new species Panaque gnomus

[The.Dark.One]

I agree with Milton, which is why I was confused about the "mainstream science" statement. The reason why the subgenera may have not been picked up by Ferraris (2007), and not even mentioned in his remarks, was possibly because Armbruster (2004) incorrectly spelt Panaqolus as Panaquolus. I don't really know why it wasn't mentioned; maybe Ferraris wanted to avoid using subgenera, but surely he would have commented, had he known (as he did for others)? Basically, Ferraris (2007) for whatever reason ignored the changes.

Suffice to say, I do not see a distinction between these "types" of science. Armbruster and the folks at Auburn are the leading lab working on Panaque, if not all loricariids, so I don't see where there is any other qualified difference of opinion. There has been no scientific discussion stating any other hypotheses. Ferraris (2007) was a checklist, not a critical review. If he had mentioned the changes and justified disregarding the subgenera, things would have been different, and there would be a case.

As far as I am concerned, Armbruster (2004) and the use of his subgenera is entirely valid (I may not like the use of subgenera, but it is scientifically valid) and has not been contradicted. This is the "mainstream science".

I think we are getting into semantics here. I think the distinction Mats was trying to make was a general work on catfish (Ferraris) adopted it whereas specialist loricariid work did not (in terms of a full genus). You say potatoes I say potartoes. I think the reason for Mats distinction was that Armbruster & Lujan et al have been accused by some as 'having it in' for Panaqolus and therefore may have been swayed towards dropping it to sub genera.

Having said that I do agree that it should either be left as Panaque, or if changes should be made then subgenera should be incorporated, despite my personal view that it is a valid genus, as Armbruster et al are knowledgeable scientists and I am not. I can see Jools' point about the distinction most aquarists make and therefore perhaps his tendency to somehow make a distinction has some foundation. After all this is a site for aquarists is it not (whether they be scientists or not)?

[Shane]

I'm not sure if we can talk Jools out of using the subgenera

That appears to be an issue. Fact is Jools is always an early adopter and I am usually on the conservative side (I am the guy who will buy one next year when "it" is less expensive). However, from experience I know that Jools is more often than not correct in the early adoption path he chooses. I have also considered that after the disaster that was adding these genera a few years ago, and then doing away with them, that he has weighed the possible consequences.

Those that have followed loricariid taxonomy for long will know that at one time it was rife with subspecies. Isbrucker undid all of these subspecies in a single paper... I suspect the same will happen here in time. Subgenera and subspecies, while useful designations, are often used as a place marker pending additional research.
-Shane

[Jools]

That's not what I meant. What I meant is that it takes a little while for a beginner on this forum to understand how to link to the Cat-eLog (just like it takes a while for people to "get" how to post youtube links, photos, etc - it's not entirely obvious, unless you are used to bbcode from another forum, and I'm not aware of any other forum that has clog tags, so that will be new to any member that is new to this site).

Sorry, I misunderstood. If we're just saying it takes time to learn bbcode then fine. Again, I fail to see how learning Panaque(Panaqolus) is any harder than, for example, Pterygoplichthys. There are some Auchenipterids that I have never learned to spell.

Secondly,

Panaqolus changae[ /clog] WILL work because it will be a synonym and many of these species are, and will remain for a long time, l-numbers.

So there is a synonym for [clog ]Panaqolus sp(L204)[ /clog]? My inbox says no, after pre-viewing this post...

For those not in the know, Mats and I get an email whenever a clog tag is incorrectly used so that we can log in and fix it.

This is a good point you raise Mats. The solution would have to be to add a synonym written as above although, as I said, why not just use [clog]L204

? If you consider what you are saying above about bbcode being harder to use, then it's contradictary to say a relative newbie would prefer to use the longer tag?

Jools

[Jools]

I _still_ think that "ignoring" the Subgenus vs. genus thing, and making the subgenus the entry in the Cat-elog where normally we have genus.

This would be a good compromise for me, but I'm not sure if we can talk Jools out of using the subgenera ;)

Yes, but it ignores, as you said before, the main current workers on the group. It's the best result for aquarists, but it's a bit bridge-burny / pick-and-mix science. It might also be the case that Panaqolus is raised to full genus status in the future - so would be very helpful from that point of view. I do see the pros and cons believe me.

I can be talked into or out of most things. It's the talking that helps the thinking and that's what is happening here as it's a real minefield this. However we're down to two options at least.

1) Use Panaque, Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus (with synonyms such as Panaque aureatus, Panaque sp(L204) and Panaque maccus).
2) Use Panaque(Subgenus) x 3 (with synonyms as above and "Panaque species X, Y & Z").

Workload is considerably greater for (2). (1) is simpler, despite digging my heels in above, the simple fact is that Panaqolus(Panaque) sp. cf. maccus `Rio Negro` is a bit of a mouthful. More correct, more unwieldy.

Looking at the future, what happens if another Panaqolus is described as Panaque? As per P. changae, likely just carry on. The thing that would scupper it all would be if some old description (but not older than Panaque) turned out to be a Panaqolus etc. But who could steer for that. It is however much more likely that the subgenera will get further researched. So, option 1 is a better future proof bet. It does follow CoF, FB etc.

My reason for not is to put (further) distance between amatuer and professional. Maybe that is resolved by careful, and perhaps diplomatic, wording in each genus ID entry.

OK, time for your comments if any and more mental stewing on my part. I'll go and do some work on the breeders register because Rupert told me to (and he's right).

Jools

[MatsP]

As stated before, I prefer (1) above.

