Scientific Describing Of Fish

[AndrewC]

How does this work ?
Is there scientists whose job it is to actually do this ?
My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but i wonder if this will be done in my lifetime.
Plus, i am sure there are keepers of other catfish that would like them scientifically decribed.
With so many species of fish, who decides which species of fish is to be described first, and how long does it take to describe a species of fish ?
Will all fish eventually become scientifically described ?

[macvsog23]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_classification

[MatsP]

How does this work ?

That is the subject of a very large book, if we want to cover all the details. See the Wikipedia link in the other post for a brief summary.

Is there scientists whose job it is to actually do this ?

Absolutely. It may not be the ONLY thing they do, but scientists (ichtologists) working at universities and museums do this as part of their job. HeokHee Ng (Silurus on this forum) is one of them, working with Asian and African catfish for example, Jon Armbruster has done a lot of work on Plecos, Mark Sabaj (Doradidae), Nathan Lujan, Jeremy Wright (member of this forum, but not very active), Lawrence Page, Sven Kullander (mainly cichlids), Scott Schaefer (Otos for example), Mike Retzer (Acestridium), Jose Birindelli, Sonia Fischer (Ancistrus). These are but a few of the top of my head (and I've probably forgot someone very important!)

My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but i wonder if this will be done in my lifetime.
Plus, i am sure there are keepers of other catfish that would like them scientifically decribed.
With so many species of fish, who decides which species of fish is to be described first, and how long does it take to describe a species of fish ?

According to Mark Sabaj, about 3 months of solid work, but it can easily take 18 months between start and finish, so a scientist is often working on several papers at any given time. This is largely due to the efforts needed to do proper research, such as borrowing specimens from museums in other parts of the scientific world, etc.

Will all fish eventually become scientifically described ?

Probably not as long as we keep finding new ones at a higher rate as new ones get described. I don't know how many Loricariidae got described in 2009, but I'm pretty sure it's not 20 - and that's not counting new species found by scientists that aren't being exported to the hobby, so no L-numbers for those...
http://www.planetcatfish.com/shanesworl ... d+Analysis
[And whilst there are SOME loricariidae that are given more than one L-number, most L-numbers are most likely a unique new species].

(And currently, 411 of 932 "species" of Loricariidae in the Cat-eLog are undescribed - admittedly, there are a large number of described species that aren't in the Cat-eLog.

--
Mats

[Industrial]

Could be outdated, but in Dr. Axelrod's Handbook of Tropical Fishes he has a small section about describing fishes. To me it looks like you need to obtain a type specimen, find out it's locality (not sure if this part is mandatory), write a scientific journal on it explaining why it belongs to it's genus and what makes it different than the other fish in it's genus and submit it to some kind of publisher as well as the type specimen.

I have been wanting to describe a fish for the past couple months, but I haven't had much luck finding journals to use to explain my reasoning. In the book (from the 50's), Axelrod says that he needs to visit large museums across the country, but I am thinking today that these descriptions must be available online somewhere if you know where to look.

[MatsP]

Yes, in brief, that's roughly how it works.

However, the most common way of "determine the capture location" is by going to a location and collecting fish there. This is a large portion of modern ichtyology.

You may well have to visit museums (or get specimens sent to you - but to do this, you almost certainly need to be a scientist already - in fact, finding a publication that is generally acceptable that takes articles from "unknowns" is hard - so most people work together with a well-known scientists for their first few works...

I doubt very much that a hobbyist (or anyone else) can just write a description of a new fish, and get it published.

--
Mats

[Shane]

Axelrod says that he needs to visit large museums across the country, but I am thinking today that these descriptions must be available online somewhere if you know where to look.

We all wish that was true, but only a tiny, tiny fraction of them are available online. Many, many were written long before the age of the internet and will probably never be put online. Even recently published descriptions are rarely available on line, or if they are, are sold by the publishing journal. My hard copies of descriptions, and these are very limited to a select number of families, fill a two drawer filling cabinet. Modern taxonomy is still very much paper based.

I doubt very much that a hobbyist (or anyone else) can just write a description of a new fish, and get it published.

Once again, I wish this were true... The Code does not require the description to be published in a professional scientific journal nor subjected to peer review.

-Shane

[AndrewC]

With no disrespect to the people who describe fish, i appreciate their work, the term scientifically described makes me think of fish being researched in a laboratory, ie, comparing dna with other fish to see the difference.

