Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
- bekateen
- Posts: 8981
- Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 17:50
- I've donated: $40.00!
- My articles: 4
- My images: 130
- My cats species list: 142 (i:102, k:39)
- My aquaria list: 36 (i:13)
- My BLogs: 44 (i:149, p:2671)
- My Wishlist: 35
- Spotted: 177
- Location 1: USA, California, Stockton
- Location 2: USA, California, Stockton
- Contact:
Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
All other Bagrids are old-world. But not , which is from Argentina. Why hasn't this been reassigned to a New World genus? Anybody know?
Thanks,
Eric
Thanks,
Eric
Find me on YouTube and Facebook: http://youtube.com/user/Bekateen1; https://www.facebook.com/Bekateen
Buying caves from https://plecocaves.com? Plecocaves sponsor Bekateen's Fishroom. Use coupon code "bekateen" (no quotes) for 15% off your order.
- Silurus
- Posts: 12373
- Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 11:35
- I've donated: $12.00!
- My articles: 55
- My images: 884
- My catfish: 1
- My cats species list: 90 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 419
- Location 1: Singapore
- Location 2: Moderator Emeritus
Re: Why is Bagrus tucuman still a valid species name?
It's possibly a synonym of (according to this).
- bekateen
- Posts: 8981
- Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 17:50
- I've donated: $40.00!
- My articles: 4
- My images: 130
- My cats species list: 142 (i:102, k:39)
- My aquaria list: 36 (i:13)
- My BLogs: 44 (i:149, p:2671)
- My Wishlist: 35
- Spotted: 177
- Location 1: USA, California, Stockton
- Location 2: USA, California, Stockton
- Contact:
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
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
Thanks again,
Eric
http://researcharchive.calacademy.org/r ... atmain.asp
Even though Bagrus is considered valid, I feel more comfortable synonymizing it to Luciopimelodus.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.
Thanks again,
Eric
Find me on YouTube and Facebook: http://youtube.com/user/Bekateen1; https://www.facebook.com/Bekateen
Buying caves from https://plecocaves.com? Plecocaves sponsor Bekateen's Fishroom. Use coupon code "bekateen" (no quotes) for 15% off your order.
-
- Expert
- Posts: 723
- Joined: 04 Jan 2003, 19:16
- I've donated: $90.00!
- My articles: 3
- My images: 3
- Spotted: 3
- Location 1: Margate
- Location 2: Florida USA
- Interests: Catfishes (all), Aquarium History
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
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
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
- Posts: 8981
- Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 17:50
- I've donated: $40.00!
- My articles: 4
- My images: 130
- My cats species list: 142 (i:102, k:39)
- My aquaria list: 36 (i:13)
- My BLogs: 44 (i:149, p:2671)
- My Wishlist: 35
- Spotted: 177
- Location 1: USA, California, Stockton
- Location 2: USA, California, Stockton
- Contact:
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
Hi Lee,lfinley58 wrote: ↑05 Jun 2020, 16:42Hi 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
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 .
Find me on YouTube and Facebook: http://youtube.com/user/Bekateen1; https://www.facebook.com/Bekateen
Buying caves from https://plecocaves.com? Plecocaves sponsor Bekateen's Fishroom. Use coupon code "bekateen" (no quotes) for 15% off your order.
- Silurus
- Posts: 12373
- Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 11:35
- I've donated: $12.00!
- My articles: 55
- My images: 884
- My catfish: 1
- My cats species list: 90 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 419
- Location 1: Singapore
- Location 2: Moderator Emeritus
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
This is the frequent problem of users trying to use CoF as a taxonomic rather than as a nomenclatural (its original intention) tool.
- bekateen
- Posts: 8981
- Joined: 09 Sep 2014, 17:50
- I've donated: $40.00!
- My articles: 4
- My images: 130
- My cats species list: 142 (i:102, k:39)
- My aquaria list: 36 (i:13)
- My BLogs: 44 (i:149, p:2671)
- My Wishlist: 35
- Spotted: 177
- Location 1: USA, California, Stockton
- Location 2: USA, California, Stockton
- Contact:
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
I can appreciate that. I just lament that nomenclature doesn't reflect taxonomy more consistently.
Cheers, Eric
Find me on YouTube and Facebook: http://youtube.com/user/Bekateen1; https://www.facebook.com/Bekateen
Buying caves from https://plecocaves.com? Plecocaves sponsor Bekateen's Fishroom. Use coupon code "bekateen" (no quotes) for 15% off your order.
- Jools
- Expert
- Posts: 15988
- Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
- My articles: 197
- My images: 942
- My catfish: 238
- My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
- My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
- My Wishlist: 23
- Spotted: 447
- Location 1: Middle Earth,
- Location 2: Scotland
- Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
- Contact:
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
Hi HH,
So, what would you say was the best taxonomic tool?
Jools
Owner, AquaticRepublic.com, PlanetCatfish.com & ZebraPleco.com. Please consider donating towards this site's running costs.
- Silurus
- Posts: 12373
- Joined: 31 Dec 2002, 11:35
- I've donated: $12.00!
- My articles: 55
- My images: 884
- My catfish: 1
- My cats species list: 90 (i:0, k:0)
- Spotted: 419
- Location 1: Singapore
- Location 2: Moderator Emeritus
- Jools
- Expert
- Posts: 15988
- Joined: 30 Dec 2002, 15:25
- My articles: 197
- My images: 942
- My catfish: 238
- My cats species list: 87 (i:13, k:1)
- My BLogs: 7 (i:7, p:202)
- My Wishlist: 23
- Spotted: 447
- Location 1: Middle Earth,
- Location 2: Scotland
- Interests: All things aquatic, Sci-Fi, photography and travel. Oh, and beer.
- Contact:
Re: Why is Bagrus tucumanus still a valid species name?
Thanks HH, good to know I'm not missing anything.
Cheers,
Jools
Cheers,
Jools
Owner, AquaticRepublic.com, PlanetCatfish.com & ZebraPleco.com. Please consider donating towards this site's running costs.