hovmoller Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Starting this thread in case there are still people out there that wants to have a go at me for wanting more common common names... The issue in question is: Why do LFS's sell their fish under names that are very uncommon? Examples: "Golden Leopard Cory"... Know to the rest of the world as "Sterbai Cory". "Black Line Flying Fox"... (as above) "Siamese Algae Eater" (and yes there is indeed a "Flying Fox" but this is not the same fish) The problem I have is that a new fish keeper might see that the local LFS has "Black Line Flying Fox". He/she then goes home to read about that fish... can't find anything other than "Flying Fox" and therefore assumes that this must be the fish in question.. Same goes for the Cory.. I think in these cases the LFS is misleading fishkeepers... (which I am sure they have no intention of doing) We can all make mistakes, especially with common names that are as imprecise as anything but a common name should be the name that is most commonly used to describe something... Opinions on this? (and let's keep it friendly mr pleco) Oh and let me just say that this is not a discussion about the use of scientific names.. that is a whole other can of worms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlogged Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I agree with you I asked for a SAE and had to tell them the difference and then pick it out. don't think half of them mind that much Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Flip side to the argument - On the other hand it could be even worse to sell under a sci. name when one cannot be 100% certain. Perhaps it verges on the side of caution? I'd be more likely to research the genealogy of a species sold under a common name than I would one sold under a sci name. I do prefer sci names, but I don't know if I would like everything being sold under them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anthony law Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 +1 for that...its allright if your are a real fish nut,.that whant to know more about diffrent fish name...but as a hobby fish keeper.... it should be keep simple so they dont get a fish they think its all rigth for there aqum then fine out a year down the track its eata eveything...etc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovmoller Posted May 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Flip side to the argument - On the other hand it could be even worse to sell under a sci. name when one cannot be 100% certain. Perhaps it verges on the side of caution? I'd be more likely to research the genealogy of a species sold under a common name than I would one sold under a sci name. I do prefer sci names, but I don't know if I would like everything being sold under them. As posted before this IS NOT a thread about the use of scientific names... please don't bring that topic into this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 The issue in question is: Why do LFS's sell their fish under names that are very uncommon? it is called marketing fancy name to match the fancy prices or do they just sell with the name the wholesaler supplied how many lfs are actually run by people who really know their fish Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovmoller Posted May 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 how many lfs are actually run by people who really know their fish I agree that is also a problem but the examples above are from a lfs that I think we can all agree "know their fish" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adrienne Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 There are two sides to this and personally I don't see the pet shop can ever win. If they use the scientific name for something imported under a common name, they are sometimes slammed as people say that it is the wrong fish and the wrong price. So they use the common name and people complain that the scientific name should be used. As a fish committee member I can tell you that the ''common'' names used overseas for certain fish are very very different to the ''common'' name we know them by here. Best idea, research your fish before you buy it. With some fish species even if you research it you will find that there are multiple common names for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZ_Loach Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 Its a problem with loaches aswell, clown loach is fine but the other types of loaches have quite a few different common names Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm not really sure what the problem is? Your really talking about shades of gray, what might be the "common, common name" to you is quite likely the "uncommon, common name" to some one else. And this is the reason LFS's use the name on the importers list, no matter what they call them some one is going to know better and tell them the "correct common name", at least this way they can fall back to common point for naming. If you want more "common common names", then you have to have a consistent, correct, referable naming scheme. In other words your reinventing the scientific naming system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlogged Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 ah but some time they will get it under one name one shipment tand then a different name the next and if they don't know their fish think it is different. And some times it's the abreviated common name. Like SEA and those cold water algea eaters (never actually looked at them) I asked for a SAE and the guy said they were in this tank (points to a tank) which had the cold water ones because everyone had been reffuring to them as algea eaters. So I think it is also partly due to people being ill informed of