New "common name" CLOG tags...

[MatsP]

Jools,

Great job, but as you've probably begun to expect, I've found the small intentional flaws that you put in especially for me to find (that is why you put them in, to see if I'm with it, right? ;) )

Problem 1: L-numbers are expected to be 3 digits.

L15

doesn't work right, you have to write

L015

- not everyone uses leading zeros.

Problem 2: It appears that certain species don't link correctly, they seem to attempt to go to .../catelog/Lnnn.php - which gives a 404 error... At first I thought it was only species that have a proper description, but it appears to be generic.

L015

L244

L177

Minor nit:
It would be GREAT if the full name (e.g. Baryancistrus sp(L177) or Peckoltia vittata appeared in the lower right "caption" area on the hover-picture. Currently, it shows whatever was given as the name within the tags - presumably it knows which species to take the pictures from...

--
Mats

[DJ-don]

great work mats!!
i think this could help more people and its a great idea!

[MatsP]

great work mats!!
i think this could help more people and its a great idea!

I think you should have said "Great Work Jools" - after all, he's the one actually doing the work - I'm just telling him what he's missed - a bit like when you walk into your friends room while he/she is painting the wall, and point out that "You missed a bit there..."

--
Mats

[Jools]

Problem 1: L-numbers are expected to be 3 digits.

L15

doesn't work right, you have to write

L015

- not everyone uses leading zeros.

Come on! That's a really minor thing - this will be a little bit tricky as I will need to find out how to inject a changed clog tag value into the process. What is happening here is that the clog tag is reinterpreted by the forum post rendering engine as as link which has a toolip. That tooltip contains all the information the image presentation layer (catscan) has to go on and logic within that layer works out that L007 = whatever species binomial. I think it might work with some fiddling. Where common name ends with a number, take that number and pad it to three digits and concatenate it back to reform. Doable in around two hours.

Problem 2: It appears that certain species don't link correctly, they seem to attempt to go to .../catelog/Lnnn.php - which gives a 404 error... At first I thought it was only species that have a proper description, but it appears to be generic.

L015

L244

L177

The link is built by whatever is in the clog tag. There is nothing cleverer going on and indeed it'd be HORRIBLE to change the bbcode interpretation code (one of the trickiest parts of phpbb I've found). So, what is then needed is to change the redir scripts to understand a common name and redirect accordingly. Oh, it it would also have to understand that L7 = L007 as per your first point. Quite hard and a good few hours.

It would be GREAT if the full name (e.g. Baryancistrus sp(L177) or Peckoltia vittata appeared in the lower right "caption" area on the hover-picture. Currently, it shows whatever was given as the name within the tags - presumably it knows which species to take the pictures from...

Again, all that is displayed is twhatever is in the clog tags . This would be REALLY hard to do as all the manipulation would need to be done at the bbcode level. I think.



Jools

[MatsP]

Yes, I think the solution to #1 is pretty much what you describe:

Code: Select all

pos = length(name) - 1;
count = 0;
while(pos >= 0 && isdigit(name[pos]))
{
    count++;
    pos--;
}
if (count >= 1 && count < 3)
{
    name = mid(name, 0, pos) + duplicate('0', 3 - count) + mid(name, length(name)-1, count);
}

That's the idea - not sure I got it right (and that's not any particular language - just some sort of pseudo-C/PHP like thing).

#2: Isn't the WHOLE IDEA to be able to link to common names (and as a consequence L-/C-/LDA-/CW-numbers). Perhaps the actual resulting link needs to be different, to allow this to work correctly, but clearly this is what the purpose of the clog-tag is - not just to show a picture when you hover over it? I'm not saying it's any easier because I have a good argument for fixing it, just thinking that it needs to be fixed - in PC time, of course.

#3: Yes, I said that was a minor issue - but I think it would be very good.

--
Mats

[MatsP]

Another one I'll look at...

