Revision of Panaque

[Jools]

You know you're a geek when you really wonder what the pseudonyms and artificial etymologies employed to keep the names a surpise were.

Jools

[taksan]

Naming L418 P.Titan is quite frankly ridiculous when the very similar L203 is commonly known as the Titanic. They should consider such things ....

Although I've gone with it for now I am not 100% that L418 = P. titan. There is a small chance that, in catelog terms, L203 is two things.

Jools

I've always thought they were the same fish ... they in fact used to be the same fish in the cat-e-log at one time a few years ago.

[Jools]

Hi

Could I have a pdf please?

steven.grant1@virgin.net

Thanks
Steve

Done.

Jools

[taksan]

Me too please ....

Paulpope(AT)gmail.com

[Jools]

As to names, I don't see the difference between Titan (e.g. Greek mythology/brutish) and Titanic (e.g. super big from the root Titan) any more confusing than L203 versus L418. Also, large adult L418 were sold as Titanic Plecos too! Mind you, if it were me, I'd have named it after the Volkswagen beetle.

Isn't the dorsal view picture of P. schaeferi amazing!

Jools

[Richard B]

I'd like the pdf from someone if possible please?

thanks in advance

[taksan]

As to names, I don't see the difference between Titan (e.g. Greek mythology/brutish) and Titanic (e.g. super big from the root Titan) any more confusing than L203 versus L418. Also, large adult L418 were sold as Titanic Plecos too! Mind you, if it were me, I'd have named it after the Volkswagen beetle.

Isn't the dorsal view picture of P. schaeferi amazing!

Jools

Yeah but just when I'm conditioned to think in L numbers and common names when it comes to panaque's ... they are naming them all.

[MatsP]

Paul & Richard - copies in the e-mail...

--
Mats

[Jools]

Yeah but just when I'm conditioned to think in L numbers and common names when it comes to panaque's ... they are naming them all.

Well, I kind of think it's a small price to pay versus the creation of a place for this animal in mankinds inventory of life on Earth, no? I guess running a website with 2000+ species in it, I get more acclimatised to change.

Jools

[racoll]

Naming L418 P.Titan is quite frankly ridiculous when the very similar L203 is commonly known as the Titanic. They should consider such things ....

Sorry, not wishing to labour the point, but why should they consider such things? I think Silurus explained this quite succinctly.

Common names do not exist as far as scientists are concerned, so this is not an issue (for them).

[Jools]

Naming L418 P.Titan is quite frankly ridiculous when the very similar L203 is commonly known as the Titanic. They should consider such things ....

Sorry, not wishing to labour the point, but why should they consider such things? I think Silurus explained this quite succinctly.

Common names do not exist as far as scientists are concerned, so this is not an issue (for them).

Err, I think we're being a bit silly - what is Panaque if it is not the most widely used common name for this genus at the time of its description?

I think we've forgotten that common names existed before scientific names. Nowadays it is unusual for something to have a widely accepted common name before it is described to science. But the Titan is a case in point. Lots of older species were named after their vernacular name (including, as I say, the genus Panaque) and I think that we've lost something when the option of patronage is taken up before obvious etymologies.

I am not sure that I agree that a good ichthyologist would pay no heed to the vernacular either. The best ones would immerse themselves in the subject and that would include how the organisms in question were commonly referred to.

However, it's not a good case because all large grey Panaque are sold as Titanic plecos which, as I've said before, isn't the same as Titan anyway. Just similar. Add to that the fact that these species all had different common names for juveniles and adults (who can forget Teles Pires Royal Pleco and the Platinum Thunder Pleco) and I don't think there's much more here to discuss?

Jools

[MatsP]

Further to the discussion about common names vs. scientific names: what languange should you use to determine what common name you use to give the scientific name - there are many fish that have completely different common names in one language than in a different language - and it's not entirely unusual that there are "cross-overs" - in birds, in Swedish, we have something called "Bofink" Fringilla coelebs, which I'm pretty sure is missinterpretation of a Bullfinch, but it's NOT the name of a Bullfinch, but a Chaffinch - which is quite a different looking bird - so if someone in Sweden was to rename this to match it's common name, it would be very confusing in English.

--
Mats

[Jools]

Mats,

That's not the point; we all understand why a scientific name has value and is the "truth". What I am talking about it how that choice is made at that point in time.

Jools

[matthewfaulkner]

How long does it take for the exporters to start using these new scientific names (if ever)?

[MatsP]

How long does it take for the exporters to start using these new scientific names (if ever)?

Judging by other recently named species, quite a few years. The list I've got from a Colombian exporter, still lists "Hemiancistrus sp. L200" rather than H. subviridis...

--
Mats

[racoll]

Err, I think we're being a bit silly - what is Panaque if it is not the most widely used common name for this genus at the time of its description?

I think we've forgotten that common names existed before scientific names. Nowadays it is unusual for something to have a widely accepted common name before it is described to science. But the Titan is a case in point. Lots of older species were named after their vernacular name (including, as I say, the genus Panaque) and I think that we've lost something when the option of patronage is taken up before obvious etymologies.

