Dekeyseria or Zonancistrus Pulcher (L168)?

kgroenhoej · Post by **kgroenhoej** » 29 Mar 2003, 14:41

In Wels Atlas by Hans-Georg Evers and Ingo Seidel says L168 is a Dekeyseria.
Are they right og wrong?

-Klaus

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 29 Mar 2003, 20:42

Hi!

Well to me, it look pretty much related with the genus Dekeyseria, of course many disagree with this because of IsbrÃ¼cker's work in the Datz special Loricariidae #2, anyway, L168 is supposed to be Dekeyseria/Zonancistrus pulcher, I think this opposition between these 2 genus are not over yet and won't be over until several years
Cheers
Yann

Post by **Silurus** » 29 Mar 2003, 21:23

Zonancistrus is a junior synonym of Dekeyseria, a check of the relevant section of Jon Armbruster's website (although it appears to be down for the moment) indicates so. The synonymy is also given in the ACSP loricariid listing.
On reading the original diagnosis, I see no justification for Zonancistrus being a valid genus, since it is diagnosed from Dekeyseria only by lip, snout and mouth shape, which are characters insufficient to warrant placement in a separate genus.

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 29 Mar 2003, 21:28

Hi!
This is a great news, thanks for sharing Silurus, I respect a lot IsbrÃ¼cker's work but I went sort of mad at the description made in that Datz as some were really unecessary, what made me more sad was the quickness people has started to use these new genus without looking further...
Cheers
Yann

Walter · Post by **Walter** » 30 Mar 2003, 16:28

Hi,
even if Ingo Seidel worked with Isaak Isbruecker at the Datz "Sonderheft Harnischwelse 2" and he is the coauthor of the "Welsatlas" from Mergus, it was not possible for him and H-G Evers to get the new genusÂ´ from the "Datz Harnischwelse 2" in the "Welsatlas", because the press date was already past. The new genusÂ´will be published in the "Welsatlas Bd.2".

BTW: Armbruster on the one side and Isbruecker on the other side, ist this already a "running gag" for ichthyologs? ;)
Or would you prefer to say US-Americans contra Europeans (+ some Southamericans)?

There is a similar disputel with two German "Apistogramma specialists", U.RÃ¶mer and I.Koslowski, I really donÂ´t like this, its rediculous.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 30 Mar 2003, 16:54

yannfulliquet wrote:what made me more sad was the quickness people has started to use these new genus without looking further

At the time I adopted Zonancistrus the alternative was placing the fish in Peckoltia. I was unaware that the fish had been officially placed in Dekeyseria although a lot of people had talked about it?

The description of the new genus Zonancistrus is awful but a lot of Loricariid descriptions are (albiet becuase they were written > 150 years ago...). There is one short paragraph and that's it. The fish shows very different odontodal growth than the one species of Dekeyseria I have kept and does have a different cranial morphology. It is not well argued in DATZ.

Jools

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 30 Mar 2003, 17:03

Hi!

I dpn't think things resume to Armbruster versus IsbrÃ¼cker...
Sincerely I don't see the point on creating a new genus on such small variation, most of the 14 new genus are just synonym of already existing genus, to me IsbrÃ¼cker lost some credit since then. Irespect his work especially on Coryodras, genus he is very capable with, he just should stick with instead of touching stuff here and there!
End of the discussion regarding this if someone want to discuss further on with this Armbruster-IsbrÃ¼cker thing just open a tread in Speak easy or if it is about the validity of the genus created by IsbrÃ¼cker in the Datz Sondernheft Harnischwelse 2, open one inTaxonomy!
In advance thanks!
Cheers
Yann

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 30 Mar 2003, 17:20

yannfulliquet wrote:I respect his work especially on Coryodras, genus he is very capable with, he just should stick with instead of touching stuff here and there!

Err, we are forgeting the 1980 Classification and catalogue of the mailed Loricariidae?

yannfulliquet wrote:End of the discussion regarding this if someone want to discuss further on with this Armbruster-IsbrÃ¼cker thing just open a tread in Speak easy or if it is about the validity of the genus created by IsbrÃ¼cker in the Datz Sondernheft Harnischwelse 2, open one inTaxonomy!

OK, I moved it.

I agree what appears in the DATZ special was (in the main) very, very poor - but does that alone make it invalid? (I'm being deliberatly contentious here). Personally I do see some of the DATZ2 genera that Armbruster has synonymized as valid, most not.

Yann, do you think Panaque nigrolineatus and P. maccus are the same genera? What about all the south of the Amazon Panaque?

Jools

Post by **Silurus** » 30 Mar 2003, 17:27

I agree what appears in the DATZ special was (in the main) very, very poor - but does that alone make it invalid? (I'm being deliberatly contentious here). Personally I do see some of the DATZ2 genera that Armbruster has synonymized as valid, most not.

The genera are only invalid only if the majority of the scientific community says it is so. The quality of the descriptions notwithstanding, the genera are here to stay, like it or not. It's just a matter of choosing whether to adopt it or to ignore it.
Which brings me to my pet peeve. Aquarists trying to be scientists.
Don't get me started, my feelings are very strong on this and I can rant on this forever...

