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

The.Dark.One

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 154 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Four new subgenera of Centromochlus #354750

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Sorry, only in printed.

    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354713

    The.Dark.One
    Participant
    in reply to: The Obscure Loaches Of North India #354134

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    I’m sorry but I can’t offer an ID on the upper loach, though I do think it falls into Schistura, from what I can see of it.

    WRT to the Acanthocobitis/Paracanthocobitis issue, the thesis isn’t published from the point of view of the ICZN but I understand a peer reviewed manuscript version of it is due to be published hopefully this year, in a very reputable peer reviewed journal.

    Kottelat’s main (stated) objection is that there is no phylogenetic evidence for it. Well, actually there is:

    Bohlen, J. and V. Ŝlechtová 2009.
    Phylogenetic position of the fish genus Ellopostoma (Teleostei: Cypriniformes) using molecular genetic data.

    Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters v. 20 (no. 2): 157-162.

    This was overlooked in the papers you mention, but strangely similar work (not by Kottelat) was used to prop up his new genus Ambastaia, as well as colour and pattern, which at a generic level isn’t often used. Singer found morphological differences in addition to the ones I found: enlarged fleshy rostral barbels and lack of a patch of adipose tissue on the lateral line.

    So, phylogenetic evidence and morphological evidence. The main reasons (IMO) that Kottelat has not adopted the name is that it was not published in a peer reviewed journal and I did not physically have preserved specimens in my hands.

    So, in 2015 you will have to choose from a catalogue of fishes from a massive region / a superfamily, or a full review of the genera involved, both in peer reviewed journals. I know which one I would pick, putting any selfish reasons aside. Eschmeyer just follows latest work or most used names. Same goes for use of mackenziei, which IMO is valid.

    in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #350278

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    I was considering mandalayensis but probably botia.

    in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #350255

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Matt, I’ve had another look at the discussion on rubidipinnis in the pictilis description and having looked again at Kottelat 1990 and Rendahl 1948, these are not rubidipinnis IMO.

    in reply to: Identify Small catfish? #350254

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    The top fish is Hara minuscula, the next Hara jerdoni, then Akysis maculipinnis, then Hara horai. Based on what you described I would guess your fish was Erethistes pusillus

    in reply to: Lepidocephalichthys spp. #349978

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    The caudals don’t look forked enough for furcatus?  What about micropogon?

    in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #349956

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Are you not able to use the purported differences in the pictilis paper to differentiate?

    in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #349943

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Your guess is as good as mine. The pictilis paper has really muddles things up I think.

    in reply to: Acanthocobitis spp. #349779

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Interesting. They are obviously small specimens? Where are they supposed to have been caught?

    How many dorsal fin rays have they got?

    in reply to: Fish ID #349216

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    hard to say for definite from that picture but after years of trying to ID erethistins and keeping and photographing them I would say this is an Erethistes pusillus. The small, low,  adipose fin is a good way to ID them. If you can take a clear pic of the pectoral fins from underneath we will be able to tell for sure.

    in reply to: Alternative pattern? (Sinibotia) #349215

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Sorry guys, can’t shed any more light than you can. Agree with all comments about poor info on Chinese fish, despite having about 10 or more Chinese fish books.

     

    The fish in the first picture of this thread, I have a feeling is the same species as the ones behind it but has an aberrant pattern or problem with its chromatophores

    in reply to: Corydoras ID #348903

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    I too think C. ambiacus

    in reply to: Puntius tiantian #348859

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    Andy hasnt got a camera. Mick used to take photos for him. he needs to bring em to a show and I’ll have a go for him, that’s if he can untie the apron strings ;o)

     

    On the subject of didi etc, I think the situation is far from clear.

    in reply to: Puntius tiantian #348855

    The.Dark.One
    Participant

    This was a pic of a tiantian I took a few months ago at a show.

     

    tiantian.jpg

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 154 total)

« Previous Entries