LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

joyban

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354719

    joyban
    Participant

    Many thanks 

    Regards

    Sujoy

    in reply to: Possible biotope for Carinotetraodon travancoricus #354340

    joyban
    Participant

    Just for inspiration…

    http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2014/show622.html

    http://showcase.aquatic-gardeners.org/2014/Big/6220.jpg

    Best Wishes

    Sujoy

    in reply to: Possible biotope for Carinotetraodon travancoricus #354237

    joyban
    Participant

    Carinotetraodon travancoricus (Hora & Nair 1941). Nothobranchiidae. Distribution: Rambha [Pamba] River, central Travancore, Kerala, India.

    https://scontent-sin.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/t31.0-8/10848970_841227755938763_716500265089970007_o.jpg

    Image Courtesy Heiko Bleher  (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=841227755938763&set=pb.100001546381131.-2207520000.1424757471.&type=3&theater)

    Biotope Picture

    https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-xap1/t31.0-8/10869409_841227035938835_2169730541898603737_o.jpg

     

    Image Courtesy Heiko Bleher (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=841227035938835&set=pb.100001546381131.-2207520000.1424757471.&type=3&theater)

    Should be kept in a group of at least 6 to 8 puffers …

    Carinotetraodon travancoricus are predators, they love to live food. Mostly bloodworms. Sometimes mosquito larvae, Daphnia and Cyclops, they can also eat newborn shrimps, if they can find them within plants. So may be a group of 6-8 in  a planted tank with some floating plants and bogwood.

    Can keep shrimps and snails as well which will eventually add to their diet …

    Inhabits very still waters in nature. Like most puffers it’s very sensitive to deteriorating water conditions, so regular partial water changes are a must.

    tc1Hora-Nair1941.png

    Source :- Hora, S. L.  and K. K. Nair  1941 Notes on fishes in the Indian Museum. XLI. New records of freshwater fish from Travancore. Records of the Indian Museum (Calcutta) v. 43 (pt 3): 387-393

     tc2Hora-Nair1941.png

    Source :- Hora, S. L.  and K. K. Nair  1941 Notes on fishes in the Indian Museum. XLI. New records of freshwater fish from Travancore. Records of the Indian Museum (Calcutta) v. 43 (pt 3): 387-393

    More Information Please see :- http://indiabiodiversity.org/species/show/238241

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354107

    joyban
    Participant

    The Balitora in question is similar to Balitora Brucei Gray (1830)type locality: India: Assam: Priang River near Cherrapunji.

    Kottelat in Indian and Indochinese species of Balitora (Osteichthyes: Cypriniformes) with descriptions of two new species
    and comments on the family-group names Balitoridae and Homalopteridae mentions colour pattern as follows:-

    Colour pattern: Among the examined specimens, the neotype only retains some colouration. The general colouration is dark brown. On the back there are 4 predorsal, 2 subdorsal and 5 postdorsal dark blotches surrounded by a lighter margin. Fins darker proximally, yellowish brown with darker markings on the rays at about 1/2-2/ 3 of their length.

    Distribution: Balitora brucei is definitively known from Assam, Meghalaya, Darjeeling, Bhutan, and Bangladesh. Although recorded from Nepal by JAYARAM (1981) it is not mentioned by SHRESTHA (1981). Records from the Irrawaddy drainage in Burma should
    be checked as they probably refer to B. burmanica.

    Balitora brucei has also been mentioned from Nepal from the following locations :-

    Nepal distribution: Bardiya, Chitwan, Kanchanpur, Nawalparasi, Rautahat, Sarlahi, Tanahun

    Balitora-brucei.png

     

    There is also Balitora eddsi Conway & Mayden 2010 from Bardiyain Nepal.