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 31 Mar 2003, 11:41

Silurus wrote:It's just a matter of choosing whether to adopt it or to ignore it.
Which brings me to my pet peeve. Aquarists trying to be scientists.

Agreed that this is a topic I don't want to rake over the coals (again). However, an aquatic site, such as this one still has to make choices.

What irks me most about the DATZ2 genera is that (from my aquarist viewpoint) that some of them seem perfectly reasonable and if they had been introduced in a publication like Ichthy. Explr. with more detailed research supporting them they would be much harder to knock down. That said, I suspect some of them would not stand up to that amount of research anyway.

So, it looks like all the new genera (barring Pseudolithoxus) are sunk..

Jools

Post by **Dinyar** » 31 Mar 2003, 17:55

Jools wrote:However, an aquatic site, such as this one still has to make choices.

As you imply when you refer to "an aquatic site such as this one", Jools, the audience that Planet Catfish serves consists of aquarists. PC is not, and in my view, should not aspire to be, a reference for taxonomists. Therefore, IMO, the Catalog is better positioned on the trailing edge of taxonomic flux, rather than on the cuttting edge. We should be conservative, embracing the established consensus. Other areas of the site can open-mindedly discuss emerging taxa, but for the Catalog to do this would only serve to befuddle aquarists, not to mention creating lots of unnecessary busy work for you. For the aquarist, stability of nomenclature is a greater value than keeping up with the scientifc Joneses. Too much "churn" in transient scientific names is one of the reasons the average hobbyist falls back on misleading trade names.

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 31 Mar 2003, 18:37

PC is not, and in my view, should not aspire to be, a reference for taxonomists. Therefore, IMO, the Catalog is better positioned on the trailing edge of taxonomic flux, rather than on the cuttting edge.

That may be true, but the problem arises...how far back along the trailing edge are you supposed to go? One year? Five? Ten? Names also come and go as systematists formulate different hypotheses of phylogenetic relationships (you have to remember that all the prety trees you see in scientific papers are no more than hypotheses that can be refuted should the evidence become available; trees are also apt to change in their topology depending on the degree of taxonomic sampling). Granted that nomenclature is in a continuous state of flux, I still think the best way for PC to go is to stay on the forefront. Everything in the nomenclatural world remains idle speculation until set in black & white (i.e. is formally published) and given that scientific publications are not like newspapers in their frequency of publication anyway, I think it is still relatively easy to stay current.
Aquarists have been using common names since the inception of the hobby. I don't think that the question of whether to stay nomenclaturally current in this site has any bearing on whether or not aquarists will continue to use common names. The choice to use scientific vs. common names all boils down to the individual. Most people find scientific names convoluted and difficult to remember, which is why they resort to common names.
IMO, working on the trailing edge for PC is like going to cnn.com to find out that all the news in there is no more recent than a month ago.

Post by **Dinyar** » 31 Mar 2003, 19:14

Silurus wrote:That may be true, but the problem arises...how far back along the trailing edge are you supposed to go?

OK, so where's the cutting edge? In an earlier post, you'd said that a name is only valid when the majority of taxonomists accept it as such. That would be good enough for me, but that doesn't seem like the "cutting edge". Not to put PC down in any way, but some of its classifications have -- as noted by the two most recent threads in this Taxonomy forum -- not necessarily reflected the scientific consensus.

Seems to me like you're contradicting yourself when you say that hobbyists should not be doing taxonomy and then addding that hobbyists should be on the cutting edge of taxonomic debate. But maybe I'm missing something?

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 31 Mar 2003, 19:23

I'm not saying that hobbyists should be actively involved in any nomenclatural debate. I am just saying that there is a need to stay current as far as nomenclature is concerned. There will always be a lag time between the publication of a name and the discussion of its validity in the scientific circle. Very often, this lag time is measured in years. Until then, I do not think it is prudent that we sit around waiting for the status of the name to be fixed in stone (which may never occur), bearing in mind that nothing in systematics is really fixed in stone.
Use the name if it is validly published and the argument for its distinctiveness appears sound (not particularly easy, but application of common sense usually works). Otherwise dump it. You can still stay current and not be involved in the debate this way.

Post by **Dinyar** » 31 Mar 2003, 19:42

I understand what you're saying, and it makes sense, but it still seems to me that determining if a descripttion is "validly published" and "distinctive" can sometimes involve difficult judgements. Just see the posts on this thread, for example. Or look at Norris vs. Roberts on Malapteruridae. If the choices were that straightforward, even ichthyologists would have nothing left to debate.

BTW, I'm in favor of advanced hobbyists participating in taxonomic debate, as we are doing here. But debate is different from providing a useful reference for the average hobbyist. In terms of the latter, why not wait for the dust to settle a bit?

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 01 Apr 2003, 03:11

Or look at Norris vs. Roberts on Malapteruridae.

The case is very simple for this. Roberts beats Norris hands down in terms of priority. We only have to determine which Norris species are those of Roberts.
The problem with waiting for the dust to settle is twofold. Firstly, we may never know if the dust is ever going to settle and secondly, how long is an appropriate period to wait for the dust to settle.