Is dna testing of fish done, or am i being silly ?

[macvsog23]

Dr Axelrod in my opinion did more damage to the describing of fish than any one before of after him.
He was about the most prolific "namer” ever giving out names before the fish was even described or classified. In fact some people claim several of his Species are just a variant of pervious fish already described.

A Holotype is the starting point in some ways.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holotype
The link above may help

If you look at the scientific name of a fish it will have two parts in general, the first is the genus and is normally Greek the second will be the species and will normally be either a bastardisation of a Latin name or a name related to the organisms attributes ie
Say the fish eats waste mater from other fish the word Scat may be used in the genus because it is from the Greek Skatos or in the species.

It is quite common to have a species named after some one Dr Axelrod did this a lot.
Examples are dickfeldi and herbertaxelrodi



Some times the common name reflects the scientific name in say the Altum Angel fish or the brackish fish the Scat.
Links below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pterophyllum#P._altum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scat_%28fish%29

In a rare instance a genus can have its name derived from a persons name ie Peckoltia.

After the name in some scientific papers and books your see a persons name and a date this is normally the person who described the fish and the date it was described.

The above is not a cast in stone rule an as always it is trashed ie C. callichthys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callichthys

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish

Hope this helps A lot more information is needed on catfish and it seems that changes on how they are classified is happening almost daily new genus new Species and species being renamed or moved to a new or different genus.

[MatsP]

The term scientifically described makes me think of fish being researched in a laboratory, ie, comparing dna with other fish to see the difference ?

The two main methods of comparing fish is using DNA and using morphometrics (such as count of rays in fins, size relationship between eye and head length, relationship between where fins are positioned and length of fish, etc, etc). Both methods have problems. If you have only one or a few fish of a "new species", how can you be sure that they are representative - and if they don't cover the full range of sizes of that fish, how do you know that the findings are accurate vs. fish of a different size?

The problem with DNA is that you need to have good data for OTHER species in the same group, so that you can figure out how much difference there is between those and the "new species". And also how much the difference is WITHIN that new species, and within other species in the group. Unless there is already several hundred specimens sampled, that are close to what you are looking at, it's likely that the you'll have to do a lot of groundwork. I'm sure there are species described based on DNA "evidence", but I'm sure there are examples of that. I do know that there are scientific papers "re-arranging" the relationships between different species - for example Ariidae got some changes based on DNA evidence recently.

Here is a link to the description of the two forms of L200:
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script= ... so&tlng=en

Of course, Shane is right, anyone can, technically speaking, describe a new species. But if you also expect other (well-known) scientists to take notice of it, for example using that description in describing other species in the same group, then it certainly will help a whole lot to have a description that is published in a well-known publication that is respected by other scientists.

--
Mats

[Mike_Noren]

How does this work ?

You compare the fish, in great detail, to every other known species of fish, and determine what it is which is unique for this new species. You describe it in text and pictures and in so great detail that other people will be able to identify "your" fish from all other fish in the world. To further help other people to be able to identify the species, perhaps hundreds of years in the future, you also designate an individual as "holotype" and deposit it in a museum. This way people in the future have something to compare to.

There is a set or rules (the international code of zoological nomenclature, or ICZN) that you must follow, but the most important thing is to describe the fish in as much detail as humanly possible: the number of scales along the sideline, the number of rays in each fin, various length measures (length from snout to base of tail fin, head length, body height etc etc etc), coloration when alive and after being preserved in alcohol, where exactly it was captured - anything and everything. Usually there's also statistical and DNA analyses.

Is there scientists whose job it is to actually do this ?

I do not think there are any people who do this full time. Taxonomy is about the lowest priority there is when it comes to funding with effectively no money at all available for descriptions, and everyone who describes new species do so as part of their job working with something else, often taking care of museum collections or as consultants doing inventories of areas before development (building dams etc). A number of people also describe species on a hobby basis. It is not always a good thing when people who are not experts describe species, I do not wish to name names but there are plenty of cases where bad species descriptions by non-experts (typically aquarists) have made continued work on the group much harder.

My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but i wonder if this will be done in my lifetime.

Maybe. The exploitation of the amazon, with all the new dams being built, will probably mean that at least some new species get described.

With so many species of fish, who decides which species of fish is to be described first, and how long does it take to describe a species of fish ?

