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

Inland fishes of Southeast Asia

Home Forums Ichthyology Inland fishes of Southeast Asia

This topic contains 0 replies, has 1 voice, and was last updated by  BillT 4 years, 6 months ago.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #303039

    Stuporman
    Member
    #352237

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Nice, thanks a lot HH!

    #352255

    Bojan Dolenc
    Participant

    So ‘Puntius’ tetrazona, Tiger Barb is now Puntigrus tetrazona?

    Puntigrus Kottelat, 2013

    #352258

    Matt
    Keymaster

    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.

    #352259

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Ah but there is a summary. Doh!

    Edit: which isn’t comprehensive. :(

    #352262

    Rüdiger
    Participant

    @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.

    #352263

    Plaamoo
    Participant

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

    #352266

    Matt
    Keymaster

    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?

    #352268

    BillT
    Participant

    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.

Viewing 9 posts - 1 through 9 (of 9 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.