--
Mats

[racoll]

I'll go and do some work on the breeders register because Rupert told me to (and he's right).

Ha ha . Not quite what I meant, but if you're anything like me, getting distracted is very easy. Just look at the number of posts I've made today!

it ignores, as you said before, the main current workers on the group... it's a bit bridge-burny / pick-and-mix science.

Do you think they'll be offended? Have you spoken to any of them about this? I think they'll understand that those genera are useful for aquarists, and still remain onside despite the politics of the names.

[Jools]

it ignores, as you said before, the main current workers on the group... it's a bit bridge-burny / pick-and-mix science.

Offended, no. But there is this risk of less collaboration in future. I think the risk can be mitigated by decent explanation. I have spoken in person to Jon Armbruster (photo below), Mark Sabaj and, to a lesser extent via email, Nathan Lujan about it at several points in the last decade. That's only part of it, Google will tell you there's a small army of mostly German aquarists that are equally "offside" towards the current position. So, I've spoken to the likes of Ingo Seidel and Erwin Schraml about it too. When we reverted Panaqolus first time around there was a strong critical reaction in places like l-welse.com. Its inclusion first time around also prompted an email from Jon which was quite strongly written - I think he even registered for the forum at the time.

That said, take that in the context of the introduction of lots of genera like Zonancistrus, Guyancistrus and Ancistomus (The DATZ 14). Ancistomus is also a strong candidate for adoption in my personal opinion. So, again, part of my reticence for the simple adoption of Panaqolus is that "well, if you accept than why not Ancistomus" and so on.

Jools

[MatsP]

How about this for a suggestion as a technical "inbetween solution", as opposed to a "subgenus table":
Add a "subgenus_of_id" in the genera table, and if it's non-zero, it's a subgenus of the genus id. With a bit of clever programming (not extremely clever), we could then amend the data-sheet pages to have information of which genus the subgenus belongs to, etc, and the page of the genus itself could show the subgenus of that genus with a "where subgenus_of_id = genus.id". Clicking on the subgenus itself would list just the subgenus...

I did consider that we should ask for example Jon Armbruster how he would feel about "using the subgenus as a genus for practical reasons", but I'm not convinced that would go down very well...

--
Mats

[racoll]

Ancistomus is also a strong candidate for adoption... well, if you accept than why not Ancistomus" and so on.

Simply in my view, because there is no evidence of a monophyletic Ancistomus. True, Hemiancistrus is not monophyletic either, but at least it has priority, and it is being worked on.

There on the other hand, is a phylogeny to back up Panaqolus, and the name is reflected in the nomenclature, albeit at the subgeneric level.

You can't please everyone, that's for certain.

[Jools]

I think the strength of the catelog database lies in its simplicity. I added subfamilies a while back and this was not a dazzling success. This proposal also doesn't consider how my cats populations interact with the new relation. It's quite a lot more work and, importantly, while many of you can add data and synonyms etc., only my time (and Mats, you too to a lesser extent) is available to enact this change. So, add another relation for less than .05% of the data items? No, good suggestion, but I don't want to do this.

Jools

[racoll]

Hypothetically, how would you proceed Jools, had Armbruster (2004) just sunk Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus (spelt it right that time!) outright?

[Jools]

Hypothetically, how would you proceed Jools, had Armbruster (2004) just sunk Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus (spelt it right that time!) outright?

Well, it's not hypothetical, that is what happened. I kept

Scobinancistrus

(species had previously been described and placed in here (albeit also in grey literature I think Scobinancistrus was born in TFH? I could be wrong.) and dropped Panaqolus at a hint that future works would identify its use or not.

Panaque changae

didn't use it.

Jools

[racoll]

Well, it's not hypothetical, that is what happened.

Not exactly, as the whole subgenus thing clouds the issue, and effectively gives an "excuse" to use Panaqolus and Scobinancistrus. Pretend that these subgenera don't exist, and they are just dusty old synonyms. How would you proceed?

I kept Scobinancistrus ... and dropped Panaqolus at a hint that future works would identify its use or not.

I'm assuming that new Scobinancistrus will be described as Panaque. Shouldn't we just accept that Scobinancistrus and Panaqolus have been sunk, and just use Panaque? I mean, the new species recently described was for example Panaque armbrusteri new species, not Panaque (Panaque) armbrusteri new species.

The more I think about this, the more I think they should just all be called Panaque. We can deal with other big genera, so why not Panaque. Hypostomus eat different foods, and we can deal with that. Corydoras and Ancistrus come from a huge area and have wildly different water parameter requirements, yet we can deal with that too. I know nomenclature is helpful, but is it not a bit patronising to assume people will start feeding their Scobinancistrus wood because it's now called a Panaque?

I think Scobinancistrus was born in TFH

Grey literature yes, but in Aquarien und Terrarien-Zeitschrift, not TFH.

[Jools]

Grey literature yes, but in Aquarien und Terrarien-Zeitschrift, not TFH.

Sorry, yes, I was thinking of S. aureatus which was described in TFH. Your post asks a lot of questions that I need more time than I have right now to reply to.

Jools

[MatsP]

I merged two closely related discussions here - I hope it hasn't made too much "mess" of the subject..

--
Mats

[Jools]

No, it hasn't messed it up and I've made the decision to move to Panaqolus - just need a few clear days to make it happen.

Cheers,

Jools

[MatsP]

As a genus, or as a subgenus?

--
Mats

[Jools]

As a genus. Not naming names, (pun intended) but I note several ichthyologist working with the family using the term (as a genus).

Jools