You have to be able to say for sure that the species really is undescribed, which means that mostly experts on the group do this. As there is hardly any money available for taxonomy there's few full-time experts (you could easily count all loricariid experts, for instance) and for many minor groups there are no experts at all. The few tenured experts there are do their best, but as there are so very many undescribed species they naturally take the easiest or most threatened ones first.

This isn't unique to fish, it's the same in every group except mammals and birds.

I haven't described any species of fish, but I have described flatworms, and I've worked with people who described fish, and I'd say it takes an experienced expert at least one month of full-time work to describe one species.

Will all fish eventually become scientifically described ?

There will always be border cases, where it is unsure if it's a species or not, but I expect we'll have names for all obviously separate species in a hundred years or so.

With no disrespect to the people who describe fish, i appreciate their work, the term scientifically described makes me think of fish being researched in a laboratory, ie, comparing dna with other fish to see the difference.

Is dna testing of fish done, or am i being silly ?

Yes, various types of DNA analysis is often used as a complement to morphological analysis. Incidentally DNA analyses is what I do.
There is even a trend to describe fish ONLY from DNA analyses, because it is much faster than doing morphological analyses, a trend I personally consider harmful and misguided.

[Jools]

My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but I wonder if this will be done in my lifetime.
Plus, i am sure there are keepers of other catfish that would like them scientifically described.

Be careful what you wish for! As I don't know how old you are, I am not sure but I think that we will see several new Brazilian

Hypancistrus

in the next few years as they are being actively worked on. All of them? Maybe not. However the things used to tell them apart might not be useful for aquarists. For example, the size of an internal organ or bone might be the thing that tells L066 apart from L something else.

Let's wait and see.

Jools

[AndrewC]

Thanks for the replies, you have explained describing fish well

[taksan]

Thanks for the replies, you have explained describing fish well

What nobody mentioned ....how they actually do it.

First they go out into the wild and they catch and kill a whole heap of them. Then they stick them in jars with preservative as if they were pickles.

Not a fan .....

[macvsog23]

Thanks for the replies, you have explained describing fish well

What nobody mentioned ....how they actually do it.

First they go out into the wild and they catch and kill a whole heap of them. Then they stick them in jars with preservative as if they were pickles.

Not a fan .....

now on this subject as man has been clasified is a jar stashed away some were with the human holotype in it?

[Suckermouth]

Now, I haven't yet described my first fish yet (that's what I plan to spend spring semester getting into), but I thought I'd throw out a few extra thoughts.

Is there scientists whose job it is to actually do this ?

As has been noted, hardly anyone is a straight taxonomist. For example, my own advisor Jon Armbruster is also a professor at a university (and doesn't restrict his science to taxonomy). Other scientists, as noted by others, can do other types of work such as curatorial work in a museum (fish collection).

My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but i wonder if this will be done in my lifetime.
Plus, i am sure there are keepers of other catfish that would like them scientifically decribed.

I am not exactly optimistic. There have been people claiming to be working on Hypancistrus for quite some time, so Jools' claim that people are working on Hypancistrus is not exactly encouraging to me. No published progress has been made in the genus by anyone besides Jon Armbruster since the description of H. zebra, and his work has only been on species outside of Brazil.

All is not lost, however. There has also been an increased rate of Brazilian loricariid descriptions I've seen in the past couple years; although, I'm pretty sure these are mostly or all attributable to ACSI (All Catfish Species Inventory) which has ended, but hopefully that will continue (although we'll be seeing species descriptions from ACSI funding for a couple years to come). I have also heard there is currently a rapid increase in the number of Brazilian students studying to be taxonomists.

Another issue comes from the great variation in color patterns in Hypancistrus. My prediction is that there will be fewer Hypancistrus species than there are L-numbers. In other words, certain Hypancistrus species descriptions will be inclusive of numerous L-numbers. This may be because these different L-numbers really are the same species. On the other hand, it may be because whoever works on them isn't able to find enough specimens to meaningfully split different variants of certain Hypancistrus into different species; this is a very real issue in taxonomy and I'm predicting now that it's going to hinder good scientific description of Hypancistrus, at least in the Xingu. I'm not saying that every L-number is a separate species, but I can see that some of the variation will be overlooked due to lack of specimens.

But yes, I'm sure many of us would appreciate the description of Hypancistrus. As noted earlier, there is some interest in getting that done due to plans for dam construction.

Will all fish eventually become scientifically described ?