    Balitora-eddsi.png

    As per Balitora eddsi, a new species of hillstream loach (Ostariophysi: Balitoridae) from Nepal K. W. Conway and R. L. Mayden

    COLOUR OF PRESERVED SPECIMENS:-
    Specimens originally fixed in 10% formalin solution and stored in 70% alcohol for preservation (D. R. Edds, pers. comm.). In alcohol: body background colour light brown laterally and creamy-yellowish dorsally and ventrally. Dorsal midline with faint brown stripe extending from posterior margin of occiput to caudal-fin base.

    Dorsal surface of unbranched pectoral-fin rays with dark brown markings. Dorsal surface of branched pectoral-fin rays with dark brown markings proximally, hyaline distally. Dorsal surface of pelvic fins with irregular dark brown markings distally, hyaline proximally. Dorsal and anal fins with dark brown markings along central portion of rays, forming oblique stripe across centre of each fin. Dorsal fin with additional dark brown markings along distal edge. Entire lower lobe of caudal fin dark brown. Upper lobe of caudal fin with dark brown blotch midway along its length. No distinct markings on body.

    DISTRIBUTION AND HABITAT
    Known only from the type locality, a stretch of the Gerwa River, between the towns of Chisapani and Kothiaghat, south-western Nepal. The new species was collected during a rafting trip down the Gerwa River, and the precise collection points of the type series cannot be pinpointed with any further accuracy. The rafting trip occurred between 1000 and 1700 hours, and collections were made with a cast-net and 15 foot long straight seine (D. R. Edds, pers. comm.).

    This balitora in question is not Balitora eddsi as the head structure is different and matches more with the Balitora brucei.

    balitora-eddsi-conwaymayden.jpg

     balitora_comp.jpg

    The head structure overlapped on the Balitora sp with that of Balitora brucei (Fig 3) & Balitora eddsi (Fig 2), matches more with the Balitora brucei (Fig 3). So with out examining other characters one cannot tell for sure but like a colour variant of Balitora brucei. Also I have personally seen three distinct colour variant of Balitora brucei from Northern Bangal, Assam and one from the NE India. 

    We had also once collected a different Balitora sp. from Uttarakhand as well very different than the one Shovelnose has collected. Will post a picture later…

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354106

    joyban
    Participant

    Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei) and Catalogue of Fishes are all based on Taxonomic Notes and Papers published by various authors.  Peer reviewed Scientific Journals should be considered as as a valid source of documentation in taxonomy.  

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354103

    joyban
    Participant

    We are eventually both referring to the same species. Have seen this paper before as well. 

    Kottelat still has the following to say:-

    10.2 Acanthocobitis Peters, 1861
    Acanthocobitis Peters, 1861: 712 (type species: Acanthocobitis longipinnis Peters, 1861: 712, by monotypy). Gender feminine.

    ? Paracanthocobitis Grant, 2007c: 3 [also 2007d: unnumb.p. 51] (subgenus of Acanthocobitis Peters, 1861: 712;
    type species: Cobitis zonalternans Blyth, 1860: 172, by original designation). Gender feminine. Taxonomic notes. Grant (2007c)
    distinguished Paracanthocobitis from Acanthocobitis. This was not based on examination of specimens but on literature, one live
    individual and photographs. The characters said to distinguish the two sub genera are variable within and between them (position,
    shape and size of the suborbital flap). Body shape (elongated body) is not conclusive since the ranges of body depth overlap.

    The number of branched dorsal-fin rays, related to elongated body, is also marginally overlapping. The position of the anus is
    a real difference but partly linked to the elongated body. The shape of the caudal fin is the only clear-cut character. On the
    other hand, the hypothesis that A. pavonaceus (A. longipinnis) might be a lineage distinct from the other species placed in
    Acanthocobitis is not unreasonable, but the hypothesis should be addressed by a proper study, based on examination
    of specimens of all concerned species. To distinguish lineages (subgenera) assumes a phylogenetic analysis, which is missing.

    There is no benefit to use a name created for non taxonomically justifiable reason. Further, the identity of A. longipinnis (type species of Acanthocobitis) must be clarified.