--
Mats

[Shane]

I have looked at several Cat-eLog entries and am not seeing this feature. The BBcodes on the spp I checked link to the proper (scientific) name.

I am not sure how Mats did the L015 clog above, but shouldn't that type of linking be disabled since the fish in question is

Peckoltia vittata

?

Jools and I spoke about this several months ago, but I notice a tendency by site users (to include mods) to default to common names (i.e L Numbers) instead of using proper scientific names with loricariids. We do not do promote this practice in any other subforums on the site.

Take a glance at the first page of postings on the various Husbandry and Reproduction subforums and this practice readily becomes apparent.

Shouldn't using common names, be they "super duper golden dragon pleco" or "L XXX" (esp once that number is retired) be as discouraged in the loricariid forum as it is in all others.

-Shane

[MatsP]

The "clog for common names" is a feature of the forum. I'm sure it isn't highly promoted - I use it from time to time, but I think you'll find that I use scientific names frequently.

The choice of L15/Peckoltia vittata, rather than an undescribed species, in this case was not made with much intention at all - just an example of an L-number in general (I think - trying to remember my motivation for the choice made about 15 months back).

As it currently works, the clog-link isn't resolved until someone clicks on the link, so it's not possible to "do" something with the link until it's being clicked, which makes "forbidding" such things as L015 a bit tricky. This is mainly due to the way that the forum software OVERALL works - it's a pretty "stupid" text replacement mechanism, and there isn't much we can do about that (other than ask the phpBB folks to change the way the forum software works - but we probably won't get very far there.

This tag will be work fine to post:

Shane Linder

- but if you hover over it or click it (and I will receive an e-mail every time someone DOES hover over it!), it won't work, since your name is not a species name, synonym or a common name in the Cat-eLog database.

I take it you would want to deal with someone writing a clog tag, e.g.

L015

in a post with a function that comes up with a message saying "Did you mean to write L015, and not Peckoltia vittata?".

What we could do is that when someone clicks on the link, it should say "Sorry, this link is no longer valid, here's a link to Peckoltia vittata" (which would be quite annoying as it's not the author that suffers).

What if something has an L-number at the time of writing, and later gets described or a species name assigned through research finding a match... Clearly, it would need to be done at the time of writing.

And as a whole, surely it's better to have

L015

compared to a plain (unlinked) L15 or L015 in the post - at least then it's possible to click the link and get the correct scientific name...

--
Mats

[Jools]

Shouldn't using common names, be they "super duper golden dragon pleco" or "L XXX" (esp once that number is retired) be as discouraged in the loricariid forum as it is in all others.

I would rather see scientific names encouraged than common names discouraged. The preferred usage (scientific) is given in the cat-elog pages to support that encouragement.

What I think needs addressed, and to support encouraging scientific name use, is that whatever clog tag is used, that the current valid scientific name appears in the hover over caption.

A mixture of these links in the forum gives us considerably better search engine visibility and, also, avoids elitism. At the other end of the spectrum (and I speak from personal experience), acronyms or short common names are a heck of a lot easier to type on mobile devices and similar.

Jools

[Shane]

Mats,
You gave a great technical programming answer to what was essentially a stylistic question .

I take it you would want to deal with someone writing a clog tag, e.g. L015 in a post with a function that comes up with a message saying "Did you mean to write L015, and not Peckoltia vittata?".

I am not advocating any technical changes. I try very hard not to do this since I have zero concept of what kind of work they might entail and realize that it is you and Jools that would have to implement them. All that is needed is for us to be as consistent with our use of scientific names when dealing with loricariidae as we are with every other family.

What I think needs addressed, and to support encouraging scientific name use, is that whatever clog tag is used, that the current valid scientific name appears in the hover over caption.

No idea what that would entail from a programming aspect, but it makes sense.

A mixture of these links in the forum gives us considerably better search engine visibility and, also, avoids elitism. At the other end of the spectrum (and I speak from personal experience), acronyms or short common names are a heck of a lot easier to type on mobile devices and similar.

