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

Erwin

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)
  • Author
    Posts

  • Erwin
    Participant

    Folks, you simply do not look outside the box. Zoology is not only fish and there are not only aquarium fish, where many people know something about it. Just think about insects, there it may happen that there is only one expert in the whole world for a particular group. Who should review his work? But one must not go that far, even in fish, there are groups nobody works on them. I recently heard that the material of the first German deep-sea expedition (Valdivia) from 1898/1899 is still not fully processed, because experts are missing. Or have a look in Zootaxa, at present the most well-known journal, who is currently in charge of African freshwater fish? An editor for this section doesn’t show up on their web page ( http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/taxa/Pisces.html ). The review in scientific journals refers often only to whether the rules are being followed or not. The actual content can not be judged by many reviewers.


    Erwin
    Participant

    No such rules exist, what for should they. Science is free. Even in the best peer reviewed journals mistakes happen. There’s no big difference between a good hobbyist journal and a scientific journal. The article itself makes the difference. Just read the rules: http://iczn.org/iczn/index.jsp

    in reply to: Jeju Island, S.Korea Fish ID #351906

    Erwin
    Participant

    I would say, your species is Cheilodactylus zonatus the “Spottedtail Morwong”, see http://fishbase.fishinfo.cn/photos/thumbnailssummary.php?ID=6586

    in reply to: Cave Fishes of Guangxi, China #351750

    Erwin
    Participant

    I would be very much interested to get the names of the new taxa. Anybody got the book?

     

    in reply to: Poecilia kempeski #350728

    Erwin
    Participant

    Well, if it was intended to be an April fools day prank, it turned out to become to serious, because it got everything what a valid description had to have:

    1. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must 13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon…”

    – This is the case (“Neben der auffälligen Ähnlichkeit der Poecilia-Arten in Suriname war doch auch ein deutlicher Unterschied festzustellen: Poecilia kempkesi zeigt eine ausgeprägt silber-metallische Körperfarbe, Poecilia picta ist gelb oder hellrot, P. vivipara ist orange und P. parae aus Suriname zeigt eine blaue Färbung”)

    2. Every new specific and subspecific name published after 1999, … must be accompanied in the original publication
    16.4.1. by the explicit fixation of a holotype, or syntypes, for the nominal taxon

    – This is the case (“RMNH 34387, Paramaribo, coll. W.C. v. Heurn, XIII 1911”). Just had a phonecall with Leiden, this RMNH number exists, data are correctly given by Poeser, and it contains amongst other fishes also Guppys from Paramaribo.

    3. “Article 13. Names published after 1930. 13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the provisions of Article 11 and must 13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon, or 13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even…”

    – Checked with Lindholm et al. 2005, the article is about Australian guppys, but it contains, as Poeser writes, DNA checks from guppys from Surinam, and they are very different to others.

    4. Recommendation 16A of the Code. Means of explicitly indicating names as intentionally new. To
    avoid uncertainty about their intentions, authors proposing new names (nomina nova), including
    new replacement names, are advised to make their intentions explicit by using in headings, or at
    first use of new names in proposals, appropriate abbreviations of Latin terms such as “fam.
    nov.”, “g. nov.”, “sp. nov.”, “ssp. nov.”, or some strictly equivalent expression such as “new
    family”, “new genus”, “new species”, “new subspecies”, “n. fam.”, “n. g.”, “n. sp.”,…”

    – It’s there, the magic words “n. sp.”

    So, please tell me, why it should be an April fools day prank. And tell me if it is one, why it didn’t turn out to become serious?

    in reply to: Poecilia kempeski #350720

    Erwin
    Participant

    I agree with you that this sentence is empirically not proven in any way. And of course, the title sucks, but is also to be understand from the previous placed other guppy articles. The whole article acts as if the author would speak about an otherwise published original description, but it was just published ahead of it.

    in reply to: Poecilia kempeski #350718

    Erwin
    Participant

    The question is if the content of the reference you gave is conform with what the Code says? Peer-review is not one of the arguments neccessary for a valid description acc. to the Code. And only the Code counts! Anyhow what means peer-review? Peer-review is already if one of my friends (all my friends are experts in one or the other way) read my ms before publishing and tell me their opinion. Forget about peer-review as the absolute tool, it helps but can’t eliminate all mistakes.