the proper names sorry for the rant :facepalm: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovmoller Posted May 6, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 I'm not really sure what the problem is? Your really talking about shades of gray, what might be the "common, common name" to you is quite likely the "uncommon, common name" to some one else. And this is the reason LFS's use the name on the importers list, no matter what they call them some one is going to know better and tell them the "correct common name", at least this way they can fall back to common point for naming. If you want more "common common names", then you have to have a consistent, correct, referable naming scheme. In other words your reinventing the scientific naming system. It's not really a big problem and yes there will always be many opinions as to what common name is correct. Therefore in reality there can't be a truly correct common name. That is not what I am asking for... The whole thing started when HFF posted that they now have "Threadfin Cichlids" in store and then immidiately after that quotes an article: "Acarichthys heckelii, also known as the Threadfin Acara". Then it lead to the Sterbai Cory being called "Golden Leopard" which is the only place in the world I have seen it being called that.. So I was really just asking if there are more people out there that think that some of these common names are simply too uncommon. This is not a right or wrong issue.. More of a "what does the majority think" issue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshlikesfish Posted May 6, 2011 Report Share Posted May 6, 2011 fancy name to match the fancy prices A lot of people I know go "pfff fish" untill I say "Thats a siamese fighter." then its all "Oooo wow do they kill each other?!?!?!?" When I was a helper at the animates pet fun days, so many people wanted to buy the "siamese fighter" and asked questions like "would they kill my goldfish?", "if they bite me, will I bleed?" The biggest appeal was the name from what I saw. I find it works with guppies too. Giving them fancy names like "Snakeskin" etc etc lets you up the $$$ How about the "Spotted bristlenose"? Thats the import name, but some people think they are Rio Ucayali. And no p44, I am not trying to "troll you" Then there are "pretty peckoltia" which are nothing like the "pretty peckoltia" overseas. I think this is going to be something that will be in constant debate. Especially if its an unknown fish that some people will be happy to name straight away but others are hesitant. As long as the given name takes people to correct information on the species Still get mix ups like SAE and flying fox though :-? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sophia Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 I think the point is that while we are possibly all guilty of doing it, and that is half the fun of fishkeeping, you shouldn't really impulse-buy fish. Go to the shop, see what they have, then go home and do some research. Then if it's the fish you think it is, go back and buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 How about the "Spotted bristlenose"? Thats the import name, but some people think they are Rio Ucayali. To me the whole "Rio Ucayali" thing just shows a lack of understanding of how scientific nomenclature works (sorry Thomas, I know you said thats not what this thread is about!). When a collector collects a fish that is not obviously belonging to a described species (as so often is the case with plecs) they will often give it a handle, like a common name but a bit more official, so that it can be talked about and called something until formally described and classified. It could be a collection number*, or a made up name like Heros Sp. 'Rotkeil' for the red shoulder severum, or as in this case a locality; Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali'. This handle refers to those particular fish, taken from that particular locality, and perhaps their F1 offspring, or at a stretch F2 (after that, IMO, it starts becoming irrelevant). It DOES NOT refer to every fish of that particular species. If you find a fish in another river that looks exactly the same that doesn't make it also an Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali'. Not until that species is described and its range and defining characteristics defined, can you look at a fish from another source and say it is the same thing. "Identifying" [using the term loosely] a fish that has most likely come from a fish farm in asia as "Rio anything" is a farce IMO. Imagine the confusion of some real wild-caught Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali' were imported. Would people want to mix them? What if they weren't exactly the same? What if five years later someone eventually describes the true Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali' and it turns out it is subtly different to this other thing that has been imported from a fish farm and could be a mix of goodness only knows what? How many threads would we have trying to determine who had true "Ucayali" and whos were hybrids or the imported impostors? I know many people here have strong opinions about making up names for unknowns, but IMO it is a far better practice to admit you're not sure about the identity and give it a different name which people can use, and then if/when it is properly identified the name can be corrected. Taking a guess or making an assumption opens the door for the incorrectly identified entities to be mixed into the gene pool of the known species. So, to tie it into the topic on hand, having more common common names would be a good thing, but only to an extent. "Identifying" anything by using a common name must, from a serious hobbyists perspective, be regarded as impossible. Sometimes a common name will only refer to one true species, sometimes it will be used to cover several species (eg; rummy nose tetras), and some (like the SAE/flying fox example) will be interchanged freely and have several common names for several similar looking species. Hoping and expecting people to not do this is wishful thinking IMO, those who don't care will always muddle them up and not see the need to be concerned, and those who care enough will [or should] learn the Latin names of the fish in question. Shops will continue to sell their fish as what the wholesaler sells them as, and wholesalers will still continue to invent common names as they see fit. And really, there are no conventions governing the use of common names (as there are with scientific names) so expecting them to be logical and reliable is optimistic at best. * collection numbers are common in the plant world where people often collect seeds from the wild. You often see something like 'C128' tacked onto the name (even with known species) so the collection site can be referred to later on. With C128 the C stands for Cole, the surname of the collector, and the number references that particular collection locality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livingart Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Go to the shop, see what they have, then go home and do some research. Then if it's the fish you think it is, go back and buy it. then get to the shop and find someone else has bought it in the meantime :evil: you ask got anymore coming in the guy in the shop says :dunno: you go :facepalm: so you go home and have a :tears: :smln: :sage: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshlikesfish Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Nice reply David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hovmoller Posted May 7, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Nice reply David Indeed it was. I think this thread was doomed from the start trying to debate something so personal as common names.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David R Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Its one of those things where everyone has a different opinion, kinda like trying to debate politics or football teams... Common names certainly have their place in the hobby, we just need to accept their inherent flaws and limitations. What vexes me is that in the recent years with the proliferation of internet forums the use of different common names and abbreviations has greatly increased, where I would have thought the use of a consistent name [ie Latin] that can be searched for would be more important than ever. Trying to search for "managuense" on MFK will only bring up a fraction of the threads about P. managuense aka jaguar, you need to search for jaguar AND jag, but many websites won't allow a search for a word of only three letters, so unless someone has bothered to write jaguar (or managuense) in full then the information won't be found. So I was really just asking if there are more people out there that think that some of these common names are simply too uncommon. I would agree. In a case like the sterbais where there is already a widely used common name [which just happens to be the same as the species name] then making up another name for them seems completely unnecessary. How ever, I can see Hollywoods reason for sticking to it, if every other shop in town is selling "golden leopards" and someone who doesn't know any better comes in looking for a couple more they may miss out if they're only selling "Sterbai". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZ_Loach Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 I've seen a few people on trademe in the last few years selling Pleco's, 90% of them are "common pleco's" but you get the odd person calling it a goldspot,redspot,sailfin either trying to make it sound fancy and get more $$$$ or because the shop selling it to him/her has used those names. If there was a system in place worldwide that has the proper name (scientific) and the latin name and then last but not least the common name, now this should be ONE name.. nothing fancy... just a simple name so there are NO abbreviations or other words similar that can be substituted in (like whats happening now) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshlikesfish Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 I think this thread was doomed from the start trying to debate something so personal as common names.. My common name is Josh, scientific name is Joshua(which could even be deemed as Yeshua) but I'm often miss identified as a Joseph :smln: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZ_Loach Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Your name here is Joshlikesfish :digH: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suphew Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 If there was a system in place worldwide that has the proper name (scientific) and the latin name and then last but not least the common name, now this should be ONE name.. nothing fancy... just a simple name so there are NO abbreviations or other words similar that can be substituted in (like whats happening now) Fishbase.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GZ_Loach Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Fishbase.org so why aren't lfs using it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phoenix44 Posted May 7, 2011 Report Share Posted May 7, 2011 Because when you run a business, any extra time devoted to anything at all = increase in costs. If that cost could be passed on to the consumer, they most likely would. But I can't imagine that would go down well at all. There would be another thread on here complaining about extortion! :slfg: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.