PlanetCatfish.com

Hi!
Ok the Mag is already been out for more than a year now, I am just wondering about which Genus are considered valid in this DATZ Sondernheft, personnally I can think of one fro sure, which is Panaqolus, but what is the scientific position toward the 13 other genus plus the rehabilitation of Hemiloricaria!
Cheers
Yann

No, I don't think <i>Panaqolus</i> is a valid genus. The members of <i>Panaqolus</i> belong to a clade within <i>Panaque</i>, but the differences are not large enough to warrant a separate genus.

I am not a loricariid expert, but my expereince in fish systematics tells me that many (maybe all) of the genera described there are most likely invalid. This is not merely a matter of Isbrücker vs. Armbruster (I know both of them and don't have anything invested in this, even though I am now in Jon's side of the pond), but the simple fact that many of the genera are diagnosed by characters that are not synapomorphies. I respect Isaäc and the work he's done, but I have plenty of reservations about his recent work after working with him very closely recently. It is extremely imprudent for me to elaborate further, and I will leave this observation at that.

And no, I do not take the view that the description of new taxa must necessarily be precluded by a phylogenetic analysis either, but in the case of a problematic group like the Loricariidae, I feel that this is absolutely necessary before new genera are described (unless it can be clearly demonstrated that the new genus possesses autapomorphies no other group possesses).

In fact, this opens up another can of worms, which are advanced hobbyists who do not have the necessary training trying to write scientific papers in aquarium journals (which are not peer-reviewed BTW). I don't want to start a discussion on this (my views are very strong and the ranting can take a long, long time), but the situation is ugly, especially with cichlids. Scientists are up in arms about all the unnecessary confusion that all this bad science creates. I am only glad that the primary catfish of my interest are considered too darn ugly to attract much aquarist attention.

Hi!

I am also in jon side of the pond on many topic but not on the one regarding Panaque/Scobinancistrus/Panaqolus...
Regarding Panaque and Panaqolus: Panaqolus males develop plate odontodes in the caudale pedoncul region, which is not the case with male of the Panaque spp, if it would have been from the same genus, we would have seen these features on the big Panaque as well?
PLus some on field sutdies have show a different behaving in spawning season between the two genus.
What is your position toward the possible splitting of the genus Coryodras, we can pretty much assume it is about the same story there???
While having discuss about that particulair topic with Jon Armbruster, according to him, the most likely valid genus is Pseudolithoxus, now the genus name for the former species of the Lasiancistrus anthrax species group.
Cheers
Yann[/i]

Err, no. You misunderstood. When I said that I was on Jon's side of the pond, I meant that I was physically on his side of the Atlantic. I was trying to distance my stand from the fact that it is some European vs. American thing (besides, I'm not even American).
The differences you mentioned between <i>Panaque</i> and <i>Panaqolus</i> sound like they may be useful for diagnosting a subgroup of <i>Panaque</i>. Certainly doesn't sound convincing enough to me to warrant a separate genus.
Enough problems with loricariids. We'll cross the <i>Corydoras</i> bridge when we come to it.

Silurus wrote:Scientists are up in arms about all the unnecessary confusion that all this bad science creates.

I fully agree with HH on this. This is nothing to do with some 'exclusive club' approach by trained taxonomists, but is based on very sensible restrictions that the scientific community placed on themselves in order to prevent errors (or worse). The repercussions of such errors last for a very long time and in the current environmental climate have a real bearing on issues such as conservation etc.
The fact that there are certain individuals who have claimed to be members of said scientific community but have in the past behaved in a very unprofessional and unethical manner doesn't mean it's OK for aquarists to do the same. With all the unique and highly valuable contributions to the knowledge on the biology of species that can be made by aquarists, I don't understand the desire to attain some warped form of immortality which actually detracts from the knowledge base, albeit inadvertently, through flawed taxonomic work.

yannfulliquet wrote:I am also in jon side of the pond on many topic but not on the one regarding Panaque/Scobinancistrus/Panaqolus...

I notice Armbruster now lists Scobinancistrus as a separate genus and not as a synonym of Panaque. I think this helps as we would have had a bit of trouble with "Panaque aureatus".

Lampiella being one of my favourites for a totally undefendable call of it being valid. That said lumping Oligancistrus in with Spectracanthicus also appeals to the same feeling. This however is me playing at being a scientist...

The trouble here is that I cannot see a way in which Planet Catfish can justify cherry picking which genera to continue using and which not too. We either follow Jon Armbruster's online updates or we do not. Basically, that's it. The rest of the world is pretty much in the same position with the exceptions of the genera fortunate enough to have several parties working on them.

My view has been to adopt shifts in nonclamenture (from recognised sources) more or less as I become aware of them, thus the adoption of the "DATZ 14" in the first place (it was written by I.I. who has something of a history in Loricariids and my dismissal of it would have been me playing scientist again...). Now we have this drift away from them, that's the way of it.

Thank God I haven't applied sub-families to the database! The disappearance of the ancistrinae would have kept me busy for a while...

