) at hypothetical
2.75 m length.
Dear Constant Readers,
Fortunately this is not a
very obscure group of animals, so there is plenty of popular literature to go
on. Well, for the basic information at least. The Wikipedia page on
catfishes actually makes a
decent primer (for once), but I'd recommend the
Tree of Life page even more.
This is a huge group of fish with over 3000 species and 36 families, one of which was described
as recently as 2005. Apparently 1 in 4 freshwater fishes, 1 in 10 fishes, and
one in 20 vertebrate species is a catfish. On the
Palaeos
catfishes are closely grouped with knifefish and electric eels* in the clade
"Siluriphysi" which is defined partially by the re-evolution of
electroreception. Click
here to
see their relative position in the colossal Teleost radiation. Aside from
electroreception, catfishes often have a benthic habitat, scaleless skin, small
eyes (reliant on tactile barbels, chemosensitivity, oflaction), an adipose fin,
and so forth. Some however are covered in armor plates, have sucker mouths,
breathe air, have spinous fins,
drink blood, and even
digest wood. The Tree of Life
suggest modification of the upper jaw for barbels and locking fin spines are
good synapomorphies, although Fishbase "
remarks"
on more technical characters. Phew.
*This species apparently can
get over 2
meters in length, however it is not considered a "Megafish", perhaps due to
its eel-like shape? At the Shedd Aquarium in Chicago, they did have a specimen
there that did seem to be around 2 meters, so I don't think 2.5m is a "fish
story".
Now there is no ambiguity as to what a "catfish" entails, I
should discuss the more impressive members of the group, their contributions to
the "Megafishes". Out of the 20 species of Megafishes, 6 of them were
Siluriformes. Even more remarkably, 3 of these species live in the Mekong River
of Southeast Asia. I should also mention that most catfishes are small to
moderately sized (5-20 cm or 2-8") with some species reaching maturity at below
1 cm. This gives a roughly 300-fold length difference between the smallest and
largest species, and perhaps a weight difference a million-fold or over. I'll
leave ridiculous size differences for later, here are the
Megafishes:
Family: Silururidae
This family is defined by a
lack of an adipose fin and occasionally pelvic and dorsal fins, a very long anal
fin, no nasal barbels,
et cetera. As
you can tell from the name, these are very archetypal catfish in appearance.
While most of you familiar will be correct in assuming the wels (
Silurus glanis) will be discussed, according
to the Megafishes article in
Science,
there is another giant catfish in the genus.
Silurus soldatovi, Nikolskii & Soin, 1948
Northern
Sheatfish
Soldatov's Catfish
Not even graced with a Wikipedia article,
information is hard to come by for this species. There were journal articles on
the genetics, reproduction, and eggs of this fish, but I could find nothing on
morphology.
This
fish lives in the Amur river basin, so like the Chinese paddlefish, there is
the problem of most information being in languages I can't begin to understand
(Russian and Chinese). What is astounding is that the
Science article gives it an incredible length
of 4 m (13'), yet the
Fishbase
page gives a weight (from the same source) at an astoundingly low 40 kg (88
lbs) at the same length. Perhaps the source itself was composed of two different
specimens...or it was just another "big fish" story. It is odd how warning bells
didn't go off for the author for such jarring figures. This
Chinese
page has a
picture of
what does indeed seem to be a wels-sized silurid catfish, although exact size is
difficult to determine...or if it actually is this species (see below...it also
bears a resemblance to the Megamouth, oddly). Pages seemed pretty adamant about
the size, but it will have to be regarded as large but unknown for now.
Unsurprisingly the
Science article
mentions it was not evaluated by the IUCN, but is probably being threatened by
harvest, habitat, and pollution. Given how people seem obsessed by large fish, I
find it exceedingly odd how this species apparently slipped under the
radar.
Silurus glanis, Linneaus
1758
Wels
At the exact opposite of the popularity spectrum
(imaginary) is this large Eurasian species. Mercifully, I don't have to go
digging through technical literature to find the basic information. I should
note that uniquely among Megafishes, this species is not threatened and is in
fact regarded as
least
concern by the IUCN.
Fishbase
even regards this as potentially being a pest species. So it looks like this is
one Megafish we shouldn't be overly worried about. It is also worth mentioning
that this species was capable of entering the saltwater Aral Sea (note...was);
making it all the more mysterious why sturgeons weren't considered "Megafish".
