PlanetCatfish.com

Hi, all!

Since today, there is the newest and most current taxonomy of the Loricariidae at
http://www.l-welse.com/tax.php online.
We are proud to be able to say, that this list is the most current you may find in the whole world wide web!

Enjoy!

cu mike

Hi!

Nice peace of work guys, thxs to the Sondernheft Harnischwelse 2

Just a comment: I would have say something about Isbrücker new genera, such as valid statue unknown or uncertain!
Cheers
Yann

hi

thxs to the Sondernheft Harnischwelse 2

you are right, but look! there are also new described Loricariidae included like Hyp. inspector, Hemiloricaria aurata and so on

Just a comment: I would have say something about Isbrücker new genera, such as valid statue unknown or uncertain!
Cheers
Yann

It´s not necessary all 14 new genera are valid and are also listed in eschmeyer as valid!


cu mike

Eschmeyer is not the last word on he validity of names. The names are considered questionably valid, since no one else at the present has looked at the problem closely enough.

fishworld wrote:We are proud to be able to say, that this list is the most current you may find in the whole world wide web!

Ah, but what about this (which appears "more current")?

http://clade.acnatsci.org/allcatfish/Ge ... iidae.html

Jools

Hello,

Ah, but what about this (which appears "more current")?

http://clade.acnatsci.org/allcatfish/Ge ... iidae.html

This site only shows Armbruster´s personal opinions. Everybody can say their thing in the WWW. Without an offical publication, this site is worthless. We have to wait what will happen in the future.

Aleksander

Aleks_M wrote:This site only shows Armbruster´s personal opinions. Everybody can say their thing in the WWW. Without an offical publication, this site is worthless. We have to wait what will happen in the future.

Aleksander,

Please explain to me the difference between publishing in DATZ and publishing (at a University site) on the web? Are you calling the DATZ article an "official publication"?

Jools

Jools,
I think, you know the rules and what is the difference between publishing in the www and publishing in a print medium like the Datz

Jools,

the article is accepted as "official publication" (personally i don´t like descriptions in such magazines)
You should better ask Silurus about the difference publishing in hobbyist magazines and on websites (which is not accepted), I am sure he can give you an exact answer.
But i am pretty sure you know already the answer or why are you still using the names of the 14 new genera on your website if you don´t think the article in the DATZ is an "official publication" ?
Between: The descriptions of Acanthicus adonis, the genera Leporacanthicus, Scobinancistrus and Hopliancistrus were also published in the DATZ Magazine, Ancistrus claro in T.F.H Magazine and they are also accepted as "official publications"

Regards

Aleksander

Yeah, but you see why I ask you though? I, personally, just don't see much difference between websites or hobby magazines - both are not peer reviewed although I am also aware that one is an "official" mode of publication and the other is not. I also run a major website, so perhaps my judgement is a fairly pro-tech.

At present PlanetCatfish uses the "DATZ-14" genera because they were accepted by a (if not the) major author in the field. That said, their wider, general acceptance has not been forthcoming (perhaps due to the brevity of many of the descriptions and the fact they did not appear in a peer reviewed journal) and we will be "backing" them out in due course. This (and keeping abreast of changes in siluriform systematics generally) takes a lot of time, so you'll have to bear with us. Those with a longer memory will remember it took us many months to adopt the genera in the first place.

To answer a number of pms I've had on the subject, this is not a pro-european or pro-american debate, as has already been pointed out genera such as Leproacanthicus and Scobinancistrus have also had their validity questioned but these will remain for the time being.

Jools

To add to what Jools has said, the current (fourth) edition of the International Code for Zoological Nomenclature is very (I think too) lenient about what constitutes an "official" publication.
This means that some idiot with a printer can run off copies of a description, distribute them to at least 5 institutional libraries, and the name becomes validly published.

Silurus wrote: This means that some idiot with a printer can run off copies of a description, distribute them to at least 5 institutional libraries, and the name becomes validly published.

Heok,
not every hobby or professional Aquarist who does ichthyological work is an idiot (I know, you didn´t say this exactly).
And even if you don´t like ichthyological working aquarists and other ichthyologists with different opiníons from yours, ... most of the users here are "ordinary" aquarists with a wonderful hobby.
By showing your disregard of all this people in ichthyological questions in many of your posts you will not improve the anyway tense relations between these groups.

The guilty parties ("idiots") I refer to do not always refer to aquarists. There is a well-documented case of this being done by a scientist (no names need to be mentioned, most of us know who is being referred to here).
Actually, this seems to be the only case so far. I do not consider aquarists dabbling in ichthyology idiots. Only people with no consideration whatsoever for the peer-review system.

Hi!

I agree with HH.
Lets people who have studied and work hard and know are being paid to describe fish do their work.
Still some very good work have been made by some Aquarists, these should anyway should stay as rarities, and should not empeach them to have their work reviewed by an Ichtyologist.
MAybe the code should get a review to avoid aquarist or rebels Ichtyologist to publish crap with the help of any editor wishing to make their magazine either a pseudo-scientific paper or a collectable issue!
Still both Ichtyologist and Aquarist could gain in a collaboration!
Cheers
Yann

yannfulliquet wrote:Lets people who have studied and work hard and know are being paid to describe fish do their work.

Even they engage in the self publishing/hobbyist magazine publication BS on occasion. A "professional," who has made a very large contribution to science (even if you don't like him as a person), printed out five copies of a 10 page paper with an ink jet, distributed it to five institutional libraries (making it validly published) and in the process ruined a couple of years of work by a colleague. The ICZN needs a major revision, making it much harder to do what Tyson did.

Just my 2¢
Rusty

Aw darn, Rusty, I was hoping the "good" Dr. Roberts' name wasn't mentioned...