Hypostomus

[Shane]

I did take Jools seriously.

This one will not be easy. I need a place to put some notes. This will be a working post that I will open and edit as needed. Comments welcome.

1) Hypostomus carvalhoi (Miranda Ribeiro, 1937)
valid or no? Considered not to clearly refer to a single specimen and therefore not valid by Weber.

2)

Hypostomus chrysostiktos

In cat-elog but not considered valid. Was it moved?

3)

Hypostomus cordovae

not valid

[Jools]

2)

Hypostomus chrysostiktos

In cat-elog but not considered valid. Was it moved?

Not considered valid on what basis?

Jools

[Shane]

I did some further digging and it is valid. The description was published concurrently with Ferraris' paper so he was probably not able to include it on his list. Fishbase confirms this.

Please note that these are just notes... not recommended changes. Once I have it all sorted out I can go back and look at these and wrap up loose threads like this.

I am only finished through spp starting with "c," which alone has added 15 spp to the cat-elog. There are likely to be several spp like this that are valid but require further research to confirm their validity.

Hypostomus cordovae

on the other hand is a jr synonym of Hypostomus paranensis Weyenbergh, 1877
-Shane

[MatsP]

Hypostomus carvalhoi is valid according to Catalog of Fishes.

--
Mats

[Suckermouth]

1) Hypostomus carvalhoi (Miranda Ribeiro, 1937)
valid or no? Considered not to clearly refer to a single specimen and therefore not valid by Weber.

Weber (2003) has this to say:
"Not explicit then invalid designation of a lectotype in Miranda Ribeiro"

There appears to be a typo in this sentence because it doesn't quite make sense.

Ferraris (2007) has this to say:
"Lectotype designation of specimen as MNRJ 924A by Miranda Ribeiro (1953: 401) considered not to clearly refer to a single specimen and therefore not valid by Weber (2003: 357)."

My interpretation of these lines is it looks like H. carvalhoi is valid, but not the lectotype designation.

[Shane]

My interpretation of these lines is it looks like H. carvalhoi is valid, but not the lectotype designation.

Thanks Milton, that is useful.
-Shane

[Shane]

Took a break at

Hypostomus luteus

.

157 Hypostomus in cat-elog now at "L."

-Shane

[Suckermouth]

I think there should be pictures of

Hypostomus hemiurus

and

Hypostomus macushi

from Nathan, Jon, or Mark. We've got quite a few collections at AUM. If there are not pictures from any of them, I will eventually get around to taking pictures of them.

[Jools]

That would be great Milton.

Cheers,

Jools

BTW, is this thread now, more or less, discussed to its natural end?