Split: Panaqolus (again)

Juan_P · Post by **Juan_P** » 06 Oct 2003, 22:03

Hi

i Have another question (siento ser pesado).

Panaqolus is not a valid genus, so the fish would have to fit in Panaque or Peckoltia.

if the genus Panaqolus is not a valid genus, why it appear at the cat e log?

thanks!!!

saludos desde PanamÃ¡

Walter · Post by **Walter** » 08 Oct 2003, 17:59

Hi,

Juan_P wrote: if the genus Panaqolus is not a valid genus, why it appear at the cat e log?

because it is a valid genus.
Silly quarrel between ichthyologists.

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 08 Oct 2003, 20:12

Hello everybody,

because Panaqolus is a genus of which I am a co-author, my opinion is of course, that it is a valid genus. At the moment there are rumours that Armbruster is not of the same opinion as we (IsaÃ¤c IsbrÃ¼cker and me), but this is just rumours, and no paper so far is published about his theory.

So far he did not say which arguments make him believe that both taxa are only one genus. I can't think of any arguments, which would be strong enough to substantiate his beliefs.

In my eyes Panaqolus is even closer related to Peckoltia as it is to Panaque. Dentition is something what can change very fast in evolution, if a species switches to another trophic group.

Best Wishes

Erwin

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 08 Oct 2003, 21:12

Erwin wrote:Hello everybody,

In my eyes Panaqolus is even closer related to Peckoltia as it is to Panaque. Dentition is something what can change very fast in evolution, if a species switches to another trophic group.

Best Wishes

Erwin

Hi Erwin!

I agree on that topic, it can be clearly seen with cichlids for exemple. As you are the co- author, could you explain us what would seperate Peckoltia form Panaqolus beside the tooth.

Cheers
Yann

Post by **Shane** » 09 Oct 2003, 03:28

Erwin (and others),
As Erwin and many others know, I have supported Erwin's idea that Panaqolus is a distinct genus from Panaque. That said, I made the comment above not because I disagree with Erwin and Isaac but because Chockley and Armbruster published a paper stating, "Recently, Isbrucker et al (2001) proposed the genus name Panoqolus (sic) for the Panaque dentex species group. As Panaque, with the P. dentex species group included, is a small well-diagnosed, and easily identifiable genus, we feel that the recognition of a new genus is unwarranted. Therefore, we treat Panoqolus (sic) as a junior synonym of Panaque."
Since this paper, B. R. Chockley and HJ. W. Armbruster, Panaque changae, a new species of catfish (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from eastern Peru. Ichthyol. Explor. Freshwaters Vol. 13 No. 1 pp. 81-90. May 2002. is the latset published word (to my knowledge) on the topic, I followed it. My statement had nothing to do with my personal opinion.

The only thing I disagreed with Erwin on was the name for the genus. Panaque is an interesting llanero word used in both the Venezuelan and Colombian llanos for Panaque nigrolineatus. I have never heard this word used for any other loricariid. All other large loricariids are called corroncho, cucha, or armadillo and are lumped together. Only P. nigrolineatus is specifically (I mean that literally "as a species") identified by this unique name. I thought that the genus should be Panaquito meaning "little Panaque."

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 09 Oct 2003, 08:57

Chockley and Armbruster is why I will be moving Panaqolus into Panaque with about the same speed I adopted the former genus. Again, as Shane emotes, this is nothing to do with side taking, just following the latest views. I'll probably sink Cochliodon while I'm at it. Site wide this will take me about 8 - 10 hours work. I do not undertake it lightly!

Jools

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 09 Oct 2003, 09:00

Hi Shane, and others,

It was exactly this very poor and scrubby statement in Chockley & Armbruster, what is not useful in this contest. If a group of creatures is characterised by the possession of four legs, does it mean it cannot be subdiveded into different genera? If you look at the genus description of Panaque, than you will see, that its differentiation is about that.

This does not mean it is of bad quality. As long you will not find other creatures (and now back to Panaque) with few, and spoonshaped theath, and they do not show other characters which make them separate, so it is a good definiton. But in case of Panaqolus there are differences in other characters.

Panaqolus means also "little Panaque", not in Spanish but in Latin.

