrils
and
orbital
edges,
bearing
prominent
odontodes,
especially
in
smaller
specimens.
In
a
male
of
269
mm
si,
the
crowns
of
pre-
maxillary
teeth
are
about
thrice
as
short
and
distinctly
broader
than,
e.g.,
in
the
male
in
ZMA
110.722
from
the
Marowijne
River
(this
speci-
men,
si
271
mm,
has
a
thicker
pectoral
fin
spine)
and
in
the
two
other
males
from
the
Oyapock
(261.3
an<
i
2
73
mm
i
n
s
l)-
The
teeth
in
the
dentary
are
also
shorter
and
have
broader
tips
than
in
the
mentioned
other
three
males.
Especially
on
inner
dorsum
of
pectoral
fin
spine,
the
odontodes
are
more
conspicuous
than
in
the
large
female
(sl
263
mm)
in
this
sample.
The
odontodes
on
pelvic
and
anal
fin
spine
are
slightly
blunter.
The
four
adults
(table
Ilf)
differ
from
the
topotypes
of
comparable
size
in
several
morphometric
charac-
ters:
all
fins
except
caudal
are
longer,
and
usually
the
interorbital
area
is
narrower.
The
development
of
abdominal
scutelets
may
be
advanced
at
a
si
of
116.5
mm
>
although
a
speci-
men
of
123.7
mm
in
si
h
as
the
posterior
half
of
the
abdomen
reasonably
covered
only.
At
a
si
of
about
130
mm
the
abdomen
is
almost
completely
covered.
The
specimen
of
65.6
mm
in
si
has
four
small
scutelets,
about
anterior
to
base
of
pelvic
fin
spines,
where
the
scutelets
develop
first
and
continue
anteriorly.
Juveniles
are
otherwise
completely
developed.
They
possess
a
faint
colour
pattern,
consisting
of
three
to
five
transverse
bars
on
dorsum
of
body

65
posterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray;
trans-
versely
arranged
pigmentation
may
occur
about
base
of
dorsal
fin
spine.
Dorsal
fin,
and
dorsum
of
paired
fins
with
even
or
irregular
brown
spots,
tending
to
form
a
transverse
marking
in
the
paired
fins
short
from
the
end
of
the
rays.
The
anal
fin
may
bear
vague
markings.
The
caudal
fin
has
dark
brown
pigment
on
and
surrounding
caudal
scutelets.
Dark
pigment
is
prominent
on
distal
half
of
caudal
fin
rays,
especially
on
the
lower
lobe,
often
forming
a
sickle-shape,
running
along
the
outer
caudal
fin.
The
tips
of
upper
caudal
fin
rays
are
not
pigmented.
This
colour
pattern
gradually
fades
with
growth.
However,
the
female
of
263
mm
si
has
still
remnants
of
the
juvenile
colour
pattern
in
dorsal,
pectoral,
pelvic
and
caudal
fins.
Very
small
specimens
have
almost
no
posterior
orbital
notch;
adults
have
a
shallow,
inconspicuous
notch.
French
Guiana,
Cayenne.
—
The
two
speci-
mens
in
MNHN
A.9557
(table
Illa-b)
were
col-
lected
before
1840
(mentioned
by
Valenciennes,
1840).
The
prominent
odontodes
are
white,
likely
due
to
change
during
the
period
of
preservation.
Orbital
notch
small.
Guyana,
Rupununi
River.
—
Table
IIIc.
Ground
colour
light
brownish.
Head
and
body
anterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray
tend
to
be
slightly
darker,
even
brown.
Posterior
to
base
of
(a-b)
2
specimens,
French
Guiana,
Cayenne,
MNHN
A.9557,
(c)
1
specimen,
Guyana,
Rupununi
River,
BMNH
1974.5.22:524-528,
(d-e)
2
specimens,
Guyana,
Essequibo
River,
BMNH
1977.10.4:1,
ZMA
115.132,
(f-i)
4
specimens,
Brazil,
Ilha
de
Marajo,
BMNH
1923.8.11:31-40,
ZMA
115.133,
(j)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Belem,
BMNH
1895.3.29:40,
(k)
holotype
of
Table
III.
Morphometric
and meristic
characters
of
Loricaria
cataphracta:
(m)
8
specimens,
Brazil,
Belem
to
Manaus,
USNM
52574,
(n)
1
specimen,
South
America,
Bloch’s
collection,
ZMB
3160,
(o)
holotype
of
Loricaria
carinata,
(p)
1
specimen,
South
Ame-
rica,
MZUN
unregistered.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Plecostomus
flagellaris,
specimen
(s)
a
b
c
d
e
f
g
h
i
j
k
m n
0
P
mature
male
+ +
+
+
2
+
?
— —
standard
length
199-3
I98.O
131.0 166.8 143.0
260.0
258.0
254-5
230.0
178.0
228.0
142.0-188.5
278.0
181.9
141.
1
axial
length
—
— —
154.5
282.4 277.9
—
245-8
— —
152.7-204.9
—
196.0
152.0
total
length
— — —
212.0
5i5-o
>328.2
—
>282.8
296.0
— — —
363.9
—
head
length
4.8
4.9
4.6
5-2
4.8
4.4
4-7 4-5
4-7
4-5 4-7
4.4-4.9
5-r 5-r
4-7
predorsal
length
3-4 3-4 3-4 3-7
3-6
3-o 3-3 3-1 3-3 3-3 3-4
3-2-3-4
3-5 3-4 3-2
postdorsal
length
1.6 1.6
1
-7
1.6 1.6 1.8
1-7 1-7
1.7
1-7
1.6
1.6-1.7
1.6 1.6
r.7
postanal
length
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9
2.1
1-9
2.0
2.0 2.0
r.9
1.8-2.0
r-9
1.8
2.0
dorsal
spine
length
— —
4-7 4-4
4.4
3-8
3-7
4.0
43
4.0
—
3.9-4.6
—
4.0
—
first
dorsal
ray
4.2 4.2 4.9
4.6
4-5 3-9 3-9 4-3 4-5 4-3
—
3-9-4-7
4-4
4«
r
4-4
anal
spine
length
5-3
—
6.0 6.2
5-8
5-0 5-2
—
5-4
— —
4-9-5-5
5-o
6.7
5-5
pectoral
spine
length
5-4
—
5-4 5-1
4-7
5-6
5-1 5-2 5-3
<6.3
5-r-5-6
5-2
5-6
—
pelvic
spine
length
<6.3
—
5-9 5-9 5-3 4-9 5-1 5-3
5.2
—
5-4
4-7-5-7
5-r
6.4
5-3
upper
caudal
spine
— — — —
2.0 1.0
<3-7
—
4-4
<i-5
—
up to
1.3
—
1.0
—
lower
caudal
spine
— —
74
8.1 6.8
6.0
— —
6.7
<7-2
—
5-8-7-r
—
5-4
7.o
snout
length
1.9 1.9 1.9
1-9
1.9 1.9
1-9
1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8
1.9-2.0
1.8
r.9
2.0
lower
lip
—
—
4.9
5-7 5-5
4.6
4-4
4.6
4-7
—
—
4-7-5-r
5-r
—
4-7
thoracic
length
1.3
1-3
1-5
r-3 1-3
1-3
1-3 1-3
1.3
r-3
1.4
1.2-1.5
1.2
—
r.3
abdominal
length
1-5
1.5 1.6
1-5
1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
1-5
1-7
1.6
1.6-1.8
r-5
r.5
1.6
max.
orbital
diameter
5-4 5-4 5-1 5-3 5-2 5-4 5-1 5-7 5-7
4.9
5-4
4-3-5-0
5-7
4-9 4-5
interorbital
width
5.o 5.o 5.7
5-5
5-6
4-9
4.9
5-2 4-7
5-r
4-7
4.8-5.5
4-7
5-4 5-3
cleithral
width
1-3 1-3
i-3 i-3
1-3 1-3
i-3
1-3
r-3
i-3
1.2
r.3-r.4
1.2 1.1
r.4
supra-cleithral
width
1.8 1.8
2.0
1.8
1.9
1-7 1-7
1.8
i-7
1.8
r.7
1.8-1.9
1.6
r-5
1.8
head
width
1.4 1.4 1.4
1-3
i-4
1-3
i-3
1-3
i-3
r-3
1.2
r.3-r-5
r-3
1.1
r.4
head
depth
2.3 2.4
2-9
2.8 2.9
1-9
1.9
2.1
2.2
2.4 2.4
2.2-2.6
2.2
—
2.4
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.0 2.0
2.6
2-5
2.4
1-7
1.6 1.9 1.9 2.3
2.1
2.1-2.4
1.8
—
2.1
body
width
at
dorsal
1.6
1-7
1.8
1-7
1.8
1-4
i-3
1.6
i-5
r-5 r-5
1.6-1.8
r-5
1.1
1.6
body
width
at
anal
1.8
2.0 2.1 2.0
2.1
1.6 1.7
r.8
1-7
r-9
r.9
1.8-2.1
1.6 1.6
2.1
depth
caudal
peduncle
15-3
16.2
17.9
17-9
19.8
15-3
15.3
15-7
15-3
r7-9
15-6
15.6-19.2
12.7
—
18.8
width
caudal
peduncle
6.7 6.4
5.o
6.9
6.6 6.1
5-8
5-9
5-6
5-9
6.0
5-9-6-9
4-7 5-5 7-7
rictal
barbel
———
2-5
2.5 2.6 2.4 2.4
2.2
— —
2.3-2.6
— —
2.3
lower
lip
barbels
— —
11.0
10.4
10.2
10.5
18.4
23.6
13-6
— —
9.8-IO.I
7-8
—
7-7
lateral
scutes
35/35 35/35 35/35
36/36
35/35
34/34
35/35 35/35
35/36 34/34
35/35
34-35/33-35
36/35 35/35
34/34
coalescing
scutes
18/18 18,19
21/20
21/20 20/20
19/19 18/19 18/18 19/19 18/18
20/19
17-20/17-20
18/17
19
?/18
19/19
thoracic
scutes
8/8 8/9
11/9
9/8 7/8
8/8 9/9
9/10
8/10
9/8
10/8
8-10/7-10
8/9 9/9 8/9
teeth
upper
jaws
4/4
—
2/3 3/2 3/4 4/5 3/2 4/4 2/4 5/5 3/3
3-4/3-4
1/3
4/4 3/3
teeth
lower
jaws
6/3
—
6/8 7/7 8/8 7/7 7/7 8/8 7/8
8/-
6/5
5-10/6-9
8/7 4/3 7/6

66
last
dorsal
fin
ray,
the
dorsum
of
caudal
peduncle
has
three
to
five
transverse
brown
stripes
(absent
in
one
of
the
specimens).
Dorsal
fin
with
many
small,
indefinite
dark
brown
patches.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
either
plain,
or
light
brown.
One
of
the
specimens
has
many
small,
light
spots
in
more
or
less
oblique
series
in
these
fins.
Caudal
fin
with
darker
pigment
on
basal
triangular
scutes
and
with
indefinite
patches
on
rays
and
membrane.
Tip
of
most
of
the
caudal
fin
rays
dark
brown,
forming
a
roundish,
marginal stripe.
Abdominal
scutes
almost
completely
developed
in
most
speci-
mens
(si
103.5-131
mm).
Odontodes
on
dorsum
of
head
more
prominent,
arranged
into
weakly
waving
longitudinal
lines.
Especially
the
larger
specimens
with
a
small
posterior
orbital
notch.
Guyana,
Essequibo
River.
—
Table
Illd-e.
Greyish
rather
than
brownish
pigmentation.
Especially
the
smaller
of
the
two
specimens
at
hand
has
the
lower
half
of
dorsal
fin
rays
with
even
grey
pigment,
followed
by
a
scarcely
pig-
mented
oblique
area.
This
area
followed
by
un-
even
grey
pigmentation.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
dark.
Tip
of
most
caudal
fin
rays
broken
off
in
the
larger
specimen,
nearly
black
in
the
smaller
specimen,
causing
an
almost
vertical,
rather
broad
bar.
Brazil,
Ilha
de
Marajo.
—
Table
Illf-i.
Poste-
rior
margin
of
caudal
fin
with
a
broad,
dark
brown
band,
except
for
tips
of
the
three
upper
branched
rays
in
upper
lobe.
In
some
specimens
this
band
is
narrower,
in
others
almost
the
entire
caudal
fin
is
pigmented.
Paired
fins
and
dorsal
fin
may
be
evenly
pigmented
with
brown;
most
of
the
speci-
mens
are
light
yellowish.
Brownish
pigment
may
be
present
on
dorsum
of
body
and
head,
forming
faintly
marbled
areas.
The
posterior
orbital
notch
is
more
prominent
than
in
the
specimens
from
the
Marowijne
River.
Eight
out
of
21
specimens
are
males
(si
230-
257
mm;
si
of
the
females
255-276
mm).
Seven
of
them
have
the
crowns
of
the
teeth shorter
and
broader
than
in
the
females,
like
the
male
from
Fleuve
Oyapock
described
above.
The
contrast
between
both
sexes
is
in
the
shape
of
mandibular
teeth,
not
always
in
the
shape
of
the
teeth
in
the
premaxillae.
However,
the
dentition
of
the
pre-
maxillae
is
often
damaged
in
the
presumed
females
in
this
series.
There
are
morphometric
and
meristic
differences
with
the
topotypes
in
the
four
mea-
sured
specimens.
Brazil,
Belem.
—
The
male
in
BMNH
1895.
3.29:40
(si
178
mm;
table
IHj)
has
short,
spoon-
shaped
tooth
crowns;
the
pectoral
fin
spine
is
hardly
broader
than
in
a
female.
Brazil,
Rio
Amazonas.
—
The
holotype
of
L.
carinata
(table
Illk)
is
a
male,
with
the
pectoral
fin
spine
broader
than
in
a
female.
The
teeth
are
more
elongate
and
more
oval
than
in
the
pre-
ceding
specimen.
It
has
a
broader
head
than
usual
(1.2
against
1.3-1.5
in
other
specimens).
The
eight
specimens
in
USNM
52574
(another
specimen
of
this
sample
is
a
L.
simillima),
from
Rio
Amazonas,
"Belem
to
Manaus",
have
a
faded
colour
pattern,
although
the
fins
are
usually
pig-
mented
with
even
brown
(except
for
upper
caudal
fin
spine,
and
tip
of
upper
caudal
fin
lobe).
Their
morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
table
Illm.
The
so-called
lectotype
of
L.
cirrhosa Bloch
&
Schneider
(1801)
(table
Illn)
was
described
as
L.
cataphracta
by
Bloch
(1794).
The
smaller
speci-
men,
previously
designated
as
the
paralectotype
of
L.
cirrhosa
by
me
(1972),
is
now
assigned
to
L.
simillima.
The
holotype
of
Plecostomus
flagellaris,
con-
trary
to
my
previous
opinion,
is
a
L.
cataphracta
(table
IIIo).
The
morphometric
differences
are
due
to
the
way
of
preservation:
like
a
herbarium
specimen.
The
specimen
in
MZUN
(table
IIIp)
is
brown-
ish
(artificial,
not
pigmented).
Discussion:
More
sampling
of
L.
cataphracta
from
its
area
of
distribution
is
needed,
to
provide
specimens
with
comparable
standard
lengths.
Differences
in
morphometric
dimensions,
in
colour
pattern,
and
in
number
of
lateral
versus
coalescing
scutes
can-
not
be
evaluated.
L.
cataphracta
was
examined
only
from
Guianean
and
Amazonian
specimens.
It
has
more
prominent
odontodes
than
in
some
closely
related
species,
like
L.
lata
and
L.
simillima,
but
I
found
it
impossible
to
exactly
express
this
difference.

67
Loricaria
lata
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889
(figs.
3,
14;
tables
Id,
IVa-c)
Loricaria
lata
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889:
36-37
(original
description;
11
syntypes;
type-locality:
Goyaz;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1890:
384-385
(description;
syntypes;
in
key
on
p.
365;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1891:
39
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
Goyaz),
—
Isbriicker,
1972:
171,
179-183,
187,
figs.
9-10,
I2k-m,
table
1
(discussion;
description;
designation
of
the
lec-
totype;
5
paralectotypes;
Goyaz;
comparison;
3
other
paralectotypes
separated
as
“Loricaria”
sp.
inc.
sed.),
—
Isbriicker,
1973:
172,
173,
174
(discussion;
footnote;
type-locality:
Brazil,
Est.
Goias,
Rio
Araguaia
drainage,
upper
course
of
Rio
Vermelho
at
Goias,
IS°S7'S,
S0°07'W),
—
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1978:
194-195
(lecto-
type
and
5
paralectotypes;
comparison),
—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
87
(listed),
—
Isbriicker,
1980:
118
(listed).
Loricaria
carinata
(non
de
Castelnau,
1855)
J
Regan,
1904:
292
(in
part;
description,
partly
based
upon
a
syntype
of L.
lata,
considered
as
a
junior
synonym
of
L.
cari-
nata;
in
distributional
table
on
p.
196;
in
key
on
p.
274;
in
subgenus
Loricaria).
Most
authors
subsequent
to
Regan
(1904)
con-
sidered
L.
lata
a
junior
synonym
of
L.
carinata.
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
MCZ
46721
(lectotype),
Est.
Goias,
Rio
Ara-
guaia
drainage,
upper
course
of
Rio
Vermelho
at
Goias,
I5°57'S,
50°c>7'W,
coll.
Senhor
Honorio,
about
1865,
—
MCZ
8123
(4
paralectotypes),
BMNH
1889.11.14:65
(1
paralecto
type),
same
data
as
lectotype.
Note.
—
Three
additional
paralectotypes
are
tentatively
identified
as
Spatuloricaria
evansii
(Boulenger,
1892);
2
remaining
paralectotypes
were
not
encountered.
Description:
Loricaria
lata
is
in
most
respects
similar
to
L.
cataphracta,
from
which
it
slightly
differs
in
some
morphometric
and
meristic
tendencies
(compare
table
IVa-c
with
table
Ila-c).
Moreover,
the
odon-
todes
in
general
and
particularly
those
forming
the
postoccipital
ridges,
are
weaker
(a
character
shared
with
L.
simillima).
The
abdominal
scutes
between
the
oblong
thoracic
scutes
are
generally
larger
than
in
L.
cataphracta.
However,
this
character
is
not
quite
stable
in
the
latter
species.
Pectoral
pore
present.
There
is
a
shallow,
more
or
less
triangular
posterior
orbital
notch.
Colour
in
alcohol.
—
Except
for
the
smallest
paralectotype,
the
lectotype
and
larger
paralecto-
types
are
devoid
of
pigmentation
(or
faded).
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann
(1889:
37,
1890:
385)
described:
"Coloration
uniform
in
adult
(?),
all
the
fins
dusky;
all
the
fins
more
or
less
spotted;
upper
lip
and
barbel
dotted."
At
present,
the
dorsum
of
the
maxillary
barbels,
and
prin-
cipal
barbels
of
the
upper
lip
are
light
brown.
The
smaller
paralectotype
has
the
dorsal
fin
and
dor-
sum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
brownish,
just
like
dorsum
of
head
and
body.
The
interorbital
area,
posterior
to
supraoccipital
process
to
first
lateral
body
scute,
and
posterior
to
pelvic
fin
base,
are
lighter
brown.
D
i
s
c
u
s s
i
o
n:
Several
comparable
populations
of
L.
cataphracta
show
more,
and
more
clear
morphometric
differ-
ences
with
each
other
than
with
L.
lata.
In
fact,
the
recognizability
of
L.
simillima,
L.
parnahybae,
and
L.
clavipinna
as
distinct
though
closely
related
species
with
L.
cataphracta,
indicates
that L.
lata
can
be
considered
as a
distinct
species
as
well.
However,
fresh
topotypes
are
needed
for
a
better
comparison
with
L.
cataphracta.
Loricaria
simillima
Regan,
1904
(figs.
4,
14;
tables
Ie,
IVd-m,
V)
Loricaria
cataphracta
(non
Linnaeus,
1758);
Bloch,
1794:
76-79
(in
part;
ZMB
22223),
—
Eigenmann
&
Bean,
1907:
665
(in
part;
listed;
1
out
of
9
specimens
from
the
Amazon
River),
—
Isbriicker,
1972:
172-175
(in
part;
ZMB
22223).
Loricaria
Cirrhosa;
Bloch
&
Schneider,
1801:
xxxii
and
125
(in
part;
ZMB
22223).
Fig.
3.
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889.
Dorsal
view
of
the
lectotype.
Loricaria
lata