By looking at Fishbase, you probably would have noticed something very strange
as far the reported size. It, the
Tree of Life and Science all
report an astounding 5 m maximum size with variously given weights (306 and 300
kg --- 327 in Wood, 1982). This is a rather widely cited figure, a fact which I
find unfortunate. For once thing, the
Science
article reported a stingray of the same length at 600 kg...shouldn't that
set off warning bells for both figures there? A wels that size should weight
7-800 kg or even more, but I don't think they ever got that big.
So, how
big does the wels get?
Gerald Wood mentioned several claims of excessive
size (200 kg is "normal"?!), but I trust Markus Bühler/Sordes much more on this
subject. The Wels grows larger in Southern Europe (Wood has no claims from
there) due to warmer temperatures and a lack of parasites; the world record is
an Italian specimen that measured 2.78 m (9'1.5") and weighed 144 kg (317 lbs).
Compare this to the record German specimen which was 2.47 m and 89 kg (8'1" and
~200 lbs)
You can even see a Youtube video (what isn't on there?) of a catfish of nearly the same size (I'm not sure from where).
I haven't found any specific average
size figure for this species, but
Wikipedia
(translated from European articles) suggests 1.3 to 1.6 m, which would make a
2.7-something meter fish a genuine monster...and make larger sizes quite
unbelievable. Perhaps before exploitation I could imagine some 3-meter
leviathans roaming around, but 5 meters is stretching things far beyond
credibility. Perhaps they were confused with sturgeons (like Chinese
Paddlefish), or maybe like many of these claims they were exaggerations or
fabrications. But as you can tell by the video, the wels is a monster that
doesn't need exaggerating.
Wallago attu, Bloch & Schneider
1801
Great White Sheatfish
Ikan Tapah
That's
right, the Sheatfish family has a
third
member of allegedly gigantic size and a representative from the Mekong river
basin.
Fishbase
describes this sheatfish as being a large, predatory species capable of
delivering traumatic bites to humans. This species dwells mostly in rivers and
lakes (streams in flood season), but apparently can tolerate brackish water as
well. They also aren't limited to Southeast Asia, and can be found in Pakistan
and possibly Afghanistan as well. Giri et al (2002) describe this sheatfish as
being a fairly good candidate for captive rearing since it grows fast and has
palatable flesh. The wels, in comparison, tastes bad at large sizes and
apparently has poisonous eggs. The size reported for this fish is somewhat
confusing. Giri et al give a maximum length of 2 m and a weight of "more than"
45 kg (6'6" and 100 lbs), which is around 10 kg less than the non-Megafish
Blue and Flathead catfish
of America, for instance. This
badly
translated abstract gives a weight of 25 kg for a 2 meter catfish and
this
page shows a rather large looking catfish that weighs only 9 kg. It also
reported a 2.4 m specimen weighing 18.6 kg, a length (not weight) repeated in
Fishbase and
Science. If a fish that
long weighed 18.6 kg, then a 9 kg fish would have to be 1.9 m long (6'3"), and I
don't think the fellow in the picture is pushing 8 feet tall. The
Science article lists this fish as being "not
evaluated", but Fishbase reports it being "near-threatened" in Western Ghats,
India and "lower risk" elsewhere. I do not see why length should be a more
important measure than weight when it comes to fish, so either the definition of
a "Megafish" should be broadened or this low-risk fish should be
excluded.
Family:
Pimelodidae
Brachyplatystoma
filamentosum, Lichtenstein
1819
Piraiba
Kumakuma
Yet another surprisingly poorly known
species (to the public) of very large catfish. Petrere et al 2004 note that
catfish over 1.6 m and 50 kg (5'3" 110 lbs) and are given the name "Piraiba" and
there have been suggestion that smaller fish are in fact a different species.
This species is a top predator of the Amazon River channel, mostly inhabits
whitewater areas, and is migratory. Petrere et al note that this species used to
make up a huge proportion of the catch in the Amazon (94% !) in 1977, but now
makes up only5% of the total catch. This was apparently the most important
fishery of any catfish, and the authors draw parallels to the over-exploitation
of sharks in marine waters. In addition to over-exploitation, the breeding
waters of this fish are being disrupted by mining and land degradation, although
the location of breeding grounds (headwaters of the Amazon) are apparently not
known with certainty. Oh yes, and this species is also capable of living in
brackish water, specifically river mouths.
So obviously this can be a
rather large fish, reported at being 3.6 m and 200 kg (11'10" and 440 lbs) in
Science, although
Fishbase
once again demonstrates that the length and weight are from different sources.