Jools,
Search engine visibility is something you will have to consider. Would you advocate using common names for pimelodids, bagrids, and ictalurids to gain search engine visibility? Far more people are going to search madtom vice Noturus. Which do you give more weight... search engine visibility or PC's commitment to scientific accuracy?
You know I disagree about "elitism." It has been your emphasis on scientific accuracy and advancing the knowledge of aquarists that has brought this site so much respect and attracted so many knowledgeable members. Throw out the "elitism" and the forums will soon bog down with "What should I name my pleco?" postings. The site would also suffer a brain drain as there would be little reason for the really advanced (mod and non-mod alike) to stick around and continue to give out detailed, factual answers. Look at what people say...

http://fcas.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/planetcatfish/
...Run by Julian Dignal (Jools) it has a deserved reputation for accuracy and excellence... As if all that wasn’t enough there is also a busy, friendly forum where many knowledgeable members are on hand to provide free advice and chat. Mercifully free from the childish nonsense that ruins many other forums, it’s an invaluable resource to new catfish keepers and grizzled veterans alike.

Since I have just been recently introduced to smart phones... I understand what you mean here. That said I hope we do not start seeing "?4 E1, need 411, L010 needs M8 and WTB" in the forums.

-Shane

[MatsP]

Sorry Shane for giving "programming reasons" - it's how I look at this, which may not be "right"... ;)

I think the "hover-picture caption" can be solved with a bit of AJAX type code - the way that the hover pictures work right now is that they just produce some HTML code on the fly to provide the picture - this happens on your computer where you are viewing the page.

The trouble is that your computer doesn't have the whole cat-eLog database on it, so we can't look up that L015 is the same as P. vittata.

We need to look up in the database so that it translates whatever was given into the species name.

It's perfectly doable - it will load the server a tiny bit more, but I'm pretty sure it's not going to make much of a difference.

--
Mats

[Shane]

Code: Select all

Sorry Shane for giving "programming reasons" - it's how I look at this, which may not be "right"... ;)

No worries. The fact that we see two different solutions to the same issue is why Jools keeps us around.
-Shane

[racoll]

All that is needed is for us to be as consistent with our use of scientific names when dealing with loricariidae as we are with every other family.

notice a tendency by site users (to include mods) to default to common names (i.e L Numbers) instead of using proper scientific names with loricariids. We do not do promote this practice in any other subforums on the site.

Shouldn't using common names, be they "super duper golden dragon pleco" or "L XXX" (esp once that number is retired) be as discouraged in the loricariid forum as it is in all others.

I don't think we would stand a chance in undermining the "L number culture". It's way too ingrained, and any effort to steer the boat in the other direction may result in losing people from the forum.

We have to ask why we use scientific names; it is so we all know that we are talking about the same fish, right. As long as the common names are standardised in the cat-elog, and are routinely referenced in clog tags, then I think this addresses the problem.

Encouraging people to use this clog feature is the hard part, but as long as it is being used, I don't see an issue.

[Jools]

The fact that we see two different solutions to the same issue is why Jools keeps us around.

One of a myriad reasons. And I'd like to think it's why you hang out here.

Jools

[Jools]

So, I think what Shane is saying is that mods should not use common name clog tags. What I am against is moderating against those that do. What Mats is saying is, technically, we could make clog tags display a bit better.

Is that right?

Jools

[MatsP]

Yes, that's what I'm saying. And I don't think it's a huge effort needed - just an interface PHP page that provides the current Scientific name for <some text that identifies a species>. We can probably do something that re-uses the code we use currently for the cat-elog pages and images, so that we don't have to reproduce that logic in several places.

