PlanetCatfish.com

The descriptions for L numbers differ in many cases compared to PC. Are their descriptions wrong or are they using the wrong photographs but the actual descriptions are correct. The reason I ask is that most fish shops use the descriptions in Aqualog and it is very hard to know who is right. I am currently compiling a database and want to get it as correct as possible.


Many thanks

I think you will probably find more mistakes in Aqualog than you will find here.

I am not questioning the accuracy of PC - I am just interested to know whether the descriptions for each L number in the Aqualog books are correct but accompany the wrong photographs.

Thanks

No Aqualog is confused, and not just on L numbers. PC/ICoSA is a more relaible guide.

Dinyar

In terms of the L-number book aqualog differs about 60% from the original DATZ l-number introductions. If you define difference as being wrong then logic dictates that aqualog is around 60% wrong.

I put a lot of research into it but I cannot say PC is 100%, it is however the best place to start if you are not a German speaker.

Jools

So, whose standard are we using when L-numbers are discussed? Aqualog's or DATZ's? It would seem that most people use the "wrong" Aqualog standard (probably because it's more readily available).

Planet Catfish uses the original DATZ l-numbers but tries to recognise the problems aqualog users may have. This is for a variety of reasons:

1. In a Psuedo scientific way, the first "name" is the right one.
2. If you used the aqualog numbers you'd miss a lot of species that were in the original but not correctly replicated in aqualog.
3. I'd don't agree that most people have Aqualog. Most people have Planet Catfish and it's up to us to keep that right.

The (usually generic but sometimes specific) placement of l-numbers is to the best current knowledge and doesn't follow either sources which are hopelessly wrong or out-of-date.

There are other more convoluted agruments but these are my main ones.

Jools