Once we describe "every" fish, we'll set out to split and merge them. A species identity is hypothetical, and taxonomists are there to test whether these hypotheses hold water. Taxonomy will continue even after every "kind" of animal has a hypothesized identity.

The problem with DNA is that you need to have good data for OTHER species in the same group, so that you can figure out how much difference there is between those and the "new species". And also how much the difference is WITHIN that new species, and within other species in the group. Unless there is already several hundred specimens sampled, that are close to what you are looking at, it's likely that the you'll have to do a lot of groundwork.

This is not a problem just with DNA, you also need the proper number of specimens to see morphological differences between and within species. The groundwork you mention is not necessarily laid out, especially with older species descriptions, you may have to redescribe older species so that their morphological data is good enough. This problem is compounded with larger genera, which makes working on large groups very difficult (ie. Corydoras, Hypostomus, Trichomycterus, etc.). Even morphologists are barely touching those groups because of the large number of specimens needed simply for morphological analysis.

On the other hand, the fact that DNA data can be uploaded to databases such as GenBank is VERY handy. Large-scale molecular analyses that would've been impossible without collaboration are made possible by this sharing of DNA data. This data sharing is NOT yet present in morphological studies, although Jon Armbruster is pushing to make this change with the All Cypriniformes Species Inventory.

I'm sure there are species described based on DNA "evidence", but I'm sure there are examples of that. I do know that there are scientific papers "re-arranging" the relationships between different species - for example Ariidae got some changes based on DNA evidence recently.

The first species described with DNA was only a few years ago. It is not a widely accepted practice. The use of DNA evidence is much more widely used in defining relationships, as you note, than for species description.

First they go out into the wild and they catch and kill a whole heap of them. Then they stick them in jars with preservative as if they were pickles.

Not a fan .....

The effect on wild populations of fish by local fishermen, for food or for the aquarium trade, is far greater than the affect of a couple scientists who go out every now and then.

Or is it the killing and putting in a jar aspect that bothers you? A holotype is very important in scientific description so that the identity of a species can be retested by future authors. Although there are some suggestions on what to do in the case of, for example, endangered species, a preserved specimen still beats any other alternative.

[Jools]

now on this subject as man has been clasified is a jar stashed away some were with the human holotype in it?

Only specimens named after 1931 are required to have holotypes, there is no need.

Jools

[taksan]

The effect on wild populations of fish by local fishermen, for food or for the aquarium trade, is far greater than the affect of a couple scientists who go out every now and then.Or is it the killing and putting in a jar aspect that bothers you? A holotype is very important in scientific description so that the identity of a species can be retested by future authors. Although there are some suggestions on what to do in the case of, for example, endangered species, a preserved specimen still beats any other alternative.

There is no possible excuse for deliberately killing a catfish in the name of science (or anything else for that matter). You need to find a non destructive way to study your subjects.

You wouldn't do it to say ...a Amur Leopard because of the uproar you know it would create. Yet its ok to do it to a 25 year old 2 foot long Panaque???

Errr... no its NOT ok at all ...at least in my view.

[macvsog23]

now on this subject as man has been clasified is a jar stashed away some were with the human holotype in it?

Only specimens named after 1931 are required to have holotypes, there is no need.

Jools

Thank god i would hate to find some jar with a manky human in it

[macvsog23]

The effect on wild populations of fish by local fishermen, for food or for the aquarium trade, is far greater than the affect of a couple scientists who go out every now and then.Or is it the killing and putting in a jar aspect that bothers you? A holotype is very important in scientific description so that the identity of a species can be retested by future authors. Although there are some suggestions on what to do in the case of, for example, endangered species, a preserved specimen still beats any other alternative.

There is no possible excuse for deliberately killing a catfish in the name of science (or anything else for that matter). You need to find a non destructive way to study your subjects.


For some reason i am starting to agree with this person.

You wouldn't do it to say ...a Amur Leopard because of the uproar you know it would create. Yet its ok to do it to a 25 year old 2 foot long Panaque???

Errr... no its NOT ok at all ...at least in my view.

[Mike_Noren]

There is no possible excuse for deliberately killing a catfish in the name of science (or anything else for that matter).

