What's in a name?

Norm · Post by **Norm** » 23 Dec 2014, 15:21

After an unknown pleco in my tank died at the ripe old age of about 20, I began the search for a new one. With budget, tank size, desire for something peaceful, wanting something that eats algae, etc, I finally settled on Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus. I went to my local store, inquired about plecos, and asked if they had a common pleco. They said "sure", and showed me a monster over 2 feet long! I said, "sorry...I mean a common bristlenose, Ancistrus cf. cirrhosus". The owner looked at me with one of those glares, and snarled "You don't know what you are talking about. Bristlenose are Ancistrus sp. Would you like a red or albino?" I realized I had best not argue the case and went elsewhere. They said, "Oh, yes...common bristlenose. They get about 2 feet big. I hope you have a large aquarium". I showed them a picture and they disputed it was a bristlenose, and insisted the "common pleco" gets 2 feet big. I went online, and corresponded with some folks and they said common bristlenose are ancistrus sp. I was really confused by this point and here, on plantecatfish, I searched for ancistrus cf and got what I was looking for; a fish that looks nice, females less pronounced on the bristles, tough, peaceful, likes algae, and mature size fits my tank. I searched for ancistrus sp on planetcatfish and got TONS of fish, and no "common bristlenose" or "common pleco". Another source said ancistrus cf do not have an L catalog number. I can't find anyone who stocks or sells the "common" pleco bristlenose (much less sexed), and the "common" pleco I have found in 3 stores in the Seattle are some kind that looks similar to ancistrus cf. cirrhosus but will get HUGE!! (and the store staff or owners could not provide scientific names or catalog numbers). This is so confusing! Why is there so much sloppy identification --- or in my ignorance am I just missing something? Seems to me stores should label fish with their common AND scientific names!! Where do I find the little lady on this site, http://www.planetcatfish.com/common/spe ... cies_id=49 Sure doesn't seem to be all that common! Oh, and I can't find an explanation on the difference between ancistrus cf. and ancistrus sp. Help??

Mol_PMB · Post by **Mol_PMB** » 23 Dec 2014, 15:33

Well firstly, a bristlenose is a great choice

A 'common plec' is not the same as a bristlenose. There are 2 or 3 species described as 'common plecs' and they all get over a foot long.

Bristlenose plecs are from the genus Ancistrus but there are quite a lot of different species in the genus. Add to that, there are a number of 'man-made' line-bred variants like the red ones.

Bristlenoses are all fairly small.

Some bristlenoses have proper species names (such as Ancistrus dolichopterus) while others are identified with an L number (such as L183) but may not have been formally described as a species.
The cf means 'a bit like' in layman's terms. Most bristlenoses in the hobby are believed to be some sort of Ancistrus hybrid and are usually described as Ancistrus cf cirrhosus.

That's a non-expert's description, I'm sure someone more expert will be along soon

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Norm · Post by **Norm** » 23 Dec 2014, 15:50

The cf description you offered helps! Now, if I can just find somewhere to buy one like the specimen photographed for Planet Catfish!! The picture from Planet Catfish for the one I want is beautiful and very similar to the one I had that died, though mine was bigger. A lot of the bristlenose pictures I have seen are not nearly as striking, nor are they as elongated. I sincerely appreciate your contribution to my quest for knowledge, and now all I have to do is find one like the picture!!

Post by **Shane** » 23 Dec 2014, 15:56

The strange thing about this hobby is that the buyer knows more than the seller 9 times out of 10. This causes us all the same frustrations you experienced above, but sometimes works to our advantage. I think most of us have also had a pet store sell us a rare, expensive fish for almost nothing. Imagine car a dealership where the salesperson could not distinguish a Dodge Neon from a Dodge Viper... and was willing to argue the misidentification with customers.

sp is just the abbreviation for the word "species" and spp is the plural. So Ancistrus sp is ANY species of Ancistrus while Ancistrus spp is ALL species of Ancistrus.

cf is the abbreviation for "confer" and means that we are not sure of the animal's true identification but that it looks most like the sp that we are conferring. So A cf cirrhosus means that the fish is possibly not A cirrhosus but that A cirrhosus is the closest match.

Seattle has some great stores. If you have not tried yet stop by That Fish Place in the U District or Blue Sierra in Issaquah or Aquarium Paradise in Lakewood.

-Shane

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 23 Dec 2014, 16:53

I can understand shops not knowing the specifics of each and fish they sell but there are some basic species and families that really should be so well known that its unbelievable a member of staff would get it wrong - and especially when presented with evidence.