Alternatively, we could just change the code in the image-showing so that instead of displaying an image with a bit of text below it, we produce an image with the text embedded in the image (cached as per other images). So instead of the CLOG-tag displaying a hover-image and a piece of text, we display an image alone - and the caption is part of the image itself. That would require a new "image-size" keyword ("medcapt", short for "medium with caption").

--
Mats

[Shane]

I don't think we would stand a chance in undermining the "L number culture". It's way too ingrained, and any effort to steer the boat in the other direction may result in losing people from the forum.

We have to ask why we use scientific names; it is so we all know that we are talking about the same fish, right. As long as the common names are standardised in the cat-elog, and are routinely referenced in clog tags, then I think this addresses the problem.

Rupert,
I haven't hidden, for several years now, the fact that I would like to see the whole L Number system go away. This is not because I have anything against DATZ, plecos, or the L Number culture. I simply think that it has ceased to be useful as a classification system. It was a novel, and brilliant, idea in 1988 but is showing its age after 23 years and the issuance of over 450 numbers. This is somewhat due to the system's inherent flaws (a classification system based on a single copyrighted photo that can only be found in an obscure German language aquarium magazine that has no international distribution? Multiple number issuances to the same sp, multiple spp issued the same L Number) and somewhat due to external factors (dozens of books and web pages showing incorrect photos, issuance of non-official L Numbers and L Number modifiers by various books and importers).
Since there is no clamor to throw out the system, probably quit the opposite as you point out, the minimal step we can take is to encourage use of proper scientific names for described loricariids. This is in line with both DATZ' statement that an L Number is retired once the sp is described and PC's goal of educating the hobby by providing scientifically accurate information.
Yes, one reason we use scientific names is to ensure we are talking about the same organism, but (as you well know) there are many others. Most importantly, if the fish has a binominal name we know we are dealing with an actual sp and not just an aquarium magazine's designation. The scientific name also gives the aquarist some idea of the fish's natural habitat, diet, and other factors that can help. L 31 means nothing to anyone. Parancistrus nudiventris gives me some hint of what captive conditions this fish needs, its diet, and the fact that it is the member of the genus that lacks abdominal plates.
I have probably offered far more opinion than you were looking for, but this has been a sawhorse of mine for some time.

So, I think what Shane is saying is that mods should not use common name clog tags. What I am against is moderating against those that do. What Mats is saying is, technically, we could make clog tags display a bit better.

Is that right?

Yes, nicely summarized.
-Shane

[Jools]

obscure German language aquarium magazine that has no international distribution?

Sorry bro, but the original DATZ photos are available, globally, online, from the DATZ website and have been for a few years. So what you write is not actually correct. Also, I've had them for well over a decade by buying one book (Grosse buch der welse). But, anyway, there's still PC as a (hopefully) reasonably accurate resource.

Jools

[Jools]

L 31 means nothing to anyone. Parancistrus nudiventris gives me some hint of what captive conditions this fish needs, its diet, and the fact that it is the member of the genus that lacks abdominal plates.
I have probably offered far more opinion than you were looking for, but this has been a sawhorse of mine for some time.

Always welcome opinion!

That's a clear and valid point in the example you give, but it's dependant on classification and/or accumulated background knowledge too. L031 does, for example, imply a fish from the Xingu. Also, using your argument, do you care for

Panaque schaeferi

and

Panaque maccus

in the same way. Or indeed

Peckoltia sabaji

as other

Peckoltia

. You can infer no more from their names than their respective l-numbers. BUT, I really do agree we should encourage, always, the use of binomials over l-numbers.

I am, and will, alter the moderator code of conduct around common name usage.

Jools

[Shane]

Jools,
I'll play some devil's advocate here

Sorry bro, but the original DATZ photos are available, globally, online, from the DATZ website and have been for a few years. So what you write is not actually correct. Also, I've had them for well over a decade by buying one book (Grosse buch der welse).

