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

Badis triocellus sp. nov. published

Home Forums Ichthyology Badis triocellus sp. nov. published

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  Stefan 4 years, 9 months ago.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #302642

    Stefan
    Member

    PDF is available if anyone’s interested (already in your mailbox Matt)?

    #350366

    oaken
    Participant

    I would like a copy please :)

    #350367

    hachge
    Participant

    I’d like a copy also please

    #350368

    nuchal man
    Participant

    Me too please

    #350369

    Stefan
    Member

    Sent to all :)

    #350372

    hachge
    Participant

    Received thank you

    #350375

    Sylvain M
    Member

    What is the difference with B. singenensis? This description is dated 2011…

    It seems to have heard last year (??).
    Did she not been disabled?

    #350376

    Stefan
    Member

    @Sylvain M said:
    What is the difference with B. singenensis? This description is dated 2011…

    It seems to have heard last year (??).
    Did she not been disabled?

     

    Yes, this journal issue has been delayed. I’m pretty sure both species are conspecific, however this would need to be researched. I’m not sure what your last two phrases mean?

    #350377

    Stefan
    Member

    @hachge said:
    Received thank you

     

    You’re most welcome Herve!

    #350379

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Yep, cheers Stefan. So this was completed before the B. singenensis description was published?

    #350381

    Stefan
    Member

    As to which was first completed I cannot comment, because I don’t know. I do know that singenensis was published in Sep 2011 and triocellus should’ve been published in the Oct – Dec 2011 issue.

    #350396

    Sylvain M
    Member

    @stefan said:

    Yes, this journal issue has been delayed. I’m pretty sure both species are conspecific, however this would need to be researched. I’m not sure what your last two phrases mean?

     

     

    I mean, I thought I had already seen this description last year. (maybe in petfrd forum?)
    And that the description had been canceled. I may be wrong.

     

    #350397

    Stefan
    Member

    It was listed already, correct, but not yet published. There was no speak of cancellation as far as I know.

Viewing 13 posts - 1 through 13 (of 13 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.