PlanetCatfish.com

If DATZ developed the L numbering system, what is the origin of LDA numbers [does this MEAN something?] and why does DATZ not use them?

curious....
Kevin Korotev
Milwaukee, WI USA

From a previous post...........

Chill wrote:It is a coding system that the German magazine DATZ uses on pl*cos of the loricariidae family, the higher the number the more recent it has been discovered in general.
Some also have LDA numbers, wich is the German magazine Das Aquarium's coding system.

For more info look at this page:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/icosa/lnumbers/main.htm

Thanks for the quick response, Dave.
I am having trouble, however, with the link contained in the post you quoted.
Kevin

Yea, I didn't check first

I've been looking around but am unsure where the link was supposed to go.

The publication "Das Aquarium" uses the LDA numbering system, while "DATZ", another Euro-German publication, uses the L-numerical system. They are essentially two similar identification systems used by two different groups. We as hobbyists, get the best of two worlds and are able to use both. There is a bit more of a focus on non-hypostomini loricariids in the LDA system, but only just.

Jon,
This almost reads as if they are competing systems. If so, wouldn't each system then yield an L# and an LDA# for every fish? I've never seen this...nor have I seen an LDA 'list' of more than a couple dozen numbers?

I still think I'm missing something.
Kevin

You do see ocassional crossovers and one could say that the two systems are competing, but I believe it's more along the lines of the idea that since the L-numeral system is so widely used, it would be futile to try and convert all existing L-numbers to an LDA system. Rather, Das Aquarium is using the LDA label on new fish.

Hi,

is the LDA coding system still in use? I read that the last issue of "Das Aquarium" was published in december 05.

Christian

kkorotev wrote:Thanks for the quick response, Dave.
I am having trouble, however, with the link contained in the post you quoted.
Kevin

http://www.planetcatfish.com/shanesworl ... cle_id=270

Jools

Jools,
Thanks for the re-link to the article I used to be able to recite!

I apologize for my original question. I should have hunkered down and done a bit more e-legwork.
There is plenty of info "out there" and right here on PC to answer my original question...

BUT
Does anyone know any more about what CHRISTIAN 1601 asks?
Is DAS AQUARIUM out of business? Does Erwin Schraml still support and USE his LDA system? Where [does?] an aquarist find the original reference literature/photos of these LDA numbers?
and...if the LDA system is not healthy and functioning...should it not be abandoned immediately?

I am pursuing this whole issue because of the continuing discrepancies found amidst and between those few sources we DO have and try to make sense from.
DATZ, as the originators of the L system, seems to have the best claim to "correct" L-numbers, but how many people have the already aging "L-Nummern"?
http://www.planetcatfish.com/books/book ... cle_id=304

I truly appreciate the breakthrough nature of the two AQUALOG books, but their validity (and credibility) continues to be threatened PARTICULARLY if the LDA system is dead. Perhaps one of our German speaking contributors can fill us in on DAS AQUARIUM?

Kevin

Hi!

Yes DAS AQUARIUM Magazine isn't product anymore, it stopped officially in Janauray this year...it has been replaced by more specifique magazine and the one for freshwater fish is now AMAZONAS... but I have no idea if they are keeping the LDA system within this new magazine...

I shall ask Erwin about it, he might know far more than any other...!!
Cheers
Yann

Thanks,Yann.
Ask Erwin Himself...Perfect!

kkorotev wrote:Thanks,Yann.
Ask Erwin Himself...Perfect!

With the LDA/L confusion in mind and also the inaccessibility of Das Aqarium back issues globally in mind, I asked Erwin a few months back if he would be willing to give us a picture of each LDA number for the site to provide a complete reference.

Sadly Erwin didn't want to do this (for free).

Jools

Jools,
I oversimplify, but:
Can I/we simply assume that the LDA system is owned/controlled by this one man...now without a publisher, nor the means to keep his system current?
[and, apparently, with an agenda of his own]
Kevin

kkorotev wrote:Jools,
I oversimplify, but:
Can I/we simply assume that the LDA system is owned/controlled by this one man...now without a publisher, nor the means to keep his system current?
[and, apparently, with an agenda of his own]
Kevin

The words aren't quite right, but I think it is fair to say Erwin owns all the LDA original pictures. I guess you'd need to ask him regarding control. I don't think you can say he is without a publisher as his work appears in Aqualog.

I would take exception as to Erwin having "an agenda of his own", we all have agendas. I think Erwin's is mainly driven by teh worry that his pictures will apppear all over the web if he lets, for example, PlanetCatfish use them.

There is also the possibility he's worried about incorrect IDs etc., as our L-numbers need constant revision and are often wrong in places in the meantime.

Anyway, it's kind of academic now?

Jools

Jools,
Thanks for the explanations.
My apologies for the 'attitude'.
I do not, however, understand this:

Anyway, it's kind of academic now?

Kevin

kkorotev wrote:I do not, however, understand this:

Anyway, it's kind of academic now?

What I meant was that the "DA" in "LDA" comes from Das Aquarium - the name of the magazine. Wouldn't it be a bit odd to continue with LDA number naming if they were published in another magazine?