Yes, on a website that is impossible to navigate for a non German speaker. I just spent about 10 minutes on the DATZ site and could not locate their online list. I then tried several Google searches for the DATZ list without luck. I even found both the German and English Wikipedia entries for L Numbers but neither links to DATZ (they both link to PC ) A Spanish or Portuguese speaker would have an even more difficult time. I have Das Grosee Buch as well (thanks again), but have never seen it in the hands of an latin scientist, exporter, or very many aquarists. Not exactly a resource one is going to come across outside a very small circle. It is also now a decade out of date since the L Numbers keep coming.

But, anyway, there's still PC as a (hopefully) reasonably accurate resource.

Reasonably accurate as a percentage, but how many is PC missing? PC has missing entries starting at L 192 and by L 385 there as many missing as present. If this information is all so freely available to the hobby, why would there be any missing photos on PC?

Given that PC, per Google and Wikipedia, is the main global link for sites that mention L Numbers, shouldn't DATZ be a bit more generous with you for all your support to their marketing scheme? (Doesn't it also mean you are the only one that could bring it all down if you changed your loricariid identification system?)

You can infer no more from their names than their respective l-numbers.

I'll leave that one alone as, on reflection, you will realize how crazy it sounded to argue that DATZ L Numbers are the equivalent of Linneaus' Systema Naturae and the subsequent 276 years of progress in the field of scientific classification. There would be not even be an "L" in L Numbers if not for taxonomy.

-Shane

[racoll]

Interesting discussion!

L 31 means nothing to anyone. Parancistrus nudiventris gives me some hint of what captive conditions this fish needs, its diet, and the fact that it is the member of the genus that lacks abdominal plates.

Well, I could argue the exact opposite. I think there are many users of the site for whom scientific names mean nothing but irrelevant, boring, technical jargon. Instead, they have an uncanny knack to photographically remember just about any L number one cares to mention.

It seems that L numbers are never "retired", they just get turned into common names ...

What bugs me is when people post and don't use the CLOG tags, so I have to go into the cat-elog and find out what it is they are talking about (although this is a lot easier now with the "quick find" feature).

[MatsP]

I agree with Racoll - my LFS doesn't have scientific names on the tanks for the reason that people who want the fish can't pronounce it, and (some) customers won't buy something they feel ashamed to admit they can't pronounce - it's not a bad shop, but many of their customers aren't exactly the highly educated, well-travelled "world-wise" type of person.

On another forum, I was literally told off for using latin names as "showing off" (which I may well do through my enthusiastic attitued at times, but this was simply making sure we talk about the same fish).

And I do relatively often edit posts that have either scientific names or L-numbers (C-numbers, LDA-numbers, CW-numbers, etc), so that others can refer to it. Particularly in "what's my catfish" and such sections.

--
Mats

[Jools]

The use of clog tags is even more useful in a non multiple window/tab enviroment too.

Yes, l-numbers are retired not but not dead (in most cases). Perhaps demoted was a better word, but I was probably me that coined the phrase retired.

I think however, we need a bit of "do as we do and not as we say" about this too. I think mods should use clog tags and scientific names both. I think the mods should keep an eye on each others use of latin (and tags) and encourage them.

My 2p. Clog tags are also great because if you use them you can click preview and INSTANTLY CHECK the spelling of the name you just typed. Very handy for several genera of

Auchenipteridae

.

This will support the wider user of scientific names.

Jools

[Jools]

Would you advocate using common names for pimelodids, bagrids, and ictalurids to gain search engine visibility? Far more people are going to search madtom vice

Noturus

.

Just to feedback on these questions. I would not advocate using common names in preference to scientific in any family. Again, however, if someone only knows the common name, let them use it and, in our response, introduce the binomial if it makes sense and is not condescending. It's a bit like three people having a conversation and two participants can speak Spanish and English and one English and Dutch. One should speak English until the need for tortilla or chorizo arises! A flippant example, but I want to draw attention to the following kind of thing:

Oh, lace catfish, (

Synodontis nigrita

), are not usually expensive.

