Pareuchiloglanis

[Shovelnose]

Pareuchiloglanis kamengensis, P.gongshanensis and P.macropterus should be shifted to Creteuchiloglanis (new genus to be created in the Catelog) following :

A New Genus of Glyptosternine Catfish (Siluriformes: Sisoridae) with
Descriptions of Two New Species from Yunnan, China
Wei Zhou, Xu Li, and Alfred W. Thomson.

[MatsP]

Since HH hasn't commented, I would go ahead and create the new genus and move the species. It seems like Catalog of Fishes are using Creteuchiloglanis for the species you mentioned above.

--
Mats

[Shovelnose]

All three species moved to Creteuchiloglanis plus two new species added to this genus. Synonyms added too but I had a little bit of confusion (with the logic) in the Original Genus option in this section.

Will add info to the new species later tonight.

This can be moved to resolved now???

[Shovelnose]

I had a couple of queries with regard to the Original Genus option in the Catelog. So thought I could post it here as it is relevant to this particular entry.

1) Original Genus option for Creteuchiloglanis longipectoralis, new species.

This species had been identified earlier as :

a) Euchiloglanis kamengensis.—Chu, 1979:77 (key and distribution; in part, Lancang-Jiang drainage only).

b) Pareuchiloglanis kamengensis.—Chu, 1986:41 (distribution; in part, Lancang-Jiang drainage only).

Which option should be chosen in the page - Original Genus or Not Original Genus.

If the above were just identifications and not descriptions, would that make it Original Genus here???



2) Original Genus In Synonyms.

How should this option be used. For example, Creteuchiloglanis kamengensis has 2 synonyms.

a) Euchiloglanis kamengensis Jayaram, 1966

b) Pareuchiloglanis kamengensis.—Chu, 1986


Since E.kamengensis was described earlier, should the Not Original Genus be chosen for P.kamengensis.

[MatsP]

Original genus means "the first genus the fish was described as".

Put very simply: Does the authors name appear in parenthesis? If yes, then "not original name", if no, then "original genus".

Let's take the example of Ancistrus hoplogenys, it was first described as Chaetostomus hoplogenys - so the "Not original genus" should be used, as the same species has moved from the original genus to another one.

In the case of Creteuchiloglanis longipectoralis, this is, as far as I understand, a "split" - so there was a single species, and now there are two species. If so (and CoF agrees with me), it should be "original genus", as THIS species has not been described with a different genus name in the past. It was indeed lumped together with another species that wasn't originally described as this species, but the NEW species has never been any other genus. Does that make sense?

"Not original genus" should only be used if that very species' original genus has changed - that is, the original combination of genus and species name has been recombined with a new genus, but still the same species.

I hope this helps and I haven't made it more confusing... ;)


--
Mats

[Shovelnose]

THIS species has not been described with a different genus name in the past. It was indeed lumped together with another species that wasn't originally described as this species, but the NEW species has never been any other genus. Does that make sense?

Yup. Perfect!


Any opinions on the other query???

[MatsP]

Yes, "not original genus" for synonyms that are "changed genus" - same rules: If the original species name is the same, and the new name is a different genus, it is "not original genus".

--
Mats

[Shovelnose]

This can be moved to resolved.

[Birger]

Moved to resolved.

Birger