I am not sure that I agree that a good ichthyologist would pay no heed to the vernacular either. The best ones would immerse themselves in the subject and that would include how the organisms in question were commonly referred to.

However, it's not a good case because all large grey Panaque are sold as Titanic plecos which, as I've said before, isn't the same as Titan anyway. Just similar. Add to that the fact that these species all had different common names for juveniles and adults (who can forget Teles Pires Royal Pleco and the Platinum Thunder Pleco) and I don't think there's much more here to discuss?

I agree with you entirely Jools. A lot of scientists do heed the local vernacular, but commercial names in the pet trade are perhaps a step too far.

If it had been me, I would have probably not named them this way (likely the authors had no idea anyway), but I guess my point is, being over-critical of the name choice isn't very helpful.

Scientists are usually quite proud and defensive of their work. Reading this thread, the authors might have second thoughts about contributing to a site where they are ridiculed over quite trivial aspects of their publications.

[Jools]

That's also partially because people ask for L200. So, the shop guy asked the importer guy and he asks the exporter guy.

Moot point with Armbruster's Royal Pleco and Brazilian affiliates as it's banned from export - although now it has a name this might alter.

As to the other species, depends on the exporter. Although I note now that quite a few follow Planet. On the other hand, there are some exporters still exporting fishes under the names they had 50 years ago.

Some are very good, and the internet has helped, but, in the main, interpreting many exporters use of latin names, like common names, is akin to telling next weeks weather from some randomly placed tea leaves in the bottom of a freshly drained cup.

Jools

[Jools]

Scientists are usually quite proud and defensive of their work. Reading this thread, the authors might have second thoughts about contributing to a site where they are ridiculed over quite trivial aspects of their publications.

Quite right they are proud, months of work in this. Defensive is a position ingrained by the expectations of peer review, which is a little of what is happening here. The truth is many of us are only able to comment (abrasively or otherwise) on the bits we understand and bump into most, like names. Names also are oddly secretive things in taxonomy too - let's not forget that. I am not sure the chosen name of a n. sp. is quite trivial but maybe that is just a layman's view? If it were so, why the cafuffle with the false names for peer review?

I mean, I'm delighted to see these fishes examined and described, but a revision of the genus that misses more than 50% of the known species is a wee bit disappointing to me personally. Brilliant, really, superb to see the magnificent big plecos described - but wouldn't it be good also to have the Xingu royal grabbing some soon-to-be-dam(n)med attention? What about the L191 - the missing link between the grays and the royals? L330 etc. And, what is a sister species? Is that a hint that P. suttonorum is a synonym of P. cochliodon? How come P. suttonorum was used without explanation of the P. suttoni thing? If Nathan ever got, for example as has happened with several ichthyologist over the past decade, invited to talk at the CSG convention, I love to talk this over with him and gain his views.

I'd also suggest that running a website gets you a fair bit of ridicule and worse, but that's what comes with the territory and, again, a good paper and a good ichthyologist should have nothing to fear from quality comment. That's one of the reasons Silurus, for example, is so highly thought of here. He's a world leading expert in his field, but he's not precious about discussion around something he's said that is debatable.

Anyway, this is a great piece of work as much as my judgement is worth and we have a few more l-numbers retired. Always a good thing.

Jools

[MatsP]

They did actually mention the Xingu and Tocantins variants of "P. nigrolineatus", but someone else is working on that. I don't think L191 and L330 has been mentioned.

--
Mats

[racoll]

And, what is a sister species? Is that a hint that P. suttonorum is a synonym of P. cochliodon?

No, it just means they are more closely related to each other, than either is to something else.

How come P. suttonorum was used without explanation of the P. suttoni thing?

They did discuss the emmendation. It's in the "remarks" section on page 699.

I mean, I'm delighted to see these fishes examined and described, but a revision of the genus that misses more than 50% of the known species is a wee bit disappointing to me personally. Brilliant, really, superb to see the magnificent big plecos described - but wouldn't it be good also to have the Xingu royal grabbing some soon-to-be-dam(n)med attention? What about the L191 - the missing link between the grays and the royals? L330 etc.

As we all know, doing systematics in Brazil is very difficult. I am surprised they managed to do this much!

[Suckermouth]

There are hardly any specimens of large Panaque in scientific collections. Lujan had most museum specimens in Auburn, and you can see their counts at the end of the paper; I think, combined, the specimen jars fit on two or three shelves and a preserved specimen tank. I don't even recall seeing L191 or L330 specimens among them. Furthermore, everyone I've talked to say the large Panaque are hardly ever collected in any high numbers in the wild; it's a wonder that they appear with such regularity in the aquarium trade.

But yeah, it's a wonder that even armbrusteri got described, so let's not get greedy. We can only hope that the other undescribed Panaque that were noted get described soon.

I do have an older manuscript of this paper, but I don't know if it's kosher to reveal MS names.

[Silurus]

I mean, I'm delighted to see these fishes examined and described, but a revision of the genus that misses more than 50% of the known species is a wee bit disappointing to me personally. Brilliant, really, superb to see the magnificent big plecos described - but wouldn't it be good also to have the Xingu royal grabbing some soon-to-be-dam(n)med attention? What about the L191 - the missing link between the grays and the royals? L330 etc.

