Invalid new species

[Marc van Arc]

New species

Ixinandria montebelloi

is regarded as a synonym of

Ixinandria steinbachi

by both CoF & FB

Same goes for next species on the list:

Limatulichthys petleyi

, which is also a synonym.

[Shane]

New species Ixinandria montebelloi is regarded as a synonym of Ixinandria steinbachi by both CoF & FB

It is. In these cases (where there is conflict between sources) we just need to check the most recent work.

Mónica S. Rodriguez; Christian A. Cramer; Sandro L. Bonatto; Roberto E. Reis (2008)
Neotrop. ichthyol. vol.6 no.3 Porto Alegre 2008

Taxonomy of Ixinandria Isbrücker & Nijssen (Loricariidae: Loricariinae) based on morphological and molecular data

"We conclude that the populations are not significantly distinct and do not deserve separate species recognition, and we place I. montebelloi in the synonymy of I. steinbachi."

There will always be conflicts of this type with cat-elog data, and many will not be so easy to sort out. This is why it is worth having someone double check your work (as you did mine )

-Shane

[Shane]

I see you already included Canthopomus montebelloi and Ixinandria montebelloi as a synonyms. I added the below text to the

Ixinandria steinbachi

entry as I think it useful.

"In their 2008 review of the genus, Rodriguez et al determined that the populations I. montebelloi and I. steinbachi were not significantly distinct and did not deserve separate species recognition. As such, they placed I. montebelloi in synonymy of I. steinbachi."

On another note, I think we (all) should discuss a standard procedure for listing synonyms. By taxonomic convention they are listed oldest to newest, so for this sp for example the synonyms should read:

IXINANDRIA Isbrücker & Nijssen, 1979
Type species: Loricaria steinbachi Regan, 1906
(note, I am unaware of any place in the cat-elog where genus level entries, for taxonomy purposes, are possible.)

For the actual sp in question:

Loricaria steinbachi Regan, 1906 (listed under subgenus Rineloricaria)
Loricaria (Rineloricaria) steinbachi Gosline, 1945
Ixinandria steinbachi Isbrücker, 1979 (new combination)
Canthopomus montebelloi Fowler, 1940 (new synonym)
Ixinandria montebelloi Isbrücker, 1979 (new combination)

While I personally love doing things the scientifically correct way, I think we need to weigh the amount of time it takes to research and add the above type of data versus its actual utility to most PC users.

I would like to hear the opinions of others on this.

-Shane

[Jools]

I would like to hear the opinions of others on this.

My view is that it's up to the individual to work out what they want to do to the database. If it fires your BBQ to add the remaining species for a genus that's great, add a bunch of synonyms to a species no ones ever seen exported, then fine. Really, I am happy with all that happening.

However, I would personally approach this from the point of the greatest benefit to all users of the site. I'd suggest adding, or improving, data about species and how to keep them for fishes we do see exported. There are plenty that could do with it.

Jools

[Marc van Arc]

I'm quite happy with the way things have gone up till now.
I think Shane's way will involve a lot of extra time with (too) little benefit for the average user.
The current setting of having the synonyms in alphabetical order is good enough for me.
The whole synonym thing was mainly set up to direct users instantly to valid species without having to dig through the whole site. Thus anyone looking for "Tympanopleura" will correctly end up with

Ageneiosus

.
And does anyone remember "Agmus"? -)

On a side note: does this only work with "Quick find" and (afaics) not via the Catelog search?

[MatsP]

Maybe it's because I'm the kind of detail oriented person I am, I think having complete sets of scientifically described species in the Cat-eLog is a good thing, even if there is no picture, and no DIRECT use for the commonly kept species, it shows that there are many more species than the ones that are common.

--
Mats

[Birger]

The whole synonym thing was mainly set up to direct users instantly to valid species without having to dig through the whole site.

That is the way I understood it as well and as its main purpose for the average user should be fine as is....I think it has been great the way Marc has mainly taken up the care of these and beneficial that a second set of eyes has a look(as Shane pointed out in another thread)

Birger

[Shane]

I think Shane's way will involve a lot of extra time with (too) little benefit for the average user.

Marc,
Maybe I did not explain myself correctly. What I was saying was that I prefer NOT to have to correctly list the various synonyms. I think it is too much work for too little benefit to the average user.

The whole synonym thing was mainly set up to direct users instantly to valid species without having to dig through the whole site.

I do not think anyone has plans to change this. Really no reason not to stay happy

I think having complete sets of scientifically described species in the Cat-eLog is a good thing, even if there is no picture, and no DIRECT use for the commonly kept species, it shows that there are many more species than the ones that are common.

I agree 100%. The new entries are also already bringing in new photos now that people see we lack them and want them. As Jools says, "Build it and they will come." All it takes is a hobbyist or scientist to see a new entry without a pic and think, "I have a photo of that fish, I should send it in."

-Shane

[Marc van Arc]

IXINANDRIA Isbrücker & Nijssen, 1979
Type species: Loricaria steinbachi Regan, 1906

For the actual sp in question:

Loricaria steinbachi Regan, 1906 (listed under subgenus Rineloricaria)
Loricaria (Rineloricaria) steinbachi Gosline, 1945
Ixinandria steinbachi Isbrücker, 1979 (new combination)
Canthopomus montebelloi Fowler, 1940 (new synonym)
Ixinandria montebelloi Isbrücker, 1979 (new combination)

So I misunderstood. I thought you wanted all descriptions as shown above....

Nevertheless, I was actually quite happy when I wrote my reply

[Jools]

So, in summary, I. montebelloi should not have a species entry, right?

Jools

[Norman]

Right, its synomized with I. steinbachi by Rodriguez et al.

so long
Norman