Erwin

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 09 Oct 2003, 12:03

Hi Yann,

At the moment it is very problematic to tell about any differeces correlated with Peckoltia, because this genus needs to be revised. We just have been teached, that Cochliodon, which is really (talking with Armbrusters words) a "small well-diagnosed, and easily identifiable genus", has been synonized with Hypostomus. So there might be arguments, that Panaqolus is just a wood-eating form of Peckoltia. But this had to be seen.

The other problem is, that there might be more genera in this wood-eating Panaque/Panaqolus group. For instance all those fork-tailed Panaques (e.g. L90, "L186a") don't fit so good in Panaque nor in Panaqolus. And there exists one species with extremly Acanthicus-like serrations on the flanks, but with spoon-shaped teeth.

But that's future.

Erwin

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 09 Oct 2003, 12:58

Erwin,

If Armbruster et al had accepted the validity of Panaqolus, wouldn't the new species have been described as Panaqolus changae? Is not the continued use of Panaque in this paper the main statement in addition to the comments Shane quotes?

Jools

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 09 Oct 2003, 15:06

Hi Jools,

It is a rule in science, that one doesn't had to accept a new genus. And also you can follow those who put a genus name into synonymy, or you don't. It is up to you, if you publish somewhere a statement, why you disagree with a new genus name, but you don't have to. Of course on the other hand it is a kind of silly, not to give any statement. Or let me say, it would be a kind of stubborness to ignore a genus if there are objective facts for its validity. In cichlids for instance (I hope no children are reading this, I really used the bad word "cichlids"), you will find today scientists who are still using "Haplochromis" for all, or at least most of the Lake Victoria haplochromines, and others which still follow Greenwood's revision.

It is up to the individual person to say, the characters A, B, and C are subdividing this group from the whole group, or to say the two groups are not far enough from each other to erase a new genus for one of them. In case of Haplochromis for instance, somebody wrote a whole paper, why he thinks this genus should be used instead to follow Greenwood. The "Panaque-dentex-Clade" was already before we created Panaqolus, an avowed group within Panaque. But our opinion is, together with some more characters, that there are enough reasons for an own genus. I think one is a good scientist if one disagrees with us AND one finds any statements why one disagrees. But I did not find such a statement yet, Chockley & Armbruster didn't eigther. Therefore Panaque changae has of course to be transferred to Panaqolus!

I cannot see a statement in a continued use of Panaque in Chockley & Armbruster, at least not a substantial one. For me it has more the touch of stubborness and ignorance. Was this said to drastically? I guess than I have expressed myself correctly.

Erwin

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 09 Oct 2003, 15:18

Hi!

I find this "fight" very interesting! Is there any communication between the two groups? I dont know how much of an enemy usa vs. europe are but cant a thing like this in a small community be solved by discussion to find common ground?
I know from geography thta different universitys and even in our department Profs are fighting each other but in a world of emails and discussion boards this whole thing seems a bit like boys fighting...stubborness and ignorance seems to be fitting here.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 09 Oct 2003, 15:28

Caol_ila wrote:Hi!

I find this "fight" very interesting! Is there any communication between the two groups? I dont know how much of an enemy usa vs. europe are but cant a thing like this in a small community be solved by discussion to find common ground?
I know from geography thta different universitys and even in our department Profs are fighting each other but in a world of emails and discussion boards this whole thing seems a bit like boys fighting...stubborness and ignorance seems to be fitting here.

This sort of thing happens all the time, only we're a bit closer to it than usual becuase aquarists are involved. I don't think it's a USA vs Europe thing, that would be sensationalist.

Jools

Post by **Silurus** » 09 Oct 2003, 15:55

Systematists can be a very dogmatic bunch. One only has to look at something like Taxacom (a systematics mailing list).
Although the arguments are of more fundamental issues (there is one starting on molecular phylogeny right now), you pretty much get the idea...

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 09 Oct 2003, 16:25

Erwin wrote:Hi Jools,

It is a rule in science, that one doesn't have to accept a new genus. And also you can follow those who put a genus name into synonymy, or you don't. It is up to you, if you publish somewhere a statement, why you disagree with a new genus name, but you don't have to. Of course on the other hand it is a kind of silly, not to give any statement.