    The whole Code is available online, so it should not be a copyright problem to point on the important articles:

    “Article 13. Names published after 1930.
    13.1. Requirements. To be available, every new name published after 1930 must satisfy the
    provisions of Article 11 and must
    13.1.1. be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are
    purported to differentiate the taxon, or
    13.1.2. be accompanied by a bibliographic reference to such a published statement, even if
    the statement is contained in a work published before 1758, or in one that is not consistently
    binominal, or in one that has been suppressed by the Commission (unless the Commission
    has ruled that the work is to be treated as not having been published [Art. 8.7]), or
    13.1.3. be proposed expressly as a new replacement name (nomen novum) for an available
    name, whether required by any provision of the Code or not.
    Recommendation 13A. Intent to differentiate. When describing a new nominal taxon, an
    author should make clear his or her purpose to differentiate the taxon by including with it a
    diagnosis, that is to say, a summary of the characters that differentiate the new nominal taxon
    from related or similar taxa.
    Recommendation 13B. Language. Authors should publish diagnoses of new taxa in
    languages widely used internationally in zoology. The diagnoses should also be given in languages used in the regions relevant to the taxa diagnosed.”

    Art. 11 is more technically.

     

    in reply to: Poecilia kempeski #350716

    Erwin
    Participant

    Can’t find a reason why it’s not a valid description, if not everything is faked (types etc.), but that doesn’t look like. The species description contains the “magic words” ‘n. sp.’ as well as types (syntypes).  The code only says: “After 1999 the proposal of a new species-group nominal taxon must include the fixation for it of a name-bearing type (a holotype or expressly indicated syntypes) in a manner that enables the subsequent recognition of that type”.

    in reply to: CONSPECTUS COBITIDUM #349399

    Erwin
    Participant

    You’re probably right about the costs HH, because from Publications Kottelat its 65 Swiss Francs (plus shipping, 10.50 CHF in Europe, 15 CHF outside Europe).

    in reply to: hill stream fishes in Nepal #349378

    Erwin
    Participant

    I am not much familiar with fishes from Nepal, so I don’t know the predecessor of this book, and I don’t know if ther was any?

    in reply to: Fish Journals #349314

    Erwin
    Participant

    Hi Tom,

     

    a list of scientific journals (all with link) with more or less fish related stuff you can find here:

     

    http://worldfish.de/mags.html

    in reply to: Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus #348963

    Erwin
    Participant

    Indeed, Matt, P. sarana was only in the abstract mentioned, because the authors where of the opinion, that it looks similar, but it is not closely related, as they also attested.

     

    I mentioned B. bashii, because in the paper of Pethiyagoda et. al. [http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/…/count.php?url=http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief23_1_12.pdf] this species turned out to be related to Gonoproktopterus (now in this paper considered a synonym of Hypselobarbus, as you already wrote).

    in reply to: Phylogenetic Relationships of Species of Hypselobarbus #318842

    Erwin
    Participant

    Interesting also from another point of view (hope to get the paper soon, to get deeper in the materia), because the authors seem to include Puntius sarana (Hamilton, 1822) also in their Hypselobarbus. But Systomus immaculatus is the type species of Systomus McClelland, 1839, and a synonym of Puntius sarana. If the authors believe, that P. sarana is a Hypselobarbus, than Hypselobarbus is a synonym of Systomus, because Hypselobarbus was described later as Systomus (by Bleeker in 1860).

     

    You’re right Bolan, if Hypselobarbus mussullah is really not included, than the type species of Hypselobarbus is missing.

     

    Also from the abstract its not clear how they treat Gonoproktopterus. Because it looks like they treat it as a synonym. If that’s the case another species is missing: B. nashii (Day, 1869).


    Erwin
    Participant

    I think its published, should receive a copy soon. See: http://worldfish.de/sci.htm


    Erwin
    Participant

    A picture of this species can be seen here (and search for triocelli): http://zsi.gov.in/right_menu/Animal_disc/Animal%20Discovery%202011.pdf

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 17 total)

« Previous Entries