i Have another question (siento ser pesado).
if the genus Panaqolus is not a valid genus, why it appear at the cat e log?Panaqolus is not a valid genus, so the fish would have to fit in Panaque or Peckoltia.
saludos desde PanamÃ¡
Hi Erwin!Erwin wrote:Hello everybody,
In my eyes Panaqolus is even closer related to Peckoltia as it is to Panaque. Dentition is something what can change very fast in evolution, if a species switches to another trophic group.
This sort of thing happens all the time, only we're a bit closer to it than usual becuase aquarists are involved. I don't think it's a USA vs Europe thing, that would be sensationalist.Caol_ila wrote:Hi!
I find this "fight" very interesting! Is there any communication between the two groups? I dont know how much of an enemy usa vs. europe are but cant a thing like this in a small community be solved by discussion to find common ground?
I know from geography thta different universitys and even in our department Profs are fighting each other but in a world of emails and discussion boards this whole thing seems a bit like boys fighting...stubborness and ignorance seems to be fitting here.
After running this site for 7 years I have enough understanding of this stuff to have grasped the above. Maybe I didn't explain myself well previously. What I meant was that by NOT describing the fish specifically as <I>Panaqolus changae</I> then we have clear indication that the genus will not be used in future at least by Armbruster (and probably the greater majority of ichthyologists working with that family). It is early days yet but I think that is a good guess?Erwin wrote:Hi Jools,
It is a rule in science, that one doesn't have to accept a new genus. And also you can follow those who put a genus name into synonymy, or you don't. It is up to you, if you publish somewhere a statement, why you disagree with a new genus name, but you don't have to. Of course on the other hand it is a kind of silly, not to give any statement.
Again, I know this but I avoid the decision of personally deciding who I wish to follow. In terms of running PlanetCatfish I cannot work the way you describe. I do not feel I can make a judgement call on the placement of all species we show based on merit - even with the considerable input of many, many aquarists and scientists alike. Also, it would be at least unfair to spend all that time on "fashionable" species or genera and ignore or be ignorant of others (why aren't we having this debate regarding the splitting of Pimelodidae for example). What I do is follow the latest scientific work albiet with a bit of guesswork on the "adoption rate" of new placement. Normally this takes years but this forum has greatly accelerated this process with this genus at least.Erwin wrote:It is up to the individual person to say, the characters A, B, and C are subdividing this group from the whole group, or to say the two groups are not far enough from each other to erase a new genus for one of them.
I had a talk with Sonia Fish-Muller, Claude Weber, and other Ichtyologue friends form the MNHN, all of them do not recognise Panaqolus and other genus form that Datz special. And I am almost sure that most if not all Brasilian Ichtyologs do not recognize it either.Dinyar wrote:Interestingly enough, FB does not recognize Panaqolus either.
I made this same proposition several days ago... it would make a broader view on the topic and not illuminate one perticuliar view... it would be also fair to everyone, if I could put it this wayDinyar wrote:
I'd like to humbly make three suggestions:
First, if PlanetCatfish does change all Panaqolus to Panaque, why not insert a note in the data fields referring to this ongoing controversy and the explanation Jools just presented above?
I also think it would be a great idea and would be interesting to know the reasons. it could be also nice if other Ichtyologs that are heads in Loricariidae could post their views on this topic.Dinyar wrote:
Second, more or less as implied by Christian, why not send an email to Armbruster referring to this discussion and inviting his participation?
That doesn't sound like a viable alternative. I am not sure at the moment how deeply nested the P. dentex group is within Panaque, but doing what you suggest would most likely mean that you would have to call everything else in Panaque clade Peckoltia as well.wouldn't have been better to transfer the Panaque dentex clade into Peckoltia until it undergoes major revision instead of creating a new genus?
Done. I think a couple of entries in our new FAQ gizmo (still in alpha in rusty's lab) born out of this topic would be a good idea and I will reference them from the cat-elog entries.Dinyar wrote:Finally, would it not make sense to split this off as a separate topic in the Taxonomy forum?