Jools

Hi!!!

Except if you name DA for DAS Alternative!!!!
LOL!!!!!

Officially the LDA numbering system has been taken by AMAZONAS but the numbering system has yet to appear in it despite several issues published.
At the end it is very likely and possible the system will end up being publish elsewhere but to date it is suppose to appear in AMAZONAS

Cheers
Yann

I think it confuses the non-German speaker slightly that the names of both publications sound similar.

For the record, what is the literal translation of

"Die Aquarien und Terrarienzeitschrift" (DATZ)

and "Das Aquarium".

Hi,

for the record:

Die Aquarien und Terrarienzeitschrift
The aquarium and terrarium journal/magazine/periodical [whatever you like most]

Das Aquarium
The aquarium

Greetings,
Sandor

Thats what I thought.

Thanks Borbi.

Apparently, Erwin is now publishing new LDA numbers in Aqualog news. Here's his output for 2006:

- Neu im Archiv. Aktuelle Importe aus aller Welt. AqualogNews, No. 68: 17-21.

- Variable oder neue Art? Bei Formen der Gattung Corydoras sind Ã?berraschungen keine Seltenheit. Aquarisitk aktuell, 14 (2): 18-22.

- Die neuesten Ergänzungen (LDA81 - LDA83). AqualogNews, No. 69: 23.

- Die neuesten Ergänzungen (Malawicichliden, Mbunas). AqualogNews, No. 70: 23.

- Die neuesten Ergänzungen (LDA84 - LDA87). AqualogNews, No. 71: 23.

- Ist L350 doch ein Panaque? AqualogNews, No. 72: 6-7.

- Neue LDA-Nummern - jetz in den AQUALOGnews! AqualogNews, No. 72: 18-19.

- Pareiodon microps - ein parasitischer Wels? AqualogNews, No. 72: 20-21.

- Die neuesten Ergänzungen (LDA88 - LDA91). AqualogNews, No. 72: 23.

Jools wrote:Apparently, Erwin is now publishing new LDA numbers in Aqualog news. Here's his output for 2006:

I'm afraid that information is not accurate. The last LDA number, LDA 102, was published in the last issue of Das Aquarium (12/2005). It was told in the same issue that the numbers would continue in Amazonas magazine, but this has not been the case for the first eight issues of that magazine.

By the way, LDA numbers 1 to 76 have been published in "Loricaridae - All L-numbers", published by Aqualog.

Prboy wrote:I'm afraid that information is not accurate.

Well, it's from Erwin's website! I think it might be better to say incomplete than inaccurate... I guess it's down to us all having to buy those expensive aqualog labels then...

Jools

LDA 103 in aqualog. It is possible now to read the articles online
http://www.aqualog.de/news/web72/LDAgb.pdf

I'm either stupid or stubborn or both.

Why wouldn't/isn't the effort be(ing) made to combine the two systems into one comprehensive list?
What is the value, purpose, good of having two competing
systems, published by two competing companies?

Could someone explain this to me in simple terms?

Still confused...and maybe disappointed.
Kevin Korotev

From what I understand, the origin of the LDA-numbers is a complaint from importers to Germany that didn't get their fishes published by DATZ.

As stated on the link above, the L-numbers poorly covers Loricarinae, such as Rineloricaria, Loricaria, Farlowella and other "whiptails".

I too would prefer to see one scheme that covers all of the genera and species - but like so many things, these things aren't controlled by logic, but by "politics & economics" - someone who is friends with a publisher is more likely to get their material published than someone who isn't (yet) a friend of that publisher, for example. It may also be that if you advertise in a magazine, you're more likely to get a fish shown on the "New L-number of the month" - I don't KNOW any of this, I'm just saying that these things CAN influence the publication of certain new numbers.

The other aspect is of course that two competing magazines may try to win each others subscribers, and by having the ability to publish new "numbers", they can attract the same type of audience as the other publisher.

In an ideal world, you'd actually have enough scientists (and funds) to properly research the fish, publish papers on them, and THEN get articles written in popular magazines AFTER the fish has been scientifically described, but I doubt that will happen anytime soon...

--
Mats

Thanks Mats.
The whole system becomes suspect now. Too bad so many of us count on it as "real", "truth", "science" etc....through
sheer ignorance of the facts.
I've had my eyes opened and don't like it much.
Kevin

kkorotev wrote:Thanks Mats.
The whole system becomes suspect now. Too bad so many of us count on it as "real", "truth", "science" etc....through
sheer ignorance of the facts.
I've had my eyes opened and don't like it much.
Kevin

That wasn't really how I would express it. The L-number system is a better way than the "common name" or "Ancistrus sp. rio xx III" that we see all too often in the trade...

There's a fair amount of research going into DATZ articles, from what I can see. It's not the same level as a scientific paper of course - that's months of work to describe one or two fishes, and DATZ would publish more than one fish per month on average...

--
Mats

Either system is flawed, but then so is the binomial system. It boils down to being a better system than none at all.

Even if it was possible, I don't think combining them would be that great a use of time and effort. IMO it is scientifically identifying or describing and L / LDA number that is the key to "simplicication".

Jools