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

Choprae Or Choprai?

Home Forums Fresh and Brackish Water Fishes Choprae Or Choprai?

This topic contains 14 replies, has 5 voices, and was last updated by  Matt 9 years, 3 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #300294

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Which is correct please?

    #314575

    keith565
    Participant

    i believe it is choprae

    #314579

    ndc
    Participant

    i always went with ae as well but ive just had a look and they were named after a man – dr b.n. chopra – and therefor should end ai. (‘e’ endings are for feminine names in latin and ‘i’ is for masculine names) so i think the name for them should be choprai, think thats why they have been seen with both spellings. dont know why they were originally given the ‘e’ ending, maybe because it had been so long between description and ‘modern discovery’ for the aquatics trade that when they were first shipped they were given the wrong spelling which just stuck, either that or Hora who originally named the fish after chopra was taking the p !!

    #314580

    ndc
    Participant

    http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Ornamental-Fish-of-I…%3A2%7C294%3A50

    this book may be of interest to a few of you, also seems very good value as well, read a couple of decent reviews about it so im going to order one later.

    #314586

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Yeah right Neill that’s why I asked as choprai doesn’t seem to have been formalised as the correct name…

    That book is a bargain!

    #314592

    ndc
    Participant

    nice one –

    #314601

    retro_gk
    Participant

    I think Fang et al use choprai? Will look it up when I get home tonight.

    #314604

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Hmm they refer to it as choprae in the recent phylogenetic paper. *scratches chin*

    #314607

    ndc
    Participant

    i suppose if it was originally incorrectly named then it cant be changed just because of an error in latin naming can it?

    #314608

    ndc
    Participant

    just found this – on fishbase
    Accepted scientific name:
    Danio choprae Hora, 1928 (accepted name)

    Synonyms:
    Brachydanio choprai (Hora, 1928) (synonym)

    Danio choprai Hora, 1928 (synonym)

    Additional data:
    The original spelling choprae must be maintained under the Code, Art 31.1.3, and not be emended to choprai (S.Kullander, pers.comm.11/08).

    Brachydanio choprai (Hora, 1928) Danio choprai Hora, 1928

    this links to – http://www.iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp?nfv=&article=31

    when you read through this though its a bit confusing as it says it shouldnt be changed but a couple of pages on it looks like it should be changed .

    in summary id say that it was an original error by Hora, which it looks like he tried to ammend but due to technicalities with nouns, names etc etc in the paper it hasnt been. im going to read it all again and see if i can make out what should be correct or not !!

    #314609

    ndc
    Participant

    from what i can make out , the reason it hasnt been changed is to do with the original naming of the fish, even though there was an error which it seems Hora recognised in the same year he names the fish, it cant be changed as it was an error by him (rather than say a print error, which could be rectified) , also in section 30.2.4 when the name is chosen the ending obviously dictates wether the name is to be treated as feminine or masculine , as Hora chose (by mistake it appears) a feminine ending this was accepted as the correct name (as everything else was correct) but the fact that the person (chopra in this case) was male has no further bearing as the name had already been accepted. in essence , Hora used the incorrect ending in the original paper – which was accepted – and therefor couldnt change it just because he had made a mistake. seems a bit tough on poor old chopra but thats the way the classification system is (and when you read the system you realise how tight it is – i though it was just a case of picking a name !) choprae it is then !!

    #314610

    David Marshall
    Participant

    Hey

    Rules as above currently causes confusion with Synodontis. Do we have angelicus or angelica? Decorus or Decora?

    Regards David

    #314611

    ndc
    Participant

    hi david, from having a quick look around it would appear both have been changed back to angelica and decora. from what ive seen they have both been put back to their ‘original’ spellings which would infer that they had been changed since original names were given – theres just too many people messing with latin names by the look of it. i suppose that in this ‘modern’ age of magazines and the net its easy for a name to be erroneously changed, which is then taken up ‘en masse’ and becomes hard to return to its original (as not a lot of people have access to the original material)

    #314612

    David Marshall
    Participant

    Thanks NDC

    Regards David

    #314613

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Cool stuff Neill cheers.

    Author
    Posts
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 15 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.