PlanetCatfish.com

I'm just curious regarding the situation with all the L-species, is anybody working on the description of some of them? Very little information seems to be available regarding this topic. For instance, all the popular Hpancistrus species, which are pretty well-known by now even when it comes to their origin, wouldn't it be about time that some ichthyologist out there gave some of them a name? I'm just wondering if we can expect some new names to be published in the not too distant future?

I'm not an expert, but I beleive it's a case of "Many fish, not many scientists".

I'm sure Silurus, Shane or maybe Jon Armbuster would have a better quantitative answer.

--
Mats

I know that the description of L128/L200 is underway.

I think Mats is right. I know in the group of organisms I work with (mayflies), we simply don't have enough time to describe all of the new species we find. Funding agencies are not generally interested in providing money for 'simple' taxonomy. They don't see it as good bang for their buck, and describing species is not in vogue right now. Until funding agencies are willing to provide more money to allow taxonomists to describe more species and train new taxonomists, I'm afraid we will be stuck with L numbers, sp1's etc for quite some time


sorry, had to vent a bit on this. I get quite frustrated with the politics of science.

Thank you for your replies guys. Bedwetter, I can understand your frustration, it cleared things up a bit. Obviously the valid description of a new species is a time-demanding issue, and unless someone is providing some kind of economical support for those who do it, I can see why we have so few new descriptions. On the other hand, in my opinion it's also a matter of pride and accomplishment, isn't it? To know that a species was given it's name by you must surely feel good? I'm sure Isbrücker and Nijssen are pretty happy with being the ones who gave H.zebra it's name.

Obviously SOME l-numbers are given a proper name every now and then, which I find positive. I still find it somewhat strange that several of the most popular ones are still nameless.

I also heard that the Brazilian government decided that any new descriptions of native species must be done in collaboration with a Brazilian scientist, has anyone else heard of this

It does feel good to be able to name a species!

I have heard the same thing about Brazil. I believe they also require that the type specimens have to be deposited in a Brazilian museum (which is fine, but does make it a bit more difficult for researchers to access the specimens).

Jeff

I also heard that the Brazilian government decided that any new descriptions of native species must be done in collaboration with a Brazilian scientist, has anyone else heard of this

I have not heard of this, but it is more common now that the type sp. has to be deposited in the country. This is unfortunate, to my mind, as many South American countries simply do not have the resources to properly care for and manage collections. It also makes the type sp. unavailable to other scientists working in the field.
Brazil is a stranger caes than most, but it all dates back to the rubber bust and the idea that Brazil will never let another potential source of wealth be "stolen" again. The rubber industry has been dead for 50 years and it is still common to hear folks along the Amazon talk about how their country's wealth was robbed by foreigners.
-Shane

I think there is a trend for 'developing' to require collaboration with a local scientist as well as deposit the types locally (I believe some Asian countries are doing this now as well). I think one of the justifications for requiring this is to help foster the training of local researchers, which we desparately need. In the long run, it may be a good policy, but it kinda irks me that the collaboration is 'required'. I think it is generally good ethics to try and work with local people anyway - they are closer to the collecting localities and therefore potentially have access to more specimens. Once they gain experience they can become very valuable researchers and contribute greatly to our currently dismal knowledge of the fauna of tropical countries. But when there aren't any local people with ANY experience in a particular taxonomic group, it kinda makes it hard to get things started


JEff

Silurus wrote:I know that the description of L128/L200 is underway.

and will they be placed in Peckoltia sspp.???? I've seen you have moved them on the Cat-eLog... I thought till now they were supposed to be more near to Hypostomus...

What can you tell about this?

Jorge wrote:

Silurus wrote:I know that the description of L128/L200 is underway.

and will they be placed in Peckoltia sspp.???? I've seen you have moved them on the Cat-eLog... I thought till now they were supposed to be more near to Hypostomus...

What can you tell about this?

Nothing until the description comes out.

Jools

Hi,
new descriptions of Hypancistrus are on the way...

Most developing countries are understandably tired of pharmaceutical companies vacuuming their waters and forests for genetic/biological information and making billions of dollars off new medications, but unfortunately their response has been to make it difficult for all scientists, including taxonomists, to access their biodiversity even though taxonomists do NOT generate billions of dollars from their research.

The end result is that the rate of description drops and species disappear before it is even known they ever existed.

However, not all of the obstacles are due to politicians in developing countries, a good deal of it is generated by leftist politicians in industrialized countries driven by a bizarre kind of misdirected social pathos.

E.g. L 201 will be described...

hmm will it be named Hypancistrus inspector?

Caol_ila wrote:

E.g. L 201 will be described...

hmm will it be named Hypancistrus inspector?

My guess is that Walter meant to write L102, which is another white-spotted Hypancistrus. I doubt that Mr Armbuster is going to re-describe a specie that he has already have described. That doesn't make much sense to anyone...

--
Mats

MatsP Wrote:

I doubt that Mr Armbuster is going to re-describe a specie that he has already have described. That doesn't make much sense to anyone...

Actually it does in certain circumstances. Taxonomists review, reclassify and redescribe species all the time. However, they do generally keep the species name.
Occasionally, additional species are redescribed out of the original collections paratypes. So a fish we may know as "L-whatever" could get described on the basis of one sampling and subsequently "redescribed" as another species at a later date. Taxonomists do not pay much heed (and likely shouldn't due to incomplete data) to the L-Numbering system.

Walter,

This was discussed several months ago when the new names first surfaced.

These new names for Hypancistrus species we know in the hobby were published on the internet and then later removed at Jon's request. They should not have been put on the internet in advance of the paper being published. You'll notice that the holding pages for the images not longer exist, just the publisher of that page hasn't deleted the images.

As Planet Catfish is a likely place for them to be discussed, Jon asked me not to draw attention to these new names until the paper is published.

I suggest we all do the same.

Jools

Hi Jools,
sorry, I did not follow that discussion.

I´ll edit my posts.