New "common name" CLOG tags...

[MatsP]

I would probably add the clog-tags, but I don't really see the point in editing the post to use the scientific name. In a reply to the post, I'd suggest the scientific name should be used.

Unfortunately, I have no idea where you can get

Pseudacanthicus leopardus

- there are quite a few

Pseudacanthicus cf_leopardus

around in the shops (from my limited ability to ID these).

--
Mats

[Shane]

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?

Yes, that makes perfect sense. Of course I would probably go with Acanthicus sp ""Venezuela llanos" (aka

Acanthicus sp(l193)

.

Your use of that sp brought back some great memories. Remember the guy using socks on his hands to try to catch them?
For those unfamiliar with this technique, the llaneros put socks on their hands when catching these Acanthicus. The fish's spines (odontodes) get caught up in the socks making it hard for the fish to slip your grip.
I find it incredible that this fish is both the only member of its genus in the Orinoco drainage and probably the largest loricariid in the Orinoco drainage and yet remains undescribed.

-Shane

[MatsP]

Can I just point out that there is a bit of a drawback with using

Acanthicus sp(L193)

over

L193

- and that is when this species does becomes described (and we hope that happens at some point), the clog-link with the genus name becomes "broken", as there no longer is a species matching Acanthicus sp(L193), it'll be Acanthicus <speciesname>.

I have an idea of how to fix this too, but it's either going to need some more work on synonyms [adding a "pseudosynonym" so that we can have "Acanthicus sp(L193)" in the synonym table, but it clearly shouldn't be displayed as a "real" synonym in the synonyms field of the datasheet etc] or some work on "identifying" that it's {L,LDA,C,CW} + number and see if there is such a common name and if so, check that the genus matches.

[The way it works right now is that me and Jools get an e-mail for whenever there is a missing species(-image), so one of us will then edit the post to fix up, so that P. schaeferi replaces P. sp(L418) and P. titan replaces P. sp(L203) [I probably have those the wrong way around, by the way - I do check before editing].

--
Mats

[Jools]

Can I just point out that there is a bit of a drawback with using

Acanthicus sp(L193)

over

L193

- and that is when this species does becomes described (and we hope that happens at some point), the clog-link with the genus name becomes "broken", as there no longer is a species matching Acanthicus sp(L193), it'll be Acanthicus <speciesname>.

True. A solution would be to write Acanthicus sp.

L193

.

That's to say:

Code: Select all

[i]Acanthicus[/i] sp. [clog]L193[/clog]

Jools

[Jools]

Your use of that sp brought back some great memories. Remember the guy using socks on his hands to try to catch them?

Precisely my purpose. It was also the day I perfected the technique of entering the water by climbing a flimsy tree until it bends over into the water and then gracefully dismount (or, as I did, fall off in a cloud of leaves and enter the water upside down).

Jools

[Jools]

So, a great thread, that I've just spent a very pleasurable 10 minutes re-reading. However, I think it's all done and dusted? Move to resolved?

Jools

[MatsP]

I reckon this can be moved to "Resolved", as it is implemented, and I think it works satisfactorily.

--
Mats

[Jools]

Yes, agreed. Moved to resolved.

Jools