Checklist of Catfishes

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 08 Mar 2007, 10:26

Zootaxa 1418: 1?628 (2007)
http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/
Checklist of catfishes, recent and fossil (Osteichthyes: Siluriformes),
and catalogue of siluriform primary types
CARL J. FERRARIS, JR.

Abstract
A checklist of Recent and fossil catfishes (Order Siluriformes) is presented, summarizing taxonomic literature published
through 2005. From 4624 nominal species group names and 810 genus group names, 3093 species are recognized as
valid, and are distributed among 478 genera and 36 families. Distributional summaries are provided for each species, and
nomenclatural synonymies, including relevant information on all name-bearing types, are included for all taxa. One new
name is proposed herein: Clariallabes teugelsi, as a replacement for Clarias (Allabenchelys) dumerili longibarbis David
& Poll, 1937, which is preoccupied by Clarias longibarbis Worthington, 1933, but has been treated as a valid species of
Clariallabes by Teugels. Acrochordonichthys melanogaster Bleeker, 1854, is designated as type species of Acrochordonichthys
Bleeker, 1857, inasmuch as no earlier valid designation has been found. A new genus Pseudobagarius, is proposed
for the ?pseudobagarius group? of species formerly placed in Akysis. The status of 228 species group names
remains unresolved and 31 names based on otoliths ascribed to catfishes are listed but not placed into the checklist. The
current emphasis given to catfish taxonomy at present is likely to result in a dramatic increase in the total number of valid
taxa as well as major changes in the membership of some of the higher level taxa recognized here.
Key words: Nematognathi, taxonomy, nomenclature, biodiversity, freshwater fishes
Introduction
Osteichthyian fishes of the Order Siluriformes, known by the English common name of catfishes, form a well
diagnosed natural group of primarily freshwater fishes. Most catfishes are apparently tolerant of only fresh
water but the salinity tolerance of several species extends to, or is even limited to, estuarine or even oceanic
levels of salinity. Thus, while most catfishes are recorded from inland waters, the distribution of the order also
includes coastal regions of continents and nearby islands. Catfishes often have large, heavy bones that lend
themselves to fossilization and, comparatively large otoliths. As such, a large number of species of catfishes
have been named from complete or partial skeletal fossils or even from only otoliths.
A checklist of named Recent and fossil catfishes is presented herein. The checklist is thought to be complete
through the end of 2005 for available names proposed for catfishes and literature that treats taxonomic
issues involving catfish taxa. From 4620 nominal species group names and 805 genus group names, 3088 species
are recognized as valid, and are distributed among 477 genera and 36 families (Table 1). In addition, 228
species group names are of uncertain validity and are in need of further study. Of the valid taxa, 19 genera and
72 species are based exclusively on fossil remains. Additionally, 2 genera and 31 species names that are based
exclusively on otoliths are listed herein but are not included in the above mentioned totals.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Mar 2007, 10:47

Thanks.

Here are the URLS. It is in two parts.

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/zt01418p300.pdf

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/zt01418p628.pdf

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 08 Mar 2007, 10:52

Thanks Racoll,

I did include a link to the main site, but I have yet to figure out how to link directly to the Zootaxa papers. Your follow up on this is greatly appreciated.

There is now a lot of reading to be done

Lee

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Mar 2007, 11:32

Hi Lee.

For future reference, go to the Online Issues Page and then right click over the "full article" link of the paper you want, and then select COPY LINK LOCATION (Firefox) or COPY SHORTCUT (MSIE).

Paste this into your post with the url tags.

A voila....

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 08 Mar 2007, 12:24

Hi Racoll,

Thanks very much for the instruction!! It is appreciated. I will give it a test run later today or tomorrow.

After a quick look over the checklist I think that someone should pour Jools a pint or two

It should be interesting to see how things go with this work. There is just so much there to try to digest. Right off, I am immediately hit by the changes in the spelling of the species names of a number of the the Synodontis (e.g. notata, congica, contracta).

Let the fun begin.

Lee

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 08 Mar 2007, 18:46

Pint? I think I'll be needing a Brewery.

Jools

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 08 Mar 2007, 18:51

Hi Jools.

I know what you mean. I am sipping and reading this afternoon.

Lee

ncanavan · Post by **ncanavan** » 09 Mar 2007, 12:29

See the except below - does this mean Panaqolus is re-established as a valid genus?

PANAQOLUS Isbrücker & Schraml, 2001
Panaqolus Isbrücker & Schraml, in Isbrücker et al., 2001: 20. Type species: Panaque gnomus Schaefer & Stewart,
1993. Type by original designation. Gender: Masculine.
Revision: Schaefer & Stewart (1993) as Panaque dentex species group.
Species key: Chockley & Armbruster (2002), as Panaque dentex species group.
Remarks: This genus corresponds to the monophyletic assembledge called the Panaque dentex species group by
Schaefer & Stewart (1993). The recognition of this group as a separate genus was rejected by Chockley & Armbruster
(2002) and Weber (2003).

Niall

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 09 Mar 2007, 13:33

Hi,

Yes, according to Ferraris this is the case. I would tend to think that this will not be the last that we will hear on the topic.