The difficulty of obtaining material to work with aside, it is easy to ignore the human aspects of conducting scientific research. The authors themselves have alluded to this problem in the description of P. armbrusteri. When you know someone else is already working on the same group of fishes, what do you do? Do you contact them and ask to collaborate on a revision? This works if only few people (one or two) are involved, but not when there are four or five on either side. Having a string of eight or ten authors after a species name is generally frowned upon (although it admittedly happens a lot more often for high-profile vertebrates such as birds or mammals). Furthermore, the more people you rope into your study, the more likely you will end up with differences in opinions that may be difficult to resolve.

Therefore, one cannot overlook the group dynamics in trying to conduct a multi-author study (such as a revision). Unless you are Tyson Roberts, who will bulldoze his way through a revision and ignore the wreckage created (i.e. the number of toes he trods on), it will always be difficult to comprehensively revise a group unless no one else in the world works on your group of fishes. I might add that Tyson is guilty of some sloppy work, so working alone is not always a good thing (and especially if you step on toes along the way).

[taksan]

There are hardly any specimens of large Panaque in scientific collections. Lujan had most museum specimens in Auburn, and you can see their counts at the end of the paper; I think, combined, the specimen jars fit on two or three shelves and a preserved specimen tank.

Whats does this mean exactly ? There are hundreds probably thousands of large Panaque's in tanks all around. Why can't they use them for their specimens instead of keeping their own tanks?

[Suckermouth]

There are hardly any specimens of large Panaque in scientific collections. Lujan had most museum specimens in Auburn, and you can see their counts at the end of the paper; I think, combined, the specimen jars fit on two or three shelves and a preserved specimen tank.

Whats does this mean exactly ? There are hundreds probably thousands of large Panaque's in tanks all around. Why can't they use them for their specimens instead of keeping their own tanks?

Thousands of Panaque in tanks worldwide is meaningless to a scientist that can't study them directly.

[racoll]

Whats does this mean exactly ? There are hundreds probably thousands of large Panaque's in tanks all around. Why can't they use them for their specimens instead of keeping their own tanks?

Aquarium specimens are useless for systematic studies. They lack really basic information, such as where they came from, and often their morphology also changes as a result of prolonged captivity.

Many species, especially in the 1940's, 1950's and 1960's, were historically described based on specimens from the ornamental fish trade. This has led to huge headaches when taxonomists revisit these species complexes nowadays, as very often the locality information provided is entirely wrong.

[Jools]

Sorry, my search on through the PDF on suttoni didn't work, so that's one good thing that I was wrong about. It didn't occur to me to interpret the other large Panaque not being described were because the etiquette around them being available due to others working on them. Or planning to work on them. Good thing websites don't suffer from that!

Totally agree re aquarium specimens not being used - all you'd end up with in this example is a replacement l-number system. While L191 is a common fish in the trade, I don't really know what a big one looks like. I mean, we could say, well, hey here's a few fishes that might be worth looking at, they come from here etc. The only step that is missing is then someone going to find them in the wild. Speaking from some experience, catching large plecos isn't the hardest and I reckon with a little bit of thought they could be trapped too.

As to difficulty of obtaining museum specimens and their relative scarcity, I am entirely sure that keeping preserved big fish is hard and likely expensive. Anyone know the average size of fish? (e.g. all species sizes added together and divided by the number of species - note to self must do this for all catfishes). It would be interesting to see where these things fit on that scale. But then, how often is it that an organism this big is described to science?

But, to repeat myself, this paper is a brilliant step forward. I could comfortably write more than I have on positive points.

Jools

[Jools]

As we all know, doing systematics in Brazil is very difficult. I am surprised they managed to do this much!

Absolutely, and Colombia isn't a breeze either. However the two species I mentioned (L191 and L330) are not Brazilian and no one is working on them.

Jools

[MatsP]

Nathan just send me a copy of the revision, and I asked about L191 and L330 - he said that there were no specimens in the collections. Anyone got a large dollop of money for an expedition?

--
Mats

[lfinley58]

Hi all.

This may repeat something - if so, sorry. Long fast threads can sometimes be confusing (to me, at least).

L-330 is mentioned in the Panaque paper. This is not by number, but by the description of the adult color pattern. This is in the Remarks section at the end of the material on P. nigrolineatus. Only one cataloged specimen was examined, but it is stated that "...more material is needed to determine if these populations are conspecific with Panaque nigrolineatus".

Lee

[MatsP]

Hi all.

This may repeat something - if so, sorry. Long fast threads can sometimes be confusing (to me, at least).

Me too - especially when the comments don't quote the original post and there are other posts inbetween.

L-330 is mentioned in the Panaque paper. This is not by number, but by the description of the adult color pattern. This is in the Remarks section at the end of the material on P. nigrolineatus. Only one cataloged specimen was examined, but it is stated that "...more material is needed to determine if these populations are conspecific with Panaque nigrolineatus".

Lee

Good spot - I hadn't noticed it (but then, I've only scanned through and picking up the pieces I needed to update the Cat-eLog.

--
Mats