68
Loricaria
filamentosa
(non
Steindachner,
1878);
Bou-
lenger,
1887:
277
(listed;
Ecuador,
Canelos),
—
Bou-
lenger,
1898:
425
(listed;
Rio
Jurua).
Loricaria
lata
(non
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889);
Boulenger,
1896:
33
(listed;
Paraguay).
Loricaria
carinata
(non
de
Castelnau,
1855)
;
Regan,
1904:
292
(in
part;
description,
8
specimens,
including
the
holotype
of
L.
carinata
and
1
syntype
of
L.
lata,
com-
posite;
R.
Jurua,
R.
Paraguay,
Matto
Grosso;
in
distributional
table
on
p.
196;
in
key
on
p.
274;
in
sub-
genus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann,
1910:
425
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
Rio
Jurua,
Rio
Paraguay,
Matto
Grosso;
the
Goyaz
record
concerns
L.
lata),
—
Regan,
1913:
282
(listed;
River
Ucayali,
Peru),
—
Gosline,
194S:
106
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
rio
Jurua,
rio
Paraguay,
Mato
Grosso;
his
Goiaz
record
concerns
L.
lata;
Amazonas).
Loricaria
simillima
Regan,
1904:
292,
pi.
17
figs.
2,
2a-b
(original
description;
3
syntypes;
type-locality:
Canelos,
E.
Ecuador;
in
distributional
table
on
p.
196;
in
key
on
p.
274;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann
&
Allen,
1942:
207-208
(listed;
Canelos),
—
Gosline,
1945:
106
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
Canelos,
Ecuador),
—
Fowler,
1954:
99-100,
fig.
702
(references;
figures
after
Green,
in
Regan,
1904;
Alto
Amazonas,
Ecuador),
—
Ovchynyk,
1968:
258
(listed;
Canelos
on
Rio
Bobonaza,
tributary
of
Rio
Pastaza,
Prov.
Napo-Pastaza,
Ecua-
dor),
—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
87,
98,
102,
no
(listed;
com-
parison;
designation
of
the
lectotype),
—
Isbriicker,
1980:
119
(listed).
Loricaria
similima;
Eigenmann,
1910:
415
(listed;
in
sub-
genus
Loricaria;
Canelos,
East
Ecuador;
spelling).
lata
:
(a)
lectotype,
Brazil,
Goiás,
(b)
4
paralectotypes,
MCZ
8123,
(c)
1
paralectotype,
BMNH
1889.11.14:64;
of
Table
IV.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of Loricaria
(d)
lectotype,
Ecuador,
Canelos,
(e)
2
paralectotypes,
(f)
1
topotype,
BMNH
1880.12.8:80,
(g)
1
specimen,
Peru,
Río
Ucayali,
BMNH
1913.7.30:35,
(h)
1
specimen,
Peru,
Aquas
Amarillas,
BMNH
1969.7.15:22-23,
(i)
1
specimen,
Peru,
Quebrada
Ayamiria,
BMNH
1969.
7.15:22-23,
(j)
1
specimen,
Peru,
Rio
Ucayali
system,
BMNH
1969.7.15:22-23,
(k)
1
specimen,
Venezuela,
Rio
Gua-
rapiche,
USNM
163176,
(m)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Boa
Vista,
NMW
46167.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
stan-
dard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
simillima:
specimen
(s)
a
b
c
d
e e
f
gh
i
j
k
m
mature
male
+
2
—
+ + +
standard
length
267.0
198.2-257.2
165.0
162.5
159.0 152.0
64.5
i77-o I82.0
166.0
63-7
144.0
100.0
axial
length
— —
174.
1
170.9
163.0
—
190.4
198.4
180.3
—
155-9
108.0
total
length
— — — — — — — — — — — —
head
length
4-5
4-5-4-8
4.8
4-9
4-9
4.8 4.8
4-4
4-7
4.8
4-3
4.6 4.6
predorsal
length
3-1
3-2-3-3
3.3
3-3 3-4
34
3-4 3-1 3-3 3-3 3-2 3-4 3-4
postdorsal
length
1.7
1.7-1.8
1.7 1.7 1.7 1.7
—
i-7
1-7
i-7
1-7 1-7
1.6
postanal
length
2.1
2.0-2.1
2.0
1-9
1.9
2.0
■—
2.0 2.0
2.0
2.0 2.0
1.9
dorsal
spine
length
—
up
to<5-3
5.1
—
<5-o
— —
4.2
3-6
4.1
—
4.1
4-5
first
dorsal
ray
5-2
up
to<5-3
5-3
4-7
4-6
4-5
—
4.4
39
4-4 4-7 4-5 4-9
anal
spine
length
6.1
up
to
5.7
59
5-8
—
5-8
—
5-5
5-6 6-3
6.6
5-8
5-9
pectoral
spine
length
4.9
5.o-<5-2
50
5-0
5-o
4-9
—
5-i
4-8
5-4 5-5 5-3 5-2
pelvic
spine
length
5-6
5-6-5.9
6.2 6.0
5-7
5-6
—
4-9
5-i
5-9
6.2
5-6 5-6
upper
caudal
spine
— — — — — — — — —
<4-0
— —
—
lower
caudal
spine
— — —
7-r
— — — —
6-5
7.2
— —
6.7
snout
length
1.8
1.8-1.9
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
—
1.9 1.9
1-9
2.2 2.0
i-9
lower
lip 5-3
4.3-6.2
7-3
8.4 6.5
5-0
—
6.7
4-9
5-6
5-5 9-4
6-3
thoracic
length
1-3
1.2-1.3
1-3 1-3
1.2 1.2
—
i-3
1.2
1.1
1.4
1-3
i-3
abdominal
length
1.4
I-3-I-4
i.3
1-5
1.6
1-5
—
1-7
1-5
1-5
1.7 1.6
1-7
max.
orbital
diameter
6.1
5-7-6.5
5.o
5-5 5-3 5-2
4-8
5-4 5-1 5-3
4.2
5-4
4.9
interorbital
width
5-2 5-Q-5-4 5-3 5-3 5-5 5-4 5-4 5-2 5-2 5-1
4.9
5-4
5-i
cleithral
width
1.2
I.I-I.2
1.2
1-3 1-3 1-3
—
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.4
1-3 1-3
supra-cleithral
width
1.6
i.6-1.7
1.7
1-7
1.8 1.8
—
1.6
1-7 1-7
1.9 1.8
2.0
head
width
1.2
1.2-1.3
1.2
1-3
1.4 1.3
—
1.3
i-3
1.2
1.4 1.4
1-3
head
depth
2.4
2.6-2.7
2.9
2-5
2.5 2.4
—
2.5
2-5 2-5
2.7
2.4 2.6
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.2
2.2-2.4
2.5
2.2 2.2 2.1
—
2.2 2.1 2.2
2.6
2.2
2.4
body
width
at
dorsal
1.2
1.3-1.4
1-4
1.6 1.6
1-5
—
1.6
1-4 1-4
2.0
1.6
1-9
body
width
at
anal
1-5
1.4-1.5
1-7
1.8 1.8
1.7
—
2.0
1-7
1.6 2.3
2.0 2.2
depth
caudal
peduncle
13.8
13.8-152
16.0
15-9
15.5
150
—
14.9
15.0
'5-1
14.8
14.8
16.8
width
caudal
peduncle
5-2
5-6-5-7
5-6
6.0 6.0 6.1
—
6.4
4-9 5-5
7-8
6.4
7-8
rictal
barbel
2.5
2.4-2.7
2.3 2.4
—
—
—
2.9 2.8 3.2
3-i
3-4
2.6
lower
lip
barbels
—
11.5 10.5
11.6
16.4
—
10.0
lateral
scutes
34/34
34-35/34-35
34/34 35/35
35/35 35/35 37/35 35/35 35/34 36/36
36/36 37/37
35/35
coalescing
scutes
21/20
20-2I/2I-22
22/21
20/2I
20/19 20/20 21/20
19/19 21/21 22/23 22/22
21/20
21/20
thoracic
scutes
9/8
7-9/8-9
8/9
IO/lO
10/9
10/9
—
7/8 8/9 9/8 9/8
9/10 8/10
teeth
upper
jaws
3/2
2-4/3-4
3/4 4/3 4/3 4/4
—
4/2 3/4 3/4 3/4 3/3
4/3
teeth
lower
jaws
5/6
7-9/7
7/2 7/7 7/6 7/7
—
7/5
10/7
5/8 8/8 7/8 8/8

69
The
following
records
need
verification:
Loricaria
cataphracta
(non
Linnaeus,
1758?);
Cope,
1874:
135
(listed;
Maranon),
-—
Cope,
1878:
681
(listed;
Peru,
Maranon),
—
Steindachner,
1882:
80
(listed;
leste
do
Ecuador,
Canelos),
—
Ovchynnyk,
1968:
248
(in
part?;
Canelos
on
Rio
Bobonaza,
after
Steindachner,
1882).
Loricaria
carinata
(non
L.
cataphracta
Linnaeus,
1758?);
Eigenmann,
McAtee
&
Ward,
1907:
120,
pi.
37
figs.
1-2
(listed;
6
specimens;
Puerto
Max,
Corumba,
brook
at
Villa
Rica;
listed
on
p.
150),
—
Bertoni,
1914:
8
(not
seen;
Paraguay),
—
Fowler,
1915:
241
(discussion;
1
specimen;
Rio
Maranon;
brief
description),
—
Pear-
son,
1924:
24
(listed;
16
specimens;
Lake
Rogoagua,
Rio
Beni
Basin,
Bolivia;
on
:
55,
vertical
distribu-
tion
in
Rio
Beni
Basin,
between
500 and
1500
ft.),
—
La
Monte,
1935:
7
(listed;
Rio
Purus),
—
Pearson,
1937b:
1x2
(in
distributional
table),
—
Bertoni,
1939:
S3
(listed;
Paraguay),
—
Fowler,
1940a:
246-247,
figs.
42-43
(description;
Ucayali
River
Basin,
Contamana,
Peru;
L.
cataphracta
of
Cope,
1879
—
same
as
1874?
—
in
synonymy;
discussion;
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
Fowler,
1940b:
58
(listed;
2
specimens,
Bolivia,
Rio
Pilcomayo,
tributary
of
the
Paraguay,
at
Villa
Mon-
tes,
Dept.
of
Tarija;
also
listed
on
p.
67,
notes;
Todos
Santos,
Rio
Chapare,
Bolivia,
Dept.
of
Cochabamba,
alt.
1000
ft.,
5
specimens),
—
Eigenmann
&
Allen,
1942:
208
(listed;
reference
to
Fowler's
1940a
record;
Con-
tamana,
Peru,
on
the
Ucayali),
—
Fowler,
1942:
86
(listed;
Peru,
Rio
Maranon,
Contamana),
—
Fowler,
1945:
105
(same
as
Fowler,
1942),
—
Pozzi,
1945:
263
(not
seen),
—
Fowler,
1954:
91-92,
fig.
692
(refer-
ences;
figd.
specimen
from
Contamana;
Amazonia,
Peru,
Paraguai),
—
Ringuelet
&
Aramburu,
1962:
53
(not
seen),
—
Alonso
de
Aramburu,
Aramburu
&
Rin-
guelet,
1962:
234
(not
seen),
—
Tovar
Serpa,
1967:
210
(listed;
22
specimens;
Uchpa-Cano
"cano",
Acuario
"Peces
Amazonicos",
Iquitos;
listed
after
Fowler,
1945
on
p.
221,
also
listed
on
pp.
222, 223,
and
252,
pi.
8;
description;
vernacular
names
:
shitari,
viej
a
de
cola;
biology,
commercial
value),
—
Ringuelet,
Aramburu
&
Alonso
de
Aramburu,
1967:
400-401
(in
subgenus
Lori-
caria;
,
description;
in
key
on
p.
399;
Rio
Paraguay,
Pilcomayo,
Bermejo;
cuenca
del
Sail
y
rio
Parana
medio;
ademas:
Amazonia,
Peru
y
Paraguay;
vernacu-
lar
names:
vieja,
vieja
de
agua;
148
specimens
from
various
localities
listed).
Specimens
examined:
Ecuador
BMNH
1880.12.8:77
(lectotype),
Prov.
Pastaza,
Rio
Amazonas
system,
upper
Rio
Pastaza
drain-
age,
Rio
Bobonaza
at
Canelos,
oi°39'S,
77°46'W,
coll.
C.
Buckley,
—
BMNH
1880.12.8:78-79
(2
paralectotypes),
same
data
as
lectotype,
—
BMNH
1880.12.8:
80
(1),
in
same
jar
as
and
same
data
as
lectotype.
Peru
BMNH
1913.7.30:35
(1),
Rio
Ucayali,
purch.
Rosenberg,
—
BMNH
1969.7.15:22-23
(3),
Prov.
Huanuco,
larger
specimen
from
Aquas
Amarillas,
a
tributary
of
Rio
Pachitea,
Rio
Ucayali
system,
Rio
Amazonas
drainage,
middle
specimen
from
Quebrada
Ayamiria,
smaller
specimen
without
locality
data,
coll.
Cambridge
Veterinary
Peru
Expedition
1968.
Venezuela
USNM
163176
(1),
Prov.
Monagas,
Caicara,
09°52'N,
63°38'W,
RIO
Guarapiche,
coll.
F.
D.
Smith,
V-1952.
Brazil
NMW
46167
(1),
Est.
Rorai'ma,
Rio
Branco
near
Boa
Vista,
02°5i'N,
6o°43'W,
coll.
J.
D.
Hase-
man,
1912/1913,
—
MZUSP
14101/14103
(3),
Est.
Amazonas,
localities
in
Rio
Solimoes,
near
Manaus,
03°o6'S,
6o°oo'W,
—
USNM
217424
(1,
ex
USNM
52574,
in
part),
Est.
Para/Ama-
zonas,
Rio
Amazonas,
Para
(now
Belem)
to
Ma-
naus,
coll.
J.
B.
Steere,
1901,
—
BMNH
1897.
12.1:73-74
(2),
Est.
Amazonas
(or
Est.
Acre?),
Rio
Jurua,
coll.
J.
Bach,
—
USNM
94631
(1),
Est.
Amazonas,
vicinity
of
mouth
of
Rio
Embira
(also
spelled
Envira
on
maps),
07°3o'S,
70°i5'W,
Regan,
1904.
Dorsal
and
ventral
view
of
anterior
part
of
lectotype.
Loricaria
simillima
Fig.
4.

70
Foz
do
Embira,
or
Envira,
oy°2g'S,
70°i4'W,
a
tributary
of
the
Rio
Tarauaca,
which
in
turn
is
a
tributary
of
the
Rio
Jurua,
Rio
Amazonas
drain-
age,
coll.
B.
A.
Krukoff,
1934,
—
BMNH
1902.
2.10:24-25
(2),
si
87-156.5
mm,
Est.
Mato
Grosso,
Rio
Coxipo,
either
Coxipo
da
Ponto,
I5°35'S,
56°OI'W
or
Coxipo
do
Ouro,
I5°25'S,
56°oo'W,
Rio
Cuiaba
system,
coll. F.
Silvestri,
Genova
Mu-
seum.
Paraguay
BMNH
1934.8.20:326-346
(53),
ZMA
115.519
(2),
si
136.8-250
mm,
Rio
Paraguay
near
Asun-
cion,
25°i5'S,
57°4o'W,
coll.
Schouten,
—
USNM
1648
(4),
si
145-279
mm,
Paraguay,
coll.
J. J.
Page,
—
BMNH
1895.5.17:109-112
(4),
si
139-243
mm,
Rio
Paraguay,
coll.
C.
Ternetz,
—
USNM
181438
(1),
Rio
Tebicuary
near
Asun-
cion
Bay,
coll.
C.
J.
D.
Brown,
20-XII-1956.
Argentina
BMNH
1902.7.29:84-85
(2),
si
69.3-111.9
mm,
Prov.
Tucuman,
Rio
Sali
near
[San
Miguel
de
—]
Tucuman,
26°47'S,
65°i5'W,
purch.
of
Ro-
senberg,
-—•
ZMA
115.068
(2),
aquarium
speci-
mens,
gift
from
BMNH,
1976.
South
America
ZMB
22223
C
1
))
C
°M-
M.
E.
Bloch,
end
of
18th
century
(=
L.
cataphracta;
Bloch,
1794,
in
part;
erroneously
designated
as a
paralectotype
of
L.
cirrhosa
Bloch
&
Schneider,
1801,
by
Isbriicker,
1972).
Description:
Loricaria
simillima
is
in
many
respects
similar
to
L.
cataphracta
and
L.
lata.
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
presented
in
tables
IVd-m
and
V.
The
lectotype
and
paralectotypes
(table
IVd-e)
have
a
small
series
of
minute
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane,
reaching
ventro-
lateral
margin
of
head.
In
the
lectotype
these
scutelets
form
a
triangle.
The
abdomen
is
completely
covered
with
rela-
tively
small
scutelets,
with
a
V-shaped
median
notch
anteriorly.
A
small
posterior
orbital
notch
is
present.
The
colour
pattern
was
described
by
Regan
(1904:
292)
as:
"Olivaceous;
fins,
except
the
anal,
with
dark
spots
or
blotches
or
uniform
blackish."
The
colour
pattern
is
now
faded.
The
dorsal
fin
spine
may
have
up
to
eight
brown
spots.
On
the
pectoral
fin
spine
there
are
five
to
eight
transverse
brown
spots.
The
odontodes
on
especially
dorsum
of
head
(dorsal
margin
of
orbital)
and
in
the
predorsal
region
are
weaker
than
in
L.
cataphracta;
in
this
character
L.
simillima
reminds
of
L.
lata.
In
most
morphometric
and
meristic
characters
the
lectotype
and
paralectotypes
of
L.
simillima
agree
with
L.
lata:
compare
table
IVd-e
with
IVa-c.
The
standard
length,
abdominal
length,
cleithral
width,
body
width
at
dorsal,
and
width
of
caudal
peduncle
are
different
in
both
species.
Comparative
notes:
Peru,
Rio
Ucayali.
—
The
specimen
in
BMNH
1913.7.30:35
(table
IVg)
has
larger
abdominal
scutelets;
it
lacks
the
patch
of
scutelets
anterior
to
the
branchiostegal
membrane.
Its
colour
pat-
tern
is
well-preserved:
ground
colour
light
tan.
Dorsum
of
head
heavily
pigmented
with
even
dark
brown,
lighter
in
and
beyond
interorbital
area.
Along
base
of
dorsal
fin
and
four
subsequent
dorsal
scutes
and
a
half
is
a
dark
brown
area
extending
posteriorly
as
a
transverse
line,
ante-
riorly
from
base
of
dorsal
fin
spine
as
an
oblique
line
forward,
reaching
to
ventral
row
of
odon-
todes
along
coalescing
body
scutes.
Indefinite
concentrations
of
dark
brown
pigment
continues
on
the
ventrolateral
coalescing
body
scutes,
reaching
base
of
pectoral
fin
spine
anteriorly.
Dorsum
of
caudal
peduncle
with
three
dark
brown
transverse
stripes.
Dorsal
fin,
and
dorsum
of
pec-
toral
and
pelvic
fins
with
dark,
solid
brown.
Anal
fin
spine
and
first
ray
with
irregular
dark
brown
pigment.
Caudal
fin
including
basal
triangular
scutes,
excluding
upper
spine
and
distal
ends
of
upper
two
rays,
pigmented
with
dark
brown.
There
are
small
unpigmented
spots
on
rays
and
membrane,
which
tend
to
form
two
vertical
lines.
Dorsum
of
upper
lip,
including
barbels
and
the
maxillary
barbels,
dark
brown.
Lower
lip
and
un-
ossified
parts
of
ventral
side
whitish.

71
The
three
specimens
in
BMNH
1969.7.15:22-
23
(table
IVh-j)
originate
also
from
tributaries
of
the
Rio
Ucayali.
The
specimen
of
182
mm
in
si
has
a
greyish
tan
ground
colour.
Dorsum
of
head,
supraoccipital
process
and
post-temporal
plate
with
large,
irregular
dark
brown
blotches.
From
base
of
first
to
third
dorsal
fin
ray
runs
an
oblique
line
forward,
being
narrower
ventrally
and
reaching
ventral
row
of
odontodes
along
coalescing
body
scutes.
A
broad,
transverse,
irregular
brown
band
on
first
to
fourth
dorsal
scute
posterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray,
reaching
dorsal
row
of
coa-
lescing
body
scutes.
Irregular
dark
brown
blotches
between
this
band
and
the
anterior
oblique
line.
Four
transverse
stripes
on
dorsum
of
caudal
peduncle,
the
second
stripe
broad,
covering
almost
two
dorsal
scutes.
Dorsal
fin
spine
with
nine
dark
brown,
alter-
nate
blotches.
Dorsal
fin
with
irregular
large,
dark
brown
blotches,
forming
three
longitudinal
mark-
ings
in
upper
two-thirds
of
the
fin.
Base
of
dorsal
fin
solid
dark
brown.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
numerous
dark
brown,
irregular
blotches,
like
the
caudal
fin
including
triangular
scutes.
Large
abdominal
scutelets,
especially
between
Table
V.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of
(a-c)
3
specimens,
Brazil,
Rio
Solimões,
MZUSP
14101/14103,
(d)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Belém
to
Manaus,
USNM
217424,
(e-f)
2
specimens,
Brazil,
Rio
Juruá,
BMNH
1897.12.1
73-74,
(g)
1
speci-
men,
Brazil,
Rio
Embira,
USNM
94631,
(h)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Coxipó,
BMNH
1902.2.10:24-25;
(i)
11
specimens,
selected
charac-
ters,
Paraguay,
BMNH
1934.8.20:326-346,
(j)
8
specimens,
Paraguay
and
Río
Paraguay,
USNM
1648
and
BMNH
1895.5.17:109-112,
4
specimens
in
each
sample,
(k)
1
specimen,
Paraguay,
Río
Tebicuary,
USNM
181438,
(m)
1
specimen,
Argentina,
Rio
Sali,
BMNH
1902.7.29:84-85,
(n-o)
2
specimens,
Argentina,
aquarium
import,
ZMA
105.068,
(p)
1
specimen,
South
America,
Bloch’s
collection,
ZMB
22223.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
simillima:
specimen
(s)
a
b
c
d
e
fgh
i
j
k
m
n 0
P
mature
male
+
+ +
+
1
++
_
standard
length
176.0
154-5
145.7
180.5
203.0
199-5
I60.0
156.5
i45-3-25o.o
139.0-279.0
144-5
111.9
267.0
229.0
143-3
axial
length
190.3
167.4 158.0
—
220.2
213.8
I70.8
168.5
— — — — — — —
total
length
—
>187.8 >188.7
up to
305.0
head
length
4-7 4-3 4-7
4.6
4-8
4.6
4-9 5-0
4-7-5-0
4.8-50
4.6
4.8
4-5 4-5 4-9
predorsal
length
3-4 3-2 3-5 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4
3-6
3-4-3-6
3.4-3.6
3-3 3-4 3-2 3-2 3-5
postdorsal
length
1.6 1.7 1.6
1-7 1-7
1.7 1.7 1.6
—
1.6-1.7
1-7
1.6
1-7 1-7
1.6
postanal
length
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
2.0
1.9
1-9
—
1.8-2.1
1.9 1.9
2.0 2.0
1.8
dorsal
spine
length
4.6
—
4.4
— —
4.6
—
4-8
3.9-4.3
4-3-5-I
—
5-3 5-4
3-8
—
first
dorsal
ray
4-8
—
5-o 4-5
5-o
4-7
4.0
5-0
—
4.8-5.1
—
5-5 5-2
—
4-8
anal
spine
length
5-4
4.6
5-6
5-5 5-5 5-5 5-5
6.0
—
5-5-6.2
5-7
6.4
5-6
— —
pectoral
spine
length
5-2
50
5-7 5-5
—
4-8
5-1 5-5
—
5.2-5-4
5-5 5-9
5.o
4.9
5-7
pelvic
spine
length
5-2 4-5
6.0
5-1 5-1
50
5-5
6.2
—
5.1-6.0
53
6.4
—
4-9 5-7
upper
caudal
spine
—
4.6
<3-4
— — — — — —
up to
<
3.9
lower
caudal
spine
6.8
6.6
6.9
—
6.0 6.8
— — — — —
7-8
———
snout
length
1.8 1.9 1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
—
1.9
2.0
1.9 1.8
1-9
2.0
lower
lip 5-5
6.2 6.8
50
6.1
5-6
5-8
5-4
—
6.2-6.6
6.2
4-5 5-3 4-7
—
thoracic
length
1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4
i-3 i-3
1.2
1.2
—
1.II.3
1-3
i-4
1-4 1-4 1-3
abdominal
length
1-5
1.7 1.6
1-7
1-5
1.6 1.6
1-5
1.5-1-7
1.4-1.7
1.7
i-5
1.6 1.6 1.7
max.
orbital
diameter
6-3 5-6
5.o
5-7
5-6
5-4 5-1
5-i
5-3-6.0
4-7-5.7
50
4.6
5-8
5-3 4-5
interorbital
width
5-3 5-2 5-4 5-3 5-3 5-4 5-o
6.2
4.7-5-4
4-6-5.4
5-8
4.9
4-8
4-9 5-4
cleithral
width
1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2-1.3
I.2-1.3
1.2 1.2
1-3
1.2
1-4
supra-cleithral
width
1-7
1.7 1.8 1.8
1-7
1.7 1.8
i.7
—
1.7-1.8
1-7
1.8 1.8 1.8
1-9
head
width
1.2
1.2
1.2
1-3 1-3 1-3
i-3
1.2
—
1.2-1.3
1.2 1.2
i-3
1.2
1-5
head
depth
2.5 2.7 2.7 2.3
2-3
2.4
2-3
2.6
2.1-2.5
2.3-2.6
2.4
2-3
2.4 2.4 2.7
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.2
2.4 2.3
1-9
1.9
2.0 2.0
2.3
1.9-2.2 2.0-2.5
2.3
2-3
2.2
2.1
2.4
body
width
at
dorsal
1.6
1-7
1.6 1.4
i-3
1-4 1-5 1-5
1.4-1.6
1-3-1-7
1.7 1.6
1-5 1-4
1.8
body
width
at
anal
1.8
2.0
1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.8
1-7
1.6-1.9
1.6-2.0
1.9
1.8
1.8
1.8
2.1
depth
caudal
peduncle
15.1
17.0
147
16.5
16.9
15-5
15.7 17.4
—
I5.I-I7.3
18.4
19-3
14.6
15-5
17.1
width
caudal
peduncle
6.5
5-7
6.7
6.1
5-2
6.2
5-9
6.5
—
6.0-6.7
6.6
7-0
5-8
6.1
6.6
rictal
barbel
2.4 2.5 2.3 2.4
3-4 3-0
—
2-3
—
31
2.9 2.5
34
2.8
—
lower
lip
barbels
10.8 11.9
7.0
11.6 17.3
136
10.7
11.2
—
16.6
8.7
8.0
26.0
18.2
—
lateral
scutes
35/35 35/35
36/36
35/35 35/35
36/36
35/35
33/33
—
33-35/33-35
35/35 32/32
34/34
35/35
36/35
coalescing
scutes
19/19
19/19
21/21
18/18
20/19
19/19 19/19 18/19
19-21/19-20 19-20/18-20
20/20
17/17
18/18
21/21
2I/20
thoracic
scutes
12/10
8/10
8/9
II/II
10/9
9/9
9/11
6/7
—
6-9/6-10
10/7
6/8 8/7
9/10
8/lO
teeth
upper
jaws
3/3 3/3 4/4 4/3
—
3/3 3/3 2/4
—
2-4/2-3
1/1
4/3 4/3
3/3
2/4
teeth
lower
jaws
7/9 7/6 9/8 7/7
—
9/8
8/8
9/8
—
6-9/6-8
6/7 7/7
8/6
6/7 6/5

