Enhancement idea: Can a genus description narrative be added to the genus page in the CLOGs?

[bekateen]

Hi Jools,

As a (relatively) new catfish keeper, I sometimes struggle to know what distinguishes one genus from another. In other words, why will one pleco (for example) be considered a member of genus X and not genus Y?

Okay, forget the scientist in me for a moment - I know that taxonomists have worked this out; I'm talking about me as a casual user of this website, a person who might be considering a new fish, and I want to know just how different one fish might be from another. So for example, why is

Hemiancistrus guahiborum

considered

Hemiancistrus

instead of

Pseudancistrus

? (In reality, this is a poor example, because I already looked it up and I learned the answer... but let's presume I didn't). So here is an idea I’ve been mulling over which could provide this type of information to the website users:

On all CLOG pages, there is a field called "Identification." This tells the reader how to distinguish one species from another similar species. That's great. I also know that some CLOG pages include identifying info for the genus level. And in the Admin pages, this goes in a data field called "Genus Identification." For example, the genus Pseudancistrus has such a field populated with the text,

Pseudancistrus is the only genus of the Ancistrini (former Ancistrinae) that lacks evertible cheek plates. Because of this characteristic, it has at times been placed in the Hypostominae.

Would it be possible to extract this genus-wide information and display that same info on the home page for the genus?

Currently, when someone goes from any CLOG page for a particular species up to its respective genus page, all the user will find are the thumbnail links leading to all of the species that PC inventories within the genus and a map showing geographic locations. But there is no textual content presented on that page to describe or characterize the genus. I think it would be a nice enhancement to add this content to the genus page, so that members could find out what justifies placing any species X into any genus A; i.e., what are the common characteristics of all members of Genus A?

In the CLOG pages, you already have several data fields for the genus-wide characteristicis:

• Genus pronunciation
• Genus etymology
• Genus identification
• Genus sexing
• Genus feeding
• Genus furniture
• Genus compatibility
• Genus tankmates
• Genus breeding

At this moment, I don't feel that all of this content necessarily should appear as text on the genus page; but minimally the Genus identification, and perhaps some of the other fields. If I had to choose myself, I would probably want to display:

• Genus identification
• Genus sexing
• Genus feeding
• Genus furniture
• Genus breeding

I'm equivocal about genus pronunciation and etymology. I think such items as compatibility and tankmates could be left off the genus page so as not to overcrowd the page. And certainly, any one of these fields which is subject to much variation probably wouldn't be helpful on the front page (except to say that there is a lot of variation?). Perhaps other members feel differently, and I am certainly not opposed to including any other genus-level info that other people might want to read on that page.

Thanks for the time,
Eric

P.S., Obviously, if this system were instituted, there would be a lot of genera with no information on their genus pages. However, as I envision it, this kind of info can be added over time, filling in the details as papers are published (such as, “Revision of the genus XXX”). Since at this time there is NO information on the genus pages, I see no problem with allowing the data to populate slowly, as available.

[Jools]

I'm working on this, it's about 40% done. Small, medium and large examples below:

Bagrichthys

,

Panaqolus

,

Corydoras

.

Jools

[bekateen]

I think they all look nice, although the "small" example may be too little. Again, personally, I don't know about the value of including compatibility or tankmates on this genus page, but honestly I think that should be up to all the other uses of the website, in terms of what they find most helpful and what they perceive to be the balance between too much info on this page and too little.

The number of species identified chart is an interesting analysis. I haven't seen that before . Also, I like the info on most kept species.

Coincidentally, apparently none of these three genera have their Genus identification field complete yet (since it isn't visible in any of the three examples) - the one thing which I think is most critical, but also I suspect is least complete. So as long as the field is included in the list, I'm inferring that it will become visible when it's filled in with some data. And as I mentioned before, I envision that this field will get populated over time for a lot of these genera, as more papers come out with specific info about what defines the genera. So that's all right for now, IMHO.

Nice!
Cheers, Eric

[bekateen]

Actually, I just looked at

Pseudancistrus

and I see that the Genus identification field is absent here too, even though this data field is populated with text. Can we add that field? (okay, admittedly, I didn't mean "we," since I do not program this stuff - sorry)

[Shane]

Jools,
This is a really cool feature.
-Shane

[bekateen]

Thanks, Jools, for adding the genus identification. It all looks good to me.

Cheers, Eric