cat-elog and science

talawoodward · Post by **talawoodward** » 07 Aug 2007, 13:57

Hi everyone,

This post is more directed at the owners of this site, but I suppose anyone who knows the answer can answer my question

(I would have just sent an email, but I couldn't find one)

I'm college biology student working with a biologist and a trade association this summer on a paper examining the ornamental fish trade in the United States. Part of this project involves creating a database of all the fish sold for the ornamental industry in the US, which means I've been delving through industry inventory lists, checking scientific names and common names, red list status etc. As you can probably imagine, this is a difficult process due to a lot of inconsistancies in naming fish and keeping up to date with taxonomic categories. The cat-elog on this site has been IMMENSELY helpful for me in the case of the L-number Loricariids, however I'm wondering where the site owners get this information? How up-to-date is it? Basically, as this paper is going (eventually) to be submitted to a peer reviewed scientific journal, the methodolgy needs to uphold scientific research standards, and I want to make sure I'm getting correct information. Does anyone know any other resources that might be helpful with the L-numbers, or is this the best?

Thanks so much!
~Tala

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 07 Aug 2007, 14:19

Welcome to Planet Catfish, Tala!

Please correct me if I'm wrong,anybody(I'm not a pHD-just a hobbyist), but I believe the Cat-eLog is compiled from peer-reviewed journals. Also, people submit their first-hand experience with certain species.

If you jump to the Taxonomy and Science News Forum, you will see a lot of the name changes and descriptions that have come along over the years. They've been compiled by Planet Catfish to create the database known as the Cat-eLog. As you have learned, there is so much work to be done and so much work being done. Anybody can submit photos of their catfishes to Planet Catfish.
Are you focusing on catfishes or all fishes?
Amanda

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 07 Aug 2007, 15:39

There is only one definitive source for the L numbers, and that is the DATZ book.

Here is the book review.

They devised the system, but bear in mind it is only one photo of one form of a fish at a particular time.

talawoodward · Post by **talawoodward** » 07 Aug 2007, 16:22

Thanks for the quick responses!

Its seems that book was published in 2004, and of course there have been changes since then - where do those changes appear until the next edition is published? Just in various peer reviewed journals? Also, do you know where it can be purchased in the States (a quick search made it seem like its only available in UK/Europe)?

Amanda, I'm looking at all freshwater species (a huuuge project, which will certainly not be finished by the end of the month). We are looking at all the aspects of the ornamental trade - both environmental and socioeconomic, so that regulations (especially those pertaining to potential invasive species threats) will be well founded. Perhaps I should have posted this in that science section of the forum, I didn't even notice it at first!

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 07 Aug 2007, 17:31

Its seems that book was published in 2004, and of course there have been changes since then - where do those changes appear until the next edition is published? Just in various peer reviewed journals?

No changes, just additions. These are made in the DATZ magazine Die Aquarien- und Terrarienzeitschrift.

You should be able to get it from ebay http://tinyurl.com/2gn76g.

As you are probably aware the L number system has no real scientific standing. It is a picture reference book of undescribed "species" for aquarists.

Another L number reference is Aqualog, which as well as L numbers, run the LDA number system.

Most fish are the same in both references. However some are different though. DATZ is the original.

The Planet Catfish L numbers are not complete, as as "regular" aquarists we generally only have access to fish in the trade. Some of the pictures in DATZ are of fish collected by the authors in far-flung areas, and will probably never be exported.

Let me know if you have any more questions. It sounds like a huge undertaking!

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 07 Aug 2007, 17:47

Very Happy Please correct me if I'm wrong,anybody(I'm not a pHD-just a hobbyist), but I believe the Cat-eLog is compiled from peer-reviewed journals. Also, people submit their first-hand experience with certain species.

Some of the submissions such as are from peer reviewed journals. There is no doubt that is as the pictures are of type specimens, and the chap who submitted them made the actual description. This is usually the case with most of the dead specimen photos.

The rest of the photos are just submissions made by us aquarists using the forum. I believe the vast majority of these are correct though, as they are checked out by some pretty knowledgeable people.

However in certain cases, such as with species that are a nightmare to identify, and the photos aren't very good (such as the sp.) there is a bit more doubt.

These are however updated as soon as new information/better photos are discovered.

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 07 Aug 2007, 20:28

The Cat-eLog is maintained by several people. I don't know many of the other maintainers of the Cat-eLog, but I do know (by name at least) a few of them. All changes are "vetted" by Jools.

Official "complaints" are made in the "Bugs and Suggestions" forum entry.

I don't think the Cat-eLog is a "valid scientific reference" as such, but there are some REALLY knowledgable people that check entries and submit data (I'm not going to name anyone here, as I know for sure I'd miss someone important, and that's not good).

The accuracy of the Cat-eLog is "as best as we can at the time". We certainly take any comment on incorrectness seriously, but sometimes it does come down to "who do you believe" or "which of several current 'latest' publications do you follow".

