Carless
Well-known member
Today I got the chance to try lifting a few rocks in the River Biam. I was curious to see whether there were Miller's thumbs in it. So I did, but found a different fish. At first I thought it was a stone loach, but it just sat there still, in full view. Not stone loach behaviour in the least. While I prefer to limit the amount I disturb wildlife to a minimum, I was very surprised to see what I thought was a stone loach in an unexpected place. So I caught it in my hands, with absolute ease. I made sure I kept a supply in water there, and returned it to the water ASAP, and counted the barbels for an ID. 4 barbels, versus 2 for gudgeon, and 6 for stone loach, and I presume other loaches though I'm unlikely to see any of those.
However, I'm starting to lose confidence that I've been identifying juvenile barbel correctly. All photos I've seen of juvenile barbel online look nothing like what I've seen.
while what I saw today was very different. Some pictures of stone loaches look so much closer to what I saw today, such as http://www.dave-guest.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pics/B_barbatula.jpg
And if these fish aren't barbel, I wonder what they are. While, as I said, I prefer to be non-interventionist concerning observing wildlife. But I must admit that I'm strongly tempted to obtain a proper clear viewing cell, catch one (very easy), and get some good photos. If they were loaches that would say a lot about their distribution and the waters around here. But surely given the places I've found these fish, and the stone loaches' absence from polluted waters.
In any case, I was surprised to find a fish other than loaches or miller's thumbs under rocks. Perhaps there's a degree of inter-species competition for hiding places. And the absence of miller's thumbs has opened up a niche for barbels to take over. But barbels hiding under rocks? I'm not sure they do that.
Is anyone here familiar with what barbel look like up to say three inches long? I'm confused.
However, I'm starting to lose confidence that I've been identifying juvenile barbel correctly. All photos I've seen of juvenile barbel online look nothing like what I've seen.
And if these fish aren't barbel, I wonder what they are. While, as I said, I prefer to be non-interventionist concerning observing wildlife. But I must admit that I'm strongly tempted to obtain a proper clear viewing cell, catch one (very easy), and get some good photos. If they were loaches that would say a lot about their distribution and the waters around here. But surely given the places I've found these fish, and the stone loaches' absence from polluted waters.
In any case, I was surprised to find a fish other than loaches or miller's thumbs under rocks. Perhaps there's a degree of inter-species competition for hiding places. And the absence of miller's thumbs has opened up a niche for barbels to take over. But barbels hiding under rocks? I'm not sure they do that.
Is anyone here familiar with what barbel look like up to say three inches long? I'm confused.
Last edited: