fish not in database?

[knutschi]

Sorry for asking, maybe I was only to stupid to use the search correctly, but I could not find any of the Neoheterandria species in the database? Is there a plan to add those? Thanks in advance!

[Matt]

Hi there, welcome to the forum and please don’t apologise for asking! We’ve already got images of N. elegans so the short answer is yes, it will be added at some point. I might even try to do so in the next few days, but it would be nice to get some images of the other two species as well. Do you keep them yourself knutschi?

[knutschi]

TY! Unfortunately, I cannot help with images. I don’t keep them myself, but a friend of mine is keeping N. elegans, which is a lovely and also colorful fish and imho deserves a higher popularity.

[knutschi]

As I am still new to this fantastic website and do not know how it works here, I will add a more general question:

I found an other popular fish not in the database: Cryptoheros sajica.

My impression is that the database is biased towards new and rare species? Is it a goal of the database to contain all known fish? If not, what decides if a species is included?

 

Thx again!

[Matt]

Thanks for the kind words knutschi. It’s understandable how it might be the impression but honestly the site isn’t biased towards any particular species. Selection has traditionally been based on the interests of active forum members meaning some groups such as loaches or danios are quite complete whereas others such as livebearers or cichlids aren’t.

We have literally thousands of photos of other species to add and I’m doing my best to catch up but it’s not a fast process because I’ve only two hands, one brain and limited hours available, plus existing profiles often require updating due to changes in nomenclature, for example, which slows things down further.

In the meantime, perhaps we should start a ‘species requests’ thread here on the forum? This would at least allow us to prioritise what people would most like to see, and we already have a couple of entries!

[knutschi]

Thx Matt for the clarifications! I completely undertstand your restrictions, I was just wondering how it works here

 

Imho the species request thread only makes sense, if in fact someone will do those profiles otherwise you only raise false hopes ^^

 

Keep up the good work

[Rüdiger]

Been watching this and just have to jump in! 

Knutschi, seeing that unfortunately Matt’s the one single person doing all this stuff we’ll have to accept that progress will depend on whatever time he can spend on doing what has to be done. And if you look at what he’s done already, I don’t think there’s anything to complain about, really. Imho this is the best site abailable but if you do have any viable info regarding a species not featured yet, I’m quite sure Matt will be grateful and willing to use it!

Regards

R.

[knutschi]

Sorry for being not clear enough, but this has never in no means been a complaint!

[BillT]

This thread has made me wonder about how many total species are in the DB and how many are in each of the sub-groups.

Could not find these numbers.

[Matt]

Knutschi, I know you weren’t complaining and don’t reckon Rüdiger thought so either. Although I’m the only person doing the database at the moment we’re always looking for help and suggestions so please keep them coming!

Bill, there are 1637 species in the KB so far but unsure about the different groups, will have to check.

[BillT]

there are 1637 species in the KB so far

Impressive. Good jobs guys!

[Rüdiger]

@BillT said:

there are 1637 species in the KB so far

Impressive. Good jobs guys!

+1! Couldn’t agree more! 

And yes Knutschi, Matt is right, he just worded it better than I did! I am a bloody German after all, so I just might come across a bit straight forward every now and than. What I meant is, if you know something that’s not on SF, just shout!

Regards

R.

[Author]

Posts