--
Mats

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Aug 2007, 08:51

talawoodward,

A fantastic new feature of the site is the "My Cats Registered Species" where a record is made of owners of each species in the cat-elog.

This may help you a lot in filtering out the species that are not exported to the US.

Here is the list of the all species being kept by Planet Catfish members in order of occurrence.

There will be a few species in there that aren't very available in the US, such as some of the Australian catfish () kept over there.

Also some members catch their own fish.

There is a possibility that there are catfish species available in the US that aren't being kept by anyone. However these are likely to be very small in number.

Is your study on wild caught, home captive bred or imported captive bred?

For example, our most kept catfish () is almost entirely home captive bred. It is not even possible to assign a species to this fish as it has been "domesticated" for decades.

talawoodward · Post by **talawoodward** » 08 Aug 2007, 14:41

Racoll, thanks for the links. I'm looking at all all (freshwater) fish that are available for trade, and indicating whether they have been imported or bred here. At some point, we'd like to figure out which ones are wild-caught and which are captive bred, but in the caSe of imports, the distributors here dont have that information.
Can you expand a bit on how the Ancistrus 3 species cannot have its own name? Because, for example, the domestic dog has a scientific name.

The L-number system is really fascinating to me because it shows just how much farther ahead the industry is compared to the academic research world in terms of knowlege base in species diversity. I'm hoping that one thing that we can get from this paper is the need for more studies, in pretty much every aspect of the trade - diversity, economic importance, invasive threats etc. One thing I keep finding is just how hard it is to get information.

Matsp, excuse my ignorance, but who is Jools? Another member?

racoll · Post by **racoll** » 08 Aug 2007, 15:33

excuse my ignorance, but who is Jools? Another member?

Jools (or Julian) is the Webmaster or owner/boss of the site.

See here, here and here.

Can you expand a bit on how the Ancistrus 3 species cannot have its own name? Because, for example, the domestic dog has a scientific name.

Indeed. There have been a lot of studies of dogs and their ancestry over the years, as it is of great interest to many people. While us at Planet Catfish are interested in the common bristlenose, the same cannot be said of the general public. Therefore any study is unlikely to secure much funding.

The problem is compounded by the fact that most are very similar looking, and there are hundreds of species. Fishbase says there are 60 valid sp. but there are easily as many undescribed ones.

There may also be a mix of species involved.

The L-number system is really fascinating to me because it shows just how much farther ahead the industry is compared to the academic research world in terms of knowlege base in species diversity.

Yes, it is crazy to think that I have species swimming round at home that are "unknown" to science.

At some point, we'd like to figure out which ones are wild-caught and which are captive bred, but in the caSe of imports, the distributors here dont have that information.

You can get a good idea whether the import is wild or captive bred from where it comes from. If the import is from Singapore for example, it is likely to be captive bred. A Peru shipment on the other hand is certainly wild caught.

bronzefry · Post by **bronzefry** » 11 Aug 2007, 20:41

talawoodward wrote:Thanks for the quick responses!

Its seems that book was published in 2004, and of course there have been changes since then - where do those changes appear until the next edition is published? Just in various peer reviewed journals? Also, do you know where it can be purchased in the States (a quick search made it seem like its only available in UK/Europe)?

Amanda, I'm looking at all freshwater species (a huuuge project, which will certainly not be finished by the end of the month). We are looking at all the aspects of the ornamental trade - both environmental and socioeconomic, so that regulations (especially those pertaining to potential invasive species threats) will be well founded. Perhaps I should have posted this in that science section of the forum, I didn't even notice it at first!

For the socioeconomic impact of the ornamental fish trade, you may want to contact <a href='http://opefe.com/piaba.html' target='_blank'>these</a> people from Project Piaba. The website isn't updated often, but there are links to other sites you may find helpful. This is the "buy a fish, save a tree" line of thought. This might be where environmental meets socioeconomic. These are small projects in small villages. Project Piaba focuses on the Cardinal Tetra, I believe.
Amanda

MatsP · Post by **MatsP** » 12 Aug 2007, 02:26

To comment a bit further on the Ancistrus sp(3):

If you believe that it's not a hybrid of multiple wild fish, then it's most likely a described species - in fact, a likely candidate is A. bodenhameri - but since A. bodenhameri is not available in the trade as a wild-caught species[1], and the actual scientific name of the species we here call sp3 when originally imported was probabply wrong[2], we don't really know what species it is.

[1] It originates in Venezuela, which is one country that strictly restricts export of wild fauna (and plants, I believe) - so any fish supposedly from Venezuela is either smuggled out, or not from Venezuela. And it's not worth smuggling fish that are sold at the $5-10 level...

[2] Many different species of Ancistrus have been sold under a few different names. Just about any species can be found in one shop or another under the name A. dolichopterus, and if that's not the name given, then it's A. temmincki. The former name is a black species with small white spots - and more notably, 12 dorsal rays, vs 8 for all other Ancistrus species. But there are plenty of books showing this name for some brown fish with medium-sized light-brown spots.

--
Mats