L nos in Scientific Literature

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 10 Oct 2007, 11:42

Is it appropriate to use L numbers in scientific literature?

Which of these two would be best for L204 for example?

Panaque sp. "L204"
Panaque cf. maccus

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Oct 2007, 11:50

Surely the cf. maccus isn't very appropriate, as it's not very similar to maccus?

Panaque sp. ucayali perhaps? [ucayali is from memory, maybe it should be another river]

--
Mats

Erlend D Bertelsen · Post by **Erlend D Bertelsen** » 10 Oct 2007, 12:23

What about Panaquesp. "Rio San Alejandro", or just go for Panaque sp. "L204"

E

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 10 Oct 2007, 12:52

Surely stating the river is pretty meaningless, especially when comparing diversity of undescibed Xingu Hypancistrus for example, which was obviously why the L number system was developed.

Would using the L number and river be better?

e.g. Panaque sp. L204 "Rio San Alejandro".

I have never seen an L number used in a scientific pulication. It seems it's not acceptable to use them, even though they offer a much better description of the sp. in question.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Oct 2007, 13:15

Well, the L-numbers aren't really meaningful to the scientific community [as I understand it] (even if there's an overlap to the general public and advanced hobbyists), as they are not originating in a "serious publication".

--
Mats

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 10 Oct 2007, 13:34

But it must be better to use them than not?

There is a lot more information bound up in an L number than otherwise.

Is it wise to ignore the value there, just becase it was written by "amateurs" ?

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 10 Oct 2007, 13:56

I guess the only person frequenting this forum regulalry that can answer that is HH.

You could try to e-mail Jon Armbruster or some such person too [Jon's e-mail address is on his web-site, which you'll find quickly by searching for the name in google].

--
Mats

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 10 Oct 2007, 14:58

The L numbers excist, people may ignore them, but I think scientists better do not.

However, I think we should realize L numbers are not scientific names, but originate from other sources.

Many publications, however, add besides the formal names also local names, in ordere to retrieve the fish more easily. and I think scientists best treat L numbers this way. Thus:

Panaque sp. L204 "Rio San Alejandro" should better be referred as Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 10 Oct 2007, 17:26

However, I think we should realize L numbers are not scientific names, but originate from other sources.

I realise this fully, and I am not attempting to infer that they are.

However it makes more sense, if one is mentioning undescribed Loricariidae, to refer to a researched publication (however non scientific) than to create ambiguous names?

Bas Pels · Post by **Bas Pels** » 10 Oct 2007, 19:08

Certainly

In fact, I think we, fishkeepers, sometimes know a lot more about our fishes, than scientists.

We knowe about breeding, attitude, behaviour in general, likes dislikes, while the mainly work with specimin no longer fit for human consumption - and notes taken in the field

What one can see in the field is, however, quite limited

Post by **Birger** » 11 Oct 2007, 01:10

Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204

This one makes good sense to me and seems politically correct but I can not say if it is scientifically correct.

apistomaster · Post by **apistomaster** » 11 Oct 2007, 02:05

Birger wrote:
Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204
This one makes good sense to me and seems politically correct but I can not say if it is scientifically correct.

Hi racoll,
I agree. If it is coming up in a paper you will have foot notes anyway and the interested readers surely must understand that as long as the name is in scientific limbo it is at least a widely recognized descriptor.