72
the
pectoral
fin
base.
No
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
The
specimen
of
166
mm
in
si
is
similar
to
the
one
just
described,
but
has
less
pigment
on
dorsum
of
head
and
body.
The
oblique
line
descending
from
base
of first
to
third
dorsal
fin
ray
is
nar-
rower,
the
blotch
posterior
to
dorsal
fin
less
conspicuous.
Three
to
four
narrow,
vertical,
irre-
gular
blotches
between
rows
of
odontodes
along
coalescing
body
scutes
ventral
to
base
of
dorsal
fin.
Dorsal
fin
membrane
between
spine
and
third
ray
with
irregular
dark
brown
pigment
from
base
to
tip;
the
remaining
membrane
and
rays
with
dark
brown
and
small
whitish
spots.
The
abdominal
scutelets
between
pectoral
fin
base
are
much
smaller
than
in
the
preceding
speci-
men.
The
juvenile
in
this
sample,
63.7
mm
in
si,
is
almost
entirely
blackish
brown.
Only
the
distal
ends
of
fourth
to
last
dorsal
fin
ray,
most
of
the
ventral
side
of
the
body,
and
tips
of
pelvic
fin
rays
are
whitish.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
fins,
barbels
(including
maxillary
barbels)
of
upper
lip,
and
almost
the
entire
caudal
fin
are
blackish
brown.
Dorsum
of
pelvic
fins
with
large,
anal
fin
with
small
blackish
brown
markings.
Venezuela,
Rio
Guarapiche.
One
specimen,
USNM
163176
(table
IVk).
It
has
a
colour
pat-
tern
reminiscent
of
the
Rio
Ucayali
specimen
in
BMNH
1913.7.30:35,
although
the
pigment
is
much
lighter.
There
is
a
large,
roundish
blotch
anterior
to
eyes,
reaching
tip
of
snout,
leaving
an
ill-pigmented,
median,
almost
rectangular
area
anterior
to
nostrils.
Supra-occipital
and
predorsal
area
faintly
pigmented.
Odontodes
on
dorsum
of
head
more
prominent
than
in
the
other
specimens.
Minute
abdominal
scutelets
between
thoracic
scutes
through
between
base
of
pectoral
fins.
A
small
patch
of
minute
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
Brazil,
Boa
Vista.
—
One
specimen,
NMW
46167
(table
IVm)
has
the
abdominal
scutelets
incompletely
developed.
No
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
Its
colour
pattern
reminds
of
that
in
the
preceding
specimen,
except
for
an
ill-pigmented
roundish-triangular
area
on
middorsum
of
snout.
Five
faint,
transverse
stripes
posterior
to
fourth
dorsal
scute
beyond
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray.
Caudal
fin
largely
dark
brown,
except
for
upper
spine,
tip
of
upper
lobe,
anterior
half
of
upper
ray,
and
anterior
half
of
lower
ray
and
spine.
Brazil,
Rio
Solimoes.
—
The
three
examined
specimens
also
show
differences
in
colour
pattern.
The
specimen
in
table
Va,
si
176
mm
(MZUSP
14101)
is
reminiscent
of
the
larger
specimen
in
BMNH
1969.7.15:22-23
from
Rio
Ucayali.
Dorsal
fin
and
dorsum
of
paired
fins,
and
distal
ends
of
caudal
fin
rays
with
several
small,
irregular
dark
brown
and
greyish
brown
blotches.
Base
of
caudal
fin
on
and
around
triangular
scutes
faint
greyish
brown.
Caudal
fin
otherwise
light
grey.
The
next
specimen
(table
Vb,
si
154.5
mm,
MZUSP
14102)
is
almost
plain
grey,
with
a
faint
grey
colour
pattern
like
the
preceding
speci-
men.
The
smaller
specimen
in
this
series
(table
Vc,
si
145.7
mm,
MZUSP
14103)
has
a
light
grey
ground
colour.
Faint,
small,
darker
grey
blotches
on
laterodorsal
margin
of
snout.
A
faint
line
runs
obliquely
forward
from
base
of first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray.
Four
quite
broad,
more
conspicuous
transverse
grey
stripes
on
dorsum
of
body
poste-
rior
to
dorsal
fin.
Pigment
on
fins
same
as
in
the
other
two
specimens.
Brazil,
Rio
Amazonas.
—
The
single
specimen
in
USNM
217424
was
found
together
with
8
specimens
of
L.
cataphracta.
Although
now
faded,
its
colour
pattern
is
the
same
as
that
of
the
Rio
Ucayali
specimen
in
BMNH
19x3.7.30:35.
It
agrees
with
the
type-specimens,
except
for
the
lack
of
small
scutelets
anterior
to
the
branchio-
stegal
membrane.
There
are
several
differences
with
the
alledgedly
sympatric
specimens
of L.
cataphracta
(compare
tables
Vd
with
Illm),
e.g.,
in
snout
length,
maximum
orbital
diameter,
cleithral
width,
and
body
depth
and
width
at
dorsal.
The
odontodes
are
weak.
Brazil,
Rio
Jurua.
—
The
two
specimens
in
BMNH
1897.12.1:73-74
(table
Ve-f)
have
no
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
The
pigmentation
of
the
body
is
faded.
Especially
the
dorsal
fin
and
dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
still
show
brownish
pigment.
Caudal
fin
scarcely
pigmented,
except
for
a
concentration
of
pigment
in
the
posterior
quarter,
forming
a
vertical
stripe

73
along
outer
margin,
the
tip
of
the
upper
lobe
being
unpigmented.
Brazil,
Rio
Embira.
—
The
specimen
in
USNM
94631
(table
Vg)
has
no
pigment
on
body
and
head,
and
faint
brownish
pigment
on
the
fins.
It
is
a
nuptial
male
with
hypertrophied
pectoral
fin
spine,
reminiscent
of
those
in
the
holotype
of
L.
clavipinna.
The
teeth
have
short,
round,
spoon-
shaped
crowns.
Brazil,
Coxipo.
—
Two
specimens,
BMNH
1902.2.10:24-25
(table
Vh).
Ground
colour
pale
tan.
Dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
base
of
last
dorsal
fin
ray
with
four
to
five
broad,
faint
brown
transverse
stripes.
Brownish
markings
at
either
side
of
base
of first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray,
and
several
spots
on
dorsum
of
body
and
head,
especially
in
the
smaller
specimen.
Dorsal,
caudal,
and
dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
small
brown
spots,
which
are
conspicuous
on
the
pectoral
fin
spine.
Paraguay.
—
These
specimens
(table
Vi-j)
are
similar
to
each
other
in
colour
pattern.
The
speci-
mens
in
column
i
differ
from
those
in
column
j
in
the
relative
length
of
the
dorsal
fin
spine.
Ground
colour
greyish
brown.
Caudal
fin
damaged
in
most
specimens.
Dorsal
fin
and
dorsum
of
paired
fins
usually
with
brownish
pigment,
form-
ing
small
spots
on
pectoral
fin
rays
and
extending
over
the
fin
in
most
specimens.
One
out
of
the
II
specimens
in
table
Vi
has
several
small
spots
on
the
pelvic
fins.
Anal
fin
hardly
spotted.
The
specimen
from
Rio
Tebicuary
(USNM
181438,
si
144.5
mm
>
table
Vk)
has
more
promi-
nent
odontodes
than
usual.
Ground
colour
light
brown,
with
faint
concentrations
of
pigment
on
dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
base
of
dorsal
fin
spine.
Caudal
fin
largely
broken
off.
Dorsal
fin,
and
dorsum
of
the
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
ill-defined,
faint
brown
blotches.
The
identifica-
tion
of
this
specimen
is
uncertain.
Argentina.
—
The
specimens
from
Rio
Sali
in
BMNH
1902.7.29:84-85
(table
Vm)
have
a
similar
colour
pattern
as
the
specimens
in
BMNH
1902.2.10:24-25
(Coxipo).
The
two
specimens
in
ZMA
115.068
(table
Vn-o)
are
provisionally
identified.
Ground
colour
grey,
the
fins
almost
even
grey.
The
larger
speci-
men
has
strong
odontodes.
In
the
interorbital
area,
posterior
to
the
nostrils,
strong
odontodes
are
arranged
into
a
slender,
acute
oval
series,
almost
reaching
to
tip
of
the
supraoccipital
pro-
cess.
On the
supraoccipital
process
is
a
single
median
row
of
prominent
odontodes
in
a
trident-
shaped
series,
extending
from
the
oval
series
just
mentioned.
South
America.
—•
The
specimen
in
ZMB
22223
(table
Vp)
is
identified
as
L.
simillima
on
account
of
its
morphometric
and
meristic
characters,
and
because
of
its
weakly
developed
odontodes
on
dorsum
of
head.
Its
colour
pattern
is
entirely
faded.
It
appears
to
be
the
oldest
known
preserved
specimen
of
this
species,
and
the
lack
of
locality
data
is
unfortunate.
Loricaria
parnahybae
Steindachner,
1907
(figs-
5-7.
r
5;
taHes
If
"R.
Vla-d)
Loricaria
parnahybae
Steindachner,
1907b:
153-154
(pp.
2-3
of
reprint)
(original
description;
numerous
syn-
types;
type-locality:
dem
Rio
Parnahyba
an
der
Miin-
dung
eines
Baches
bei
dem
Stadtchen
Victoria;
com-
parison
with
L.
cataphracta),
—•
Eigenmann,
1910:
415
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
Rio
Parnahyba),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
191
1:
140
(translation
of
Stein-
dachner's
description;
in
key
on
p.
116a;
reference
on
p.
430),
—
Gosline,
1945:
106
(listed;
in
subgenus
Lori-
caria;
rio
Parnaiba),
—
Fowler,
1954:
98
(references;
Rio
Parnaiba),
—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
87,
110
(listed;
synonymy;
designation
of
the
lectotype),
—
Isbriicker,
1980:
118
(listed).
Loricaria
piauhiae
Fowler,
1941:
163-164,
figs.
72-74
(original
description;
holotype;
type-locality:
Rio
Par-
nahyba,
Therezina,
Piauhy;
comparison),
—
Gosline,
1945:
107
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria
;
rio
Pamaiba,
Teresina,
Piaui),
—
Fowler,
1954:
98-99,
fig.
700
(refer-
ences;
figures
from
Fowler,
1941;
Rio
Parnaiba).
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
NMW
44854
(lectotype),
Est.
Maranhao,
Alto
Parnaiba
(formerly
Victoria),
09°o8'S,
45°56'W,
Steindachner,
1907.
Dorsal
view
of
a
male
from
French
Guiana,
Fleuve
Oyapock,
sl
159.5
mm
.
BMNH
1926.3.2.763-764.
Loricaria
parnahybae
Fig.
5.

74
at
Rio
Parnafba,
coll. F.
Steindachner,
—
NMW
74917
(several
paralectotypes,
ex
NMW
44854),
not
measured,
—■
NMW
44823
(1
paralectotype),
ZMA
115.184
(1
paralectotype,
ex
NMW
45098),
all
with
same
data
as
lectotype,
—
ANSP
69452
(holotype
of
L.
piauhiae),
Est.
Piaui/Maranhao,
Rio
Parnaiba
at
Teresina,
05°09'S,
42°46'W,
coll.
R.
Von
Ihering.
French
Guiana
BMNH
1926.3.2.763-764
(2),
Prov.
Guyane
Fleuve
Oyapock
at
St.
Georges,
03°55'N,
5i°47'W
coll.
C.
Ternetz.
Description:
Loricaria
parnahybae,
like
the
preceding
spp.,
is
similar
to
L.
cataphracta.
Six
specimens
were
examined:
the
morphometric
and
meristic
data
of
these
are
given
in
table
Vla-d.
The
lectotype
and
two
paralectotypes
have
a
weak
indication
of
a
posterior
orbital
notch.
Ab-
dominal
scutelets
poorly
developed:
a
few
small,
isolated
scutelets
on
the
abdomen
posteriorly,
anterior
to
the
anal
opening.
Odontodes
not
con-
spicuous.
Ground
colour
yellowish
tan.
No
markings
on
dorsum
of
head;
the
lectotype
and
two
paralecto-
types
at
hand
have
faint
pigment
forming
narrow,
transverse
stripes
on
dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
dorsal
fin.
Dorsal,
caudal,
and
pectoral
fin
rays
with
a
series
of
minute,
dark
brown,
widespread
spots.
Naked
ventral
side
whitish;
ossified ventral
side
light
yellowish
tan.
The
type-specimens
at
hand
are
reminiscent
of
the
small
specimens
of
L.
cataphracta
from
the
Suriname
River
system.
Steindachner
(1907b:
154)
described
the
colour
pattern
as:
"Oberseite
des
Korpers
semmelfarben,
verschwommen
dunkler
gescheckt.
Zuweilen
Spu-
ren
dunkler
Querbinden
am
Rumpfe.
Dunkle
Fleckchen
auf
der
D.,
P.
und
C."
The
holotype
of
L.
piauhiae
(table
Vic)
is
larger
than
the
largest
paralectotype
of
L.
parna-
hybae
(si
131
and
109
mm,
respectively).
This
specimen
has
also
hardly
a
posterior
orbital
notch.
It
has
some
more
abdominal
scutelets,
posteriorly
they
touch
each
other.
Anteriorly
some
small,
isolated
scutelets
do
not
extend
beyond
halfway
the
thoracic
scutes.
The
holotype
of
L.
piauhiae
shows
traces
of
a
colour
pattern
only,
which
remnants
agree
with
the
type-specimens
of
the
species.
It
has
a
dark
brown
ground
colour,
caused
likely
by
an
artificial
influence
(maybe
it
was
preserved
during
some
time
in
a
jar
topped
with
cork).
One
of
the
males
from
French
Guiana,
Fleuve
Oyopock
at
St.
Georges
(table
VId)
has
thicker
pectoral
fin
spines
than
the
other.
These
specimens
were
collected
together
with
the
BMNH
specimens
of
L.
cataphracta.
They
have
a
minute
posterior
orbital
notch.
Generally,
the
odontodes
are
weak,
especially
on
dorsum
of
head.
More
numerous
Fig.
6.
Steindachner,
1907.
Dorsal,
lateral,
and
ventral
view
of
the
holotype
of
Loricaria
piauhiae
Fowler,
1941.
Loricaria
parnahybae
Steindachner,
1907.
Ventral
view
of
anterior
part
of
the
same
specimen
as
in
fig.
5.
Fig.
7.
Loricaria
parnahybae

75
abdominal
scutelets
than
in
the
preceding
speci-
mens,
although
much
fewer
and
smaller
than
in
sympatric
specimens
of
L.
cataphracta
of
about
the
same
size.
Anteriorly,
there
are
small
areas
without
abdominal
scutelets.
Ground
colour
light
yellowish
tan.
Dorsum
of
head
without
markings,
dorsum
of
body
poste-
rior
to
dorsal
fin
with
up
to
four
faint,
narrow,
transverse
brown
stripes.
Tips
of
dorsal
and
of
most
caudal
(except
for
the
upper)
fin
rays
with
faint
brown
pigment.
Pectoral,
pelvic
and
anal
fins
plain
yellowish
tan.
These
two
specimens,
compared
with
sympatric
L.
cataphracta
(table
Illg-h)
differ
in
various
morphometric
characters:
head
length,
predorsal
length,
postanal
length,
dorsal
spine
length,
first
dorsal
ray
length,
anal
spine
length,
pelvic
spine
length,
lower
caudal
spine
length,
maximum
orbital
diameter,
interorbital
width,
depth
caudal
peduncle,
maxillary
barbel
and
lower
lip
barbels.
More-
over,
these
specimens
of
L.
parnahybae
tend
to
have
more numerous
coalescing
body
scutes
than
sympatric
L.
cataphracta.
(a)
lectotype,
Brazil,
Alto
Par-
na!ba,
(b)
2
paralectotypes,
ZMA
115.184,
NMW
44823,
(c)
holotype
of
Table
VI.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of
Loricaria
parnahybae:
Brazil,
Teresina,
(d)
2
specimens,
French
Guiana,
Fleuve
Oyapock,
BMNH
1926.3.2.763-764;
of
Loricaria
piauhiae,
Loricaria
piracicabae:
(e)
holotype,
Brazil,
Rio
Piracicaba,
(f-g)
2
specimens,
Brazil,
Rio
Corumbataí,
MZUSP
12127
and
12125;
of
(h)
holotype,
Peru,
Contamana,
(i)
1
specimen,
Río
Ampiyacu,
USNM
124930,
(j)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Santarém,
NMW
46165,
(k)
1
specimen,
Brazil,
Belém,
USNM
217425.
Measure-
ments
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
clavipinna:
specimen
a
b b
c
d d
e
f
gh
i
j
k
mature
male
_
+
++
?
+
+
standard
length
103.2
I09.0
77-7
131.0
159-5 159-5
168.0
149.0
82.2
I42.0
156.5
135-5
I80.0
axial
length
HI.1
I
l6.0
83.7
139-5
170.6
169.9
—
163.5
90.0
I530
166.2
1459
194.5
total
length
172.0
— — —
259-0
— —
167.2
—
212.0
238.8
head
length
4.8
4-8
4-5
4.9
4.6 4.8
4-3
4.1 4.0
4-5 4-7 4-7
4-8
predorsal
length
3-4 3-5 3-3 3-4 3-3 3-3 3-1
3.0
2.9
3-3 3-3 3-2 3-3
postdorsal
length
1.7 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.6
1-7 1-7
1.8 1.6
i-7
1.7
1-7
postanal
length
1.9 1.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
2.2 2.2
2.2
1-9
1.9
2.0 2.0
dorsal
spine
length
4.8
4-8 4-8
50
4-7 5-0
— —
5-4 4-3
4.0 4.2
4-3
first
dorsal
ray
5-0
5-i 5-i
5-4
4-8
5-2
—
5-8
5-7 4-4 4-3 4-3
4-4
anal
spine
length
6.1
6-3 6-3
6.4
5-7
6.0
—
7.0 6.6
5-7
5-8
5-5
5-6
pectoral
spine
length
5-9
6-3 5-8
6.0
5-4
5-8
—
5-9
5-6
5.o
5-i
5-3
50
pelvic
spine
length
6.0
59
6.0 6.1
5-6 6-3
6.4
<7-4
6.4
5-5 5-2
4-8
5-5
upper
caudal
spine
1-5
—
4-5
— —
1.6
— —
1.0
— —
1.7
3-i
lower
caudal
spine
6.6
6.4 6.4
—
7-5 7-7
—
7-8
7.0
—
6.2 6.6
6.9
snout
length
1.9
2.0
2.0
1.8
1.9 1.9
1.8
1-7
1.9 1.8
1.8
2.0 2.0
lower
lip
4.9 4.2
4-8
7.2
4.6
5-4
6.4
3-9 4-7
—
4-7
6.4
5-9
thoracic
length
1-3
1.4 1.6
1-4 1-4
i-3
1-4
1.4
1-5
1.3
i-3
1.2
1.2
abdominal
length
1.7
1-7
1.8
1.5
1.6 1.6
1-5 1-4
1.4 1.7
i-7
i-5
i-5
max.
obrital
diameter
4.6
4-8
4-4 5-2
5.o
5-3
6.7 6.4
5-5
4-8
5-5
4.8
5-2
interorbital
width
6.0
5-6 5-6
5-4
5-6 5-8
6.0
59
6.0
5-6
5-5
59
5-5
cleithral
width
1.4 1.4
1-5 1-3 1-4
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.2 1.2
i-3
1-3
1-3
supra-cleithral
width
2.0
1.9
2.1
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.6 1.8 1.8 1.9
1-7 1-7
head
width
1.4
1-4
i-5
1.4
1-4
1.4
i-3
1.2
1-3
i-3
1-4 1-4 1-3
head
depth
2-5
2.7 2.6 2.4 2.6 2.4
3-i
2.8
30
2.6 2.6 2.4
2.1
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.5 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.3
2.1
3-2
2.6 2.9 2.4 2.4
2.1
1.9
body
width
at
dorsal
1-9
1.8
2.2
1.6 1.8
1-7
1.7 1.6 1.9 1.8
1.8
1.6
i-5
body
width
at
anal
2.1
2.3 2.5
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
1.9 2.3
2.1 2.0
1.8 1.9
depth
caudal
peduncle
16.7
17.6
19-3
17.7 18.1
19-5
17.1
16.5
20.4
17.5 17.5
18.
1
16.4
width
caudal
peduncle
7-5
7.2
8.3
6-3
6.9
6.6
6.4
6.1 6.8 7.o 6.6
4-8 6-3
rictal
barbel
2.5
—
2.1
2.7
2.1 2.2
—
7-4
2.8 2.7
2-3
2.3
2.2
lower
lip
barbels
12.8 10.4
10.2
—
7-3 7-2
—
25-9
— —
12.3 7-1
9.4
lateral
scutes
34/33
34/34 34/34
34/34 35/35 35/35
36/37 37/36
35/35 35/35
36/36
36/35 34/35
coalescing
scutes
19/19
19/18 19/18 18/18 21/21
20/20 25/23 26/24 24/24
18/17
20/20
20/19 19/20
thoracic
scutes
7/8
7/8 6/5
7/8
6/7
9/9
9/8 8/9 9/9
8/9
11/10
9/10 9/10
teeth
upper
jaws
3/4
—
2/3 3/3
4/3
4/3 3/4
2/3
3,3
3/4 3/1
3/3
3/1
teeth
lower
jaws
6/6
8/7 6/6 7/9
8/6
6/6 2/4 5/4 6/7
10/11
7/8 7/8 7/8