Common pleco (an accepted name) and the Common BN (because its the most common BN/Ancistrus!) do get confused on occasion where I live too, however never have I had to do anything greater than nudge people in the right direction. Why they should get so defensive and confused by such basics is odd.

I searched for ancistrus sp on planetcatfish and got TONS of fish, and no "common bristlenose" or "common pleco"

Did you search for 'common'? Both fish show up on the results. Unfortunately searching by Latin name will often bring up just those of that family/species without the synonyms or common names.

Maybe its different across the pond but Common BNs are indeed very common in the UK, and apparently across Europe as a whole.
Unfortunately Common plecs (ie not BNs) are also too common and mis-sold on a regular basis as 'algae eaters' for newbies.
...
So many uses of the word 'common'...

Norm · Post by **Norm** » 23 Dec 2014, 17:32

Thanks Shane and DPM1. Yes, the word "common" opens up a whole Pandora's box! I sincerely appreciate the information and am learning as I go. I am ignorant, but I can learn! Shane, I will have to check the stores out you mentioned. I have been to one of them, but always looking for new places. I am closer to BC than Seattle, but get down there. Next time I make the journey I will check it out.

Post by **Shane** » 23 Dec 2014, 17:38

Norm,
I did my undergraduate studies at Western in Bellingham a long time ago. Clarks is still there and a great fish store.
-Shane

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 23 Dec 2014, 20:28

This thread was split across two duplicate posts. At Viktor's eagle eyed prompting, I've combined the replies and deleted the duplicate original post. I think the discussion still flows...

Cheers,

Jools

Lew Carbone · Post by **Lew Carbone** » 12 Jan 2015, 16:03

What bugs me: When hobbyists are trying to sell common, hobby BNs, of any color/finnage variety, and label them A. dolichophterus or A. temminckii.

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 12 Jan 2015, 16:45

My advice for dealing with fish store staff*: never, ever use scientific names (it just confuses them and sometimes makes them angry), but never, ever use common names either, as this also results in confusion. In fact, it's best not to speak to them at all.

I recommend doing a lot of reading, studying, and learn for yourself what the difference between these species are. If you are not sure and need to check, then take some pictures in the store with your phone camera. Always ask permission to do this beforehand, and never say that you are double-checking their IDs (this will result in more anger and confusion); just make up some excuse like you are buying the fish for your daughter/husband/wife as a present, but you need to check with them first that they like it (or something like that).

*I'm talking about the approx 98% of bad fish stores. Even better advice is to drive a little further and spend your money at one of the 2% of excellent fish stores.

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 17:31

*warning - non-catfish species named below... well I did warn you!*

racoll wrote:My advice for dealing with fish store staff*: never, ever use scientific names (it just confuses them and sometimes makes them angry), but never, ever use common names either, as this also results in confusion. In fact, it's best not to speak to them at all.

Some fish don't have common names!...eg Nanochromis transvestitus which I describe to shop staff as 'miniature kribs with the colours swapped between sexes' (I've had a few !?! but it gets the message across)

If using common names make sure they are common (and universal!). Galaxy Rasbora are now known as Celestial Pearl Danios, although most shops called them the former. Also they are neither Rasbora nor Danios having recently been reclassified again but 'Celestial Pearl Celestichthys' does have the same ring to it.

I say speak to staff as often as possible and impart knowledge with a firm hand and a broad smile - sometimes I think the only way they will learn is if I tell them how to Identify and care for their fish! (Shouldn't it be the other way around?)

racoll wrote:I recommend doing a lot of reading, studying, and learn for yourself what the difference between these species are. If you are not sure and need to check, then take some pictures in the store with your phone camera. Always ask permission to do this beforehand, and never say that you are double-checking their IDs (this will result in more anger and confusion)

Best new fishkeeping tool - Smartphone!

Use it liberally for checking labels vs fish - surprising how many times they don't match!

And if questioned a bit of quick thinking 'there are so many similar species' or 'wasn't sure on compatibility' as opposed to 'your labeling is (insert swear word)'...unless of course you know the staff well enough to say ' I see the madness has set in again' as you point to the Otocinclus labeled as a Dwarf Whiptail...

...Or worse yet find some completely made up name that even google fails to discover a matching picture of (Entomocorus gameroi 'Penguin woodcat' - or as the shop called them 'Black Tip wood catfish'!)

YouTube · Post by **bekateen** » 12 Jan 2015, 17:39

norm wrote:Now, if I can just find somewhere to buy one like the specimen photographed for Planet Catfish!!