The reason they're stored is to have reference material, to have something to compare to in the future. But there's also other reasons, like "to preserve it from extinction". You can't protect a species if you don't even know it exists. Or, if it goes extinct anyway, to give future researchers an opportunity to study it.
If you put the fish in your aquarium, what good does it do after it dies? If you put it in a jar of alcohol a researcher 200 years from now can do DNA analyses, dissect it, put it under microscope, or use whatever new technology scientists 200 years from now might use.

You wouldn't do it to say ...a Amur Leopard

Actually, it has been done to amur leopards. The museum I worked for even had a Tasmanian Wolf in alcohol. The tasmanian wolf went extinct in 1936, but thanks to museum specimens like ours it has been possible to do DNA studies.

[racoll]

There is no possible excuse for deliberately killing a catfish in the name of science (or anything else for that matter).

Are you a vegetarian taksan? If you are, then your position is defensible. If not, then maybe you should wonder why you think catfish are any different to cattle, cod or sheep for example.

You wouldn't do it to say ...a Amur Leopard because of the uproar you know it would create. Yet its ok to do it to a 25 year old 2 foot long Panaque???

Amur leopards are critically endangered, so with an estimated population of 35 animals, so killing one would severely compromise conservation efforts. Panaque are not this endangered, so taking samples will not adversely affect their conservation status. The process must be guided by facts, not sentimentality.

You need to find a non destructive way to study your subjects.

If there were, people would do it, but there is simply no feasible way to extract sufficient information in the field to be of value for current descriptions or future work in hundreds of years time. Fieldwork is expensive, and specimens are a lot easier to access in jars than in rivers.

Even recently published descriptions are rarely available on line, or if they are, are sold by the publishing journal.Modern taxonomy is still very much paper based.

Not sure I agree with this Shane. All reputable peer-reviewed journals have an online edition now. Whether or not one has a subscription, is another matter altogether. I personally believe all scientific publications should be open access (free to all), but this would require a huge shift in the way the system works.

My interest is hypancistrus, and with the confusion over id'ing hypancistrus, it would help a lot if each species were scientifically described, but i wonder if this will be done in my lifetime. Plus, i am sure there are keepers of other catfish that would like them scientifically decribed.

I think the main problems are a lack of funding for taxonomy and as usual, politics.

Taxonomy is seen by many, including other scientists, as an endless and ultimately pointless activity. There may be 10-20 million species on earth, and describing them all will take a very, very long time, seeing as in 250 years we have only managed 2 million. I don't agree, but this is the common perception.

Many countries are also very hostile to foreign scientists working on "their" biodiversity, and taking important money making secrets (biomedicines etc) away with them, patenting them, and "stealing" the money. This attitude towards bio-piracy has roots in the 19th Century, when rubber plants were taken from Brazil and planted across the world, depriving Brazil of important revenue. Therefore, getting permits etc is very difficult.

There is even a trend to describe fish ONLY from DNA analyses, because it is much faster than doing morphological analyses, a trend I personally consider harmful and misguided.

People always say this, but it just isn't happening. I would love to see some examples Mike? One that springs to my mind is the woeful description of three Hemidactylus geckos by Leache and Fujita (2010), but I can't think of many others.

[taksan]

Actually, it has been done to amur leopards.

These days it wouldn't be done...imagine the uproar .... there is no excuse whatsoever in the modern age to destroy a species in order to study it you can take DNA from living animals and preserve it.

[taksan]

Are you a vegetarian taksan? If you are, then your position is defensible. If not, then maybe you should wonder why you think catfish are any different to cattle, cod or sheep for example.

I'm not a vegetarian but I will not eat wild caught animals only domestic animals raised for the specific purpose, and I wouldn't ever eat a fish at all ,heck I don't even go catch and release fishing anymore not even with circle hooks.

The process must be guided by facts, not sentimentality.

That was the same kind of scientific mentality that Josef Mengele operated under.... ends justifies the means eh?
In these enlightened times its utter rubbish to suggest it is sentimental to want to save a fish from ending up in a jar ? Maybe its sentimental to people who actually couldn't care less about fish and are only interested in counting their spines to see how they differ from the one in the river next door but to someone who loves their fish its hardly sentimental to want to protect them. We have no right to destroy a species in order to study it. What if alien scientists arrived and wanted some human "samples" ...would you be happy to be a "sample"? What about your children as "samples"? I'd bet you wouldn't. Was it moral for Scientist's in the 1800 to take "samples" of natives from the colony's back to England to be "described" for science ? Of course not, yet its evidently acceptable for scientists to kill large Panaques ? It is unacceptable, completely unacceptable that in 2010 we have these outdated and destructive practices continuing in the name of science.