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 01 Apr 2003, 06:56

Hi!

I am in favor of having hobbist participating in Taxonomy debat, Hobbist can provide some very interesting behavior about the fish while he is alive, such as breeding behavior and so, or special morphologic changes on males and females at certain moment of the year, things that an Ichthyologist who is working with preserved fish.
Of course it is not an hobbist job to say this species belong to such genus, neither it is is job to make some scientific work on it. First because, he probably won't have access to all the tool necessary to make a correct description, but he will also not be able to obtain all the other species specimens for comparative studies.

A cool thing would be to allow such hobbist that care and are interested in Taxonomy study, to participate in some way in such studies or to show them how things work etc...I know it can be complicated to make and manage but I am sure that it could be benefic to both side, it will satisfy the curiosity of the hobbist and could sort of initiate a diaologue between hobbist and Ichtyologs...

Cheers
Yann

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 01 Apr 2003, 20:30

yannfulliquet wrote:A cool thing would be to allow such hobbist that care and are interested in Taxonomy study, to participate in some way in such studies or to show them how things work etc...I know it can be complicated to make and manage but I am sure that it could be benefic to both side, it will satisfy the curiosity of the hobbist and could sort of initiate a diaologue between hobbist and Ichtyologs...

Wouldn't that be an aquarist playing scientist? How would you safeguard against headstrong aquarists publishing "descriptions" in aquarium magazines?

Jools

Post by **Silurus** » 01 Apr 2003, 20:59

That is precisely the problem. Some of you may recall the brouhaha a few years back when Sven Kullander spearheaded a movement to have aqauarum journals stop publishing original descriptions (the draft policy can still be seen here).
AFAIK, the movement wasn't wholly successful, as original descriptions are still being published in aquarium literature.

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 01 Apr 2003, 21:16

Hi!

Jools , you got me misunderstood, to me an aquarist playing scientist would be the one making description without the help or with the help of a scientist; here as I would see it is having the scientist to show aquarists what consist their job and get them involved in a work with already describe material...this way it will satisfy the curiosity of the aquarist and would not interfer into the scientist job.

Personnally I find, scientific description, really intersting, the give you quite a lot of information( when well done) about many different aspect of the fish. Will I ever try to make a description...I don't think so... every one has its own job and I would not see with a pleasant eyes someone who has nothing to do with my job starting to mess everything and trying to be something he will never be!

I doubt that a Formula one fan will ever start a F1 race inplace of Michael Schumacher, but if Michael Schumacher giving to the same fan a bit of taste of what Formual one is, it has been done ( maybe not by M S,but by some other) and I think it is a great thing!

Cheers
Yann

Post by **Dinyar** » 02 Apr 2003, 03:22

I agree with what Yann is saying. I think I tried to say the same thing in earlier posts on this and the related thread. I'd go a step further and say that just as government is too important to be left to politicians, science is too important to be left to scientists. Scientists who don't recognize the importance of outreach to the public should be locked up in an ivory tower.

Note that I'm not saying that the public should write species descriptions, do particle physics in the kitchen or what have you. Just that scientists have a responsibility to interest the public in their work, and conversely, the public ha a responsibility to be interested in science (and art and politics and much else besides).

Dinyar

Post by **Shane** » 02 Apr 2003, 04:19

Amigos,
I a strongly with Dinyar and Yann on this one and believe that public outreach can be key. My wife is an archaeologist and she has been involved in (read managed) various public outreach programs through the National Forest Service and Smithsonian. Basically, they bring people interested in archaeology out to digs, teach them the basics of how to dig, and let them participate. When an object is found the volunteer calls a trained archaeologist to examine and properly catalog and care for the item. These programs keep public funding and interest high, help pay for digs (particpants pay to join the digs), and stop laymen with an interest in archaeology from becoming "pot hunters" which are basically untrained people looking for artifacts.
Taxonomy, as a science, could easily institute and benefit from such programs. Take hobbyists out and let them help collect specimens. Hobbyists with some knowledge of what is involved in "real" science will themselves influence the hobby away from permitting unqualified people to publish bad science in their magazines. Use the money generated from these activities to pay for research and publications. The hobby and science will both benefit.
-Shane

Post by **Silurus** » 02 Apr 2003, 11:00

Such programs are already in place in other fields of biology, most noticeably in botany, where local people are trained as as parataxonomists to assist in collecting and identifying material. Unfortunately, it his not yet significant in ichthyology and the other fields of vertebrate zoology. Perhaps the fact that plants are a lot easier to collect and preserve have something to do with this.
In any case, only a handful of ichthyologists find the time and inclination to maintain close tie with the aquarium community. A great pity, as a lot of information remains unpublished and gets lost this way.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 11 May 2003, 13:04

Dinyar wrote:In terms of the latter, why not wait for the dust to settle a bit?

From a purely practical persective becuase I quite often forget about it if I leave it too long. That is, of course, assuming the dust settles. In the instances above there is still a fair amount of it floating around on the wind.

Jools