Gerald Wood, who normally simplifies these matters, instead confuses them
greatly. He insists that
B. filamentosum
(lau-lau) is indeed the longest catfish in the Amazon, but there is a heavier
species called the..."pirahyba" (
Piratinga
piraiba), hmm. This turned up a negative result on Fishbase, although
there is a synonym (
Piratinga
piraaiba) that is awfully close. Wood reported that the latter
"species" weighed 159 kg at 1.85 m (6'1" and 350 lbs) and was estimated at a
maximum size of 2.1 m and 181 kg (7' and 400 lbs). The conversions are Wood's
and not mine. It should also be noted that the figures are much heavier than
what would be expected from Petrere's figure; it is normally the opposite of
that and it is possible that these fish to get bulkier as they increase length.
None other than Teddy Roosevelt related a tale of a 3 m catfish getting killed
after attacking a canoe, but this is of course rather dubious. As for the actual
species, none other than William Beebe caught specimens, the largest of which
was 2.11 m without the tail measured and presumably about 2.4 m (8') with.
Judging by the weights reported by the "pirahyba", it is possible that this or a
similar sized specimen is responsible for the 200 kg figure. A 3.7 meter+ claim
(Wood's figure differs) is probably not realistic for a pre-exploitation
animal...and would dwarf every other Megafish at a presumed weight of over 1
ton/tonne. But don't worry, the largest species has yet to be
covered...
Family: Pangasiidae
Now
here's a problem: 2 different fish species in the same family are reported to
reach the same size (3m and 300kg)! Now that the wels and the paraiba have been
downsized, what is the largest species of catfish? Well, I never fully
discounted the reported 4 m size of the Soldatov's Catfish, but let's assume
it's an exaggeration. Considering that every single reported size by the
Science article appears to be wrong, I don't
think that would be unjust.
Pangasius sanitwongsei, Smith
1931
Giant Pangasius
Dog-eating Catfish
Like a few other
species, this one seems seldom mentioned despite its apparently gigantic size.
This one is "Data Deficient", but the
Science article mentions that many locals are
surprised that this fish even still exists. 2 meter specimens were no longer
caught in Thailand by World War II, and it may very well be extinct there and
going extinct in the Mekong River valley. This could be another "so long we
hardly knew thee" situation as with the Chinese paddlefish.
Fishbase
oddly claims that this species is often referred to in popular material and
textbooks, but this has to be confusion with the upcoming species. There are
people who claim to be keeping this
species in
captivity under the name "Paroon shark", but I can't help but wonder if it
is a different species in the same genus; perhaps
P.
hypothalamus. Selling one of the world's biggest species of freshwater fish
sounds a bit improbable to me, and from experience I know that pet stores and
dealers often don't go by orthodox taxonomy. So how big does this fish get? Zeb
Hogan in a previous paper describes this species as getting "slightly less
gigantic" than the next species, and gives a length of 2.75 m maximum (9 feet).
It is not known to what size 300 kg is supposed to go with, or even if the fish
can actually get this big at all. Due to a huge gap in information, it looks
like this fish too will have to remain a mystery.
Pangasianodon
gigas, Chevey 1931
Mekong Giant Catfish
Pa
beuk
In the Guinness Book of World Records this
is the biggest species of freshwater fish. There is quite unambiguous of a 2.7 m
female that weighed 293 kg (~9' and 646 lbs)
caught in
2005, although record keeping for the species has only been going on since
1981. Gerald Wood comments upon a source in the 20's claiming a size of 3 m (~10
feet) for this species, and this has been a generally accepted figure despite
the dubious corresponding weight of 240 kg. The weight has normally been
reported at 300 kg for this size, but---do I even need to say this?---it
Fishbase shows it came from a different source. Fishbase also states that
this fish can grow 150-200 kg in 6 years, apparently making it one of the
fastest growing known fish as well. Wood also remarked that only 14 specimens
were caught in 1974, and the population has been estimated to have fallen 80% in
the last 13 years according to the
IUCN! It is
no surprise that this fish is regarded as "Critically Endangered".
So
let's see what happens here. Once again we have a species that is critically
endangered, so can we save it this time? Hopefully Zeb Hogan can draw even more
publicity to this species and save it from the apparent fate of the Chinese
paddlefish. But, what about the more obscure species. I never heard about
Soldatov's Catfish until a few days ago and I only heard vague mentions of the
giant pangasius, and after looking for information the situation was hardly
better! I somewhat doubt the public is more aware of these species and their
plight than I do, and it may already be too late. The giant pangasius appears to
be in an even worse situation than the Mekong giant catfish, which is quite
alarming. But then, according to Hogan, we really don't know anything about this
species. While discovering new species is one thing, I think that knowing so
little about described species is nearly as surprising.