Jools

The trouble here is that I cannot see a way in which Planet Catfish can justify cherry picking which genera to continue using and which not too. We either follow Jon Armbruster's online updates or we do not. Basically, that's it. The rest of the world is pretty much in the same position with the exceptions of the genera fortunate enough to have several parties working on them.

Unfortunately, that is the way things are and will be with many groups of organisms. Too many fish and not enough scientists.

My view has been to adopt shifts in nonclamenture (from recognised sources) more or less as I become aware of them, thus the adoption of the "DATZ 14" in the first place (it was written by I.I. who has something of a history in Loricariids and my dismissal of it would have been me playing scientist again...). Now we have this drift away from them, that's the way of it.

Nomenclature is a fluid business, especially in a group like the loricariids where the diversity is so high and the phylogenetic relationships so poorly-worked out. The only way of staying current is to be prepared for the changes that will inevitably come. Not very comforting if you have a large database to work with, but I see no other solution.

Silurus wrote:In fact, this opens up another can of worms, which are advanced hobbyists who do not have the necessary training trying to write scientific papers in aquarium journals (which are not peer-reviewed BTW). I don't want to start a discussion on this (my views are very strong and the ranting can take a long, long time), but the situation is ugly, especially with c*****ds. Scientists are up in arms about all the unnecessary confusion that all this bad science creates. I am only glad that the primary catfish of my interest are considered too darn ugly to attract much aquarist attention.

I agree that there is a need to maintain standards in describing species, and the unregulated participation of eager amateurs can be more disruptive than helpful to the advance of taxonomy.

That being said, I think taxonomists have not served their cause well in their lack of attention to reaching out and building partnerships with members of the public who share their values and interests. Biodiversity and its loss is something that vitally affects ALL human beings. Instead of moping about "so many species, so few taxonomists", taxonomists should devote more effort to public relations and leveraging the contributions of others.

Our resident taxonomist, Silurus, is a model highly worthy of emulation in this regard. If I may speak for all the other members of this forum, we all indebted to you, Silurus, for so generously sharing your knowledge with us.

Dinyar

That being said, I think taxonomists have not served their cause well in their lack of attention to reaching out and building partnerships with members of the public who share their values and interests. Biodiversity and its loss is something that vitally affects ALL human beings. Instead of moping about "so many species, so few taxonomists", taxonomists should devote more effort to public relations and leveraging the contributions of others.

The relationship between scientists and hobbyists varies from group to group. In ornithology, scientists as a whole have had excellent relationships with hobbyists and both sides frequently benefit from this.
Unfortunately, the relationship between scientists and hobbyists in ichthyology have been poisoned by some members of the latter attempting to do the work of the former. As a result, aquarists frequently look upon scientists as a hoity-toity bunch, while scientists frequently consider aquarists meddlesome amateurs. This prejudice is somewhat deep-seated, and I don't foresee an improvement in the situation anytime soon.
I'm always of the opinion that the aquarium trade and science have much to benefit from working a lot more closely, and I have always tried to bridge the gap in my own small way. But that's just me. I cannot speak for the rest of the scientific community.

It seems to me that it takes two to tango. While you may be quite right in saying that some busybody aquarists have poisoned the well, perhaps their behavior itself reflects a lack of pre-existing dialog with ichthyologists.

What do you see as the differences between ornithology vs. ichthyology, and the bird vs. fish hobby that have led to these contrasting outcomes? Just circumstance, or something structural?

Dinyar

Ichthyologists are not entirly blameless. Most of us have a tendency to hoard projects and proclaim that we will get it published someday. This attempt at protecting what we perceive to be our turf is part of the reason the problem exists.
I think the main reasons ornithologists don't face the same problem is that hobbyists and people in the trade aren't generally allowed to go out and harvest large numbers of wild birds in the manner fish are collected for the trade. Consequently, the chances of a hobbyist coming across an undescribed species of bird from the trade are extremely miniscule. There are also not as many undescribed species of birds as there are fish, and this has a very significant effect as well.

Hi!

While looking through the website of Fishbase, I found out that they consider now Squaliforma and Guyanancistrus as valid taxa
Is there any reason for them to list these 2 as valid or are they just bien very slow to follow up... I mean the last update regarding species form these 2 was made in May of this year!!

Cheers
Yann

Do those genera have different fishbase co-ordinators? I was afraid something like this would happen (especially as I just sunk the two genera in question in the past few days). I'm onto <I>Ancistomus</I> now!

On that topic, Armbruster places <I>Ancistomus</I> as a junior synonym of <I>Hemiancistrus</I> - I'm fine with that, but it causes a problem with Peckoltia sabaji as that was an <I>Ancistomus</I> so now must be a <I>Hemiancistrus</I>.

Jools

Hi,
there will be a new work about Panaque, Panaqolus, Peckoltia out soon.

I´m looking forward to it ;)

Astonishing results (for the bone-counters...)

there will be a new work about Panaque, Panaqolus, Peckoltia out soon.

I´m looking forward to it

Astonishing results (for the bone-counters...)

Tell us more about this.