Pegasus Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 Hi all, Midas made the following comments in the Fun Section, Just want to clear something up so that we are all on the same wavelength, as things can get a bit confusing when genus's etc start coming in to it. You say that you are from the Cichlasoma genus. Does this mean that you still are in this genus or that you used to be? Its just that several fish that used to be in Cichlasoma are now no longer, and if you are still in this genus it does cut the number of possibilities down significantly. Check fish base if unsure they seem to have the most valid names in most cases. http://www.fishbase.org/search.cfm e.g. Convicts are now Cryptoheros nigrofasciatus (and used to be Archocentrus before that) Firemouths have been Thorichthys meeki for some time. Jack dempseys on the other hand are still Cichlasoma octofasciatum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatix Posted October 29, 2002 Report Share Posted October 29, 2002 hi Pegasus Technically all organisms can only have one scientific name which is given to a species when it is discovered by the person who discovered it (this would be published in a recognised scientific journal), the only exception to this is a group of fungi called the deuteromycetes. The name given to the sp is the one that has to stick, we have to hope that this person knows what he or she is talking about and gives it an apropriate name in the right genus. Similary two organisms that look diferent may be given diffrent names when they are actually the same, i believe this is the case with Pelvicachromis pulcher (the krib) and two organisms may be dicovered at similar times by different people thus two names. Again the first name should stick. A second problem arises in the form of phylogenetic systematics espicially now with DNA sequencing which may result in movement into another more apropriate genus however it must still keep its specific name under the rules of binomial nomenclature e.g A. ramirezi is now M. ramirezi. This is more likely to be the cause of modern name variation. I mean I don't really know myself but I HTH, it really is a tricky subject with alot of debate. Ben Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted October 30, 2002 Author Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Excellent post Ben, and as you say, a very confusing subject. Hopefully we can get more opinions on the subject. Regards, Bill (Pegasus) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midas Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 I also agree with Ben. As more is found out about fish it is sometimes discovered that they are not as closely related to other similar fish as was once thought and do not belong in the genus that they were originally given. Therefore genus names often get a shuffle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryl Posted October 30, 2002 Report Share Posted October 30, 2002 Add to that retailers' habit of making up fancy common names and you never know what you are getting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted October 31, 2002 Report Share Posted October 31, 2002 Caryl said... > Add to that retailers' habit of making up fancy common > names and you never know what you are getting! Common names are often a curse. They work on the local level (ie within a small group of people) but often get confusing when different small groups are trying to communicate. There's no reason to believe that a common name in NZ is going to be the same as the one for the same fish in Germany or Japan or where-ever. The advantage of scientific names is that they can ALWAYS be traced to a specific animal and its formal description. Preserved specimens are available for comparison. Of course it's beyond the average hobbyist to look up these voucher specimens but the fact remains that it's technically possible. Funnily enough, scientific names were not created for hobbyists they're just a very useful tool that we've hi-jacked. If you're going to use them, then you may as well use the correct ones - this may not be the one you learnt 20 years but may be the one someone else learnt 30 years ago or the one that someone learns today. Andrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatix Posted November 4, 2002 Report Share Posted November 4, 2002 Also Bill this may be of help, family names for plants will end in aceae i.e Liliaceae or the lily family (garlic) etc. Animals family names will end in dae e.g. hominidae, cichlidae etc. I know its a little irrelivant but i figure it will probaly help a few people know what they are reading about at a glance. Ben. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted November 5, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 Thanks all, The main question was refering to the species name, not the family. The Latin side of things is no prob, as I was brought up to learn Latin from the age of five, but we get name changes such as the following. Lesbites reticulatus... now Poecilia Ciclasoma meeki... now Thorichthys meeki Barbus tetrazona.... now Puntius tetrazona and so forth, which is still a bit of a mix up. As regards the learning of the new names, this is no prob if they would at least change it and stick to it, but many names have been changed several times over the years. Fortunately with todays technology we can quickly source any name changes that have taken place on the net, and fortunately entering the old name in your search still brings up the correct fish with all it's relevant details. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted November 5, 2002 Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 Pegasus said... > Lesbites reticulatus... now Poecilia I think you mean 'Lebistes'. 'Les-bites' is a whooole different thing... The change from 'Lebistes' to Poecilia also caused a change from 'reticulatus' to 'reticulata'... All humour aside - because of the 'gender' of the genus names. > Ciclasoma meeki... now Thorichthys meeki Cichlasoma. Some info on the whys and wherefores can be found at: http://www.cichlidae.com/articles/a024.html > Barbus tetrazona.... now Puntius tetrazona It was also 'Capoeta' for a while. Look at how many 'Tiger Barbs' there are: http://www.fishbase.org/ComNames/Common ... chList.cfm All interesting stuff Andrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted November 5, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 All humour aside, I regret my obvious spelling mistakes... point taken. All humour aside - because of the 'gender' of the genus names. "GENDER"... A classification roughly corresponding to the two sexes and sexlessness. Mmmm... does this mean we have different names for the males and females... all humour aside of course? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted November 5, 2002 Report Share Posted November 5, 2002 Pegasus said... > ... does this mean we have different names for the males and > females... all humour aside of course? I thought, being a self proclaimed latin scholar since the age of 5, that you would understand the concept of 'gender' as it applies to words (especially nouns, ie 'names'). Sorry if I was confused. Have a look at: http://www.orbilat.com/Latin/Grammar/La ... tml#Gender Basically, because names in latin have male or female connotations which are often variations on the way the word ends, if a genus name is masculine then the specific name should be too and vice versa. This means that sometimes when a genus name changes (say from Lebistes to Poecilia, which is also a switch in the gender of the word used as the genus name) then the species name changes too (ie from reticulatus to reticulata). Sadly, not everyone picks up on these changes and so you see combinations of names in common (and even non-ichthyological scientific) use. Also, interestingly, there is apparently talk of resurrecting the name Lebistes so then it'll all change back again for the poor old guppy Andrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted November 6, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 6, 2002 You say, I thought, being a self proclaimed latin scholar since the age of 5, that you would understand the concept of 'gender' as it applies to words (especially nouns, ie 'names'). Sorry if I was confused. You WERE confused. I don't "proclaim" to be anything AJ, There was very little point in stating the obvious eg, Gender... genus genera ... pl genus, as you obviously knew this. Seems to be the week for sarcastic remarks, but no harm done. My original question was "Why" Possibly because they can't get it right the first time. It seems even the experts make mistakes as we see below. Also, interestingly, there is apparently talk of resurrecting the name Lebistes so then it'll all change back again for the poor old guppy Seems they STILL can't get it right. I have enough replies to my question. My thanks to all. Regards, Bill (Pegasus) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caryl Posted November 6, 2002 Report Share Posted November 6, 2002 It did create some interesting discussion though didn't it? Thanks for asking the question in the first place Pegasus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted November 6, 2002 Report Share Posted November 6, 2002 Pegasus said... > You WERE confused. Not unusual at all. > I don't "proclaim" to be anything ... You did say: > "The Latin side of things is no prob, as I was brought up to learn > Latin from the age of five..." ... > There was very little point in stating the obvious Once again, you did say: > ... does this mean we have different names for the males and > females... all humour aside of course? So I honestly thought you didn't understand my point. And I thought that maybe someone else might be reading the thread and be interested in having it clarified. ... > Possibly because they can't get it right the first time. > It seems even the experts make mistakes Which is why it sometimes takes us a couple of goes to get our angel fish fry to hatch... We're all prone to mistakes, from time to time. I don't know anyone who can't learn something new, as more information comes to light. Just as well really, otherwise things would get very boring very quickly... Andrew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pegasus Posted November 8, 2002 Author Report Share Posted November 8, 2002 Andrew said, Which is why it sometimes takes us a couple of goes to get our angel fish fry to hatch... Geez AJ, I didn't know you kept Angels. We DO learn something new every day Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajbroome Posted November 8, 2002 Report Share Posted November 8, 2002 Pegasus said... > Geez AJ, I didn't know you kept Angels. Have done, don't bother now. Andrew. 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.