PlanetCatfish.com

We can't do anything about the linguistically ugly scientific name, .

Just wondering if it's worth using the gravitas of this site to promote the common name panaquito for all members of the genus. I realise that structuring common names is akin to herding cats, but I think this one may have legs and be for the greater good etc.

Jools

Funny you should say that ;) Even since I heard it mentioned at the CSG convention, it has been stuck in my head. So I would not have any problem with using the correct name for small Panaque: panaquito. It sounds quite cute also

I am hooked. I like Panaquito too.

If I ever get my L271 to breed then I will have petito Panaquitos.

LOL!

Narwhal72 wrote:If I ever get my L271 to breed then I will have petito Panaquitos.

I think I've had those before, at Taco Bell...

(Sorry, not helpful. But hopefully worthy of a smile)

Plus, I think it will be a neat social experiment of sorts....see how many other sites follow in suit, and how long it takes most people to start using it.

Hi,

the name is cute but nevertheless I completely disagree, in general and in this specific case even more.
The name "panaquito" would suggest a close relationship between Panaque and Panaqolus which does not exist.
There are other genus names like Pterygoplichthys that I certainly like even less but I don't see much sense in introducing new arbitrary names especially if there are valid names.
We already have more than enough "funny" trade names causing quite a bit of confusion.

Cheers,

Interesting points and it's good to have a "not a good idea" viewpoint to understand.

kamas88 wrote:The name "panaquito" would suggest a close relationship between Panaque and Panaqolus which does not exist.

The scientific name is Panaqolus - which suggests the same relationship and is indeed noted in the etymology. I don't see how a linguistically more correct common name is detrimental. I've just finished writing an article about the genus and, in English at least, there isn't a common unifying vernacular term for these fishes - "Dwarf Panaque" doesn't cut it.

kamas88 wrote:We already have more than enough "funny" trade names causing quite a bit of confusion.

A good example is the trade names Tiger pleco. Wouldn't Tiger panaquito be more helpful? Tiger Panaqolus is just plain ugly and, personal view, I've never really seen the point of using unabridged latin names in a common name (admittedly this does tend to happen more in German common names than in English). We don't have an umbrella term for these fishes, that's all. However, it's a matter of opinion this one and I fully accept the world has a lot of common names - the problem is that a lot of them are not very useful.



Jools

I sadly can't recall the reason why Panaqolus isn't really a correct name. It had something to do with the translation of the name or different language was used to form the name Panaqolus. I even don't really know any more who actually told it to me at the convention. Maybe it was Hans Evers while we were sitting at Pier's.. It was said that Panaquito was more correct, as a name, whit '(q)uito' being the translation of small/dwarf.

Please help me out here as I may sound like a fool trying to explain something I can only partially can remember

We have to be careful with language here - when we say correct we mean well formed as opposed to valid.

Shane could explain this better. As I understand it, Panaque is an indigenous name, it is not a compound word and it is not Greek or Latin. So, Panaqolus we take the word Panaque and chop off the end. We then avoid using the standard u after q rule and we add on the incongrous latin -olus which means diminutive . Aside being gently disrespective to the people and their language that share their country with (some of) these fishes, you wouldn't do this if you knew the root of the word (in my opinion). As a number of others have pointed out to me, if the name had been proposed in a peer reviewed journal rather than an aquarium magazine, it is likely this point would have been at least debated if not fixed.

Jools

Jools' explanation is spot on.

Using the linguistically correct form of the word might also help people pronounce Panaque (pah-nah-kay) correctly.

The latin suffix olus means "small." So panaquito means the exact same thing (albeit linguistically correct) as Panaqolus, which is a made up mishmash of a native word and latin suffix.

-Shane

Yes thank you. That was what I meant

Hi,

I double checked it in the DATZ special magazine "Sonderheft Harnischwelse 2", yes Panaqolus was explicitly introduced as a (latin) diminutive form of Panaque. The word Panaque is a latinized form of the Venezuelan name panaqué.
I guess this is an indigenous name that was transformed to Spanish. In Spanish panaquito is certainly the correct diminutive form of it.

Therefore panaquito would certainly be a rather good choice if we needed a new name. But I don't see any need as we do have a valid name. I don't like trade names in general, they introduce more confusion than they are helpful because everyone uses them at its own taste, they are often used differently in different regions, even if it should turn out that they are wrong you will never get rid of them again,...
After all I don't understand what's wrong or ugly to just use the right name Panaqolus (perhaps this is due to my mother tongue ).

I'm not sure if the authors of the genus description were right from the start sure about the two genera not being closely related (unfortunately there is no discussion about it in the article) but I think at least for some of them this was the case.

However, I think some people might misunderstand this name derivation as phylogenetic affinity and this risk is certainly higher for those that only use trade names and don't care about ugly scientific names .

Cheers,

That makes sense Karsten. I guess I am coming at it from the point that there isn't a common name that gathers these fishes together.

Jools