There's still a
lot I'm curious about regarding these catfish. How are they capable of getting
so large anyways? The Pangasiids are certainly not typical looking or behaving
catfish (e.g. predatory giant pangasius and herbivorous Mekong giant catfish),
so is it something other than niche occupation? Do the old records actually
indicate that these species "shrunk" with exploitation. Were there even large
Pleistocene cousins? I always seem to have a lot of questions
here.
I'm not certain if I'll do more Megafish or not. My summer and
blogging-spree is coming to an alarming stop here.
Dang.
-Cameron
When I mentioned the orangutan connection in one of the Facebook groups where Mitchell had posted, I mentioned that the more manlike Eastern Bigfoot had a more Neanderthaloid structure: here is a comparison of a Bigfoot hand in mud from Texas to of a Neanderthal and at Left is the outline of a "Grassman" footprint form Ohio, a very good Neanderthal type track. Other tracks of the same type are narrower, possibly representing females and juveniles.
Editor’s
Note: This is a guest post by Bigfoot Chicks, Melissa Adair. As serious
researchers, the Bigfoot Chicks are commited to seeking the truth regarding the
Bigfoot mystery. You can visit their blog at 
Roland Jaffe: African Wild Man Tracks the African Wildman
J: Vanity I suppose. Vanity and stubbornness. When I was young my schoolmate s
frightened me with stories of the Waterbobbejan, and I fought back by telling
them I would defeat the beast one day. They all grew out of it and I didn't. I
read every book on the subject and ultimately began to learn about zoology in
general. As you can imagine, I didn't have too many dates when I was in school!
D: You're married now, though.
J: My wife Nadine and I met at University, and even though she didn't know
about these creatures, I was able to teach her basically what I knew...
Colloquial stories, and frightened tribesmen. After we graduated, we went to
different parts of the continent and talked to natives, city dwellers. This
creature is all over the country in some form. The best known ones are reported
in Guinea, Sierra Leone, the Ivory Coast, and the Congo Basin. I've heard
stories in Namibia, Kenya, and as far north as Egypt.
D: Egypt?
J: I should probably leave it at that. It's part of our ongoing research at
the moment. I have to say I'm a bit skeptical about that one, though, but you
have to take them all seriously.
D: Did bigfoot build the pyramids, then?
J: (Laughs) Maybe, maybe. You never know with those big feet.
D: Tell me about Mario Pellington.
J: Not much for me to tell, really. I've never seen the man face to face.
I've spoken to him on the phone. What's there to say about Mister Pellington?
Deep pockets. He believes that some of these creatures exist. I had to sign a
contract with him telling him that whatever we find, it'll be named after him.
Homo Pellingtonus or Homo Marius or something like that. He seems to be quite a
character, financing all us kooks out there looking for Waterbobbejans and
Plesiosaurs. I think the man knows that eventually one of us will succeed, and
that'll be his gift to the world!
D: Have you ever seen one of these creatures yourself?
J: Not in the flesh, no. I've examined a genetic sequence taken from what one
witness claimed was a tuft of its fur. The sequence was similar to a human's,
with one extra chromosome. The fur itself was thick like a dog's. I wish I could
see one just once and know for sure it really exists! Then maybe my life
wouldn't feel like a potential waste of time (laughs).
D: Why do you think this creature doesn't seem to appear in the fossil
record?
J: There are plenty of gaps in the fossil record. It is possible that this
animal has only been around as long as us, and the remains might be eaten or god
knows what. It is a good question, however, and one that does little to bolster
my arguments. I just refuse to believe that something so commonly seen could be
a figment of our species' imagination. I'll give you an example: We went into a
remote village near Tanzania. The natives there had never seen white people. We
showed them pictures of animals, illustrated next to a human being for scale. We
showed them a picture of a giraffe, and they recognized it. We showed them
zebras, Rhinos, apes, as well as animals they never would have seen like Komodo
Dragons and Camels. They did not recognize these strange animals, but did
recognize a picture of the Waterbobbejan, known in that area as the "Agogue," [Sic-Meaning the Kikomba instead, the larger apeman of the two rather than the smaller one]
pictured as an oversized human with a pointed head, unusually long arms, and a
thick coat of black fur.
D: Does that by itself convince you?
J: Not by itself, no. But in light of the other eye-witness sightings, I
think it begins to add up. I believe the thing is out there, and I will find it
if it is. If not, I'll eventually find something else to do like go back into
the jungle with pictures of dinosaurs!
sources