76
Loricaria
piracicabae
Von
Ihering,
1907
(figs.
8,
14;
tables
Ih,
VIe-g)
Loricaria
piracicabae
Von
Ihering,
1907:
28
&
30,
and
29
&
31
(bilingual
original
description,
in
English
and
Portuguese,
respectively;
apparently
the
single
holo-
type;
type-locality:
Piracicaba,
Piracicaba-River,
State
of
S.
Paulo,
and
Piracicaba,
Rio
Piracicaba,
Estado
de
S.
Paulo;
comparison),
—
Eigenmann,
1910:
415
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria;
Piracicaba),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1911:
140-141
(description,
translated
from
"Eigenm[ann]
&
Rudolph",
thus
attributed
to
Eigen-
mann
&
Von
Ihering;
in
key
on
p.
116a;
reference
on
p.
430),
—
Gosline,
1945:
106
(listed;
in
subgenus
Lori-
caria;
Piracicaba),
—
Fowler,
1954:
99
(references;
Rio
Piracicaba).
—
Britski,
1969:
208
(notes
on
holo-
type; rio
Piracicaba,
Piracicaba,
Estado
de
Sao
Paulo),
—
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1978:
193
(name
only),
—
Isbrucker,
1979a:
87,
no
(listed;
note),
—
Isbriicker,
1979b:
III,
fig.
3
(popular
account;
3
specimens;
Bresil,
Etat
de
Sao
Paulo,
Corumbatai
le
long
du
Corumbatai),
—■
Isbrucker,
1980:
118
(listed).
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
MZUSP
2182
(holotype),
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
Rio
Piracicaba
at
Piracicaba,
22°45'S,
47°4o'W,
coll.
Von
Ihering,
—
MZUSP
12125
(1),
MZUSP
12127
(1),
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
Corumbatai
on
Rio
Corumbatai,
an
affluent
of
the
right
bank
of
Rio
Piracicaba,
coll.
H.
A.
Britski,
IV-1963.
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
tables,
and
are
not
repeated
here.
Holotype
(table
Vie).
Anus
surrounded
by
a
relatively
large,
more
or
less
triangular
naked
area,
reaching
naked
ventral
base
of
pelvic
fins
by
a
narrow
connection
of
skin.
Anterior
to
this
naked
area,
the
abdomen
is
covered
with
small
polygonal
scutelets,
gradually
decreasing
in
size
anteriorly,
reaching
to
the
gill
openings,
leaving
a
shallow,
median
roundish
notch.
Ventral
side
of
head
naked,
except
for
a
series
of
narrow,
mostly
square-like
marginal
scutes
extending
from
dorsolateral
and
dorsofrontal
sides
of
head
and
snout.
Last
posteroventral
scute
extends
toward
axis
of
head.
Odontodes
weak,
slightly
more
prominent
in
a
double
ridge
on
supraoccipital
process,
along
coalescing
and
parallel
lateral
body
scutes,
and
on
mediodorsal
scutes
anterior
to
base
of
dorsal
fin
spine.
Many
of
these
prominent
odontodes
are
now
lost,
leaving
small,
shallow
pits.
Orbital
rim
round,
without
notch.
Pectoral
pore
and
pores
of
sensory
canal
system
like
those
in
L.
cataphracta.
Upper
lip
narrow,
lower
lip
broad.
Lips
and
other
soft
structures
of
mouth
are
in
poor
condition.
Base
of
premaxillary
teeth
twice
as
long
as
mandibular
teeth.
Teeth
in
the
premaxillae
and
dentaries
simple,
with
a
short,
roundish,
more
or
less
spoon-shaped
crown.
This
likely
indicates
the
specimen
as a
male.
Tip
of
supraoccipital
process
blunt.
Eye
with
a
narrow,
pigmented
dorsal
flap
of
skin.
Iris
with
a
small
roundish
dorsal
flap.
Fin
spine
(except
for
those
of
the
pelvic
fin)
largely
broken
off.
The
remains
of
the
pectoral
fin
spines
do
not
indicate
that
these
are
thicker
than
in
a
female,
as
is
the
case
with
males
of
other
species.
Pectoral
fin
posteriorly
rounded,
not
acute
like
in
L.
cataphracta
and
most
species
related
to
it.
Shape
of
body
and
head
reminiscent
of
Brochi-
loricaria
macrodon.
Colour
in
alcohol.
—
All
pigment
has
dis-
appeared
in
the
holotype.
Von
Ihering
(1907:
30)
described
it
as:
"Straw
color,
the
fins
faintly
spotted."
Loricaria
piracicabae
Von
Ihering,
1907.
Dorsal,
lateral,
and
ventral
view
of
a
specimen
from
Brazil,
Rio
Corumbataí,
sl
149
mm,
MZUSP
12127.
Fig.
8.

77
The
holotype
is
in
a
poor
state
of
preservation.
A
ring
of
lateral
scutes
is
broken
around
the
body
beyond
the
25th/24th
coalescing
scute.
The
speci-
men
has
small
holes
in
various
parts
of
the
abdominal,
ventral,
lateral,
and
dorsal
scutes.
The
illustrated
specimen
was
freshly
preserved
(MZUSP
12127,
si
149
mm,
table
Vlf)
from
Rio
Corumbatai,
which
is
near
the
type-locality.
The
abdominal
scutelets
are
incompletely
devel-
oped,
with
small
naked
areas
adjacent
to
the
thoracic
scutes.
Odontodes
are
more
conspicuous
than
in
the
holotype:
there
is
a
single
series
at
the
tip
of
the
supraoccipital
process,
and
one
on
predorsal
scute;
three
paired
ridges
on
scutes
between
supraocci-
pital
process
and
predorsal
scute.
At
either
side
of
this
last
series
is
a
ridge
of
odontodes
running
from
the
post-temporal
plate
to
the
third
dorsal
body
scute
along
dorsal
fin
base,
dorsal
to
dorsal
row
of
odontodes
along
the
coalescing
body
scutes.
Prominent
odontodes
are
present
on
dorso-
anterior
part
of
the
orbital
rim.
Upper
lip
narrow,
with
numerous
short,
simple
barbels
with
a
broad
base,
along
its
edge.
Ventral
surface
of
upper
lip
with
relatively
few,
simple
barbels.
At
either
side
of
the
premaxilla
are
three
prominent
barbels.
In
the
buccal
cavity,
posterior
to
the
premaxillae
is
a
long
median
barbel,
and
a
shorter
barbel
to
the
right
(the
missing
left
barbel
likely
is
an
individual
aberration).
At
the
origin
of
the
maxillary
barbel
is
a
series
of
about
five
bar-
bels,
the
inner
one
the
longest,
gradually
decreasing
in
length.
Short,
thick
papillae,
shorter
than
the
premaxillary
teeth
are
present
posterior
to
the
origin
of
the
premaxillary
teeth.
Lower
lip
broad,
with
a
shallow
median
notch.
Ventral
surface
of
lower
lip
with
numerous
isolated,
long
acute
papillae,
the
one
just
beyond
the
symphysis
of
the
mandibulae
about
twice
as
long
as
the
others.
Edge
of
lower
lip
with
a
series
of
short,
simple
papillae.
Maxillary
barbels
not
well-developed.
The
relative
size
of
the
premaxillary
and
dentary
teeth
is
similar
to
that
in
the
holotype.
The
premaxillary
teeth
are
unusual
in
shape
for
a
Loricaria
:
the
tips
are
simple,
long
and
acute,
resembling
an
odontode.
Likewise,
the
mandibular
teeth
are
simple,
with
a
short
acute,
or
slightly
rounded
tip.
Tip
of
supraoccipital
process
acute.
Pectoral,
pelvic,
and
anal
fins
rounded
poste-
riorly.
Colour
in
alcohol.
—
Ground
colour
pale
yel-
lowish
tan.
Minute
vague,
brownish
spots
on
dor-
sum
of
head;
larger
(and
fewer)
spots
on
dorsum
of
body.
Small,
faint
brownish
spots
on
dorsum
of
pec-
toral
fin
and
on
spine
and
rays
of
dorsal
and
caudal
fins.
Pelvic
and
anal
fins
without
spots.
The
juvenile
in
MZUSP
12125
(si
82.2
mm,
table
VIg)
also
was
freshly
preserved
from
Rio
Corumbatai;
it
has
the
abdominal
scutelets
hardly
developed.
Its
odontodes
are
more
prominent
(a
juvenile
character)
than
in
the
two
preceding
specimens.
In
the
buccal
cavity,
posterior
to
the
premaxillae
are
three
long
barbels,
the
longest
one
in
the
middle
and
one
at
either
side.
There
is
a
prominent,
long
barbel
at
either
side
of
the
outer
teeth
in
the
premaxillae.
The
maxillary
barbels
are
well-developed
and
bear
anteriorly
and
posteriorly
several
small
subbarbels.
The
teeth
resemble
those
of
the
preceding
speci-
men,
although
the
tips
of
the
mandibular
teeth
are
generally
blunter.
A
long
upper
caudal
filament
is
present
in
this
specimen.
Fig.
9.
Loricaria
clavipinna
Fowler,
1940.
Dorsal,
lateral,
and
ventral
view
of
holotype.

78
Discussion:
Von
Ihering
(1907:
14
&
15)
stated
that
the
species
indicated
by
an
asterisk
in
his
descriptions
(as
is
the
case
with
L.
piracicabae)
were
examined
by
Prof.
Ch.
H.
Eigenmann.
I
gather
from
the
original
description
that
there
was
only
the
holo-
type
at
hand,
which
has
(now)
a
total
length
of
180
mm
(not
190
mm,
as
recorded),
and
the
caudal
fin
damaged.
A
hand-written
label
sent
with
the
holotype
indicates
that
in
1918
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro
iden-
tified
it
as
L.
macrodon.
L.
piracicabae
is
one
of
the
most
distinct
species
of
the
L.
cataphracta
complex,
and
only
superficially
reminiscent
of
Brochiloricaria
macrodon.
Loricaria
clavipinna
Fowler,
1940
(figs.
9-10,
15;
tables
Ii,
Vlh-k)
Loricaria
clavipinna
Fowler,
1940a:
247-249,
figs.
44-47
(original
description;
holotype;
type-species
of
sub-
genus
Fusiloricaria
Fowler,
1940a;
type-locality:
Uca-
yali
River
basin,
Contamana,
Peru),
—
Eigenmann
&
Allen,
1942
:
210
(reference;
listed;
note,
after
Fowler;
Contamana,
Peru),
—
Fowler,
1942:
86
(listed;
refer-
ence;
Peru,
Contamana),
—
Fowler,
1945:
106
(listed;
Peru,
Contamana),
—
Gosline,
1945:
107
(listed;
in
sub-
genus
Fusiloricaria;
Contamana,
Peru),
—
Tovar
Serpa,
1967:
221
(listed;
after
Fowler,
1945),
—
Isbriicker,
1972:
171
(in
subgenus
Fusiloricaria;
sexual
dimorphism
in
shape
of
pectoral
fin
spine),
—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
87,
90
(listed;
note
on
holotype),
—
Isbriicker,
1979b:
111
(record
of
a
male,
USNM
124930),
—
Isbriicker,
1980:
HS>
117
(listed).
Specimens
examined:
ANSP
68665
(holotype),
Peru,
Prov.
Loreto,
Rio
Amazonas
system,
Rio
Ucayali
at
Contamana,
07°i9'S,
75°04'W,
coll.
W.
C.
Morrow
and
party,
VII/VIII-1937,
—
USNM
124930
(1),
Rio
Ampiyacu,
coll.
W.
G.
Scherer,
7-IX-1936.
Brazil
NMW
46x65
(x),
Est.
Para,
mouth
of
Rio
Tapa-
jos
into
Rio
Amazonas
at
Santarem,
02°26'S,
54°4i'W,
—
USNM
217425
(1),
Est.
Para,
Rio
Amazonas,
mud
bank
north
of
quay
in
Belem
on
shore
of
Canal
do
Meio
of
Rio
Para,
OI°26'I"S,
48°29'9"W,
24-I-1969,
received
from
B.
J.
Zahu-
ranec.
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
presented
in
tables
and
are
not
repeated
here.
Loricaria
clavipinna
is
closely
related
to
both
L.
cataphracta
and
L.
simillima,
from
which
it
differs
in
morphometric
characters
only.
The
four
specimens
listed
above
are
tentatively
assigned
to
L.
clavipinna
on
account
of
their
fairly
close
agreement
in
these
characters,
although
more
material
is
needed
to
establish
the
significance
of
some
of
the
differences
that
also
exist
between
them.
The
holotype
(table
Vlh)
is
a
nuptial
male
with
very
thick
pectoral
fin
spines.
The
teeth
are
typi-
cally
of
a
male:
bilobate,
with
a
small
acute
outer
lobe
and
an
oblong
rounded
inner
lobe.
The
odontodes
are
in
size
intermediate
between
those
of L.
cataphracta
and
L.
simillima.
There
is
a
small
and
shallow
posterior
orbital
notch.
The
abdomen
is
completely
covered
with
small
scute-
lets,
anteriorly
with
a
rather
deep,
acute
V-shaped
median
notch.
The
holotype
possesses
the
highest
number
of
mandibular
teeth
found
in
a
Loricaria.
Its
lips
and
soft
structures
of
the
mouth
are
in
poor
state
of
preservation.
The
colour
pattern
was
described
by
Fowler
(1940a:
247
and
p.
249)
as:
"Color
in
alcohol
brown
above,
little
darker
on
top
of
head
medially
and
4
dark
brown
transverse
bands
on
body
above,
first
at
last
half
of
dorsal
and
other
3
behind
Fig.
10.
Fowler,
1940.
Detail
of
left
pectoral
fin
spine
of
holotype,
showing
secondary
sexually
dimorphism
of
the
males.
Loricaria
clavipinna

79
dorsal;
first
and
second
of
dark
bands
broadest
and
last
narrowest.
Under
surface
of
body
uni-
formly
whitish.
Eye
dark
gray
brown.
Dorsal
brown,
little
paler
basally.
Caudal
with
long
fila-
ment
dotted
irregularly
with
black,
fin
pale
to
whitish
or
buff,
with
broad
basal
and
broad
marginal
blackish
transverse
band.
Anal
white.
Broad
pectoral
spine
brown,
fin
dark
brown,
with
broad
pale
terminal
border.
Ventral
whitish,
medially
dotted
with
blackish
brown."
At
present,
the
holotype
is
faded,
without
traces
of
transverse
bands.
The
specimen
from
Rio
Ampiyacu
(USNM
124930,
si
156.5
mm,
table
Vli)
is
also
a
nuptial
male
with
thick
pectoral
fin
spines.
The
tips
of
its
teeth
are
shorter
and
rounder
than
in
the
holo-
type.
It
has
a
small,
shallow
median
notch
in
the
anterior
abdominal
scutelets.
Like
the
type-speci-
mens
of
L.
simillima,
this
specimen
has
a
patch
of
granular
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
Its
lower
lip
is
broader
and
longer
than
usual
for
Loricaria
spp.:
the
ventral
surface
is
provided
with
numerous
low
papillae
between
the
filaments
(a
breeding
condition?).
Ground
colour
pale
yellowish
tan,
without
pig-
ment
on
dorsum
of
head
and
body.
Dorsal,
and
dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
faintly
pig-
mented
with
even
brown,
tending
to
form
minute
faint
spots
in
dorsal
fin,
especially
in
the
spine.
Caudal
fin
with
a
colour
pattern
as
described
for
the
holotype
by
Fowler,
with
a
vertical,
poorly
pigmented
bar
posterior
to
distal
ends
of
trian-
gular
caudal
scutes.
Tip
of
upper
caudal
fin
lobe
without
pigment.
The
specimen
from
Santarem
(NMW
46165,
si
135.5
mm,
table
Vlj)
is
likely
a
female.
The
teeth
have
a
relatively
large,
acute
outer
lobe,
and
a
still
larger
oblong
inner
lobe.
The
anterior
median
notch
in
the
abdominal
scutelets
is
remi-
niscent
of
the
holotype.
No
scutelets
anterior
to
branchiostegal
membrane.
This
specimen
has
a
rather
dark,
greyish
tan
ground
colour.
Two
faint,
transverse
bands
on
dorsum
of
caudal
peduncle.
Distal
ends
of
dorsal
fin
rays
dark
brown,
this
fin
otherwise
with
greyish
brown
pigment,
its
spine
with
faint
dark
brown
spots.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
even
greyish
brown
pigment.
Blackish
brown
pigment
forms
a
con-
spicuous,
broad
vertical
band
along
outer
caudal
fin
margin,
ventral
to
the
upper
ray
in
upper
lobe.
The
specimen
from
Belem
(USNM
217425,
si
180
mm,
table
VIk)
is
probably
also
a
female,
with
long,
oblong
inner
tips
of
teeth.
A
shallow,
rounded
median
notch
in
the
anterior
abdominal
scutelets.
A
light
brown
ground
colour,
including
dorsal
fin
and
dorsum
of
paired
fins.
The
caudal
fin
has
brown
pigment,
gradually
becoming
darker
towards
the
distal
ends
of
the
rays.
Loricaria
nickeriensis
Isbrücker,
1979
(figs.
11,
15;
tables
Ij,
Vlla-c)
?
Loricaria
(Loricaria)
cataphracta
(non
Linnaeus,
1758);
Boeseman,
1976:
156-158,
fig.
2
(in
part?;
Tjawassi
Creek,
right
tributary
of
Nickerie
River
below
Lombok
Falls,
Surinam).
Loricaria
nickeriensis
Isbrucker,
1979a:
86-87
(listed),
pp.
97-98,
figs.
11-13,
23,
tables
lb
&
lib
(original
description;
holotype,
19
paratypes
;
type-locality
:
Suri-
nam,
district
Nickerie,
rapide
dans
la
riviere
Fallawatra,
5
km
SSW
des
chutes
Stondansie,
largeur
60
cm,
fond
de
sable,
pierres),
—
Isbrucker,
1980:
118
(listed).
Specimens
examined:
Surinam
ZMA
106.212
(holotype),
District
Nickerie,
rapid
in
Fallawatra
River,
5
km
SSW
of
Stondansie
Falls,
width
60
cm,
sand
bottom,
stones,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
6-IV-1967,
—
ZMA
106.237
(8
para-
types),
same
data
as
holotype,
—
ZMA
106.235
Isbrücker,
1979.
Dorsal
view
of
holotype.
Loricaria
nickeriensis
Fig.
11.