After running this site for 7 years I have enough understanding of this stuff to have grasped the above.

Maybe I didn't explain myself well previously. What I meant was that by NOT describing the fish specifically as Panaqolus changae then we have clear indication that the genus will not be used in future at least by Armbruster (and probably the greater majority of ichthyologists working with that family). It is early days yet but I think that is a good guess?

Erwin wrote:It is up to the individual person to say, the characters A, B, and C are subdividing this group from the whole group, or to say the two groups are not far enough from each other to erase a new genus for one of them.

Again, I know this but I avoid the decision of personally deciding who I wish to follow. In terms of running PlanetCatfish I cannot work the way you describe. I do not feel I can make a judgement call on the placement of all species we show based on merit - even with the considerable input of many, many aquarists and scientists alike. Also, it would be at least unfair to spend all that time on "fashionable" species or genera and ignore or be ignorant of others (why aren't we having this debate regarding the splitting of Pimelodidae for example). What I do is follow the latest scientific work albiet with a bit of guesswork on the "adoption rate" of new placement. Normally this takes years but this forum has greatly accelerated this process with this genus at least.

Give you an example. Several years ago, we all knew Zonancistrus pulcher wasn't a Peckoltia. Given the genera available at the time the most likely placement would have been in Dekeyseria. Now, I wasn't about to make a judgement call and change it - EVEN IF it had previously been in Dekeyseria many years ago. This situation still exists to some degree as the long term acceptance of Zonancistrus is yet to unravelled along with many of the other "DATZ 14" genera.

To be clear on this however I WILL make this judgement call in the special case of undescribed or unidentifed l-numbers as they, like me, have no formal basis in science. Fortunately c-numbers are not encumbered with too much discussion over generic placement (yet!?!).

What I'm saying here is that BECAUSE P. changae was described as a Panaque (and not in ignorance of Panaqolus as it is discussed in the paper) that following my own rules I have to revert to using Panaque. As an aside I do not think it appears in CLOFFSCA either but I am not certain as my copy is still "in the post".

Give you another example. I personally wouldn't move all Cochliodon into Hypostomus, but that will also be done. I don't feel confident not to do so. I am a highly qualified software engineer who likes keeping fish, I am not an ichthyologist and do not want to be. Well, not until I make my fortune...

Anyway, using my own rules if someone comes back with a full, competent description of a new Panaqolus then it'll u-turn again. I'm sure such a description would provide much more detail on the specific scope and characterisitics of the genus.

In summary, this is the only choice I have if I am not to take sides nor make "gut feeling" decisions. I also accept that given the amount of personal investment you have in this issue that I am unlikely to change your opinion. It is very healthy indeed to discuss it openly like this.

I hope you can now understand why PlanetCatfish will revert to Panaque.

Jools

Post by **Dinyar** » 09 Oct 2003, 17:00

Interestingly enough, FB does not recognize Panaqolus either.

I'd like to humbly make three suggestions:

First, if PlanetCatfish does change all Panaqolus to Panaque, why not insert a note in the data fields referring to this ongoing controversy and the explanation Jools just presented above?

Second, more or less as implied by Christian, why not send an email to Armbruster referring to this discussion and inviting his participation?

Finally, would it not make sense to split this off as a separate topic in the Taxonomy forum?

Dinyar

Post by **Silurus** » 09 Oct 2003, 17:09

Interestingly enough, FB does not recognize Panaqolus either.

There is an inherent lag in FB, which is usually a matter of months (or even years). Something that is bound to happen with a database this big.

Erwin · Post by **Erwin** » 09 Oct 2003, 17:24

Indeed does FB sometimes needs somebody who is pointing to this kind of changes. Eschmeyer was faster, he doesn't ignore it.

Erwin

Yann · Post by **Yann** » 09 Oct 2003, 19:06

Hi

Dinyar wrote:Interestingly enough, FB does not recognize Panaqolus either.

I had a talk with Sonia Fish-Muller, Claude Weber, and other Ichtyologue friends form the MNHN, all of them do not recognise Panaqolus and other genus form that Datz special. And I am almost sure that most if not all Brasilian Ichtyologs do not recognize it either.