    In this paper Page 29, in Remarks section Singer mentions as follows :-

    “Remarks
    Menon (1987) treated Acanthocobitis longipinnis, type species of Acanthocobitis, as a synonym of Acanthocobitis botia.

    Grant (2007) suggested that A. longipinnis was a valid species distinct enough to be placed in its own subgenus, and placed all other species of Acanthocobitis in a new subgenus, Paracanthocobitis with type species Cobitis zonalternans Blyth 1860. Differences separating Acanthocobitis from Paracanthocobitis included caudal-fin shape (pointed), suborbital flap orientation and size (vertical and enlarged), and body shape (slender).

    The same characters described by Grant (2007) were observed in the present study as were other characters separating Acanthocobitis from Paracanthocobitis: enlarged fleshy rostral barbels and lack of a patch of adipose tissue on the lateral line. The two subgenera of Grant are treated herein as genera.

    After observing types of Acanthocobitis longipinnis and Cobitis pavonacea, Grant (2007) suggested that A. longipinnis from the Ganges River basin is a junior synonym of A. pavonacea, from the Brahmaputra River basin. The type specimens of both nominal species were observed in the present study and found to be in poor condition (Fig. 3-4, 3-5). The synonymy proposed by Grant (2008) will be upheld until, and if, fresh material is collected and the two forms can be diagnosed.”

    But even Kottelat also states the want of a phylogenetic analysis. He also stated that the genus name Paracanthocobitis (Grant, 2007c) was not based on examination of specimens but on literature, one live individual and photographs. The characters said to distinguish the two sub genera are variable within and between them (position,shape and size of the suborbital flap). Body shape (elongated body) is not conclusive since the ranges of body depth overlap.

    Singer in his paper only seems to follow what Grant mentions in his paper on Paracanthocobitis.

    Kottelat in Inland fishes of Southeast Asia Taxonomic notes:-

    With the published information, the characters mentioned to diagnose Paracanthocobitis do not justify a name (Kottelat, 2012b: 51, 2012d: 74). It is, however, possible that a proper study could show that A. pavonaceus (a supposed senior synonym of A. longipinnis, type species of Acanthocobitis) is not congeneric with the other species currently placed in Acanthocobitis. [Cobitis pavonacea M’Clelland, 1839: 305, 437, pl. 52 fig. 1 (type locality: India: Assam; syntypes: ? SMF 68 [1], 9070 [1], 9090–9091 [2], Grant, 2007c: 2, fig. 5, Eschmeyer, 2010)]. [Acanthocobitis longipinnis Peters, 1861: 712 (type locality: India: Ganges; holotype: ZMB 4795, Grant, 2007c: 1, fig. 1)]

    Also Dr. William N. Eschmeyer does not consider Paracanthocobitis mackenziei to be a valid species.

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354095

    joyban
    Participant

    Paracanthocobitis (subgenus of Acanthocobitis) Grant [S.] 2007:3 .- Ref “Grant, S.   2007 (29 Oct.) [A new subgenus of Acanthocobitis Peters, 1861 (Teleostei: Nemacheilidae). Ichthyofile No. 2: 1-9.] Currently considered as : Synonym of Acanthocobitis Peters 1861. Nemacheilidae by Kottelat ref Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Suppl. No. 26: Page 74.

    There is reference of Nemachilus mackenziei, Chaudhuri [B. L.] 1910:183 [Records of the Indian Museum (Calcutta) v. 5 (pt 3) Northern India (several localities). (type locality: India: Uttar Pradesh: Cheriyadang near Kathgodam / Jaulasal in Nainital District.

    Current status: Synonym of Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton 1822). Nemacheilidae. Habitat: freshwater by by Kottelat ref Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Suppl. No. 26: Page 75.

    Paracanthocobitis mackenziei is no more considered as a Valid Name it is Synonym of Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton 1822).

    Link To Conspectus Cobitidum: an inventory of the loaches of the world (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitoidei). Raffles Bulletin of Zoology Suppl. No. 26 

    http://lkcnhm.nus.edu.sg/rbz/supplement26.html

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354093

    joyban
    Participant

    The loach on the bottom is originally described as Cobitis botia,Hamilton [F.] 1822:350, 394 [An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges] No types known. 

