Pangio spp.

[Matt]

Hi your unholiness yes I managed to get a copy of the Fraser-Brunner paper. Would you like a copy?

The only references I could really do with are the original descriptions of P. goaensis, P. mariarum, P. myersi and P. robiginosa plus the following:

Moldenhauer, D. 1957. Ein Beitrag zur Systematik der Gattung Acanthophthalmus. Aquar. Terrar. Zischr. 10: 119-121.

P.s. for others’ interest here’s the translated text of the original P. kuhlii description by Cuvier and Valenciennes. It might not be exact but pretty close:

I dedicate this species to the memory of my friend Kuhl, diagnosed by the elongated body shape, by the position of the dorsal, by the notch of its tail; but that differs by the shortness of the barbels, by the small size of the fins, and the more-or-less orange body is crossed by twelve brown bands. The base of the caudal is the same color as the stripes with yellow edges. The dorsal, anal and ventral fins are also yellow. The pectoral fins are
grey. This fish measures just two inches and inhabits streams around Batavia. Kuhl had the idea of separating species possessing suborbital spines from other loaches since he described Acanthophthalmus fasciatus, grouping those without a spine under the name Nemacheilus.

P.p.s. ‘Batavia’ was the name given to modern day Jakarta by Dutch colonialists.

[The.Dark.One]

Hi Matt

No I’m OK thanks, although I might ask in the future.
Have you seen an image of the original hand watercoloured drawings from which kuhlii was described?

[Matt]

Yeah I’ve seen the one reproduced in Roberts’ 1993 paper but that itself is a copy of the original drawing right? If I read it correctly Roberts (via Kottelat) actually considered it to be a drawing of P. semicincta.

#320187

[The.Dark.One]

Hi Matt

Yes, it is reproduced in Roberts. The 8 page Kottelat & Whitten is just a list of corrections and additions to the book (I have it). In it it just says “Pangio semicincta: Addition: Borneo, Sumatra. Earlier included in P. kuhlii; distinct species (MK. pers. obs.); P. kuhlii is resticted to Java.”

I’m not aware that Kottelat thinks the drawing in Roberts is semicincta? I can’t see how that could be when the drawing is of van Hasselt’s Acanhtophthalmus fasciatus (nomen nudem) which was the basis for kuhlii. The text in Roberts (p. 26) means (I think) that it looks like what has normally been identified as semicincta, not that it actually is semicincta.

[Matt]

Ah ok that does make sense thanks for the clarification – Roberts’ wording is a little ambiguous to say the least (at least for this Lancastrian). Wonder if anyone is redescribing P. kuhlii using the recently-collected material…

[Plaamoo]

So khuli loaches are’t khuli loaches at all! They’re semicincta loaches

#320215

[The.Dark.One]

QUOTE (plaamoo @ Dec 30 2010, 11:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So khuli loaches are’t khuli loaches at all! They’re semicincta loaches

#320219

Plaamoo

Participant

^I’ll be explaining this to all the shops I visit!……NOT!!

#320222

Matt

Keymaster

QUOTE (The.Dark.One @ Dec 30 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the book (I have it).

Rubbing it in again I see…sigh.

#320411

Matt

Keymaster

Jörg Bohlen has sent me an image of what might be P. kuhlii from southern Sumatra but Tan and Kottelat (2009) examined populations from there and considered them synonymous with P. semicincta. So my question is – do we include a profile of P. kuhlii or not?

#320412

Stefan

Member

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jörg Bohlen has sent me an image of what might be P. kuhlii from southern Sumatra but Tan and Kottelat (2009) examined populations from there and considered them synonymous with P. semicincta. So my question is – do we include a profile of P. kuhlii or not?

Do you mean whether the taxon is valid or not being the dilemma?

#320413

Matt

Keymaster

No the taxon is valid we just don’t really know what a live one looks like. Almost certainly not in the trade.

#320415

Stefan

Member

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the taxon is valid we just don’t really know what a live one looks like. Almost certainly not in the trade.

In that case I’d opt not to incude it yet, because what would you write? Or, and maybe that’s a better idea, include it and put into words the confusion that exists; it’s helpful and someone might read it come forward with more or new info?

#320417

Matt

Keymaster

Yeah was thinking the second option myself but it looks terrible to include profiles without images. Have asked Jörg if we can use his pic with an explanation that it might not actually be P. kuhlii.

#320418

Stefan

Member

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah was thinking the second option myself but it looks terrible to include profiles without images. Have asked Jörg if we can use his pic with an explanation that it might not actually be P. kuhlii.

That sounds like a good idea.

[Plaamoo]

^I’ll be explaining this to all the shops I visit!……NOT!!

#320222

[Matt]

QUOTE (The.Dark.One @ Dec 30 2010, 02:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

the book (I have it).

Rubbing it in again I see…sigh.

#320411

[Matt]

Jörg Bohlen has sent me an image of what might be P. kuhlii from southern Sumatra but Tan and Kottelat (2009) examined populations from there and considered them synonymous with P. semicincta. So my question is – do we include a profile of P. kuhlii or not?

[Stefan]

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 10:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Jörg Bohlen has sent me an image of what might be P. kuhlii from southern Sumatra but Tan and Kottelat (2009) examined populations from there and considered them synonymous with P. semicincta. So my question is – do we include a profile of P. kuhlii or not?

Do you mean whether the taxon is valid or not being the dilemma?

[Matt]

No the taxon is valid we just don’t really know what a live one looks like. Almost certainly not in the trade.

[Stefan]

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No the taxon is valid we just don’t really know what a live one looks like. Almost certainly not in the trade.

In that case I’d opt not to incude it yet, because what would you write? Or, and maybe that’s a better idea, include it and put into words the confusion that exists; it’s helpful and someone might read it come forward with more or new info?

[Matt]

Yeah was thinking the second option myself but it looks terrible to include profiles without images. Have asked Jörg if we can use his pic with an explanation that it might not actually be P. kuhlii.

[Stefan]

QUOTE (Matt @ Jan 7 2011, 11:30 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah was thinking the second option myself but it looks terrible to include profiles without images. Have asked Jörg if we can use his pic with an explanation that it might not actually be P. kuhlii.

That sounds like a good idea.

[Author]

Posts