Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?

[bekateen]

All other Bagrids are old-world. But not

Bagrus tucumanus

, which is from Argentina. Why hasn't this been reassigned to a New World genus? Anybody know?

Thanks,
Eric

[Silurus]

It's possibly a synonym of

Luciopimelodus pati

(according to this).

[bekateen]

Thanks HH. This is consistent with the entry at the Catalog of Fishes and makes more sense to me, but the CoF didn't accept that option as currently valid. But probably more appropriate.

http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/r ... atmain.asp

tucumanus, Bagrus Burmeister [H. K.] 1861:534 [Reise durch die La Plata-Staaten v. 2; ref. 23859] Tucumán, Argentina. Holotype: Whereabouts unknown. Not treated by Ferraris 2007 [ref. 29155] or in Eschmeyer et. all 1998. For English and Spanish translation see Koerber & Litz 2008:3 [ref. 29451]. •See Koerber & Litz 2008:3 [ref. 29451]. •Valid as Bagrus tucumanus Burmeister 1861 -- (Koerber 2011:6 [ref. 31122], Koerber 2014:10 [ref. 33621] in Siluriformes and possibly a synonym of Luciopimelodus pati). •Synonym of Luciopimelodus pati (Valenciennes 1835) -- (Mirande & Koerber 2015:31 [ref. 35117] with question). Current status: Valid as Bagrus tucumanus Burmeister 1861. Bagridae. Distribution: Argentina. Habitat: freshwater.

Even though Bagrus is considered valid, I feel more comfortable synonymizing it to Luciopimelodus.

Thanks again,
Eric

[lfinley58]

Hi Eric and all.

See also page 3 of the below document which offers strong support that the fish in fact represents Luciopimelodus pati.

https://media.hotelwebservice.com/media ... n_1861.pdf

Lee

[bekateen]

Hi Eric and all.

See also page 3 of the below document which offers strong support that the fish in fact represents Luciopimelodus pati.

https://media.hotelwebservice.com/media ... n_1861.pdf

Lee

Hi Lee,

Thanks for this, too. Yes I recognize the controversy. My OP was focused on the question of why has the Bagrus name been allowed to stand as "valid" in spite of references like the ones H.H. and you linked. Clearly the CoF entry acknowledged these links, but the Bagrus name is still listed as valid. Go figure.

Anyway, I've added B. tucumanus as a synonym to L. pati, and renamed the B. tucumanus CLOG entry as

Akysis microps

.

[Silurus]

This is the frequent problem of users trying to use CoF as a taxonomic rather than as a nomenclatural (its original intention) tool.

[bekateen]

This is the frequent problem of users trying to use CoF as a taxonomic rather than as a nomenclatural (its original intention) tool.

I can appreciate that. I just lament that nomenclature doesn't reflect taxonomy more consistently.

Cheers, Eric

[Jools]

This is the frequent problem of users trying to use CoF as a taxonomic rather than as a nomenclatural (its original intention) tool.

Hi HH,

So, what would you say was the best taxonomic tool?

Jools

[Silurus]

Hi HH,

So, what would you say was the best taxonomic tool?

Jools

There isn't one, unfortunately. The best tool is still to parse information from scientific papers.

[Jools]

Thanks HH, good to know I'm not missing anything.

Cheers,

Jools