CLOG: Chaetostoma milesi: L-Number(s)

[Borbi]

Hi,

I finally "found" the time to add the latest L-Numbers (L 443-L 447) to the eLog.
And, put bluntly, it´s one of those cans of worms..

As for now:
The L-Number L 445 has been issued to a fish that is depicted in the Wels Atlas 2 as Chaetostoma sp. "Villavicencio I".
This "species" is very similar to C. milesi.
The visible difference between those two is no spots in the caudal and dorsal fin (C. milesi) vs. having spots in these fins (C. sp. "Villavicencio", = C. sp. "L 445").

Now, the eLog has only an entry for

Chaetostoma milesi

which, as far as I can tell, only has pictures with fishes having spots in the caudal.

So the question would be: "How would you like to have it"?
Probably the easiest solution (for me, at least) would be to simply add L 445 to the list of common names of C. milesi. But that requires to decide that we don´t want to consider the two forms as sufficiently distinct to list them as different species..

Cheers, Sandor

[Borbi]

As an addition:

I initially overlooked

Chaetostoma aff_milesi

, which is a C. milesi type of fish, but without spots in the caudal fin. That is supposed to resemble C. milesi more closely than the other type of fish.
As a downturn,

Chaetostoma aff_milesi

is from Venezuela, while C. milesi is described from Colombia..

Note exactly getting easier..

Cheers, Sandor

[Jools]

As a downturn,

Chaetostoma aff_milesi

is from Venezuela, while C. milesi is described from Colombia..

I would leave this out of it, Shane and I collected this species and I have yet to see it appear in the trade or indeed anywhere.

As to the other question, I'd be tempted to add the common name to C. milesi. Why? Well, I've been a bit more adventuruous and am happy with the ID. The fishes pictured are surely the l-number, the point is if that is also the described species and I think so.

Jools

[Shane]

The L-Number L 445 has been issued to a fish that is depicted in the Wels Atlas 2 as Chaetostoma sp. "Villavicencio I".
This "species" is very similar to C. milesi.

The problem here is that C. milesi is currently a very broadly defined species. Basically any of several spotted Chaetostoma spread from Colombia to Venezuela fall under the sp description as it is quite broad. Until some scientist tackles this it will be nigh impossible to separate all these fishes out.

C. milesi was described from Honda, Colombia (Rio Magdalena) so it is actually very unlikely that any of the fish in question from Villavicencio or Venezuela are in fact this fish.

The most accurate option would be to go with the new L number designator and drop the affiliation with C. milesi all together. This will be another hard one for hobbyists though as spotted Chaetostoma from Villavicencio have been associated with this scientific name in lots of literature.

-Shane

[Jools]

The most accurate option would be to go with the new L number designator and drop the affiliation with C. milesi all together. This will be another hard one for hobbyists though as spotted Chaetostoma from Villavicencio have been associated with this scientific name in lots of literature.

I agree a lot with this. With a change of this nature, you just have to do it and people will get used to it. Usually around about the time it changes again - but that's the price of being as accurate as possible. That said, we were all used to Chaetostoma thomsoni for years and that's and old thing now too.

So, suggest the following clog changes:

1) We have C. milesi in the catelog with a note about where it comes from and why it's not what it is often seen for sale as.
2) We have C. (L445) in the catelog and move over the common name, keepers and so on.
3) Optionally, ensure C. thomsoni is in the catelog again so that anyone looking up the name will find a note on why it's not what they think they have and a view of what it is they might have!

Hope that all makes sense?

Mats, Sandor, Shane, and I all have access to make (most of) these changes (hint hint)

Jools

[MatsP]

I can probably do the above this weekend.

--
Mats

[MatsP]

1) We have C. milesi in the catelog with a note about where it comes from and why it's not what it is often seen for sale as.
2) We have C. (L445) in the catelog and move over the common name, keepers and so on.
3) Optionally, ensure C. thomsoni is in the catelog again so that anyone looking up the name will find a note on why it's not what they think they have and a view of what it is they might have!

So, I just want to make sure I do the right thing here - I don't want to have to do this more than once:

• Add new species, Chaetostoma sp(L445).
• Add common name L445, and some other info.
• Move all registered keepers to C. aff. milesi to L445.
• Make sure C. aff. milesi has info to say "not the fish you think it is, have a look at L445"
• Don't need to add C. thomsoni, as it's already in the cat-elog.

Does any of the aff. milesi pictures need moving?

--
Mats

[Jools]

Agreed Mats, go for it!

Jools

[Shane]

Does any of the aff. milesi pictures need moving?

Nope.

-Shane

[MatsP]

Ok, so I think this is now resolved then (aside from the picture of JoeFish72 or whoever it was that got "lost" in the move of registered users - I have asked Jools to manually fix that one, and I will try to come up with a bit of code to prevent it from happening in the future).

--
Mats

[Jools]

Image fixed manually and data submission just about to be accepted.

Resolved?

Cheers,

Jools

[MatsP]

I think so, but maybe Sandor needs to "approve" as well?

--
Mats

[Jools]

Well, Sandor has just added a few things to the site today, so maybe he can check this now too? Moving to resolved meantime.

Jools