PlanetCatfish.com

Is it appropriate to use L numbers in scientific literature?

Which of these two would be best for L204 for example?

Panaque sp. "L204"
Panaque cf. maccus

Surely the cf. maccus isn't very appropriate, as it's not very similar to maccus?

Panaque sp. ucayali perhaps? [ucayali is from memory, maybe it should be another river]

--
Mats

What about Panaquesp. "Rio San Alejandro", or just go for Panaque sp. "L204"

E

Surely stating the river is pretty meaningless, especially when comparing diversity of undescibed Xingu Hypancistrus for example, which was obviously why the L number system was developed.

Would using the L number and river be better?

e.g. Panaque sp. L204 "Rio San Alejandro".

I have never seen an L number used in a scientific pulication. It seems it's not acceptable to use them, even though they offer a much better description of the sp. in question.

Well, the L-numbers aren't really meaningful to the scientific community [as I understand it] (even if there's an overlap to the general public and advanced hobbyists), as they are not originating in a "serious publication".

--
Mats

But it must be better to use them than not?

There is a lot more information bound up in an L number than otherwise.

Is it wise to ignore the value there, just becase it was written by "amateurs" ?

I guess the only person frequenting this forum regulalry that can answer that is HH.

You could try to e-mail Jon Armbruster or some such person too [Jon's e-mail address is on his web-site, which you'll find quickly by searching for the name in google].

--
Mats

The L numbers excist, people may ignore them, but I think scientists better do not.

However, I think we should realize L numbers are not scientific names, but originate from other sources.

Many publications, however, add besides the formal names also local names, in ordere to retrieve the fish more easily. and I think scientists best treat L numbers this way. Thus:

Panaque sp. L204 "Rio San Alejandro" should better be referred as Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204

However, I think we should realize L numbers are not scientific names, but originate from other sources.

I realise this fully, and I am not attempting to infer that they are.

However it makes more sense, if one is mentioning undescribed Loricariidae, to refer to a researched publication (however non scientific) than to create ambiguous names?

Certainly

In fact, I think we, fishkeepers, sometimes know a lot more about our fishes, than scientists.

We knowe about breeding, attitude, behaviour in general, likes dislikes, while the mainly work with specimin no longer fit for human consumption - and notes taken in the field

What one can see in the field is, however, quite limited

Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204

This one makes good sense to me and seems politically correct but I can not say if it is scientifically correct.

Birger wrote:

Panaque sp. "Rio San Alejandro", commonly known as L204

This one makes good sense to me and seems politically correct but I can not say if it is scientifically correct.

Hi racoll,
I agree. If it is coming up in a paper you will have foot notes anyway and the interested readers surely must understand that as long as the name is in scientific limbo it is at least a widely recognized descriptor.