PlanetCatfish.com

A New Species of Hypostomus (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Upper Rio Paraguay Basin, Brazil.

A New Distinctively Colored Catfish of the Genus Pareiorhaphis (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from the Rio Piracicaba, Upper Rio Doce Basin, Brazil.

A New Species of the Ornamental Catfish Genus Peckoltia (Siluriformes: Loricariidae) from Rio Xingu Basin, Brazilian Amazon.

Do we know which L number the Peckoltia is?

Do we know which L number the Peckoltia is?

and according to the paper.

"a species exploited by the international aquarium fish trade." What a nice way to end a paper.

plecoboy wrote: "a species exploited by the international aquarium fish trade." What a nice way to end a paper.

What's so funny? They are.

plecoboy wrote:"a species exploited by the international aquarium fish trade." What a nice way to end a paper.

To be fair, that's how they end the abstract, but the paper itself recommends to describe as many loricariids as possible that are threatened by the plans to build dams.

racoll wrote:

Do we know which L number the Peckoltia is?

L012

and

L013

according to the paper.

It's a shame they didn't discuss . I know that's from a different river but I understand they are connected?

It's a shame they didn't discuss Peckoltia sp(l163).

They do discuss . PM if you want me to email you a copy of the paper.

Hi Racoll!!

I would love to have a copy of all 3 papers if possible!!
In advance thanks
Cheers
Yann

Changing the catelog as we speak. Also fixed L10 = Loricaria birindelli while I'm at it.

Jools

Hi Racoll!!

I would love to have a copy of all 3 papers if possible!!
In advance thanks

Me too, Please.

Birger

"a species exploited by the international aquarium fish trade." What a nice way to end a paper.
What's so funny? They are.

From 1st January 2012 Peckoltia feldbergae is not allowed for export, it's also a specie of low value not interesting for the illegal trade. Earlier year the export was very low of this specie compared to many other species.

Janne

I hope you understand that 90% of all researchers use "exploration/exploit" in a negative way, they have now idea how much a specie are exploited or even if it really is exploited.

Jools wrote:Also fixed L10 = Loricaria birindelli while I'm at it.

Not sure this is correct, L. birindelli look quite difference to L010 that are more similar to L. lata and simillima.

Janne

Janne wrote:I hope you understand that 90% of all researchers use "exploration/exploit" in a negative way, they have now idea how much a specie are exploited or even if it really is exploited.

Is it exploited? I suspect we are looking at two different understandings of the word exploit. It is French, I think, in origin and a complex word. One might take it to mean to use for profit, correct in terms of this fish, or on might also take it to mean, to make best use of, also, indirectly, correct in terms of this fish. You can exploit a fish for profit, or food. It remains exploited.

In short, its use in the paper seems correct if perhaps blunt and certainly negative.

In my view, it is hard to see when any fish is removed from water as not some form of exploitation and thus with all the educated words used in the description, appears an unsatisfactory and simple use of the word to hide lack of data.

Jools wrote:Also fixed L10 = Loricaria birindelli while I'm at it.

Not sure this is correct, L. birindelli look quite difference to L010 that are more similar to L. lata and simillima.[/quote]

These are not Xingu fishes though? I might be wrong?

Jools

Is it exploited? I suspect we are looking at two different understandings of the word exploit. It is French, I think, in origin and a complex word. One might take it to mean to use for profit, correct in terms of this fish, or on might also take it to mean, to make best use of, also, indirectly, correct in terms of this fish. You can exploit a fish for profit, or food. It remains exploited.

In short, its use in the paper seems correct if perhaps blunt and certainly negative.

Yes, and why these persons have this kind of view?, not everything is bad because it's exploited by people, special species that only are exploited by researchers.

Loricaria lata or maybe the complex of this specie we find in more or less in all rivers in Para (I have not seen in Tapajos yet), even in Rio do Para and Baía do Guajará outside Belém. It's very common, when collect we find everything from almost totally black to very light sand colored specimens at the same spot in the same net. I'm not sure all is the same species at each location even if they look the same, with same variation in coloration etc. either it's a very wide spread specie or a complex of very similar species, L010 looks very similar to the L. lata we find and not so similar to L. birindelli.