Norm, did you ever find your bristlenoses? If not, you might find them at PetSmart or Petco. I realize that their live fish vary in different regions of the country, and honestly I'm not a fan of buying from the big chain pet stores, but in Central California, every PetSmart I've been to keeps both regular and albino bristlnoses, for about 6-7 dollars each. They are pretty small (about 3/4" long), but at least they are present. My local Petco also carries them and their prices are slightly better than PetSmart's; but at least in my area, the Petco stores don't take as good a care of their fish as do the PetSmart stores.
Cheers, Eric

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 12 Jan 2015, 18:05

dpm1 wrote: Galaxy Rasbora are now known as Celestial Pearl Danios, although most shops called them the former. Also they are neither Rasbora nor Danios having recently been reclassified again but 'Celestial Pearl Celestichthys' does have the same ring to it.

Actually they are danios. I actually had an argument in a store about this with an assistant. Went something like this:

Me (making conversation): "Hey these are looking nice, can I have 10 please. Did you know that they are now actually danios, and not rasboras?"

Him: "Actually no, they are rasboras".

Me: "Yes, the taxonomy can be confusing, and they were long misidentified as rasboras by the aquarium trade. They got described as a new genus Celestichthys by Roberts, which was then synonymised into Danio by Conway.

Him: "No, definitely rasboras, look at the label".

Me: "I think the label is wrong then. I actually know a little bit about these fishes you see".

Him: "Yeah, we get a lot of customers who think they know everything".

Me: "I didn't say I know everything, I just said I know about danios. I did my PhD on them."

Him: "Yeah whatever, I'm not going to argue with you. I study music. I just work here on a Saturday. I don't know much about fish actually."

Me: "Okay fine, so 10 of the danios, sorry rasboras, then please.

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 18:53

racoll wrote:
dpm1 wrote: Galaxy Rasbora are now known as Celestial Pearl Danios, although most shops called them the former. Also they are neither Rasbora nor Danios having recently been reclassified again but 'Celestial Pearl Celestichthys' does have the same ring to it.
Actually they are danios. I actually had an argument in a store about this with an assistant. Went something like this:

"Yes, the taxonomy can be confusing, and they were long misidentified as rasboras by the aquarium trade. They got described as a new genus Celestichthys by Roberts, which was then synonymised into Danio by Conway.

But that's not the end of the story
http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/ce ... garitatus/
Other morphological similarities, such as the presence of the ‘danionin notch‘ on the lower jaw, were also recorded, and as a result Celestichthys was placed in synonymy of Danio with the authors preferring to recognise a broader concept of the latter rather than maintain the former. This situation lasted until 2013 when Kottelat revalidated Celestichthys.

The synonym has gone the same way as many an L-number, however in a similar fashion it seems destined to hang around because 'it sounds better'...(and easier to spell!)

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 18:55

dpm1 wrote:
racoll wrote:
dpm1 wrote: Galaxy Rasbora are now known as Celestial Pearl Danios, although most shops called them the former. Also they are neither Rasbora nor Danios having recently been reclassified again but 'Celestial Pearl Celestichthys' does have the same ring to it.
Actually they are danios. I actually had an argument in a store about this with an assistant. Went something like this:

"Yes, the taxonomy can be confusing, and they were long misidentified as rasboras by the aquarium trade. They got described as a new genus Celestichthys by Roberts, which was then synonymised into Danio by Conway.
But that's not the end of the story
http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/ce ... garitatus/
Other morphological similarities, such as the presence of the ‘danionin notch‘ on the lower jaw, were also recorded, and as a result Celestichthys was placed in synonymy of Danio with the authors preferring to recognise a broader concept of the latter rather than maintain the former. This situation lasted until 2013 when Kottelat revalidated Celestichthys.

The synonym has gone the same way as many an L-number, however in a similar fashion it seems destined to hang around because 'it sounds better'...(and easier to spell!)

...technically they were never Rasbora either, rather Microrasbora sp 'Galaxy'

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 18:56

racoll wrote:
dpm1 wrote: Galaxy Rasbora are now known as Celestial Pearl Danios, although most shops called them the former. Also they are neither Rasbora nor Danios having recently been reclassified again but 'Celestial Pearl Celestichthys' does have the same ring to it.
Actually they are danios. I actually had an argument in a store about this with an assistant. Went something like this:

"Yes, the taxonomy can be confusing, and they were long misidentified as rasboras by the aquarium trade. They got described as a new genus Celestichthys by Roberts, which was then synonymised into Danio by Conway.