    Current status: Valid as Acanthocobitis botia (Hamilton 1822). Nemacheilidae. Distribution: Asia: Pakistan, India, Bhutan, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Thailand and China. Habitat: freshwater.

    The one on the Top need to looked into. Where were these collected from ?

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354084

    joyban
    Participant

    The Pangio is Pangio pangia.

    Initially described as Cobitis pangia, Hamilton [F.] 1822:355, 394 [An account of the fishes found in the river Ganges] Northeastern Bengal.

    Current status: Valid as Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822). Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: Asia: Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Habitat: freshwater.

    Pangio-pangia-Hamilton.png

     Pangio-pangia.png

    Colour in alcohol. Based on RM 47971, uniform light to reddish brown with out any markings,paler towards ventral surface.

    In the paper “A review of the eel-loaches, genus Pangio, from Myanmar (Teleostei: Cypriniformes: Cobitidae)” by Ralf Britz and James Maclaine – lchthyol. Explor. Freshwaters, Vol. 18, No. 1, pp. 17-30, 8 figs., 2 tabs., March 2007 © 2007 by Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil, Munchen, Germany- ISSN 0936-9902 in the Remarks section on page 25 under description of Pangio pangia (Hamilton), the Author’s have mentioned

    “Only around one third of the species described by Hamilton (1822) were illustrated by drawings accompanying the text and an illustration of Cobitis pangia was not included . The history of Hamilton’s illustrations has been summarized by Hora (1929), who also noted that Hamilton’s original illustration of C.pangia was subsequently published by M.Clelland (1839) and is reproduced here as Figure 6. Due to the lack of Indian specimens we cannot comment on any differences between our Myanmar material of P. pangia and topotypic or other Indian material. There is considerable variation in vertebral counts among our samples from Myanmar, but we feel that, except for the Indawgyi area, samples are too small , and many of them too poorly preserved for a more detailed analysis of their taxonomic status.”

    So clearly the different species of Pangio refereed in the older works by Hamilton etc might have included the other Myanmar species which were initially all grouped under as Cobitis pangia, Hamilton which is now valid as Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822).

    The speciese from Myanmar as described in the paper are as : Pangio elongata, Pangio fusca, Pangio lumbriciformis , Pangio pangia, Pangio signicauda

    The list of species of Pangio from India are as :-

    1. Pangio apoda Britz & Maclaine 2007. Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: Tista drainage, western Bengal, India. Habitat: freshwater.

    2. Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822). Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: Asia: Nepal, India, Bangladesh and Myanmar. Habitat: freshwater.

    3. Pangio goaensis (Tilak 1972). Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: India. Habitat: freshwater.

    4. Pangio ammophila Britz, Ali & Raghavan 2012. Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: Kumaradhara River, southern West Ghats, India. Habitat: freshwater.

    5. Pangio longipinnis (Menon 1992) Kharangpat Lake, 20 kilometers south of Imphal, Manipur, India. Holotype (unique): SRS/ZSI 3371 is currrently Valid as Lepidocephalichthys longipinnis (Menon 1992). Cobitidae: Cobitinae. Distribution: India. Habitat: freshwater.

    Out of which Pangio apoda (Britz & Maclaine 2007) and  Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822) are from Northern India rather Pangio apoda (Britz & Maclaine 2007) is only found in Northern West Bengal.

    Pangio-apoda.png

    Pangio apoda (Britz & Maclaine 2007)  colour in alcohol:-  Uniform light to red dish brown without any markings.

    Distribution. Restricted to the Tista drainage in Western Bengal.

