PlanetCatfish.com

Hi,

this is wrong I guess: http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/sp ... ies_id=199
It should be with the other Panaque.

cheers, Daniel

I said that last time they were split, but I think Jools said one of the papers listed it as Panaqolus. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

P. bathyphilus was described as possibly belonging to the P. dentex group. A rigorous phylogenetic test has never been done.

The.Dark.One wrote:Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

To me either, just look at this species and everything is clear. Even if "looking" is not very scientific.

The.Dark.One wrote:I think Jools said one of the papers listed it as Panaqolus. Doesn't seem to make sense to me.

All papers I have place it in the smaller bodied dentex clade. I can find no mention of in the larger bodied clade in the literature - can someone enlighten me?

Jools

No, that's what I said. That it appears to have been listed in what is now accepted as Panaqolus, but what Acanthicus and I are saying is that it does not seem to make sense because just one look at the fish would lead you to consider that it is closely related to Panaque (larger bodied etc). However, as Acanthicus acknowledges that isn't scientific, however, I think there is more to come on this issue.

Ok, I agree with you. It's another Baryancistrus beggini! The issue with Panaqolus I have is that there is a lot of the lyre tail L-numbers that don't fit well in EITHER clade or genus as I now list them or are described. I'd suggest these (and P. bathyphilus) should end up somewhere else, but that's a way off I reckon!

What I've not done is read the description of the new Panaque species (P. armbrusteri etc) to see if it mentions anything on this.

However, for the purposes of this thread, I am not sure I can move the species. Note to self: add some info on this to the cat-elog.

Jools

This is now in as not defined as a in the description of .

Jools