80
(3
paratypes),
si
48.8-111.i
mm,
District
Nickerie,
creek
at
right
bank
of
Nickerie
River,
12
km
WSW
of
Stondansie
Falls,
width
5
m,
depth
50-100
cm,
running
water,
sandbottom,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
5-IV-1967,
—
ZMA
106.236
(8
para-
types),
si
97.1-116.8
mm,
District
Nickerie,
Ston-
dansie
Falls
in
Nickerie
River,
width
80
cm,
sand-
bottom,
stones,
coll.
H.
Nijssen,
5-IV-1967.
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
tables
and
are
not
repeated
here.
Loricaria
nickeriensis
belongs
to
the
L.
cata-
phracta
complex
and
is
characterized,
among
others,
by
its
small
adult
size.
The
smallest
nuptial
<5
is
in
ZMA
106.236:
si
97.1
mm.
Three
other
mature
$
S
in
this
series
have
a
si
between
106.9
and
115.7
mm;
the
4
remaining
specimens
are
probably
9$,
with
a
si
between
102.7
an<
J
116.8
mm.
The
3
specimens
in
ZMA
106.235
consist
of
a
?,
iii.i
mm
in
si,
and
two
juveniles,
the
smallest
being
48.8
mm
in
si.
The
holotype
and
8
paratypes
from
the
type-locality
are
listed
in
table
Vlla-c;
the
smallest
mature
<3
in
this
series
is
103.8
mm
in
si.
In
most
characters,
including
general
shape
of
body
and
head,
L.
nickeriensis
is
reminiscent
of
the
L.
cataphracta
population
from
the
Suriname
River
system,
and
of L.
parnahybae.
f)
dentition
seems
complete
(a)
holotype,
Surinam,
Fallawatra
River,
(b)
i
paratype,
ZMA
106.237,
(c)
7
paratypes,
ZMA
106.237,
selected
characters;
of
Table
VII.
Morphometric
and meristic
characters
of Loricaria
nickeriensis:
Loricaria
tucumanensis:
(d)
holotype,
Argentina,
Tucuman,
(e)
I
paratype;
of
sp.
a:
(f)
3
specimens,
Brazil,
Suyazinha,
at
BMNH.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
specimen
a
b
c c c c c c
c
d
e
f f f
mature
male
+
+
+ +
+
+
+
standard
length
118.6 112.7
H9-5
112.5
112.1
108.0
105.7 105.1
103.8
122.3 113.2
47.8
47.0
29.1
axial
length
—
120.6
— — —
116.0
—
112.9
HI.4
132.6
121.9
51-5
51.2
317
total
length
—
— — — —
143.2
—
132.1
147.8
—
—
65.2
55-4
35-1
head
length
4-9
5.1
4.8
5.0 5.o
50
5.1
5-1 4-9 4-2
4-4
4.2
4-1
3-7
predorsal
length
3-4 3-5 3-o 3-1 3-2 3-1 2-9
postdorsal
length
1.6 1.6 1.8
1-7
i-7
1-7
1.8
postanal
length
1.8 1.8
2.1 2.1
1-9
2.0
2.0
dorsal
spine
length
4-7
4-8
4-7
4.8
50
4.8
4-7
5.o
4-9 4-5
—
5-4 4-9
first
dorsal
ray-
4.8
5-o
4.9
4.8
5-1 4-9
4.9
5-o
5-1 4-7 5-2 5-5 5-7 5-3
anal
spine
length
5-3
6.0
5-2
5.8
7-2
7.0
6.9
pectoral
spine
length
5-6
6.0
5-4
5.5 6.0
5-6 5-8
6.1
5-7
5-0 5-4
6.1
5-9 5-7
pelvic
spine
length
6.1
6.4
5-9
6.3
6.1
6-3
5-7
6.5
6.2
5-9
6.1
7-1
6-5
6.3
upper
caudal
spine
—————
3-i
—
3-9
2.4
— —
2.7
5-6
4-9
lower
caudal
spine
—
7-7
—
7.3
—
7-4
—
7-3
———
8.7
8.1 8.1
snout
length
2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1
1.8 1.9
2.1 2.1 2.1
lower
lip 3-7
4-7
5-2
4.6
4-3 4-5 4-9
thoracic
length
1-3
1.2
1-3
i-3
1-3
i-3
1-3
1.3
1-3 1-3 1-3
1-5
1-7
1.8
abdominal
length
1.6
1-4
1.7
1-5
1.5 1.6
1-5
1-5
1.5
1.7 1.6
2.0
1.8
2.0
max.
orbital
diameter
4-5
45
4.6
4-7
4.4
44
4-3 4-4 4-3
6.7
5-9
4.6 4.6 4.6
interorbital
width
5-9
5-8
6.0 6.1
5-8
5-9
5-8
5-9
6.1
4.6
4-7 5-2 5-3 4-9
cleithral
width
1-5 1-5 1-5 1-5
1.4 1.5 1.4
1-5
1.5
1-3 1-3 1-3 1-4
i-5
supra-cleithral
width
2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.1 2.1 2.0
1.8
1-7
2.1 2.0
1.9
head
width
1-5 1-5
i-3
1.4
1-3
1-4
1-5
head
depth
2.8 2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.6 2.8 2.8 2.6 2.7 2.3 2.5 2.6
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.8 2.6 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.5 2.6 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.8 2.9
body
width
at
dorsal
i-9 i-7
1.8 1.8
1-7
1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7
1-7 2-3
2.3
3-2
body
width
at
anal
2.1 2.0 2.1
2.0
2.7 2.8
3-3
depth
caudal
peduncle
18.5 18.7
21.1
18.6
16.4
19-3
19.8
width
caudal
peduncle
7-1
6.9
7.4
7-7
8.8
8.9
9-9
rictal
barbel
2.1
2.6
3-3
lower
lip
barbels
7-3 11.7
—
lateral
scutes
34/34 33/33
34/35
34/34 34/34 34/34 34/34 34/34 33/33
32/32 32/32 33/33
33/33
33/33
coalescing
scutes
17/19
18/18 18/19 19/18 18/19
19/19
18/19 18/19 19/18
19/19
19/19 20/19
19/20
19/19
thoracic
scutes
10/7
8/8 8/8 7/7 7/7 6/8 4/5
teeth
upper
jaws
2/4 2/3 4/3
4/3
3/3 3/3
t
teeth
lower
jaws
6/7 6/8 6/7 7/7 6/6
6
?/6
?
t

81
The
$6
can
be
recognized
easily
by
a
thickening
of
the
pectoral
fin
spine,
near
the
distal
tip
(which
is
acute),
unlike
the
club-like
spine
shape
in
males
of
most
other
species
described
above.
Tips
of
the
teeth
in
premaxilla
and
dentary
are
shorter
and
especially
blunter
in
<3
6
than
in
??.
The
thoracic
scutes
tend
to
be
longer
than
usual
in
Loricaria,
the
abdominal
area
is
therefore
nar-
rower.
Scutelets
completely
or
partly
cover
the
abdomen.
Generally,
they
are
poorly
developed,
although
fewer
and
relatively
large
scutelets
may
be
present.
Odontodes
relatively
well-developed,
although
less
prominent
than
in
L.
cataphracta.
A
small
posterior
orbital
notch
is
present,
like
in
L.
cata-
phracta
of
the
same
size.
Colour
in
alcohol.
—
Ground
colour
pale
yel-
lowish
tan.
The
pigmentation
is
variable
and
irre-
gular.
Dorsum
of
head
and
body
with
many
ill-
defined,
sometimes
rather
large,
dark
brown
spots
and
blotches.
Dark
brown
pigment
usually
forms
about
five
transverse
bands
posterior
to
base
of
dorsal
fin,
and
an
additional
band
runs
obliquely
forward from
base
of first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray.
Dorsal
fin,
and
dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
numerous
small,
conspicuous
dark
brown
spots,
often
surrounded
by
lighter
brown
pigment.
Tips
of
dorsal
fin
rays
may
be
darker
than
the
rest
of
the
fin.
Distal
third
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
poorly
pigmented
in
the
holotype.
Caudal
fin
base
usually
with
dark
brown
pig-
ment.
Lower
lobe
of
caudal
fin
with
irregular
dark
brown
pigment
in
the
larger
paratype
in
ZMA
106.235,
with
small,
isolated
dark
brown
spots
in
most
of
the
other
specimens.
Anal
fin
plain
or
with
faint,
widespread
brown
pigment.
Barbels
(including
the
maxillary
barbels)
of
upper
lip
with
dark
brown
pigment
in
most
of
the
specimens.
Loricaria
tucumanensis
Isbrücker,
1979
(figs.
12, 15;
tables
Ik,
Vlld-e)
Loricaria
tucumanensis
Isbrucker,
1979a:
86,
87
(listed),
pp.
98
&
102,
figs.
14, 23,
tables
Ic
&
lie
(original
description;
holotype,
1
paratype;
type-locality
:
Argen-
tine,
Prov.
Tucuman,
(San
Miguel
de
—)
Tucuman,
26°47'S,
65°IS'W),
—
Isbrucker,
1980:
119
(listed).
Specimens
examined:
Argentina
USNM
88669
(holotype),
Prov.
Tucuman,
[San
Miguel
de
—]
Tucuman,
26°47'S,
65°i5'W
[Rio
Sali?],
coll.
Mr
&
Mrs
R.
C.
Shannon,
catalogued
in
USNM
on
II-1928,
—
USNM
217426
(1
paratype,
??),
same
data
as
holotype.
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
tables
and
are
not
repeated
here.
Loricaria
tucumanensis
belongs
to
the
L.
cata-
phracta
complex.
It
appears
to
be
closely
related
to
L.
simillima
(a
widely
distributed,
though
problematical
species),
of
which
two
specimens
from
the
Rio
Sali
in
Argentina
were
examined.
Both
species
may
prove
to
occur
sympatrically
in
this
river.
L.
tucumanensis
is
compared
with
a
specimen
of
L.
simillima
from
the
Rio
Sali
(BMNH
1902.7.29:84-85,
table
Vm),
111.9
mm
in
si.
They
differ
in
ratios
of
head
length,
predorsal
—,
post-
dorsal
—,
and
postanal
length,
dorsal
spine
length,
length
first
dorsal
ray,
anal
spine
length,
pectoral
spine
length,
pelvic
spine
length,
thoracic
length,
abdominal
length,
maximum
orbital
diameter,
interorbital
width,
cleithral
width,
head
width,
head
depth,
body
depth
at
dorsal,
body
width
at
dorsal
and
anal,
width
caudal
peduncle,
and
length
of
the
maxillary
barbel
(in
L.
tucumanensis
meas-
urable
in
the
holotype
only),
and
in
number
of
coalescing
body
scutes.
The
odontodes
in
the
dorsal
area
anterior
to
origin
of
the
dorsal
fin
spine
(except
for
a
few
larger
odontodes
along
dorsal
part
of
the
orbital
rim)
are
hardly
more
conspicuous
than
the
odon-
todes
posterior
to
the
dorsal
fin
spine;
they
are
more
prominent
than
in
L.
simillima.
The
snout
is
more
acute
in
lateral
view
than
in
other
species
of
Loricaria.
A
small
posterior
orbital
notch
is
Fig.
12.
Loricaria
tucumanensis
Isbrücker,
1979.
Dorsal
view
of
holotype.

82
present.
.Small
scutelets
completely
cover
the
ab-
domen;
they
are
smaller
and
more numerous
than
in
L.
simillima
from
the
Rio
Sali.
Colour
in
alcohol.
-—
Ground
colour
yellowish
tan.
Up
to
five
faint,
transverse
brownish
stripes
on
dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
base
of
the
last
dorsal
fin
ray.
Dorsal
fin
with
faint
brown
spots.
Dorsum
of
the
pectoral
fin
spine
with
up
to
six
brown
blotches,
some
of
which
forming
a
narrow-
transverse
line
on
the
hypertrophied
spine
in
the
holotype.
Discussion
Additional
material
of
L.
tucumanensis and
of
L.
simillima
from
the
Rio
Sali
is
needed;
this
will
yield
the
necessary
detail
about
the
ranges
of
variation
of
the
various
characters
of
both
species.
Several
of
the
characters
now
found
as
distinc-
tions
will
overlap
in
more
sufficient
material.
L.
simillima
is
considered
as a
variable
species
in
many
respects.
The
relationship
of
various
samples
of
L.
simillima
are
not
always
clear,
on
account
of
the
usually
limited
number
of
specimens
avail-
able
from
each
locality.
L.
simillima
is
closely
related
to
L.
cataphracta
(with
which
it
was
occassionally
found
to
be
sympatric)
and
to
L.
lata.
The
status
of
all
the
samples
need
further
investigation
based
on
more
elaborate
material.
There
is
no
doubt,
however,
that
L.
tucumanensis
is
a
distinct
species.
Loricaria
sp.
α
(figs-
13.
!5;
table
VIIf
)
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
At
BMNH,
unregistered
(3),
Est.
Mato
Grosso,
Suyazinha
stream,
tributary
to
the
Suya
Missu,
Rio
Xingu
drainage,
dipnetting,
coll.
R.
H.
Lowe
(McConnell),
10/11-V-1968,
—
at
BMNH,
un-
registered
(3),
si
37.9-76.6
mm,
Est.
Mato
Grosso,
Sangadina
stream,
Rio
Xingu
drainage,
coll.
R.
H.
Lowe
(McConnell),
25-III-1968.
Description:
These
6
juveniles
(data
of
3
specimens
from
Suyazinha
stream
in
table
Vllf)
represent
a
single
species.
The
colour
pattern
is
reminiscent
of
some
L.
simillima:
an
oblique
line
runs
forward from
base
of first
and
second
dorsal
fin
ray;
a
rather
broad,
dark
brown,
transverse
stripe
posterior
to
base
of
dorsal
fin;
three
to
four
narrower
trans-
verse
stripes
on
posterior
dorsum
of
caudal
peduncle.
Several
other
species
of
Loricariinae
(e.g.,
Rineloricaria
spp.,
Sturisoma
spp.)
have
a
similar
colour
pattern.
Dorsum
of
head
usually
with
small,
irregular
dots
and
spots;
in
one
speci-
men,
si
44.8
mm,
the
dots
are
larger
and
darker;
it
has
a
median,
V-shaped
bright
area
on
dorsum
of
snout.
Dorsal
fin
with
a
dark
basal
blotch
reaching
the
oblique
line
on
body,
and
with
a
few
small
dark
spots
on
the
rays.
A
rather
broad
vertical
band
near
margin
of
dorsal
fin.
Dorsum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
small
brown
spots,
which
tend
to
form
an
oblique
line
near
the
distal
ends
of
pectoral
fin
rays.
In
the
specimens
from
Suyazinha
the
caudal
fin
has
a
large,
dark
brown,
irregular
blotch,
reaching
base,
not
reaching
most
of
the
margin
of
the
fin,
except
about
halfway
the
lower
caudal
spine.
In
the
other
specimens
the
caudal
fin
has
a
large,
dark
brown
basal
blotch
and
a
large
dark
brown
terminal
blotch,
with
a
narrow
unpigmented
vertical
line
in
the
middle;
tip
of
upper
caudal
lobe
unpigmented.
Even
the
smallest
specimen
shows
all
charac-
teristics
of
Loricaria
(e.g.,
it
has
lips
and
denti-
tion
well-developed),
except
that
the
usual
small
outer
lobe
of
the
teeth
is
relatively
large,
and
that
the
odontodes
are
very
prominent,
compared
to
sp.
a.
Dorsal
view
of
a
juvenile
from
Brazil,
Sangadina
Stream,
sl
44.8
mm,
showing
the
charac-
teristic
colour
pattern.
Fig.
13.
Loricaria

83
larger
specimens
of
Loricaria.
Only
the
thoracic
scutes
and
abdominal
scutelets
are
not
developed
in
the
smallest
specimen.
Loricaria
sp.
ß
(fig.
15;
table
Villa)
Specimens
examined:
Ecuador
USNM
163916
(2),
Rio
Pucayacu,
Rio
Bobonaza,
02°03'S,
76°59'W,
coll.
R.
Olalla,
VIII-1949.
D
escription:
This
unidentifiable
species
belongs
to
the
L.
cataphracta
complex.
The
available
specimens
(table
Villa)
are
juveniles
with
incompletely
developed,
numerous
rounded
abdominal
scutelets.
Dorsum
of
head
and
body
anterior
to
tip
of
depressed
last
dorsal
fin
ray
with
irregular,
dark
brown
pigment;
dorsum
of
body
posterior
to
depressed
last
dorsal
fin
ray
with
lighter
brown
pigment.
Dorsal
fin
rays
and
membrane
dark
brown,
except
for
tips
of
third
to
sixth
ray.
Dor-
sum
of
pectoral
and
pelvic
fins
with
rather
large,
dark
brown
spots
which
tend
to
form
narrow,
oblique
lines,
margined
by
faint
brown
pigment.
Caudal
fin
with
dark
brown
pigment,
weak
(or
absent)
on
and
along
upper
and
lower
spine
and
near
the
distal
ends.
Loricaria
apeltogaster
Boulenger,
1895
(figs.
14,
16;
tables
Im,
VHIb-d)
Loricaria
apeltogaster
Boulenger,
1895:
528
(in
part;
original
description;
4
syntypes;
type-locality:
Para-
guay;
comparison),
—
Boulenger,
1896:
33,
pi.
7
figs.
2,
2a-b
(in
part;
description
of
the
syntypes;
compari-
son),
—
Regan,
1904:
292-293
(in
part;
description
of
the
syntypes;
Paraguay;
in
distributional
table
on
p.
196;
in
key
on
p.
274,
in
subgenus
Loricaria),
—
Eigenmann,
McAtee
&
Ward,
1907:
120
(listed;
1
speci-
men
—
not-re-examined
—,
Corumba;
note
on
lips;
listed
on
p.
150),
—
Eigenmann,
1910:
415
(listed;
in
sub-
genus
Loricaria;
Paraguay),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
Fig.
14.
Distributions
of
Loricaria
spp.
T
indicates
the
respective
type-localities.
Fig.
15.
Distributions
of
Loricaria
spp.
T
indicates
the
respective
type-localities.

84
1911:
136-137.
fig-
7
2
(description,
translated
from
Boulenger;
illustration
after
Green,
in
Boulenger,
1896;
in
key
on
p.
116a;
references
on
p.
430;
specific
name
spelled
as
L.
apeltogster),
—
Bertoni,
1914:
8
(not
seen;
Paraguay),
—
Pearson,
1937b:
112
(in
distributional
table),
—
Bertoni,
1939:
53
(listed;
Paraguay),
—
Delsman,
1941:
80
(comparison
with
L.
apeltogaster
var.
amazonum
n.
var.
[=
Psetidohemiodon
amazonus]
;
specific
name
spelled
as
L.
peltogaster),
—
Gosline,
1945:
106
(listed;
in
subgenus
Loricaria
;
Paraguai),
—
Van
der
Stigchel,
1946
&
1947:
175-176
(decription;
1
specimen;
Parana
River,
Rosario
de
Santa
Fe;
dis-
cussion).
—
L.
Travassos
&
H.
Travassos,
in
L.
Tra-
vassos
et
al.,
1957:
17
(listed;
Urucum,
Mato
Grosso
—
not
re-examined),
-—
Isbrucker,
1973:
172
(cited
after
Tortonese,
1963:
311),
—
Isbrucker,
1979a:
87,
103,
no,
figs.
20-21,
22a
(listed;
comparison;
notes;
designa-
tion
of
the
lectotype),
—
Isbrucker,
1980:
115
(listed).
Loricaria
apeltogaster
apeltogaster;
Fowler,
1954:
91,
fig.
691
(references;
figure
from
Green,
in
Boulenger,
1896;
Paraguay).
Specimens
examined:
Paraguay
BMNH
1895.5.17:105
(lectotype),
[Rio?]
Para-
guay,
coll.
C.
Ternetz,
—
BMNH
1895.5.17:106-
107
(2
paralectotypes),
same
data
as
lectotype.
Argentina
ZMA
100.064
(1),
Prov.
Santa
Fe,
Rio
Parana
at
Rosario,
33°oo'S,
6o°4o'W,
coll.
Noordraven.
Description:
Morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
tables
and
are
not
repeated
here.
The
figures
by
Green
(in
Boulenger,
1896,
pi.
7)
are
so
accurate
that
it
was
possible
to
recognize
the
illustrated
individual;
it
was
designated
the
lectotype.
In
general
appearance,
Loricaria
apeltogaster
is
reminiscent
of
Paraloricaria
agastor
Isbriicker,
1979
(based
upon
one
of
the
paralectotypes
of
L.
apeltogaster)
rather
than
of
the
L.
cataphracta
complex.
It
has
a
small
posterior
orbital
notch.
The
odontodes,
especially
on
the
head,
are
more
conspicuous
than
usual
for
the
L.
cataphracta
complex.
Compared
to
other
Loricaria
spp.,
the
teeth
have
a
relatively
shorter
inner
lobe
and
a
longer
outer
lobe,
reminiscent
of
the
teeth
of
Loricaria
sp.
α.
L.
apeltogaster
has
poorly
developed
abdominal
scutelets.
The
specimen
in
ZMA
100.064
has
slightly
larger
abdominal
scutelets
(reaching
each
other)
than
the
lectotype
(a
smaller
specimen),
in
which
they
are
isolated
from
each
other.
Comparison:
Aside
from
morphometric
and
meristic
differ-
ences,
L.
apeltogaster
is
distinguished
from
P.
agastor
by
the
following
characters.
In
P.
agastor
the
odontodes
on
especially
dorsum
of
head
and
along
margin
of
snout,
are
more
prominent
(L.
apeltogaster
has
already
more
prominent
odontodes
in
these
areas
than
the
L.
cataphracta
complex).
In
P.
agastor
the
fins
are
shorter.
It
has
no
abdo-
minal
scutelets,
and
more
numerous
premaxillary
teeth,
which
are
as
short
as
the
dentary
teeth.
The
teeth
have
a
more
prominent,
acute
outer
lobe
(reminiscent
of
the
condition
in
many
Rinelori-
caria
spp.).
L.
apeltogaster
has
richly
spotted
dorsal
—,
caudal
—,
and
pelvic
fins
(and
fewer
spots
in
the
anal
fin),
and
a
barred
pectoral
fin.
In
P.
agastor
the
membrane
of
the
dorsal
fin
and
of
the
greater
part
of
the
caudal
—,
pectoral
—,
and
pelvic
fins
is
dark
brown.
Pelvic
fin
spine
with
four
dark
brown
spots;
anal
fin
with
three
small,
ill-defined
spots.
Upper
caudal
fin
spine
spotted.
Anterior
Fig.
16.
Loricaria
apeltogaster
Boulenger,
1895.
Dorsal
and
ventral
view
of
anterior
part
of
lectotype.