    In there Remarks Britz & Maclaine 2007 have stated “ BMNH 1932.4.22.1 from the ‘Sevoke stream, Darjeeling’ came to the BMNH via the Indian Museum and is most likely from the collection that Hora (1930) reported on. He found Pangio with and without pelvics among his samples from the same locality. The 18 pelvic-less specimens were caught .. from debris at the bottom of pools in the course of the stream”, but the two having pelvic fins were ·’obtained from among pebbles and shingle in a swift current .. (Hora,1930: 435). Hora also noted additional constant morphological differences between his two forms, but concluded that rather than an aberration, as he claimed previously (Hora, 1921), they were just a ‘habitat variety” of Pangio pangia. The plain brown colouration and the low vertebral count assign Pangio apoda to the oblonga species group of Kottelat & Lim (1993).

    Actually SL Hora’s in “Animal Plasticity and Environment” Nature 126, 435-436 (20 September 1930) | doi:10.1038/126435a0 mentions:-

    “WHILE recently making a zoological collection in the Sevoke River in the Teesta Valley at the base of the Darjiling Himalayas, I observed remarkable differences between the individuals of a Cobitid fish, Acanthophthalmus pangia (H. B.), collected from two diverse ‘niches’ in the same habitat. In Fig. 1 are shown the two types of individuals. The chief difference, which is readily noticeable in the two drawings, is that in the lower drawing the ventral fins are present, while in the upper these structures are totally absent. There are also other differences of a minor nature; for example, the extent of the nasal flap and the form of the caudal fin. Two specimens possessing ventral fins were obtained from among pebbles and shingle in a swift current, whereas 18 examples devoid of ventral fins were netted from among debris at the bottom of pools in the course of the stream.”  –

    Pangio-pangia-apoda-Hora-Britz-.png

     

    These are actually two different species one Pangio apoda (Britz & Maclaine 2007)  and the other  Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822).

    pangiaMenon1.png

     pangiaMenon2.png

    Fig 2 Pangio pangia [Acauthophthalmus pangia (Ham.)] Manipur: 2,ZSI F 4303/2, Imphal river, Coll. A.G.K. Menon and party, 20.2.1953. Colour Brownish Yellow with out any marking.

    Now this probably could be an another variant of Pangio apoda or the Pangio apoda from Manipur Imphal river as well ?

    Shrestha, T. K.  2008 Ichthyology of Nepal. A study of fishes of the Himalayan waters. Himalayan Ecosphere, Kathmandu, Nepal. 389 pp., 72 pls. Also reports of Pangio pangia from Nepal Page 139 Plate 35 

    So going by these occurrence and description records one can say that the Pangio sp. in question can possible be Pangio pangia (Hamilton 1822).

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354062

    joyban
    Participant

    Hi 

    Most likely a Schistura montana, McClelland [J.] 1838:947, Pl. 55 (fig. 1) [Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal v. 7 (for Nov. 1838); ] Mountain streams of Simla, India.

     

    Current status: Valid as Schistura montana McClelland 1838. Nemacheilidae

    Gen. Schistura, J. M.

    Species, S. montana, J. M. PI. LV. f. 1.
    Depth of the body to its length as about one to eight, six cirri and a single suborbitar spine under each eye, a black streak at the base of the caudal, and about twelve broad streaks crossing the body ; with one row of black dots crossing the dorsal rays, and a faint row crossing those of the caudal. Pectorals and ventrals long and lanceolate. The fin rays are D. 8 : P. 10 : V. 8 : A. 6 : C. 18. Habitat, mountain streams at Simla*. Length two and half inches. 

    * Found by Dr. MacLoed

    Schistura-montana-McClelland.png

    See Reference at :- http://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/40004809

     

    As per Menon :-

    (Menon, A. G. K.   1987 (May) The fauna of India and the adjacent countries. Pisces. Vol. IV. Teleostei – Cobitoidea. Part 1. Homalopteridae. Zoological Survey of India. Page 78-82, Fig. 6 & 7, PI. 11

    Colour: 10-12 black vertical bands, broader than interspaces,encircling body; bands anterior to dorsal fin break up into numerous narrow bands in bigger specimens. Caudal with a black band at its base and a bar across each lobe. Dorsal with a black base and a black blotch at base of its first few rays; a dark bar across its centre.

