my new fish in question top view
![Image](http://home.fuse.net/fishfarmer/Sturisomasptopview872067.jpg)
side view
![Image](http://home.fuse.net/fishfarmer/Sturisomasp872073.jpg)
bottom view
![Image](http://home.fuse.net/fishfarmer/Sturisomaspbottomview872071.jpg)
picture of royal farlowella female top view
![Image](http://home.fuse.net/fishfarmer/Royalfarlowellafemaletopview872072.jpg)
Thanks
Steve
Retzer, M. E. & Page, L. M. 1996Anyone have the ref. for that paper?
Me too. The fish looks nothing like a Farlowella from the Farlowella curtirostra group to me. But maybe i am wrongI would have put money on that fish being a Sturi.
The paper appeared in the journal scheduled for 1939. However, it was actually published in 1940. Since the rules of zoological nomenclature state that the date of publication is the date from which the name is available (regardless of what the date says on the paper), the correct citation should be Fowler (1940).The Paper says (topline on every 2nd page) its from 1939, whereas fishbase and others list it from 1940. Does someone know why?
ic. Thanks for the explanation.The paper appeared in the journal scheduled for 1939. However, it was actually published in 1940. Since the rules of zoological nomenclature state that the date of publication is the date from which the name is available (regardless of what the date says on the paper), the correct citation should be Fowler (1940).