Oh, Synodontis nigrita, to be specific and correct, are not usually expensive.

Which do you give more weight... search engine visibility or PC's commitment to scientific accuracy?

Neither. If forced, search engine visibility, because I come at this from an old fashioned "spirit of the internet" free info for all. But it's not that simple. One gives you new blood (SE vis), one keeps it (good info).

You know I disagree about "elitism."

Indeed, but maybe we have a different definition of what that term means. I came at it that we would respond to a post whether it used a common name or a scientific name. To respond only if the latter would be elitist to me. To knock someone for using a common name would be elitist UNLESS as we've said they're a mod etc.

Look at what people say...

It is at least as easy to find very negative feedback about the site, aloofness etc, now OK, they are mostly from "ilovemyparrotcichlid.com" or "ratemycatfisheatinghamster.tv" but there is an undercurrent. Some of which I don't care about, but one has to be vigilant. I'll avoid improving their search engine ranking by linking to examples.

I hope we do not start seeing "?4 E1, need 411, L010 needs M8 and WTB" in the forums.

Over my dead body. Having reasonable frequent contact with "the youth" (at least, the ones not out torching England at present) through mostly Clare's family and also the heartbreakingly trendy people that frequent my brother's bars, I find that that this form of communication (a bit like swearing in bars) is, by those people who know how to do it well, recognised as appropriate for some communications and not by others. Occasionally you will get someone older, but not wiser, who thinks it's cool to try it out somewhere like this forum, and then they just look daft.

IMHO.

Communication, it appears to me, requires all participants to have the same basic toolset.

Jools

[Jools]

Yes, on a website that is impossible to navigate for a non German speaker.

Well, you and I speak about as much German - which is not much! I went to datz.de, I clicked on the PDF archiv link and off I went. Here is an example. Going to amazon and buying the german book is even quicker. I don't want this to become a technology discussion, nor do I have any wish at all to score cheap "smartass techie" points, but having the google toolbar translate feature turned on helped a lot.

A Spanish or Portuguese speaker would have an even more difficult time.

Strongly disagree; they are considerably more used to using auto translation than you or I. This view is taken from discussion with three different Brazilian ichthyologists. Indeed, it was Lucia, and not the German speakers that showed me this on DATZ!

Reasonably accurate as a percentage, but how many is PC missing? PC has missing entries starting at L 192 and by L 385 there as many missing as present.

I think that is over stated, there are 49 missing out of the 193 (four are described species, thus by your argument don't count but are still missing) so I think you are letting heart rule the head.

There are fewer l-numbers missing pictures on Planet than of described species. So, does that mean the problem is more prevalent in the scientific literature?

If this information is all so freely available to the hobby, why would there be any missing photos on PC?

Copyright and availability. We will not steal pictures! As you know, many l-numbers are of one or a few fish we may never see again, or not for a long time, so the opportunity to get pictures we are happy with ID and also can legally use is slim. That said, this has nothing to do with availbility, just availbility here, on Planet.

If I thought pictures of fishes we may never see imported again would be useful, I would hunt them down, which I think would reduce the number missing to near 0. But perhaps I should focus on described species?

Given that PC, per Google and Wikipedia, is the main global link for sites that mention L Numbers, shouldn't DATZ be a bit more generous with you for all your support to their marketing scheme? (Doesn't it also mean you are the only one that could bring it all down if you changed your loricariid identification system?)

Well, I think it's more of a marketing scheme for Glaser and other similar companies. As we've discussed elsewhere, if a better system is found then I'd use it. But I think that would (like CW or LDA numbers) just introduce more confusion to the mess (and it is messy). I am content it is what it is and the light at the end of the tunnel is scientific description.

You can infer no more from their names than their respective l-numbers.