Nobody who genuinely loves catfish could possibly agree for them to be killed to be placed in jars.

[Mike_Noren]

People always say this, but it just isn't happening. I would love to see some examples Mike? One that springs to my mind is the woeful description of three Hemidactylus geckos by Leache and Fujita (2010), but I can't think of many others.

Yes you're right, to call it a trend was overstating it, I can't think of any examples of actual descriptions based on nothing but DNA sequences either.

[racoll]

We have no right to destroy a species in order to study it.

Indeed you are right, but as I say, specimens are only collected when they are suitably abundant to not impact on their population. It is the long-term population which is important, not the individual.

In my mind, consumerism, population growth and unsustainability are are the real threats to species, not the sacrifice of a few individuals for science.

hat was the same kind of scientific mentality that Josef Mengele operated under.... ends justifies the means eh?

Yes, entirely. Scientists aren't maniacal sadists. They don't enjoy killing fish, but there is just no other way of effectively doing an absolutely necessary task.

If our ultimate goal is to protect biodiversity and ecosystem function, then scientific study and description are the first stage in documenting and understanding it. Species are the basic units of biodiversity.

Is it wrong or immoral to kill any living creature for any reason? Something to think about next time you put bleach in the toilet, swat a fly, run over a hedgehog, squash a spider, tuck into a steak or buy a product containing palm oil or aluminium for example ...

[Suckermouth]

We have no right to destroy a species to study it; on this, we agree. No scientist who destroys a species for study is conducting their work responsibly. However, the aquarium trade is far more likely to destroy a species; I can guarantee that magnitudes more loricariids have already died for the aquarium trade than have died for science. Does the end justify these deaths? Do you have a way of obtaining fish for the aquarium that is less destructive than scientists are?

Furthermore, even if you were able to find a way to obtain fish for your aquarium without "collateral damage", what right do you have to take fish from the wild? What if alien petkeepers arrived and wanted some human "pets"? Would you be happy to be a pet? What about your children? I bet you wouldn't. Turning the fish into humans doesn't benefit either side of the argument.

The effect people can have through habitat destruction is immense. The deaths due to scientific collections and aquarium industry are insignificant compared to the destruction that will be wrought by dams, mining, deforestation, and other activities. Before a species can be effectively protected it needs to be scientifically described so we know what to protect. Perhaps, to someone who only cares to have these fish confined in glass boxes, this may seem sentimental, but I hope that these fish will still be around in the future due to responsible management, which is only possible with scientific description. If there is the unfortunate circumstance that these fish disappear from the planet, it will not be my hands, and hopefully there will at least be scientific record of what once existed, rather than vanishing without anyone ever knowing.

A species should be preserved and not destroyed? Using a living organism is wrong? Fish should be protected? If scientists are doing something wrong, I fail to see how aquarists are any better.

[taksan]

what right do you have to take fish from the wild?

I'm saving them from the Brazilian government

[Jools]

Nobody who genuinely loves catfish could possibly agree for them to be killed to be placed in jars.

Paul,

Your theory is quite incorrect. I have devoted nearly 20 years of my life to running this site for the love of catfishes. I agree with killing small numbers of individuals to facilitate classification now and for the future. I take this view because I can see no better solution.

Therefore do you suggest my passion for catfish is not genuine?

Jools

[macvsog23]

Jools

I may not agree with you on many points but I and most people who use this site would never doubt your love and commitment of catfish.
In the 40 plus years I have been an avid keeper of fish no one has given me so much knowledge as you have.

The subject of cruelty to fish will run for ever.
May I suggest we keep it for other forums and other places?
As fish keepers we have all been guilty of misunderstanding fish and we have all had to adapt our ideas to suite.
On the subject of Taksan,s posts
I am quite shocked at the statement about not killing to eat and being happy to eat food grown for eating but as I said it’s not the place to debate the choice of killing for food or having your food kept under conditions so disgusting they promote people to violent action.
I also ask that we keep Dr Hauptsturmführer Josef Mengele out of this. He is dead he is history. Again this matter can be discussed in other forums.

[Jools]

Kind of you to say so, but not much of it is just my knowledge, much has come from our small army of contributors and volunteers. I would not like to speak for them and their opinions, hence why I am offering mine.

Jools