But that's not the end of the story...
http://www.seriouslyfish.com/species/ce ... garitatus/
Other morphological similarities, such as the presence of the ‘danionin notch‘ on the lower jaw, were also recorded, and as a result Celestichthys was placed in synonymy of Danio with the authors preferring to recognise a broader concept of the latter rather than maintain the former. This situation lasted until 2013 when Kottelat revalidated Celestichthys.

The synonym has gone the same way as many an L-number, however in a similar fashion it seems destined to hang around because 'it sounds better'...(and easier to spell!)

...technically they were never Rasbora either, rather Microrasbora sp 'Galaxy'

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 12 Jan 2015, 19:19

Right you are! Had no idea Kottelat did that. I stopped working on danios in 2012.

Reinforces the fact that when people like me, who should know this stuff, fail to pick up this information, then you can't really expect the fish shops too, either.

Therefore it pays to do your own research and learn how to ID the fishes yourself.

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 19:34

I simply read too much

I knew they had gone (Micro)Rasbora>Danio>Celestichthys>Celestichthys/Danio and it was only because I happened to spot an update on SF that I knew it had changed yet again.

I try to get shops to keep their labels up to date, or at least get the common names for common species correct, but sometimes I just have to note the difference and move one especially if it makes no difference to potential buyers - eg I will be happy with them being CPDs even if it no longer stands for Celestial Pearl Danio but in my inner voice will be 'Celestichthsys Previously Danio'

Sometimes however I have to pipe up and I have got a few changed - at long last one shop got C. Trilineatus corrected after telling half the world they weren't C. Julii (annoying as at one point they did have both species, and labeled correctly too!).

Suckermouth · Post by **Suckermouth** » 12 Jan 2015, 20:46

racoll wrote:Right you are! Had no idea Kottelat did that. I stopped working on danios in 2012.

Reinforces the fact that when people like me, who should know this stuff, fail to pick up this information, then you can't really expect the fish shops too, either.

Therefore it pays to do your own research and learn how to ID the fishes yourself.

Kottelat did a lot. See Eschmeyer's rant on Catalog of Fishes...

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 12 Jan 2015, 20:55

Sorry to the OP for hijacking his thread! Are we really saying that walking into your average LFS, the guy selling you fish knows less about what he is selling you than the guy selling you a new car or the guy selling you a pizza? Maybe this is how a chef feels at KFC.

Jools

YouTube · Post by **bekateen** » 12 Jan 2015, 21:27

Jools wrote:Maybe this is how a chef feels at KFC.

Yeah, he THINKS he's selling chicken.

dpm1 · Post by **dpm1** » 12 Jan 2015, 21:44

Jools wrote:Sorry to the OP for hijacking his thread! Are we really saying that walking into your average LFS, the guy selling you fish knows less about what he is selling you than the guy selling you a new car or the guy selling you a pizza? Maybe this is how a chef feels at KFC.

Jools

Two letters, One symbol.....P@H!*

A fine example of how to ruin a decent fish store (or a least my local branch had a decent fish section that bucked the trend for Pet shop=Bad fish)...remove the dedicated 'blue shirts' and replace with generic 'green shirt' staff because we all know fishkeeping has so much on common with dogs/cats/furry stuff...

I have good shops, I have excellent shops, I have shop a where the 'fish guy' is in 4 days a week and his #2 is a 'reptile guy'., and some days its neither!..so a 'pot luck' selling experience at times

Mention fishless cycling, or that common plecs aren't for the 'average' tank (by which I mean ~3ft and the shop means half that (if lucky!)), or clownloaches don't eat only snails (or stay 2" long), or goldfish don't grow 'to the size of the tank' and live long lives of 'up to 5 years'...ie nothing out of thos world or geeky science....and you get blank looks!

Fortunately I know most of my shop staff well enougth, have enough knowledge and experience to be taken seriously, and am personable enough to get away with a few corrections/feedback/tips.

Finally I would say most independent lfs are more likely to employ fishkeepers than sales personal, however just because they know everything about fish X doesn't mean they know about fish Y or Z (you can't know everything about everything which is why I read so much gumf)

* My local MA is just a bad but in a different way. Very understaffed and even if they have good knowledge they are often too busy to stop and talk. Also well known for labels without fish (which can happen), and fish without labels (less forgivable) - and when it's the same fish/labels 3 consecutive weekends it makes a poor impression on those who note such things!

What's in a name?

What's in a name?

What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?

Re: What's in a name?