    Size: Largest specimen examined 59 mm SL.

    Schistura-montana-AKG-Menon.png

    and for S. rupecula, J. M. PI. LV. f. 3, a. b. 

    About fourteen broad bars on either side, and three across the caudal and dorsal ; without suborbitar spines, six cirri, four in front, and one at each corner of the mouth. The third ray from the upper and lower margins of the caudal a little longer than the outer ones. Lower surface of the body and head nearly flat, pectorals and ventrals lanceolate.

    The fin rays are D. 8 : P. 10: V. 8 : A. 7 : C. 16. Habitat, mountain streams at Simla. Length two inches.

    So this fish is not a Schistura rupecula.

    An other picture of Schistura rupecula  for reference :-

    Schistura-rupecula.png

    Sujoy

    in reply to: IEF 25(3) #353965

    joyban
    Participant

    Volume 25 Number 3

    December, 01 2014
    pages 193-288, 57 figs., 13 tabs.

    PDF Martins, Fernanda O., Breno N. Andrade, Alaina C. Rosa and Francisco Langeani:
    Chauliocheilos saxatilis, a new genus and species of Hypoptopomatinae from rio Jequitinhonha basin, with a unique labial appendix (Teleostei: Loricariidae)
    193-204
    PDF Lalramliana, Samuel Lalronunga, Vanramliana and Hmar Lalthanzara:
    Schistura mizoramensis, a new species of loach from Mizoram, northeastern India (Teleostei: Nemacheilidae)
    205-212
    PDF Calegari, Bárbara B., Ellen V. Silva and Roberto E. Reis:
    Microlepidogaster discontenta, a new species of hypoptopomatine catfish (Teleostei: Loricariidae) from the rio São Francisco basin, Brazil  – OPEN ACCESS
    213-221
    PDF Hamidan, Nashat A., Matthias F. Geiger and Jörg Freyhof:
    Garra jordanica, a new species from the Dead Sea basin with remarks on the relationship of G. ghorensis, G. tibanica and G. rufa (Teleostei: Cyprinidae)
    223-236
    PDF Esmaeili, Hamid Reza, Hamed Mousavi-Sabet, Golnaz Sayyadzadeh, Saber Vatandoust and Jörg Freyhof:
    Paracobitis atrakensis, a new species of crested loach from northeastern Iran (Teleostei: Nemacheilidae)
    237-242
    PDF Varella, Henrique R. and Mark H. Sabaj Pérez:
    A titan among dwarfs: Apistogramma kullanderi, new species (Teleostei: Cichlidae) – OPEN ACCESS
    243-258
    PDF Nagy, Béla:
    Nothobranchius flagrans, a new species of annual killifish from the Lufira drainage, Democratic Republic of Congo (Cyprinodontiformes: Nothobranchiidae)
    259-276
    PDF Morioka, Shinsuke, Noriyuki Koizumi and Bounsong Vongvichith:
    Seasonal growth and reproduction of Rasbora rubrodorsalis, a small-sized cyprinid fish from central Laos (Teleostei: Cyprinidae) – OPEN ACCESS
    277-287

     

    Copyright © 2015 Verlag Dr. Friedrich Pfeil

    joyban
    Participant

    Hi if I too get the PDFs at joyban70 at yahoo dot com

    many thanks

    sujoy

    in reply to: Channa andrao #353179

    joyban
    Participant

    Just to add to Matt’s comments also look out for “Channa sp. Assam”, though it is not from Assam at all.

    in reply to: Request: Channa andrao, a new species of dwarf snakehead #352120

    joyban
    Participant

    Would be nice to receive a copy… Many thanks

    Sujoy

    joyban70 at yahoo dot com

    in reply to: Schistura maculosa, a new species of loach #352065

    joyban
    Participant

    Would be great to receive a copy as well 

     

    joyban70 at yahoo dot com

     

    thanks

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)