Lee

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 09 Mar 2007, 13:58

Hi all.

Regarding the Ferraris work and the presented classification of the catfishes: While we all have, I think, the tendency to go to the areas of our interest in a work such as this, I would strongly suggest the reading of the "upfront" material (pages 4 to 11) first (if you have not already done so). The section titled "Classification" on pages 9 and 10 is of particular interest and will provide a good window into the approach that was taken in the putting together of a massive project such as this.

Lee

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 09 Mar 2007, 19:05

Jools wrote:Pint? I think I'll be needing a Brewery.

Jools

628 pages worth of pints!

Amanda

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 09 Mar 2007, 19:45

Hi Amanda and all.

Forgetting about the fossils and the uncertains, I make it out to be 3088 pints (page 4 of the checklist)... one for each valid species. And, of course, we'll need more for the various species that missed the cutoff date for publication. Good work if you can get it. We'd better get clicking!

Lee

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 09 Mar 2007, 19:53

Hi again all.

I just noticed a little differing information in the checklist and thought that I would make mention of it. In the Abstract (page 4) it states that there are 3093 species that are recognized as valid. But, below in the Introduction (same page) in notes the number to be 3088. What are a few species among friends?

Amanda: When you get a chance could you count the species in the paper and get back to us

It might be worth five more for Jools.

Lee

Post by **Birger** » 10 Mar 2007, 20:31

I am immediately hit by the changes in the spelling of the species names of a number of the the Synodontis (e.g. notata, congica, contracta).

It's probably simple enough but I am trying to understand why this has been done,I have read the upfront material and if I understand correctly these are the original spellings of these names......or is the name conforming to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature????
Thinking further on this I think it is the latter.

Birger

Post by **Silurus** » 11 Mar 2007, 00:09

Synodontis is feminine, so all the specific epithets must agree in gender, following Article 31.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

Post by **Birger** » 11 Mar 2007, 03:46

I understand now thank you H.H.
Are these name changes written in stone now(is anything ever)will the Cat-eLog be showing these changes as well?

Birger

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 11 Mar 2007, 09:23

Birger wrote:Are these name changes written in stone now(is anything ever)will the Cat-eLog be showing these changes as well?

Aside from fossils, nothing is written in stone when it comes to taxonomy.

The Cat-eLog will reflect these changes over time.

Jools

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 12 Mar 2007, 12:38

Jools wrote:Aside from fossils, nothing is written in stone when it comes to taxonomy.

That should have "pun intended" added somewhere, right? And I'm sure that if you ask many enough scientists, you'd probably find one that would like to reclassify even some of the fossilized catfish species in some way or another... But maybe they are fewer/less active than the ones working on living species

--
Mats

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 12 Mar 2007, 12:41

Indeed.

I'm also assuming that changes or investigations into potential changes will just be dealt with in the normal way via the bugs forum. I will probably do some of the ancistrini myself, but please don't assume I'm going to check the whole thing myself. Your help is much appreciated, tell me what to change and why and I'll get it done!

Jools

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 12 Mar 2007, 18:41

lfinley58 wrote:Hi again all.

I just noticed a little differing information in the checklist and thought that I would make mention of it. In the Abstract (page 4) it states that there are 3093 species that are recognized as valid. But, below in the Introduction (same page) in notes the number to be 3088. What are a few species among friends?

Amanda: When you get a chance could you count the species in the paper and get back to us It might be worth five more for Jools.

Lee

I should have that by NEC!

Amanda

lfinley58 · Post by **lfinley58** » 12 Mar 2007, 19:19

Thanks Amanda - I'm counting on it.

The Checklist of Catfishes covered in this thread is available in book form. The information on this is below.

Lee

Hardbound copies of this checklist can be ordered from Zootaxa.
The cost is US$109.20 (plus postage: Australasia -- US$10.00; Rest of the
world -- US$28.00).
Payment by check, bank draft or electronic transfer. Credit cards not
accepted.

To request an invoice and place order: zootaxa@mapress.com

Mailing address for sending check and invoice:

Magnolia Press
P.O. Box 41-383
St Lukes
Auckland 1346
New Zealand

Post by **Birger** » 13 Mar 2007, 04:59

Your help is much appreciated, tell me what to change and why and I'll get it done!

Jools
I would like to help and started with the obvious I went through the list of syno's,would I just post(in the bugs forum)the whole list that needs changing(26 species) or would you want a post per species.....I know you "generally" want one post per item but what do you suggest in a case like this.
I now realize as well that there are other details to be checked besides just the name spellings as Lee points out in another post on Microsyno's

Birger

Deedeefish · Post by **Deedeefish** » 26 Mar 2007, 08:23

Silurus wrote:Synodontis is feminine, so all the specific epithets must agree in gender, following Article 31.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature.

The on-line version of the Catalog of Fishes says otherwise:
"Genus regarded as feminine in Catalog of Fishes 1998; apparently it should be masculine."

A case for ICZN?

Checklist of Catfishes

Checklist of Catfishes

Thanks

We are going to need more....

PANAQOLUS vs PANAQUE

Panaqolus valid?

"Classification"

More, we're going to need more....

Ooops

Re: Ooops

Thanks and Checklist as book