Janne

I don't think it's fair to take the authors to task about the subtle meanings of a specific word, especially as they probably aren't native English speakers. Their use of the word was entirely proper and correct, however. Perhaps aquarists shouldn't be so defensive!

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2

I don't think it's fair to take the authors to task about the subtle meanings of a specific word, especially as they probably aren't native English speakers. Their use of the word was entirely proper and correct, however. Perhaps aquarists shouldn't be so defensive!

It's fair, and I'm not talking as an aquarist, I'm criticising a common view among researchers/biologists in Brazil and probably in other countries too. If someone want to describe a threat against a specie they should of course write about the real threats, not about none existing threats... which is the sentense in this article (that is only one of many).

Janne

Janne,

I think you might be slightly missing the meaning of the word exploit specifically in this context - it doesn't imply a threat to the species. It, as I read it at least, just means it is sold in the ornamental fish industry.

On to the matter of the Loricaria. What differences do you see in the two species outside of colour? I need to check these against the description and also other literature. Anything you've noticed would be really helpful.

Cheers,

Jools

Jools wrote:I think you might be slightly missing the meaning of the word exploit specifically in this context - it doesn't imply a threat to the species. It, as I read it at least, just means it is sold in the ornamental fish industry.

I also interpreted it in this way (i.e. the first meaning of the word below). See http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/exploit:

(1) exploit: to make productive use of

(2) exploit: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

And, apologies for my interest in words. I tend to be a little "interested" in them!

Jools

(2) exploit: to make use of meanly or unfairly for one's own advantage

Is a very common view among researchers and biologists in Brazil, sometimes it's of course correct but many times is not and have become like a general frase in to many papers. There are so many other threats and very serious threats, these are very rarerly mention.

Below is more similar to the original photo of L010 in Datz (that even are more black and darker).


Compare the pattern in the fins and overall coloration, seems to be much lighter.


Janne

Janne wrote:There are so many other threats and very serious threats, these are very rarerly mention.

To be fair to the authors on this occasion, the reference to aquarium trade was one sentence in the abstract (and nowhere else), while discussion of the hydro-electric dams occupied the entire final paragraph of the paper.

Janne wrote:it's of course correct but many times is not and have become like a general frase in to many papers.

It's a perhaps a sad fact in today's academic climate that researchers need to really push their work as hard as they can to get in good journals and get further funding/promotion. This means making the work appear as important and essential as possible, hence highlighting every aspect of why it's useful. This could be interpreted as "overselling" or exaggerating.

To be fair to the authors on this occasion, the reference to aquarium trade was one sentence in the abstract (and nowhere else), while discussion of the hydro-electric dams occupied the entire final paragraph of the paper.

Yes, I may sound unfair in this case but little frustrated over the general view which is like I wrote. For not so many days ago I had a visit by some people from Eletro Norte needing some help with some projects, they insured that there will not be any single species (fish as other animals etc.) extinct by the Belo Monte project and dams... not sure if they really beleive this or if it's their official policy.
How many knows for example that lower Teles Pires is almost without water? The dam construction in this river will soon be finish and they have cut of the water flow, it's not possible to collect fish for the ornamental trade in this part of the river. Fishermen went there only to find a dry river, and Teles Pires is not such a small river.

Threats from collecting fish to the ornamental trade is in 99% extremely low or not existing, there are parts that can be done much better but largest problem is lack of knowledge and or will how to control this by authorities. Commercial fishing for food is 1000 times higher threats, dam constructions wipe out large areas with specific habitats, agriculture poison the nature and rivers killing many species, mining in rivers pollute and poison the water, hunting for fun (fish as bushmeat), illegal trade of species, lack of education is itself a threat since people not have a clue about nature (in general) and so on, if making a list of all threats against species of fish, ornamental trade will end up in the last end of this list, not in the beginning. Fish is a renewable resource, could generate income in "eternity" year after year after year... if there was no other threats.

Janne