85
half
of
upper
and
lower
caudal
fin
ray
poorly
pigmented.
A
conspicuous
brown
stripe
on
dorsum
of
body
anterior
to
the
eyes,
also
covering
anterior
half
of
interorbital
area,
anteriorly
covering
the
nostrils.
This
stripe
runs
obliquely
forward
laterally,
reaching
margin
of
head.
A
narrower
brown
stripe
from
tip
of
supra-
occipital
process
runs
obliquely
forward
on
oper-
culum
and
cleithrum.
Two
broad,
faint
brown
areas
on
dorsum
of
body,
the
first
commencing
at
base
of
dorsal
fin
posteriorly,
covering'
about
four
middorsal
scutes
and
reaching
ventral
row
of
odontodes
on
coalescing
body
scutes;
the
second
extends
from
the
first
to
fourth
parallel
lateral
body
scute.
Maxillary
barbel
dark
brown
(pale
yellowish
white
in
L.
apeltogaster).
Loricaria
prolixa
Isbrücker &
Nijssen,
1978
(figs.
15, 17;
tables
In,
VHIe-g)
Loricaria
macrodon
(non
Kner,
1854);
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1918b:
718-719
(listed;
discussion;
vernacular
name:
cascudo-espada;
L.
macrochir
"Rud.
&
Eigenm."
listed
in
synonymy;
E.
de
S.
Paulo,
Piracicaba,
Rio
Mogy-Guagu,
de
Pirassununga),
—
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1920:
9
(listed;
Lagoa
de
Caceres,
Corumba,
Mato
Grosso;
doubtful
record),
—
Schubart,
1964:
13
(listed;
bacia
do
Mogi
Gua^u;
vernacular
name:
cas-
cudo
viola;
doubtful
record).
Loricaria
macrochir
Von
Ihering,
cited
as
"Rud.
&
Eigenm."
in
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1918b:
718-719
(nomen
nudum).
Table
VIII.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of
sp.
ß:
2
specimens,
Ecuador,
Río
Pucayacu,
USNM
163916;
of
Loricaria
(b)
lectotype,
Paraguay,
(c)
2
paralectotypes,
Paraguay,
(d)
1
specimen,
Argentina,
Río
Paraná,
ZMA
100.064;
of
Loricaria
apeltogaster:
(e)
holotype,
Brazil,
Rio
Piraci-
caba,
(f)
6
paratypes,
Brazil,
Rio
Piracicaba
and
Rio
Corumbatai,
(g)
I
paratype,
Brazil,
Rio
Paraná
at
Guaíra,
MZUSP
13394.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
Loricaria
prolixa:
specimen(s)
a a
b
c c
d
e
t
e
mature
male
_
standard
length
87-5
86.1
177.0
i9i-5
186.0
258.0
295.0
230.5-346.0
344-0
axial
length
—
—
191.0
207.8
201.6
322.0
252.6-377.0
373-4
total
length
— —
>236.0
329.1
—
495-0
27o.i->403.o
453-0
head
length
4.9
4-8
5.o 4.9 4.9
4-7 4-7 4-3-4.8 4-4
predorsal
length
3-4 3-5 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-2 3-3
3-I-3-3
3-1
postdorsal
length
17
1.6 1.6
1-7
1.6
i-7
1-7
1.7
1-7
postanal
length
1.9 1.8
2.0
1.9 1.9
2.0 2.1
2.0-2.1
2.1
dorsal
spine
length
4.2
—
3-9
—
4.0
—
5-9 5-9-6.0
6.5
first
dorsal
ray
4.6 4.6
4-5 4-7
44
4.1 6.1
6.1-6.6
59
anal
spine
length
5-9
6.1
5-4 5-5
5-6
5-5
5-7
5-5-6.1
6.2
pectoral
spine
length
5-3 5-4 3-4 3-5 3-2
<2.2
3-6
3-5-4-I
4-0
pelvic
spine
length
6.1
5-9 5-0 5-3
50
4.2
4-2 3-9-4.6
5-6
upper
caudal
spine
—
—
<3-°
i-4
<7-4
—
1.4
up
tO<2.9
3.0
lower
caudal
spine
— —
49
5-3
49
—
5-5
5-3-8.4
—
snout
length
2.0 2.1
1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9
i.7
1.7-1.8
1-7
lower
lip
4.1
4-3
9.2
4.8
5-7 6-3 4-8
3-9-5-1
4.9
thoracic
length
1.2
1-3
1.1
1-3 1-3
1.2
1.2
1.2-1.4
1.3
abdominal
length
1.6 1.6
1-3
1.4
1-4 1-3
1.2
1.2-1.4
i-3
max.
orbital
diameter
4.2
4-5
6.2
6.9 6.4
8.6
8.3
6.9-9.2
7-9
interorbital
width
5-5 5-4 5-4 5-5 5-5
4-8
5-6
5-1-5-8
5-3
cleithral
width
1-3 1-3
1.1
1.2 1.1 1.1
1.0
r.o-i.i
1.0
supra-cleithral
width
1.8 1.9 1.7 1.7
1-7
1.6
1.5
1.5-1.6
i-5
head
width
1-3
1-3
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2 1.1
I.O-I.I
1.0
head
depth
2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.4
2.2
2.8
2.4-2.9
2.7
body
depth
at
dorsal
2-5 2-5
2.1 2.2 2.2
1.6 2.6
2.3-2.7
2.8
body
width
at
dorsal
1.8 1.9 1.4
1-4
1-5
1.2
1.2
1.1-1.3
1.2
body
width
at
anal
2.0 2.2
1-5 1-5
1.6 1.4
1.2
1.1-1.4
1-4
depth
caudal
peduncle
150
16.2
132
14.6
14.5
12.7
13-4
13.1-15.8
14.2
width
caudal
peduncle
6.4
7-4
4.6
5-6 5-8
4.6
4-5
3-6-5-9
5-9
rictal
barbel
— —
2.8 2.6
—
2.8
2.2
2.3-2.8
2.1
lower
lip
barbels
—
—
17.9
6.7
— —
12.8
8.3-11.7
6.1
lateral
scutes
35/35 35/35 35/35 35/34
35/35
35/35 36/35
35-37/35-36
34/36
coalescing
scutes
19/19 19/19 18/19
19/18
19/19 19/18 22/21
21-23/20-23
19/20
thoracic
scutes
9/9
10/10 11/10
8/6 7/9
9/11
9/9
7-9/6-9
10/9
teeth
upper
jaws
3/3 3/3 2/2 2/2 3/2 2/3 2/3
2-4/2-3
3/3
teeth
lower
jaws
8/8 7/8 7/7
6/4
5/6 7/5 8/5
3-9/5-7
6/7

86
Loricaria
prolixa
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1978a:
188-195,
figs.
4a,
5,
tables
I
&
III
(original
description;
holo-
type,
7
paratypes;
type-locality:
Brazil,
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
Rio
Piracicaba,
through
River
Tiete,
Rio
Parana
system,
Piracicaba,
22°4S'S,
47°4o'W;
also
paratypes
from
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
Corumbatai
on
Rio
Corumbatai,
and
Est.
Parana,
Rio
Parana
at
Guaira),
—
Isbriicker,
1979a:
110
(note),
—
Isbriicker,
1980:
119
(listed).
Loricaria
prolixa
prolixa;
Isbriicker,
1979a:
87
(listed)
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
NMW
45091
(holotype),
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
Rio
Piracicaba,
through
River
Tiete,
upper
Rio
Parana
basin
[Piracicaba,
22°45'S,
47°4o'W],
coll.
R.
Von
Ihering,
—
NMW
45088
(1
paratype),
NMW
45089
(1
paratype),
ZMA
113.537
(1
paratype,
ex
NMW
45090),
same
data
as
holo-
type,
—
BMNH
1905.6.9:
6
(1
paratype),
likely
also
collected
in
Rio
Piracicaba,
coll.
R.
Von
Ihering,
—
MZUSP
333
(1
paratype),
Piracicaba,
coll.
E.
Garbe,
before
1919,
—
MZUSP
13186
(1
paratype),
Corumbatai
on
Rio
Corumbatai,
an
affluent
of
the
right
bank
of
Rio
Piracicaba,
coll.
H.
A.
Britski
& A.
E.
C.
Gomes,
2-XI-1963,
—
MZUSP
13394
(1
paratype),
Est.
Parana,
Rio
Parana
at
Guaira,
24°05'S,
54°i5'W,
coll.
CETESB,
VII/VIII-1977
(in
my
1980
paper
this
specimen
was
inadvertently
omitted).
Discussion:
This
species
was
recently
described
and
illustrated.
Its
morphometric
and
meristic
data
are
given
in
tables,
and
for
ready
identification,
an
illustration
is
added.
In
the
original
description
we
compared
L.
prolixa
with
L.
macrodon;
the
latter
was
recently
(Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
in
Isbriicker,
1979a)
assigned
to
Brochiloricaria.
Loricaria
lentiginosa
Isbrücker,
1979
(figs.
15,
18;
tables
Io,
IXa-c)
Loricaria
prolixa;
Isbriicker
&
Nijssen,
1978a:
189,
194
(in
part;
non-paratypes).
Loricaria
prolixa
lentiginosa
Isbriicker,
1979a:
86-87
(listed),
p.
97,
figs.
9-10,
23,
back
cover,
tables
la
&
Ha
(original
description;
holotype,
3
paratypes;
type-
locality
:
Bresil,
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
haut
bassin
du
Rio
Parana,
Represa
de
Volta
Grande,
Rio
Grande).
Loricaria
lentiginosa;
Isbriicker,
1980:
118
(listed)
Specimens
examined:
Brazil
MZUSP
13188
(holotype),
Est.
Sao
Paulo,
upper
Rio
Parana
basin,
Represa
de
Volta
Grande,
Rio
Grande,
coll.
Ii.
A.
Britski,
6/7-XI-1975,
—
ZMA
t
one
side
of
orbital
rim
damaged
Isbrücker
&
Nijssen,
1978.
Dorsal
view
of
holotype.
Loricaria
prolixa
Fig.
17.
Table
IX.
Morphometric
and
meristic
characters
of
Lori-
caria
lentiginosa:
(a)
holotype,
Brazil,
Rio
Grande,
(b)
2
paratypes,
topotypes,
(c)
I
paratype,
Brazil,
Rio
Mogi
Guaçu.
Measurements
expressed
as
ratios
of
standard-
or
head
length.
specimen
a
b
b
c
mature
male
_
standard
length
292.5
279.0
255-5
266.5
axial
length
321.0
306.0
280.1
287.6
total
length
442.5
333-2
355-5
—
head
length
4.6
4.2
4.6
4.6
predorsal
length
3-2
30
3-
1
3-2
postdorsal
length
1.7 1.7 1.7
i-7
postanal
length
2.1 2.1 2.0 2.0
dorsal
spine
length
5-2
<6.0
5-1
6.1
first
dorsal
ray
5-5 5-7
53
6.4
anal
spine
length
5-7
6.0
5-8
5-9
pectoral
spine
length
4-1
4.0 4.2 4.1
pelvic
spine
length
4-5
4-7
4-4 4-5
upper
caudal
spine
2.0
5.3 2.6
—
lower
caudal
spine
6-3
6.9
5-9
6.7
snout
length
1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7
lower
lip
3.8
4.0
3-7
4.0
thoracic
length
1.4
1-3 1-3
1.4
abdominal
length
1-3
1.4
1-4
1.3
max.
orbital
diameter
7-7
7.0 7.0
7.6
interorbital
width
5-4 5-4 5-2
5-°t
cleithral
width
1.0 1.1 1.0 1.0
supra-cleithral
width
1-5
1.6
1.6
1-5
head
width
1.1 1.1
1.1 1.1
head
depth
2.5 2.5 2.4 2.7
body
depth
at
dorsal
2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5
body
width
at
dorsal
1.2
1-3 1-3
1.2
body
width
at
anal
1.2
1-3 1-3 1-3
depth
caudal
peduncle
13.0 14.0
136
14.6
width
caudal
peduncle
5-2
5.o
5-8
5-7
rictal
barbel
—
2.4 2.3
2.1
lower
lip
barbels
5-6
9-4
8.0
—
lateral
scutes
35/35
34/34
36/36
35/35
coalescing
scutes
22/21
21/21 20/20
21/20
thoracic
scutes
8/7 9/9 7/7 8/9
teeth
upper
jaws
3/3 3/3 2/3 3/3
teeth
lower
jaws
5/6 5/5 5/7
6
17

87
115.183
(i
paratype,
ex
MZUSP
13189),
MZUSP
13190
(1
paratype),
same
data
as
holotype,
-—
MZUSP
13187
(1
paratype),
upper
Rio
Parana
basin,
Rio
Mogi
Guagu,
Emas,
coll.
U.
Burheimer,
VII-1973.
Discussion:
Like
the
preceding,
L.
lentiginosa
was
recently
described;
its
morphometric
and
meristic
data,
and
an
illustration
are
given
only.
L.
lentiginosa
is
closely
related
to
(if
not
a
subspecies
or
a
form
of)
L.
prolixa,
which
hails
from
the
same
river
system.
It
differs
considerably
in
colour
pattern:
on
dorsum
of
head
(including
the
ventrally
ossified
margin
of
snout)
are
numerous
small,
well-defined
dark
greyish
brown
spots,
lacking
in
L.
prolixa.
Dorsum
of
body
with
ill-defined,
large
dark
blotches,
spots
and
irregular
markings.
L.
lentiginosa
has
minute
abdominal
scutelets,
which
tend
to
be
more numerous
than
in
L.
prolixa.
In
other
respects,
both
are
very
similar
to
each
other:
the
references
reflect
quite
well
the
multiple
choice
status
of
the
former.
LIST
OF
NOMINAL
TAXA
OF
LORICARIA
AND
THEIR
CURRENT
IDENTIFICATION
NOMINAL
TAXA:
L.
accipenser
Shaw,
1804
L.
acuta
Valenciennes,
1840
L.
altipinnis
Breder,
1925
L.
amazonica
de
Castelnau,
1855
L.
anus
Valenciennes,
1840
L.
apeltogaster
amazonum
Delsman,
1941
L.
aurea
Steindachner,
1900
L.
barbata
Kner,
1854a
L.
beni
Pearson,
1924
L.
bransfordi
Gill,
1876
L.
brevirostris
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889
L.
brunnea
Hancock,
1828
L.
cacerensis
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1912
L.
cadeae
Hensel,
1868
L.
capetensis
Meek
&
Hildebrand,
1913
L.
caquetae
Fowler,
1943a
L.
cashibo
Eigenmann
&
Allen,
1942
L.
castanea
de
Castelnau,
1855
L.
catamarcensis
Berg,
1895
L.
cirrhosa
Perugia,
1897
L.
commersonoides
Devincenzi,
1943
L.
cubataonis
Steindachner,
1907a
L.
curvispina
Dahl,
1941
L.
devincenzii
Soriano
Senorans,
1950
L.
eigenmanni
Pellegrin,
1908
CURRENT
IDENTIFICATION:
Loricariichthys
maculatus
Loricariichthys
acutus
Rineloricaria
altipinnis
Loricariichthys
maculatus
Loricariichthys
anus
Pseudohemiodon
amazonus
Sturisoma
aureum
Sturisoma
barbatum
Rineloricaria
beni
Rineloricaria
uracantha
Sturisoma
brevirostre
Loricariichthys
brunneus
Rineloricaria
cacerensis
Rineloricaria
cadeae
Dasyloricaria
capetensis
Spatuloricaria
caquetae
Loricariichthys
cashibo
Loricariichthys
castaneus
Rineloricaria
catamarcensis
Spatuloricaria
evansii
Paraloricaria
commersonoides
Rineloricaria
cubataonis
Spatuloricaria
curvispina
Pseudohemiodon
devincenzii
Rineloricaria
eigenmanni
Isbrücker,
1979.
Dorsal
view
of
a
paratype,
sl.
266.5
mm,
MZUSP
13187.
Loricaria
lentiginosa
Fig.
18.

88
L.
evansii
Boulenger,
1892
L.
fallax
Steindachner,
1915
L.
felipponei
Fowler,
1943b
L.
filamentosa
Steindachner,
1878a
L.
filamentosa
latiura
Eigenmann
&
Vance,
in
Eigenmann,
1912b
L.
filamentosa
seminuda
Eigenmann
&
Vance,
in
Eigenmann,
1912b
L.
fimbriata
Eigenmann
&
Vance,
in
Eigenmann,
1912b
L.
flava
Shaw,
1804
L.
frenata
Boulenger,
1902
L.
griseus
Eigenmann,
1909
L.
gymnogaster
Eigenmann
&
Vance,
in
Eigenmann,
1912b
L.
gymnogaster
lagoichthys
Schultz,
1944
L.
henselii
Steindachner,
1907a
L.
hoehnei
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
1912
L.
jaraguensis
Steindachner,
1909
L.
jaraguensis
Steindachner,
1910
L.
jubata
Boulenger,
1902
L.
kneri
de
Filippi,
in
Tortonese,
1940
L.
konopickyi
Steindachner,
1879a
L.
kronei
A.
de
Miranda
Ribeiro,
191
1
L.
labialis
Boulenger,
1895
L.
laeviuscula
Valenciennes,
1840
L.
lamina
Giinther,
1868
L.
lanceolata
Giinther,
1868
L.
laticeps
Regan,
1904
L.
latirostris
Boulenger,
1900
L.
lima
Kner,
1854a
L.
lima
microlepidota
Steindachner,
1907b
L.
macrodon
Kner,
1854a
L.
macromystax
Giinther,
1869
L.
macrops
Regan,
1904
L.
maculata
Bloch,
1794
L.
magdalenae
Steindachner,
1878b
L.
microdon
Eigenmann,
1909
L.
microlepidogaster
Regan,
1904
L.
nigricauda
Regan,
1904
L.
nudirostris
Kner,
1854a
L.
nudiventris
Valenciennes,
1840
L.
panamensis
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889
L.
parahemiodon
Giinther,
1864
L.
pareiacantha
Fowler,
1943b
L.
parva
Boulenger,
1895
L.
paulina
Boulenger,
1900
L.
phoxocephala
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889
Spatuloricaria
evansii
Rineloricaria
fallax
Rineloricaria
felipponei
Dasyloricaria
filamentosa
Dasyloricaria
latiura
Dasyloricaria
seminuda
Spatuloricaria
fimbriata
Hypostomus
plecostomus
Sturisoma
frenatum
Limatulichthys
punctatus
Spatuloricaria
gymnogaster
Spatuloricaria
lagoichthys
Rineloricaria
henselii
Rineloricaria
hoehnei
Rineloricaria
jaraguensis
Rineloricaria
jaraguensis
Rineloricaria
jubata
Sturisoma
kneri
Rineloricaria
konopickyi
Rineloricaria
kronei
Loricariichthys
labialis
Pseudoloricaria
laeviuscula
Pseudohemiodon
lamina
Rineloricaria
lanceolata
Pseudohemiodon
laticeps
Rineloricaria
latirostris
Rineloricaria
lima
Rineloricaria
microlepidota
Brochiloricaria
macrodon
Rhadinoloricaria
macromystax
Ricola
macrops
Loricariichthys
maculatus
Rineloricaria
magdalenae
Loricariichthys
microdon
Rineloricaria
microlepidogaster
Rineloricaria
nigricauda
Loricariichthys
nudirostris
Spatuloricaria
nudiventris
Sturisoma
panamense
Loricariichthys
maculatus
Rineloricaria
pareiacantha
Rineloricaria
parva
Rineloricaria
latirostris
Rineloricaria
phoxocephala

89
L.
platystoma
Giinther,
1868
L.
platyura
Miiller
&
Troschel,
1848
L.
puganensis
Pearson,
1937a
L.
punctata
Regan,
1904
L.
rostrata
Von
Spix,
1829
L.
rostrata
Van
der
Hoeven,
1852
L.
scolopacina
de
Filippi,
1853
L.
sneiderni
Fowler,
1944
L.
spixii
Steindachner,
1881
L.
steinbachi
Regan,
1906
L.
steindachneri
Regan,
1904
L.
stewarti
Eigenmann,
1909
L.
strigilata
Hensel,
1868
L.
stübelii
Steindachner,
1883
L.
submarginatus
Eigenmann,
1909
L.
teffeana
Steindachner,
1879a
L.
thrissoceps
Fowler,
1943b
L.
tuyrensis
Meek
&
Hildebrand,
1913
L.
uracantha
Kner
&
Steindachner,
1863
L.
uracantha
rupestre
Schultz,
1944
L.
valenciennesii
Vaillant,
1880
L.
variegata
Steindachner,
1879b
L.
variegata
venezuelae
Schultz,
1944
L.
vetula
Valenciennes,
1840
Taxa
originally
published
in
synonymy:
L.
hemiodon
Eigenmann
&
Eigenmann,
1889
(lapsus)
L.
histrix
Vandelli,
in
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes,
1840
L.
liturata
Natterer,
in
Kner,
1854b
L.
melanoptera
Natterer,
in
Kner,
1854b
L.
punctata
Natterer,
in
Kner,
1854b
Cteniloricaria
platystoma
Rineloricaria
platyura
Spatuloricaria
puganensis
Limatulichthys
punctatus
Sturisoma
rostratum
Rineloricaria
caracasensis
Farlowella
scolopacina
Rineloricaria
sneiderni
Loricariichthys
spixii
Ixinandria
steinbachi
Rineloricaria
steindachneri
Rineloricaria
stewarti
Rineloricaria
strigilata
Loricariichthys
stuebelii
Rineloricaria
platyura
Rineloricaria
teffeana
Rineloricaria
thrissoceps
Dasyloricaria
tuyrensis
Rineloricaria
uracantha
Rineloricaria
rupestris
Rineloricaria
teffeana
Crossoloricaria
variegata
Crossoloricaria
venezuelae
Paraloricaria
vetula
Loricariichthys
maculatus
Pseudacanthicus
histrix
Pterygoplichthys
lituratus
Cochliodon
cochliodon
Pterygoplichthys
punctatus
ADDENDUM
THE
HISTORY
OF
LORICARIA
CATAPHRACTA
Four
years
prior
to
the
establishment
of
zoological
nomenclature,
two
works
were
issued
containing
the
first
descriptions
of
species
of
Loricariinae.
It
is
unknown
to
me
which
of
these
works
were
published
first.
Linnaeus
(1754:
79-80,
pi.
29)
described
in
Latin
and
Swedish
Loricaria
dura,
adding
a
fairly
detailed
illustration
of
the
lateral
side,
and
of
the
ventral
side
of
head
and
anterior
abdominal
area
(reproduction
in
Isbriicker,
1972,
fig.
1).
The
Latin
description
reads:
"LORICARIA.
dura.
LORICARIA.
Habitat
in
INDIA.
Corpus
pedale,
angustum,
planiusculum,
loricatum
osseis
seg-
mentis.
Segmenta
haec
(ad
latus
numerata
32)
loco
squamarum
cingunt
totum
corpus,
ossea,
supra
&
subtus
convexa.
Latera
magis
angulata
sunt.
Cauda
anceps
margine
bifido
scaberrimo.
Caput
modice
declive,
scabrum,
aequale.
Os
absque
maxillis,
fere
ut
in
Sturione,
contractile,
ex
villis
cirrhosis
minimis;
in
superiore
lobo
aculeis
7
s.
8
minimis.
Membrana
branchiostega
radiis
4.
Pinna
dorsalis
radiis
8,
alta,
scabra,
radio
primo
indiviso
altiore.
Pectorales
radiis
7:
primo

