LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Avatar

Please consider registering
guest

sp_LogInOut Log In sp_Registration Register

Register | Lost password?
Advanced Search

— Forum Scope —




— Match —





— Forum Options —





 

Minimum search word length is 4 characters - maximum search word length is 84 characters

sp_Feed Topic RSS sp_TopicIcon
Inland fishes of Southeast Asia
November 25, 2013
12:08 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Nice, thanks a lot HH!

Cake or death?
November 28, 2013
12:00 am
Avatar
Bojan Dolenc
Member
Forum Posts: 91
Member Since:
September 26, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

So 'Puntius' tetrazona, Tiger Barb is now Puntigrus tetrazona?

Puntigrus Kottelat, 2013

November 28, 2013
12:15 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

There are loads of changes and so far I've been scared to read the paper fully...a load of ex-Puntius spp. have been moved to Barbodes or Desmopuntius, most danios have been placed back in Brachydanio, Celestichthys is revalidated with D. flagrans and D. choprae included, Inlecypris is revalidated, Opsarius is used in place of Barilius, etc....

Going to have to read through very carefully and it's going to take a long time to bring things up to date.

Cake or death?
November 28, 2013
12:22 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Ah but there is a summary. Doh!

Edit: which isn't comprehensive. :(

Cake or death?
November 28, 2013
2:44 pm
Avatar
Rüdiger
Brunswick / Germany
Veteran
Forum Posts: 349
Member Since:
May 2, 2012
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Matt said

Going to have to read through very carefully and it's going to take a long time to bring things up to date.

 

I wouldn`t rush into it Matt!!

Personally I can`t see Celestichthiys e.g. standing for too long before someone else is going to declare it invalid again, especially with D. flagrans and D. choprae included?

Regards

R.

If you must insist on living in a box ...... at least do your thinking outside.
November 28, 2013
4:55 pm
Avatar
Plaamoo
Bellingham, Washington U.S.A.
Community Helper
Forum Posts: 1253
Member Since:
March 15, 2009
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

I agree wit Rudi. Don't kill yourself trying to keep up with revisions.

November 28, 2013
10:54 pm
Avatar
Matt
Málaga, Spain
Admin
Forum Posts: 8239
Member Since:
June 13, 2011
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Mm, think the majority of these changes are unlikely to be challenged given the author, editing team, and strength of the arguments I've read so far.

Do think we should look at the way that profiles are currently structured though. Perhaps we could shorten the length of the 'Notes' section and just have a single page containing information about the genus, for example. This would save a lot of time and help avoid repetition as well. Something to action when we improve the way in which species are indexed in the KB?

Cake or death?
November 29, 2013
12:32 am
Avatar
BillT
Eugene, Oregon
Veteran
Forum Posts: 228
Member Since:
September 10, 2010
sp_UserOfflineSmall Offline

Personally I can`t see Celestichthiys e.g. standing for too long before someone else is going to declare it invalid again, especially with D. flagrans and D. choprae included?

I have not looked at this paper closely but, I think that choprae (and therefore flagrans) usually group with margaritatus and erythromicron molecularly, so it makes sense to me. Also to my eye, they look more similar (choprae and flagrans) look more similar to (margaritatus and erythromicron) than to other Danios. Also the Danio "genus" is getting kind of big now with all the added species.

Or just call them all different clades (other than species, genus, phylum, class, and kingdom, I have always had trouble remembering the different levels and their names). Wink

 

Do think we should look at the way that profiles are currently structured though. Perhaps we could shorten the length of the 'Notes' section and just have a single page containing information about the genus, for example. This would save a lot of time and help avoid repetition as well. Something to action when we improve the way in which species are indexed in the KB?

What information would go into a genus profile vs. a species profile?

Would there also be additional corresponding pages for higher taxonomic units?

If it is limited to taxonomy info, it would make a lot of sense. Among Danios at least, I think there is a fair amount of diversity in behavior, habitat, husbandry conditions, etc. among the different species.

Bill Trevarrow [email protected]
Forum Timezone: Europe/Paris

Most Users Ever Online: 246

Currently Online:
1 Guest(s)

Currently Browsing this Page:
1 Guest(s)

Devices in use: Phone (1)

Top Posters:

Stefan: 1567

Plaamoo: 1253

mikev: 1134

Malti: 1099

Mark Duffill: 1012

Member Stats:

Guest Posters: 0

Members: 30275

Moderators: 0

Admins: 2

Forum Stats:

Groups: 4

Forums: 10

Topics: 4595

Posts: 36614

Newest Members: JeffOfNorway, ghostfishman, kduprey5020, crondras, cliver

Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239