Dinyar wrote:
I'd like to humbly make three suggestions:

First, if PlanetCatfish does change all Panaqolus to Panaque, why not insert a note in the data fields referring to this ongoing controversy and the explanation Jools just presented above?

I made this same proposition several days ago... it would make a broader view on the topic and not illuminate one perticuliar view... it would be also fair to everyone, if I could put it this way

Dinyar wrote:
Second, more or less as implied by Christian, why not send an email to Armbruster referring to this discussion and inviting his participation?

I also think it would be a great idea and would be interesting to know the reasons. it could be also nice if other Ichtyologs that are heads in Loricariidae could post their views on this topic.

Erwin:

wouldn't have been better to transfer the Panaque dentex clade into Peckoltia until it undergoes major revision instead of creating a new genus?
Don't you think that by creating a new genus for that clade, it was a way to force the Peckoltia revision and by securing this new genus for history and make that Datz edition a must have item... sort of a marketing action for some and an ego satisfaction for other (Nothing against you Erwin, I truly respect your work, but sadly I have lost some for IsbrÃ¼cker, he used to do so much better).

Regarding the the passage regarding Panaqolus in Chokley and Armbruster, you say that it is too small to make it a valuable argument, but what to say about several genus description from IsbrÃ¼cker in that Datz...some amateurs could do better, look like description from the past century...

Just my appology for those I might have hurt with my words...
Again Erwin, I hope you don't take it personnally I have nothing against you...
Cheers
Yann

Post by **Silurus** » 09 Oct 2003, 19:19

wouldn't have been better to transfer the Panaque dentex clade into Peckoltia until it undergoes major revision instead of creating a new genus?

That doesn't sound like a viable alternative. I am not sure at the moment how deeply nested the P. dentex group is within Panaque, but doing what you suggest would most likely mean that you would have to call everything else in Panaque clade Peckoltia as well.
A more prudent solution would be to leave everything in Panaque.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 09 Oct 2003, 19:45

Dinyar wrote:Finally, would it not make sense to split this off as a separate topic in the Taxonomy forum?

Done. I think a couple of entries in our new FAQ gizmo (still in alpha in rusty's lab) born out of this topic would be a good idea and I will reference them from the cat-elog entries.

Jools

Post by **Silurus** » 09 Oct 2003, 19:48

I had a talk with Sonia Fish-Muller, Claude Weber, and other Ichtyologue friends form the MNHN, all of them do not recognise Panaqolus and other genus form that Datz special. And I am almost sure that most if not all Brasilian Ichtyologs do not recognize it either.

This is part of the ongoing effort of systematic ichthyologists to decry the legitimacy of results published in what is known as "gray literature" (e.g. aquarium journals and other publications that are not peer-reviewed).
I don't want to digress any more on this lest we go off on a tangent (plus this is a subject that I have passionate feelings for and I would have a lot to say).
Suffice to say that a long time ago, I had considered publishing descriptions of new species in TFH. I am now glad I never followed up on that, for that would be tantamount to commiting professional suicide

Post by **Shane** » 10 Oct 2003, 20:50

Just have to point out that I strongly agree with HH on this point. Isbrucker et al was not published in a peer reviewed journal. Had it beed subjected to review and revision I think it would have been a stronger paper and we would not be having most of this discussion. Just a point in favor of keeping stuff out of the gray literature (not to be confused with Jools' Purple Prose!).
-Shane

Caol_ila · Post by **Caol_ila** » 15 Oct 2003, 10:28

Hi!

Just to refresh the discussion a bit...has anybody with previous contact tried to invite Jon A. to this discussion?

greets

Post by **Silurus** » 15 Oct 2003, 11:47

(Broken link was: http://forum.planetcatfish.com/viewtopic.php?t=3405)
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3405

See the post by Carachama.

[Mod edit: fix link that was broken a long time ago in a site re-org --Mats]

niederle · Post by **niederle** » 22 Nov 2006, 14:03

Erwin wrote:Indeed does FB sometimes needs somebody who is pointing to this kind of changes. Eschmeyer was faster, he doesn't ignore it.

Erwin

The latter is more useful with its mostly objective information. Only the accepted name at the end of a record is subjective. The former contains too much errors.

niederle