PlanetCatfish.com

Hi!

A friend of mine is searching the species of those plecos he has kept for a couple of years... Were originally sold as L134, but probably not. Maybe L52? L168?

Yes, it is a zonancistrus.

It's also what I thought; but any idea of the species, or the L-number?

if you ask me.

Yes, could be.

Could someone tell me, if he knows, what's the difference between Zonancistrus and Deyckeiseria, so I could check?

I'm not sure, but i think Zonancistrus is a false name, made up by the Germans. They are refering to Dekeyseria species when they use the name Zonancistrus.

DutchFry wrote:I'm not sure, but i think Zonancistrus is a false name, made up by the Germans. They are refering to Dekeyseria species when they use the name Zonancistrus.

Or put another, it is a new name that was suggested, but did not get accepted by the general scientific community. It was not even successful enough to get accepted as a synonym.

--
Mats

"I'm not sure, but i think Zonancistrus is a false name, made up by the Germans. They are refering to Dekeyseria species when they use the name Zonancistrus."

essentially, true. this, along with several other hotly disputed and largely nonscientific genera have been put forth in the past to describe fish that some feel should not be grouped together.


"It was not even successful enough to get accepted as a synonym. "

incorrect, at least from what I understand. it is considered a synonym.

Jon wrote:"It was not even successful enough to get accepted as a synonym. "

incorrect, at least from what I understand. it is considered a synonym.

Where? It's certainly not listed for any Dekeyseria in Fishbase - but maybe someone else has it listed as synonym somewhere.

--
Mats

While it's passed under the radar of Fishbase and ITIS, Eschmeyer's Catalog of Fishes lists Zonancistrus as a synonym of Dekeyseria.

As does Armbruster.

Ok, fair enough. I'll rephraze it as "it's only partially accepted as a synonym" then... ;)

--
Mats

As long as any nomenclatural act satisfies the conditions of the ICZN code, then that name is available (i.e. has to be dealt with in subsequent revisions etc), regardless of how good the study was and whether anyone accepted it or not.

"Ok, fair enough. I'll rephraze it as "it's only partially accepted as a synonym" then... ;)"

The objectivity or subjectivity of a synonym does not preclude it from being able to be declared as a synonym. Different researchers can cite different synonyms, all of which are valid, albeit not superior to the senior synonym (which, according to fb, is what is listed, which might account for why zonancistrus does not show up)---I think.


The CAS site should bring you more relevant literature for synonymy;

http://research.calacademy.org/research ... atmain.asp

anyways--back on topic...yes, the identity of your fish is as you suspected.


edit:

ah, here we are--
Zonancistrus Isbrücker in Isbrücker et al. 2001:23 [ref. 25649]. Masc. Ancistrus brachyurus Kner 1854. Type by original designation. •Valid as Zonancistrus Isbrücker 2001 -- (Isbrücker 2002:30 [ref. 27178]). •Synonym of Dekeyseria Rapp Py-Daniel 1985 -- (Fisch-Muller in Reis et al. 2003:383 [ref. 27061], Armbruster 2004:53, 59 [ref. 27644], Ferraris 2007:234 [ref. 29155]). Current status: Dekeyseria Rapp Py-Daniel 1985. Loricariidae: Ancistrinae.

From what I heard here, in France, some species of Peckoltia were first re-qualified as Zonancistrus, and some species of Zonancistrus were then re-qualified as Deckeyseria, or, at list, in common names and in commercial names...

If Armbruster consider both as synonyms, it's OK for me; question is just to know wich is the most ancient, and from your posts, it seems to be Deckeyseria...

From a scientifical point of view, the right name should them be Deckeyseria, but in the hobby, I think both could be used, then, couldn't it?

Fraf wrote:From what I heard here, in France, some species of Peckoltia were first re-qualified as Zonancistrus, and some species of Zonancistrus were then re-qualified as Deckeyseria, or, at list, in common names and in commercial names...

If Armbruster consider both as synonyms, it's OK for me; question is just to know wich is the most ancient, and from your posts, it seems to be Deckeyseria...

From a scientifical point of view, the right name should them be Deckeyseria, but in the hobby, I think both could be used, then, couldn't it?

The CORRECT scientific name, no matter what country or for what purpose it is used, is CURRENTLY Dekeyseria. Other names are considered synonyms, and are recorded so that we can find out what the current name is when reading old literature.

Revisions of what is the correct name for which fish is a non-stop activity, and sometimes depends on which scientist you listen to - and perhaps more importantly, which OTHER scientists listen to and accept which scientists point of view.

--
Mats

"From what I heard here, in France, some species of Peckoltia were first re-qualified as Zonancistrus, and some species of Zonancistrus were then re-qualified as Deckeyseria, or, at list, in common names and in commercial names..."

Only dekeyseria pulcher was moved out of peckoltia, iirc. Isbrucker had intended for the newly erected zonancistrus to hold the non-scaphirhyncha group dekeyseria, but this is largely regarded as erroneous. Much of the contention between these two schools of thought is exacerbated by aquarists, who, by and large, do not have the scientific backing to make a fully informed decision on the matter.