I'll leave that one alone as, on reflection, you will realize how crazy it sounded to argue that DATZ L Numbers are the equivalent of Linneaus' Systema Naturae and the subsequent 276 years of progress in the field of scientific classification. There would be not even be an "L" in L Numbers if not for taxonomy.

That wasn't my point, and I am sure you're not suggesting I think they are equivalent.

Jools

[Jools]

One other thing we could do quite easily (but with a bit of work) is add a link to the DATZ article for every l-number. Would that be of use?

Jools

[MatsP]

One other thing we could do quite easily (but with a bit of work) is add a link to the DATZ article for every l-number. Would that be of use?

Jools

I think that would be great. Is this possible to do automagically (with some programming) or is it a case of editing all the 400 or so L-numbers manually?

--
Mats

[Shane]

It seems that L numbers are never "retired", they just get turned into common names ...

This is very true and, in all fairness, DATZ should get credit for creating internationally (vs local) recognizable common names.

I would rather see scientific names encouraged than common names discouraged. The preferred usage (scientific) is given in the cat-elog pages to support that encouragement.

Agreed. My original point was that we should be as good about practicing this, as a matter of habit, with loricariids as we are with all other families.

One other thing we could do quite easily (but with a bit of work) is add a link to the DATZ article for every l-number. Would that be of use?

This sounds like a great idea, but you will have to prioritize where such a function fits on your technical "Honey Do" list.

There are fewer l-numbers missing pictures on Planet than of described species. So, does that mean the problem is more prevalent in the scientific literature?

I think this is an apples and oranges comparison. Assignment of an L Number denotes a fish imported for the hobby, while a scientific description does not. Also, including photos in a description (esp of actual live specimens) is a relatively new practice. Lastly, I can't think of a scientist that has turned down a request by PC to use their photos.

It is at least as easy to find very negative feedback about the site, aloofness etc, now OK, they are mostly from "ilovemyparrotcichlid.com" or "ratemycatfisheatinghamster.tv" but there is an undercurrent.

Hmm, I had to look pretty hard to find some esp in comparison to the number of positive reviews. They seem to be mostly focused on the big cat issue. I could cut and paste some actual comments, but they mostly follow the "PC told me I can't keep a RTC in my 55 gal tank, they are a bunch of jerks" formula. Not sure what we can do, or care to do, about that. Reminds me though that I need to rewrite the big cats sticky. I'll take a hard look at some of these negative reviews so I can hopefully address their issues.

-Shane

[Jools]

My original point was that we should be as good about practicing this, as a matter of habit, with loricariids as we are with all other families.

Yeah, I really do support that, I think that's one thing we can all bring out of this. What about undescribed L-numbers? Do you think

L193

is OK (for mods) as long as the clog tag is used so we can eaily see it but we should use

Hypancistrus zebra

and not its number or other common name for example?

Assignment of an L Number denotes a fish imported for the hobby, while a scientific description does not.

Assignment of an l-number denotes a fish that's been photographed and cannot be identified, is collected out of "drainage" or is otherwise undescribed. It does not mean it has been imported (alive) but usually does.

L193

is a good example. Several of those which we do not have pics of were not imported or single figures were imported and may not have lived very long.

One other thing we could do quite easily (but with a bit of work) is add a link to the DATZ article for every l-number. Would that be of use?

This sounds like a great idea, but you will have to prioritize where such a function fits on your technical "Honey Do" list.

I hope you are not referring to Mats as honey.

Well, any of the cat-elog data team could add this. Borbi might be the best, but anyone can do it. Maybe it is just needed for the l-nos without pics? I'll have a chat with Rainer about this when I see him in November.

Great feedback / topic!

Jools

[racoll]

Great idea linking each L number to the original DATZ photos!

Regarding moderating of posts, would anything be done about this kind of [quite typical] post? No use of any scientific name (despite it being a described species), not even a real L number, and no link to the cat-elog references.

I know Mats spends a lot of time adding clog tags, but is it worth trying to correct people and risk patronising/upsetting them?