L340?

thegeeman

Member
Apr 21, 2009
2,256
0
36
51
In the house of gee
Thanks People

The ones I have aquired before have ended up being 129 so I am well happy they are the real macoy:):):)

Picking up another 8 from graham26 at the end of the month:D:D

Cheers

thegeeman
 

thegeeman

Member
Apr 21, 2009
2,256
0
36
51
In the house of gee
ha - looks like my 270!

maybe 340 and 270 are the same?

what are the key differences between them?
lol see 270 didnt even cross my mind as 340 are stockier than 270 and also have a really fat head. I did think they might be Debilittera as I had some simillar but not such thick banding. If they are 270 then my 270,s werent 270:lol:
Alot of people go by the specimen 340 shown on PC but that is just a really stunning example. If you look at all the other pics of 129,270,340 then loads of them look the same in pattern and body shape. I can only think the some fish have been misidentified and then submitted to PC as the L number it was id as.

Size could be the Key to identification.
L129 2.8" sl
L340 3.1" sl
L270 3"9" sl

I never managed to get good shots of my 270,s so it would be interesting to get some pics of fish that are 270 for comparison.

Cheers

thegeeman
 

st24rsap

Member
Apr 21, 2009
820
0
16
UK
not great pics as i couldnt be bothered to strip the tank, these were bought from a maidenhead store as L270s





 

graham26

Member
Jul 15, 2009
256
0
16
Berkshire
from pics look definite L340 maidenhead aquatics near me never label plecs properly they never use the l number just a common or made up name
 
I

intrepidmax

Guest
270 has thicker banding and the colour isn't golden its a pale brown. 129 are small and put 129 against a 340 you can really tell the difference. 340 has golden lines and swirls...against the darker brown/black. 270 have pale brown against a dark brown.

I'm really sure what you have is 340.
 
I

intrepidmax

Guest
Kev the larger fish in your pics is 340 and the smaller ones are 270. the contrast between them is more than noticeable.