90
indiviso
scabro.
Ventrales
radiis
6:
primo
majore
indiviso,
scabro.
Ani
radiis
6:
primo
integro,
scabro.
Caudae
radiis
12,
bifurca;
radius
supremus
definit
in
setam
longitudine
totius
corporis.
Seg-
menta
corporis,
ut
in
Syngnatho
undique
cingen-
tia,
licet
non
aequalia,
sed
apice
repanda
undique
sequenti
incumbentia."
Linnaeus
mentioned
32
lateral
body
scutes,
whereas
the
illustration
shows
at
least
18,
at
most
21
coalescing
scutes
(counted
in
my
way:
in
the
drawing
this
detail
is
indistinct),
plus
15
or
16
parallel
lateral
body
scutes,
plus
the
(last)
medio-
lateral
caudal
base
scutelet,
thus
a
total
of
18
+
16+1
or
21+
15+1
(=
35
or
37).
None
of
the
details
allows
species
identification,
but
its
generic
identity
is
evident.
For
several
reasons
it
is
regrettable
that
this
work
has
no
standing
in
zoo-
logical
nomenclature;
had
it
been
published
sub-
sequent
to
1757,
it
would
be
acceptable,
like
most
works
published
in
the
'valid'
period.
In
June
1977,
during
a
visit
to
the
British
Museum
(Natural
History),
I
learned
from
Mr
Wheeler
that
the
description
by
Linnaeus
was
based
upon
at
least
two
specimens,
still
present
in
the
Stockholm
Museum,
both
in
good
condition.
Mr
Wheeler
provided
me
with
his
observations
and
generously
lent
me
the
negative
of
his
photo-
graph
(fig.
2).
The
larger
specimen,
si
275
mm,
total
length
320
mm,
is
the
one
figured
in
Lin-
naeus
(1754),
agreeing
in
size
and
in
the
presence
of
much
branched
barbels.
The
smaller
specimen
is
158
mm
in
si,
190
mm
in
total
length.
It
has
different
teeth,
and
unbranched
labial
barbels.
It
is
reminiscent
of
Loricariichthys
maculatus
(Bloch,
1794).
The
second
work
was
by
Gronovius,
published
also
in
1754,
including
extensive
descriptions
of
two
species
which
are
representatives
of
two
sub-
tribes.
Gronovius
(1754:
25-26,
pi.
2
figs.
1-2)
first
described
and
accurately
illustrated
a
nuptial
male
of
Loricariichthys
maculatus.
It
is
the
68th
species
described
in
this
work,
the
serial
number
appearing
before
the
Latin
species
diagnosis:
"68.
PLE-
COSTOMUS
dorso
monopterygio,
ore
cirrato,
edentulo,
ossiculo
superiori
caudae
bifurcae
seti-
formi
brevi."
Gronovius
here
referred
to
“Arted.
mss.
ad
Sebam”,
including
the
diagnosis
of
a
species
mentioned
in
that
work,
which
was
published
five
years
later
(1759),
reading:
"Plecostomus
cor-
pore
aculeato,
ore
cirrato,
dorso
monopterygio."
Gronovius
(1754:
26-27)
described
the
next
species,
which
was
diagnosed:
"69.
PLECOSTO-
MUS
dorso
monopterygio,
ore
cirrato,
dentato,
ossiculo
superiori
caudae
bifurcae
longitudine
corporis."
Other
characters
distinguishing
this
species
from
sp.
no.
68
are
mentioned
in
the
description.
Fortunately,
his
specimen
of
sp.
no.
69
still
exists
(BMNH
1853.11.12:195-196).
Con-
trary
to
my
previous
conclusions,
it
is
now
referred
to
Loricaria
cataphracta,
which
agrees
with
Boeseman's
(1976)
conclusion.
Gronovius's
generic
epithet
Plecostomus
(sub-
sequently
accepted
frequently
as a
valid
generic
name
by
numerous
authors),
was
invalidated
by
Hypostomus
Lacepede,
1803,
before
Plecostomus
became
available
in
accordance
with
the
Rules
(cf.
Boeseman,
1968:
4-6),
neglecting
Swainson's
(1838,
1839)
interpretation
which
was
overlooked
since
(cf.
Isbriicker,
1980:
125).
Gronovius
(1756)
published
an
expanded
edi-
tion
of
his
1754
work.
He
referred
to
sp.
no.
68
and
69,
next
to
another
Plecostomus,
sp.
no.
167
(Gronovius,
1756:
15
and
16,
respectively).
Diag-
noses
of
the
previously
described
species
were
literally
repeated.
In
1756
also
the
ninth
edition
of
Linnaeus's
Systema
Naturae
appeared.
This
edition
was
prepared
by
Gronovius,
who
included
(p.
51)
references
to
his
(1754)
three
spp.
of
Plecosto-
mus,
viz.,
species
no.
67
through
69.
Their
diag-
noses
were
added
with
slight
alterations
such
as
some
abbreviations
and
deletion
of
a
word.
In
the
tenth
edition
of
the
Systema
Naturae,
Linnaeus
(1758)
established
Loricaria,
a
mono-
typic
genus.
The
diagnosis
is
short
and
poorly
descriptive
(1758:
307):
“Caput
laeve,
depressum.
Os
edentulum,
retractile.
Membr.
branch.
radiis
VI.
Corpus
cataphractum."
The
second
sentence,
which
I
translate
as
"retractile
toothless
mouth"
is
not
clear
to
me.
The
first
(validly
described)
species
was
named
Loricaria
cataphracta.
Although
Linnaeus's
diagnosis
of
L.
cata-
phracta
is
short,
it
contains
confusing
details.
It
consists
of
two
parts,
the
second
being
indicated
by
a
fi.
In
my
opinion,
this
demonstrates
that

91
Linnaeus
included
different
varieties
within
L.
cataphracta:
I
think
it
was
his
way
to
distinguish
between
primary
and
secondary
material
(not
necessarily
specimens)
of
a
species.
This
would
imply
that
forms
indicated
by
a
/?
(and
by
other
letters
from
the
Greek
alphabet
which
he
used
sometimes
in
this
edition)
are
not
eligible
for
type-designation.
The
first
part
of
the
Linnaean
diagnosis
(1758:
307)
refers
to
his
description
(1754)
of
L.
dura,
including
the
fin
ray
counts:
D.
1/8.
P.
1/7.
V.
1/6.
A.
1/6
C.
12.
This
should
be
read
as:
dorsal
fin
with
8
rays,
the
first
unbranched,
the
others
branched
(the
last
dorsal
fin
ray
of
Loricaria
spp.
is
split
to
its
base
and
was
counted
as
two
by
Linnaeus),
and
so
on,
except
for
the
caudal
fin,
in
which
the
outer
(unbranched)
rays
were
not
so
indicated.
The
fin
formulae
agree
with
those
of
Loricaria
and
of
several
related
genera.
Linnaeus
added
a
reference
to
Gronovius's
(1754)
sp.
no.
68
(
=
Loricariichthys
maculatus)
in
the
first
part
of
the
diagnosis,
stating:
"Pleco-
stomus
dorso
monopterygio,
ossiculo
superiori
caudae
bifurcae
setiformi",
again
followed
by
a
fin
formula
which
differs
from
that
of
L.
dura
in
"A.
6"
(instead
of
A.
1/6).
The
diagnosis
of
Gronovius's
sp.
no.
68
was
not
literally
copied:
the
words
"ore
cirrato,
edentulo"
and
"brevi"
were
deleted
by
Linnaeus.
Evidently
two
species
were
involved
in
this
part
of
the
diagnosis,
one
of
these
rather
than
the
variety
under
(1
being
eligible
for
the
restriction
of L.
cataphracta.
The
second
part
(under
/?,
p.
308)
refers
only
to
Gronovius's
(1754)
sp.
no.
69.
Linnaeus
cited
in
some
respects
erroneously
part
of
Gronovius's
diagnosis:
"Plecostomus
ore
edentulo,
ossiculo
superiori
caudae
bifurcae
longitudine
corporis."
To
the
entire
diagnosis
the
obviously
general
in-
formation:
"Habitat
in
America
meridionali.
Lobus
superior
caudae
filo
longissimo
terminatur."
was
added.
Linnaeus
(1759:
101)
again
referred
to
Lori-
caria
(not
stating
the
trivial
name
of
the
single
included
species),
as:
"i.
LORICARIA.
Mus.
Ad.
Frid.
i.
t.
29.
f.
1.
Plecostomus
Gron.
Mus.
1.
n.
68.
t.
2.
f.
1,
2.
/?,
Plecostomus
Gron.
Mus.
1.
n.
6p.
Lobus
superior
caudae
filo
longissimo
terminantur."
To
this
work
I
refer
only
to
in-
dicate
the
consistent
use
of
the
/?.
Seba
(1759
—•
not
1758
as
usually
assumed,
cf.
Holthuis,
1969)
published
a
poor
illustration
(pi.
29
fig.
14)
of
a
Loricariichthys
maculatus-
like
fish,
diagnosed
(p.
88,
in
Latin
and
in
Dutch)
as:
"Plecostomus
corpore
aculeato;
ore
cirrato;
dorso
monopterygio."
In
the
accompanying
description
(reputedly
by
Artedi
—■
who
died
in
1738
—
cf.
Gronovius,
1754:
25),
the
mentioned
characters
exclude
a
Loricariichthys
species,
instead
in-
dicating
a
member
of
Loricaria
in
its
present
restricted
sense,
whereas
the
characters
shown
in
the
drawing
exclude
Loricaria.
Boeseman
(1976:
164-165;
also
1972:
308)
thought
the
holo-
type
of
Parahemiodon
typus
Bleeker,
1862
could
be
the
same
specimen
as
the
one
figured
in
Seba.
Artedi,
in
Seba,
like
the
previously
cited
authors,
correctly
mentioned
the
number
of
fin
rays,
although
they
were
presented
in
a
different
way
than
is
usual
nowadays.
Seba's
collection
likely
included
a
Loricaria
and
a
Loricariichthys,
pos-
sibly
the
same
two
species
as
in
the
collections
of
Gronovius
and
of
Linnaeus,
respectively.
Gronovius
(1763:
127)
again
referred
to
sp.
no.
68
of
1754,
changing
the
serial
number
into
391.
His
diagnosis
is
the
same
as
in
1754,
and
he
added
a
reference
to
“Seb.
Thes.
vol.
3, p.
88,
n.
14,
tab.
29.
fig.
14",
again
citing
the
diagnosis
in
Seba.
Gronovius
also
referred
to
sp.
no.
69,
which
was
renumbered
392,
including
references
to
Linnaeus's
L.
dura
(1754),
and
to
L.
cata-
phracta
(1758).
The
present
diagnosis
of
sp.
no.
392
contained
an
error:
"dentato"
of
1754
was
changed
into
"edentulo"
for
the
same
species.
Houttuyn
(1765:
122-126)
interpreted
and
discussed
(in
Dutch)
Linnaeus's
Systema
Naturae,
and
works
by
other
naturalists.
He
recognized
both
species
of
Gronovius,
but
cited
only
Lin-
naeus's
1758
diagnosis
of
the
two
forms
of
L.
cataphracta,
in
a
footnote
to
p.
123,
without
scientific
names.
Gronovius's
illustration
of
sp.
no.
68
was
copied
by
Houttuyn
(pi.
64
fig.
4).
Meuschen
(1778,
after
Gronovius's
death)
published
an
auction
catalogue
of
the
Gronovius
collection.
Meuschen,
like
Gronovius,
put
serial
numbers
before
each
item
and
frequently
copied
Gronovius's
species
diagnosis.
In
many entries
Meuschen
provided apparently
valid
binominal

92
nomenclature,
as
in
the
case
of
the
mailed
cat-
fishes,
which
were
indicated
as
follows
(1778:
39)
:
"381
PLECOSTOMVS
cataphracta,
Ge-
wapende
Harnasman
[vernacular
Dutch,
meaning
armed
mailed
catfish,
in
a
free
translation],
followed
by
Gronovius's
(1754)
diagnosis
of
sp.
no.
68,
and
references
to
Gronovius
1763,
1754,
and
to
Linnaeus,
1758
and
1766,
respectively.
No.
382
in
Meuschen
was
indicated
as
"PLECO-
STOMVS
cataphracta,
Gewapende
Harnasman.
praecedentis
varietas.";
presumably
he
meant
that
this
concerned
a
variety
of
the
preceding.
The
next,
no.
383,
was
also
called
"PLECOSTOMVS
cataphracta,
...",
but
certainly
another
species
was
meant,
as
was
indicated
by
a
question
mark
behind
the
name.
In
1954
Meuschen's
work
was
placed
on
the
Official
Index
of
Rejected
and
Invalid
Works
in
Zoological
Nomenclature
(cf.
Hem-
ming,
ed.,
1954a).
Meuschen
(1781)
also
prepared
an
index
to
Gronovius's
"Zoophylacii
gronoviani"
which
was
published
in
parts
between
1763
and
1781.
The
index
is
alphabetical;
page
numbers
were
given
for
generic
names
only.
However,
Meuschen
in-
troduced
trivial
names,
referred
to
by
their
serial
numbers
in
Gronovius.
Thus,
one
finds
the
genus
"PLECOSTOMUS
s.
LORICARIA...
p.
127"
and
the
species:
"Cataphracta...n.
391",
and
"Lo-
ricaria...n.
392".
One
could
read
this
as
the
fol-
lowing
combinations
of
names:
sp.
no.
391
=
a)
Plecostomus
cataphracta
(Lin-
naeus,
1758),
or
b)
Loricaria
cataphracta
Lin-
naeus,
1758,
and
sp.
no.
392
=
a)
Plecostomus
loricaria
Meu-
schen,
1781,
or
a)
Loricaria
loricaria
Meuschen,
1781.
If
accepted,
this
would
mean
that
Meuschen
was
the
first
revisor
of
L.
cataphracta,
providing
a
new
name
for
the
second
included
species.
How-
ever,
both
publications
by
Meuschen
(1778
and
1781)
remained
unnoticed
for
long
in
ichthyology.
The
only
modern
author
who
accepted
the
pro-
posed
names
(formed
by
Gronovius?)
was
Whit-
ley
(1929).
In
view
of
the
effect
it
would
have
had
on
established
nomenclature
of
many
species,
Meuschen's
index
(1781),
fortunately,
was
placed
also
on
the
Official
Index
of
Rejected
and
In-
valid
Works
in
Zoological
Nomenclature
(cf.
Hemming,
ed.,
1954b).
Linnaeus,
in
his
12th
(1766:
508)
and
13th
(ed.
Gmelin.
1789:
1363)
editions
of
the
Systema
Naturae
almost
literally
copied
his
1758
diagnosis
of
L.
cataphracta,
adding
characters
which
distin-
guished
it
from
the
second
recognized
species:
Loricaria
plecostomus
(Linnaeus,
1758),
originally
described
in
the
Sturgeon
genus
Acipenser
and
presently
known
correctly
as
Hypostomus
pleco-
stomus.
Bonnaterre
(1788)
also
copied
Gronovius's
illustration
of
sp.
no.
68,
which
was
identified
(1788:
157-158)
as
L.
cataphracta.
As
pointed
out
by
Boeseman
(1976:
163)
Isbriicker
(1972:
172)
erroneously
referred
to
Bonnaterre's
L.
cata-
phracta
under
that
species,
missing
Bonnaterre's
indications
that he
largely
copied
the
description
of
sp.
no.
68
(
=
Loricariichthys
maculatus).
Bon-
naterre's
remark:
"...le
rayon
superieur
de
la
nageoire
de
la
queue
prolonge
en
filament"
prob-
ably
misled
me
while
accepting
his
identification.
Bloch
(1794:
76-79)
validly
restricted
L.
cata-
phracta,
describing
the
second
species
as
Lorica-
ria
maculata
(now
Loricariichthys
maculatus)
(I794
:
73-75)-
Bloch
(loc.
cit.:
76),
among
others,
included
Gronovius's
sp.
no.
69,
Seba's
and
Bon-
naterre's
descriptions
and
illustrations
in
his
refer-
ences
(and
referred
to
Statius
Miiller,
whose
work
I
have
not
seen).
In
addition
to
an
excellent
comparative
description
(L.
cataphracta
versus
L.
maculata,
pp.
76-78),
Bloch
remarked:
"Ob
dieser
Unterschied
vom
Geschlechte
herriihre,
oder
ob
es
wirklich
zwey
verschiedene
Arten
sind,
kann
nur
derjenige
entscheiden,
welcher
Gelegenheit
hat,
diese
Fisch
an
Ort
und
Stelle
zu
untersuchen",
and
on
p.
79:
"Linne
fiihrt
im
Natursystem...,
die,
in
seinem
Museo,
mit
der
langen
Borste
am
Schwanze,
befindliche
Abbildung,
zu
seinem
Panzerfische
an,
und
macht
gleich
darauf
aus
dem
nehmlichen
Fische
des
Gronov
eine
Nebenart...".
Bloch
(ed.
Schneider,
1801:
125;
see
also
p.
xxxii)
published
the
diagnosis
of
a
“Loricaria
Cataphracta”,
but
this
concerns
a
species
not
even
included
in
Linnaeus's
original
diagnosis.
L.
cata-
phracta
as
restricted
(Bloch,
1794),
received
a
new
name
(“Loricaria
Cirrhosa”)
in
1801,
whereas

93
Bloch's
L.
maculata
(1794)
was
named
L.
Cirrhosa
var.
Maculata.
Previously
(1972:
169)
I
erro-
neously
stated:
"...the
diagnosis
of
Loricaria
cirrhosa
by
Bloch
&
Schneider
(1801)
must
be
regarded
as
the
description
of
a
new
species...".
L.
cirrhosa
is
an
available
but
invalid
substitute
name
for
L.
cataphracta
as
restricted
by
Bloch
(1794).
The
type-specimen
of
L.
cirrhosa
is
also
that
of
L.
cataphracta
(restricted).
The
lectotype
designation
(from
2
specimens
available
to
Bloch
in
1794)
for
L.
cirrhosa
by
Isbrikker
(1972:
173)
was
erroneous.
Lacepede
(1803:
140
and
141-143)
published
also
a nomen
novum,
L.
setifera,
available
but
invalid,
to
substitute
L.
cataphracta.
The
primary
type-specimen
of
L.
setifera
is
the
same
as
that
of
L.
cataphracta
(restricted).
Shaw
(1804:
37)
proposed
“Loricaria
Dentata”,
an
additional
nomen novum
for
L.
cataphracta,
available
but
invalid.
Among
his
references
Shaw
listed
L.
cataphracta
sensu
Bloch,
1794;
other
references
are
to
Linnaeus,
1758
and
to
Grono-
vius,
1763.
Cuvier
(1816:
210-211)
included
two
subgenera
in
Loricaria
:
"Les
Hypostomes"
and
“Loricaria”.
He
(1816:
211)
listed
the
species
of
his
subgenus
Loricaria
in
a
footnote,
as
follows:
“Loricaria
cataphracta,
L.
Cirrhosa,
Schn.
et
Setigera,
Lacep.,
Bl.
375,
3-4,
—•
Lor.
maculata,
B1
-
375.
i.
2
"
Previously,
I
gathered
that
Cuvier
listed
4
species,
but
it
is
clear
that
he
intended
to
list
only
two
valid
species,
the
first of
which
having
two
junior
synonyms.
To
present
workers
it
is
sometimes
hard
to
evaluate
older
authors,
but
contemporary
authors
(e.g.,
Cloquet,
1823:
208;
Bory
de
Saint-
Vincent,
1826:
504-505;
Guichenot,
1836:
494,
pi.
310
fig.
2)
better
understood
Cuvier's way
of
indicating
synonyms.
Cuvier
(1829:
301)
presented
a
revised
list
of
"Les
Loricaires
proprement
dites
(Loricaria.
Lacep.)".
He
(inadvertently)
omitted
L.
maculata,
and
presented
the
following
in
addition
to
his
earlier
enumeration:
“Loric.
rostrata,
Sp.,
Ill;
—
Rinelepis
aspera,
id.,
II;
—
Acanthicus
hystrix,
id.,
I."
The
same
references
were
given
by
Cuvier
in
a
later
edition
(1836:
545).
Cuvier
(1842:
253)
again
listed
the
species
of
Loricaria,
as
in
1829
and
1836.
In
the
Atlas
of
this
work
—
prepared
by
Valenciennes
—
a
nice,
almost
entirely
accurate
illustration
of
a
Loricaria
was
included
(pi.
100),
with
the
caption:
"Genre
LORICAIRE.
Loricaria.
Fig.
2.
LA
LORI-
CAIRE
SfiTIGfeRE.
Loricaria
setigera.
Nob.
Montrant
le
corps
couvert
de
plaques
ou
de
bou-
cliers
osseux
et
carenes.
L'espece
est
remarquable
par
le
long
filet
qu'elle
porte
a
la
caudale.
—
Des
eaux
douces
de
l'Amerique.
Fig.
2.
a.
La
tete,
vue
par
dessous,
pour
montrer
les
levres
larges
et
frangees
qui
entourent
la
bouche.
(D'apres
na-
ture)."
I
previously
interpreted
this
as
the
pro-
posal
of
a new
species,
because
of
Valenciennes's
use
of
the
expression
"Nob."
Now
I
am
con-
vinced
that
Valenciennes
used
Cuvier's
variant
spelling
of
the
name
proposed
by
Lacepede,
which
Cuvier
considered
a
junior
synonym
of
L.
cata-
phracta.
Possibly,
the
French
vernacular
name
and
the
name
proposed
by
Lacepede
got
mixed
up.
I
referred
to
this
work
(1972:
170)
by
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes
as
published
in
1836,
but
recently
Cowan
(1976)
demonstrated
that
the
part
in
which
the
cited
information
appeared,
was
issued
in
1842:
two
years
subsequent
to
the
publication
of
Valenciennes,
in
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes's
15th
volume
of
Histoire
naturelle
des
poissons.
In
this
latter
work,
Valenciennes
treated,
among
others,
Loricaria
in
a
different
and
better
way.
No
refer-
ences
to
the
earlier
works
of
Cuvier
and
Valen-
ciennes
as
here
discussed
were
given.
Gray
(1854)
edited
a
"Catalogue
of
fish
col-
lected
and
described
by
Laurence
Theodore
Gro-
now,
now
in
the
British
Museum",
in
which
the
Gronovian
name
Plecostomus
flagellaris
was
published.
This
is
the
first
available
name
(sub-
sequent
to
Meuschen,
1781)
based
on
the
speci-
men
of
the
69th
species
described
by
Gronovius,
1754,
which
thus
became
the
holotype.
Bleeker
(1858:
331)
listed
all
species
of
Lori-
caria,
including
L.
cataphracta.
Bleeker
(1862a:
3,
same
as
Bleeker,
1863:
80,
and,
more
exten-
sively,
1864:
18-20)
adopted
Loricaria
dura
as
the
valid
name,
of
which
he
considered
L.
cataphracta
as a
junior
synonym.
Bleeker's
use
of
the
name
L.
dura
must
in
fact
be
interpreted
as
the
first
(post-Linnaean)
introduction
of
a
substitute
name,
the
type-specimen
of
which
is
the
same
as
that
of
L.
cataphracta.

94
Due
to
the
influence
of
important
works
like
that
of
Bloch
(1794),
Valenciennes,
in
Cuvier
&
Valenciennes
(1840),
Kner
(1854a),
Bleeker
(1864),
and
Giinther
(1864),
the
outline
identity
of
L.
cataphracta
and
its
nomenclatural
ghost,
Loricariichthys
maculatus,
became
established.
It
is
unnecessary
to
continue
this
discussion
with
sub-
sequent
publications.
The
subject
was
discussed
by
me
in
1971b
and
in
1972.
In
the
latter
paper
I
thought
it
was
necessary
to
designate
a
neotype
for
L.
cataphracta,
being
convinced
that
Lin-
naeus'
(1754)
specimen(s)
of
“L.
dura”
was
(were)
lost.
In
view
of
questions
about
the
iden-
tity
of
numerous
specimens
previously
identified
as
L.
cataphracta
and
the
resulting
validity
or
synonymy
of
related
or
identical
species,
it
seemed
(and
still
remains)
important
to
have
L.
cata-
phracta
based
on
a
primary
type-specimen.
For-
tunately,
we
now
know
that
two
syntypes
of
L.
cataphracta
exist.
On the
basis
of
examination
of
a
photograph
(fig.
2)
I
can
designate
the
larger
one
as
the
lectotype.
No
species
can
be
based
upon
two
primary
type-specimens
(lectotype
and
neo-
type):
the
resulting
problems
(if
any)
have
to
be
referred
to
the
International
Commission
on
Zoo-
logical
Nomenclature.
I
hope
that
the
original
specimen
of
Linnaeus
will
eventually
stand
as
the
primary
type
for
L.
cataphracta;
however,
it
still
awaits
re-examination.
Isbriicker
(1972:
175, 177,
186-187,
figs.
7,
I2a-b,
table
1)
examined
the
holotype
of
Pleco-
stomus
flagellaris
and
tentatively
accepted
it
(as
L.
flagellaris)
as
slightly
distinct
from
L.
cata-
phracta.
Now
I
agree
with
Boeseman
(1976:
159)
that
P.
flagellaris
falls
within
the
range
of
varia-
tion
of
L.
cataphracta.
For
reasons
stated
above,
I
disagree
with
Boeseman
that
the
holotype
of
P.
flagellaris
is
a
syntype
of
L.
cataphracta.
Boeseman
(1976:
158
and
159)
seemed
con-
tent to
accept
the
identification
by
several
authors
of
various
specimens
as
L.
cataphracta.
If
all
these
identifications
would
be
correct,
L.
cata-
phracta
is
a
common
species
in
northern
South
America.
The
identity
of
several
recorded
“L.
cataphracta”
however,
still
needs
verification.
REFERENCES
Additions
to
references
in
Isbriicker,
1972
&
1980.
ALONSO
DE
ARAMBURU,
A.
S.,
R.
H.
ARAMBURU
&
R.
A.
RINGUELET,
1962.
Peces
paranaenses
nuevos
para
la
fauna
Argentina.
Physis,
23
(65)
:
223-239,
4
pis.
(not
seen;
reference
after
Ringuelet
et
al.,
1967:
561).
BERTIN,
L.
&
R.
ESTEVE,
1950.
Catalogue
des
types
de
poissons
du
Museum
national
d'Histoire
Naturelle.
5e
Partie.
Ostariophysaires
(Siluriformes).
Bull.
Mus.
Hist.
nat.
Paris,:
1-85.
BERTONI,
A.
DE
WINKELRIED,
1914.
Fauna
paraguaya.
Catalogos
sistematicos
de
los
vertebrados
del
Para-
guay.
Peces,
batracios,
reptiles,
aves
y
mamiferos
conocidos
hasta
1913.
Asuncion,
86
pp.
Peces,:
5-15
(not
seen;
reference
after
Fowler,
1954:
356,
and
after
Ringuelet
et
al.,
1967:
562).
,
1939-
Sumario.
Catalogos
sistematicos
de los
verte-
brados
del
Paraguay.
Rev.
Soc.
Cient.
Paraguay,
4
(4)
:
1-60
(Peces,
:
50-58).
BHATTI,
H.
K.,
1938.
The
integument
and
dermal
skeleton
of
Siluroidea.
Trans,
zool.
Soc.
London,
24
(1)
1:
1-102,
11
pis.
BORY
DE
SAINT-VINCENT,
[J.
B.
G.
M.],
1826.
In:
Dic-
tionnaire
classique
d'histoire
naturelle,
9:
[Hi],
1-598
(Rey
&
Gravier,
and
Baudouin
Freres,
Paris).
BRUIJNING,
C.
F.
A.,
J.
VOORHOEVE
&
W.
GORDIJN,
(eds.),
1977.
Encyclopedie
van
Suriname,
:
1-716
(Ar-
gus
Elsevier,
Amsterdam,
Brussels).
CLOQUET,
H.,
1823.
In:
Dictionnaire
des
sciences
naturel-
les,
dans
lequel
on
traite
methodiquement
des
diffe-
rens
etres
de
la
nature,
consideres
soit
en
eux-memes,
d'apres
l'etat
actuel
de
nos
connoissances,
soit
relative-
ment
a
l'utilite
qu'en
peuvent
retirer
la
medecine,
l'agriculture,
le
commerce
et
Ies
arts.
Suivi
d'une
bio-
graphie
des
plus
celebres
naturalistes,
27:
[iv],
1-551
(F.
G.
Levrault,
Strasbourg
et
Paris
and
Le
Normant,
Paris).
Cowan,
C.
F.,
1976.
On
the
Disciples'
edition
of
Cuvier's
Regne
Animal.
J.
Soc.
Biblphy
nat.
Hist.,
8
(1):
32-64.
Cuvier,
[G.
L.
C.
F.
D.],
1816.
Le
regne
animal
distribue
d'apres
son
organisation
pour
servir
de
base
a
l'histoire
naturelle
des
animaux
et
d'introduction
a
l'anatomie
comparee.
Tome
II,
contenant
les
reptiles,
les
poissons,
les
mollusques
et
les
annelides,
2:
v-xviii,
1-532
(Deterville,
Paris)
(for
the
correct
dating,
cf.
Roux,
1976).
,
1829.
Le
regne
animal
distribue
d'apres
son
organi-
sation,
pour
servir
de
base
a
l'histoire
naturelle
des
animaux
et
d'introduction
a
l'anatomie
comparee.
Nou-
velle
edition,
revue
et
augmentee,
2:
i-xv,
1-406
(Deterville
&
Crochard,
Paris).
1836.
Le
regne
animal
distribue
d'apres
son
organi-
sation,
pour
servir
de
base
a
l'histoire
naturelle
des
animaux
et
d'introduction
a
l'anatomie
comparee.
Troisieme
Edition,
1
:
1-624,
14
pis.
(Louis
Hauman
&
Co.,
Brussels).
,
1842.
Le
regne
animal
distribue
d'apres
son
organi-
sation,
pour
servir de
base
a
l'histoire
naturelles
des
animaux,
et
d'introduction
a
l'anatomie
comparee.
Edition
accompagnee
de
planches
gravees,
represen-
tant
les
types
de
tous
les
genres,
les
caracteres
distinc-
tifs
des
divers
groupes
et
les
modifications
de
struc-
ture
sur
lesquelles
repose
cette
classification;
par
une
reunion
de
disciples
de
Cuvier,
MM.
Audouin,
Blan-
cliard,
Deshayes,
Alcide
D'Orbigny,
Doyere,
Duges,

95
Duvernoy,
Laurillard,
Milne
Edwards,
Roulin
et
Valenciennes,
3:
1-392
(Fortin,
Masson
&
Co.,
Paris)
(Published
in
small
issues
from
1836-1849;
for
the
correct
publication
dates
of
the
Poissons
sections,
cf.
Cowan,
1976).
EIGENMANN,
C.
H.
&
B.
A.
BEAN,
1907.
An
account
of
Amazon
river
fishes
collected
by
J.
B.
Steere;
with
a
note
on
Pimelodus
clarias.
Proc.
U.
S.
nation.
Mus.,
31
(1503)
:
659-668.
EIGENMANN,
C.
H.,
W. L.
MCATEE
&
D.
P.
WARD,
1907.
On
further
collections
of
fishes
from
Paraguay.
Ann.
Carnegie
Mus.,
4
(1)
:
110-157,
pis.
31-45.
FERNANDEZ
YEPEZ,
A.,
1946.
Ictiologia.
Corronchos,
Pana-
ques
y
Agujas
de
Venezuela.
Publ.
Establ.
Venez.
Cienc.
nat.
Caracas,
1
(2)
:
1-8.
FOWLER,
H.
W.,
1942.
Los
peces
del
Peru.
Catalogo
sistematico
de
los
peces
que
habitan
en
aguas
peru-
anas.
Bol.
Mus.
Hist.
nat.
"Javier
Prado",
Lima,
Univ.
San
Marcos,
6
(20)
:
71-91.
,
1945.
Los
peces
del
Peru.
Catalogo
sistematico
de
los
peces
que
habitan
en
aguas peruanas.
Mus.
Hist,
nat.
"Javier
Prado",
Lima,
Univ.
San
Marcos,
:
1-298.
GOSLINE,
W.
A.,
1942.
Notes
on
South
American
catfishes
(Nematognathi).
Copeia,
1942
(1)
:
39-41.
G[UICHENOT],
A.,
1836.
In:
Guerin,
F.-E.
(ed.),
Diction-
naire
pittoresque
d'histoire
naturelle
et
des
pheno-
menes
de
la
nature,
contenant
l'histoire
des
animaux,
des
vegetaux,
des
mineraux,
des
meteores,
des
prin-
cipaux
phenomenes
physiques
et
des
curiosites
natu-
relles,
avec
des
details
sur
l'emploi
des
productions
des
trois
regnes
dans
les
usages
de
la
vie,
les
arts
et
metiers
et
les
manufactures,
4:
[iv],
1-640,
Plan-
ches,
:
1-12,
401
pis.
(Au
Bureau
de
souscription,
Rue
Saint-Germain-des
Pres,
n°
4,
Paris).
Holthuis,
L.
B.,
1969.
Albertus
Seba's
"Locupletissimi
rerum
naturalium
thesauri..."
(1734-1765)
and
the
"Planches
de
Seba"
(1827-1831).
Zool.
Meded.
Lei-
den,
43
(19)
:
239-252,
3
pis.
Houttuyn,
F.,
1765.
Natuurlyke
historie
of
uitvoerige
beschryving
der
dieren,
planten
en
mineraalen,
volgens
het
samenstel
van
den
heer
Linnaeus.
Met
naauw-
keurige
afbeeldingen.
Vervolg
der
visschen,
1
(8)
:
[x],
1-525,
[lxvii],
1-30,
pis.
63-70
(F.
Houttuyn,
Amsterdam).
Isbrucker,
I.
J.
H.,
1979b.
Les
poissons
de
la
famille
des
Loricariides
ou
Poissons-Chats
cuirasses.
Rev.
fr.
Aquariol.
—
Herpetol.,
6
(4):
109-124.
,
1980.
Classification
and
catalogue
of
the
mailed
Loricariidae
(Pisces,
Siluriformes).
Versl.
Techn.
Geg.,
Inst.
Taxon.
Zool.
(Zool.
Mus.),
Univ.
Am-
sterdam,
22:
1-181.
KLINCKOWSTROM,
A.,
1892.
Foreningens
sammankomster
under
arbetsaret
1891-1892.
VIII.
Sammantradet
den
30
Maj.
Herr
A.
Klinckowstrom
berichtete
iiber
seine
zoologischen
Untersuchungen
wahrend
eines
Aufent-
haltes
in
Suriname
und
legte
einen
Theil
der
gemach-
ten
zoologischen
Sammlungen
dem
Vereine
vor.
Biol.
Foren.
Forhandl.
Stockholm,
4
(8)
:
101-104.
LINNAEUS,
C.,
1756.
Systema
naturae
sistens
regna
tria
naturae
in
classes
et
ordines
genera
et
species
redacta,
tabulisque
aeneis
illustrata.
Accedunt
vocabula
Gallica.
Editio
multo
auctior
&
emendatior,
:
[viii],
1-227,
[xviii]
&
2
pages
advertisment,
8
pis.
(T.
Haak,
Lugduni
Batavorum).
,
1759.
Animalium
specierum
in
classes,
ordines,
genera,
species.
Methodica
dispositio,
additis
charac-
teribus,
differentiis
atque
synonymis,
accommodata
as
Systema
Naturae
&
in
formam
enchyridii
redacta,
secundum
decimam
Holmensem
editionem,
:
[iv],
i"
2
S3i
[3]
(T.
Haak,
Lugduni
Batavorum).
,
1789.
IN:
J.
F.
Gmelin
(ed.),
Systema
naturae
per
regna
tria
naturae,
secundum
classes,
ordines,
genera,
species,
cum
characteribus,
differentiis,
synonymis,
locis.
Tomus
I.
Editio
decima
tertia,
aucta,
reformata,
(3):
1033-1516
(G.
E.
Beer,
Lipsiae).
Lowe
(McConnell),
R.
H.,
1964.
The
fishes
of
the
Rupununi
savanna
district
of
British
Guiana,
South
America.
Part
1.
Ecological
groupings
of
fish
species
and
effects
of
the
seasonal
cycle
on
the
fish.
J.
Linn.
Soc.
(Zool.),
45
(304)
:
103-144.
MAGO-LECCIA,
F.,
1967.
Notas
preliminares
sobre
los
peces
de los
llanos
de
Venezuela.
Bol.
Soc.
Venez.
Cienc.
nat.,
27
(112)
:
237-263,
1
map,
12
figs.
MEUSCHEN,
F.
C.,
1778.
Museum
Gronovianum.
Sive
index
rerum
naturalium
tarn
mammalium
amphjbiorvm
piscivm
insectorum
conchyliorvm
zoophytorvm
plan-
tarvm
e
t
mineralivm
exqvisitissimorvm
quam
arte
factarvm
nonnvllarum.
Inter
qvae
eminet
herbarivs
siccvs
plantarvm
a
tovrnefortio
claitonio
Linnaeo
aliisqve
botanicis
collectarvm.
Qvae
omnia
mvlta
cvra
et
magis
svmptibus
sibi
comparavit
vir
amplissimvs
&
celeberrimvs
Lavr.
Theod.
Gronovivs
J.
V.
D.
Civitatis
Lugduno
Batavae
senator
et
scabinvs
socie-
tatis
regiae
Londinensis
Basilaeensis
et
Hollandiae
qvae
Harlemi
est
aliorvmgve
socivs
&c.
&c.
Quae
publice
subhasta
dictrahentur
in
aedibus
Defuncti
Ad
diem
Mercurii
7.
Octobris
&
seqq.
1778.
Diebus
1.
&
2.
Octobris
Museum
patebit.
Lugdvni
Batavorvm.
Apud.
Th.
Haak
&
Socios,
nec
non
J.
Meerbvrg,
Bibliopolas.
1778.
Vbi
Catalogi
distribuuntur
pro
6.
Stuferis,
:
i-vi,
1-231
(232)-!
unnumbered
page
(recto
advertisements,
verso
blank).
MIRANDA
RIBEIRO,
P.
DE
—
see
Ribeiro,
P.
de
Miranda.
0RVIG,
T.,
1967.
Phylogeny
of
tooth
tissues:
evolution
of
some
calcified
tissues
in
early
vertebrates.
In
A. E.
W.
Miles
(ed.),
Structural
and
chemical
organization
of
teeth,
1:
45-110
(Academic
Press,
New
York
&
London).
,
1977.
A
survey
of
odontodes
('dermal
teeth')
from
developmental,
structural,
functional,
and
phyletic
points
of
view,
:
53-75,
3
pis.,
in:
Mahala
Andrews,
S.,
R.
S.
Miles
&
A.
D.
Walker
(eds.),
Problems
in
vertebrate
evolution.
-—
Linnean
Symp.
Ser.,
4
(Academic
Press,
London,
publ.
for
the
Linnean
Soc.
London).
PEARSON,
N.
E.,
1937b.
The
fishes
of
the
Beni-Mamore
and
Paraguay
basins,
and
a
discussion
of
the
origin
of
the
Paraguayan
fauna.
Proc.
California
Acad.
Sci.,
(4).
23
(8)
:
99-114.
Pozzi,
A.,
1945.
Sisteraatica
y
distribution
de
los
peces
de
agua
dulce
de
la
Republica
Argentina.
Gaea,
VII:
239-292
(not
seen;
reference
after
Ringuelet
et
al.,
1967:
584).
RIBEIRO,
P.
DE
MIRANDA,
1964.
Apontamentos
ictiologicos
—
II.
Bol.
Mus.
nac.
Rio
de
Janeiro,
Zool.,
n.s.,
246:
1-4.

96
RINGUELET,
R.
A.
&
R.
H.
ARAMBURU,
1962.
Feces
argen-
tinos
de
agua
dulce.
Claves
de
reconocimiento
y
caracterizacion
de
familias
y
subfamilias,
con
glosario
explicativo.
Agro,
3
(7)
:
1-98,
9
pis.
(not
seen;
reference
after
Ringuelet
et
al.,
1967:
578).
Roux,
C.,
1976.
On
the
dating
of
the
first
edition
of
Cuvier's
Regne
Animal.
J.
Soc.
Biblphy
nat.
Hist.,
8
(1):
31.
SCHOMBURGK,
R.,
1
847.
Reisen
in
Britisch-Guiana
in
den
Jahren
1840-1844.
Im
Auftrag
Sr.
Majestat
des
Konigs
von
Preusen
ausgefuhrt
von
Richard
Schom-
burgk.
Nebst
einer
Fauna
und
Flora
Guiana's
nach
Vorlagen
von
Johannes
Miiller,
Ehrenberg,
Erich-
son,
Klotzsch, Troschel,
Cabanis
und andern.
Mit
Abbildungen
und
einer
Karte
von
Britisch-Guiana
aufgenommen
von
Sir
Robert
Schomburgk,
1:
v-viii,
i-x,
1-469,
8
pis.
(J.
J.
Weber,
Leipzig).
STEINDACHNEE,
F.,
1879b.
[Das
w.
M.
Herr
Director
Dr.
Franz
Steindachner
iiberreicht
eine
Reihe
ichthyologi-
scher
Abhandlungen
iiber
die
Fauna
des
Orinoco
bei
Ciudad
Bolivar,
des
Mamoni-Flusses
bei
Chepo
im
Isthmus
von
Panama
und
einiger
Fliisse
Peru's
unter
dem
Titel:
„Beitrage
zur
Kenntniss
der
Susswasser-
fische
Siidamerikas."].
Anz.
Akad.
Wiss.
Wien,
mathem.-naturwiss.
CI.,
16
(5)
:
149-152.
,
1907a.
t)ber
einige
Fischarten
aus
dem
Flusse
Cubatao
im
Staate
Santa
Catharina
bei
Theresopolis
(Brasilien).
Sber.
Akad.
Wiss.
Wien,
mathem.-
naturwiss.
Kl.,
116
(i)
:
475-492,
2
pis.
,
1907b.
[Dr.
Steindachner
berichtet
ferner
uber zwei
neue
Arten
von
Siisswasserfischen
aus
dem
Strom-
gebiet
des
Parnahyba,
welche
von
ihm
wahrend
der
zoologischen
Expedition
der
kaiserl.
Akademie
nach
Brasilien
aufgefunden
waren
sowie
iiber
eine
Abart
von
Loricaria
lima,
Kn.
aus
dem
Jurua,
...etc.].
Anz.
Akad.
Wiss.
Wien,
mathem.-naturwiss.
Kl.,
44
(10)
:
152-155
(reprint
pp.
1-4).
TOVAR
SERPA,
A.,
1967.
Peces
del
oriente
peruano.
Algunas
especies
de
Loricariidae
con
referencia
especial
de
la
„carachama"
Pteyrgoplichthys
multiradiatus
(Han-
cock),
ecologia
y
utilidad.
Biota,
Lima,
6
(50)
:
201-255.
TRAVASSOS,
L.
&
H.
TRAVASSOS,
1957.
In:
Travassos,
L.,
H.
Travassos,
A.
R.
Rego-Barros,
D.
de O.
Albu-
querque,
S.
J.
Oliveira,
A.
Lemos
de
Castro
&
H.
Souza
Lopes:
Excursao
cientifica
realizada
nas
zonas
da
Estrada
de
Ferro
Noroeste
do
Brasil
e
Brasil-
Bolivia
em
janeiro
e
fevereiro
de
1955.
Publ.
Avulsas
Mus.
nac.,
:
5-19.
VALENCIENNES,
A.,
1842.
Les
poissons:
avec
un
Atlas.
In
G.
[L.
C.
D.
F.]
Cuvier,
1842
(which
see),
4,
120
pis.
(Fortin,
Masson
&
Co.,
Paris)
(Published
in
small
issues
from
1836-1849;
for
the
correct
publication
dates
of
the
Poissons
sections,
cf.
Cowan,
1976).
Received:
February
26,
1981
Institute
of
Taxonomic
Zoology
(Zoological
Museum),
University
of
Amsterdam