Does anybody have Burgess' 1989 book, An atlas of freshwater and marine catfishes?

[bekateen]

Hi All,

I'm trying to track down some information which supposedly was printed in the 1989 book by W.E. Burgess, An atlas of freshwater and marine catfishes. A preliminary survey of the Siluriformes. T.F.H. Publications, Inc., Neptune City, New Jersey (USA). 784 p..

Specifically, I'm looking for a reference to Chaetostoma thomasi. First, let's be clear - there is no such thing as C. thomasi. However, according to FishBase, in that book, Burgess called

C. thomsoni

by this incorrect specific epithet "thomasi."

I don't have the book, and I'm not able to locate a copy, so I'd simply like to get independent confirmation that Burgess did indeed write this, and if he did, what else did he write about this fish? So if any of you have this book or know where to view a copy of it, would you please be so kind as to look this up and let me know what you find? And if there is any additional text or info or pictures associated with the name C. thomasi in that book, would you please take a photo of it and either upload it here for me PM me with the information?

Thank you very much. Cheers, Eric

[Dave Rinaldo]

It is referenced in the Index and p.436 as C. thomsoni.

No other info or picture.

For fun

[bekateen]

Thanks Dave.

... How weird: If you click on the link to "Synonyms" for C. thomsoni on Fishbase, it takes you to a page that lists "C. thomasi" as a misspelled synonym. If you click on the link to the misspelling, it takes you to a page that says Burgess is the source of the misspelling, and if you click on Burgess' name, it takes you to a citation for this book. But if "thomasi" doesn't appear there, where is this coming from? It's not in the original text by Regan (1904). I read that and didn't find anything but "thomsoni."

The mystery goes on.

[Dave Rinaldo]

The reference summary refers to p. 784 which is the Errata page.

"p. 389, col. 2, line 23: Change Chaetostomus to Chaetostoma."

Nothing about 'thomasi"

[bekateen]

Thanks again. Yes I was aware of the misspelling of Chaetostoma as Chaetostomus - that occurred in Regan. But if you download the entire original text of Regan, nowhere in there does Thomasi appear.

Cheers, Eric

[Dave Rinaldo]

The reference summary refers to p. 784 which is the Errata page.

"p. 389, col. 2, line 23: Change Chaetostomus to Chaetostoma."

This refers to the Burgess book.

[bekateen]

Hmmm. Don't know what to make of that, since way back in 1904 (or whatever), Regan called it Chaetostomus too. But no mention of thomasi.

Cheers, Eric

[Jools]

This might help.

Jools

[Dave Rinaldo]

The reference summary refers to p. 784 which is the Errata page.

"p. 389, col. 2, line 23: Change Chaetostomus to Chaetostoma."

"

Earlier in this paragraph, it was spelled correctly, so probably just a typo.

[bekateen]

Thanks Jools!

Cheers, Eric

[bekateen]

Okay, let's try this again - going back a little bit further: Does anybody have a copy of:

• Baensch, H.A. and R. Riehl, 1985. Aquarien atlas. Band 2. Mergus, Verlag für Natur-und Heimtierkunde GmbH, Melle, Germany. 1216 p.

The book is written in German, but I am told that you may find a reference to C. thomasi on page 504.

If you do have this book, again I would greatly appreciate it if you could take a picture of that page, the text potentially mentioning "thomasi" and any surrounding text in case there is an associated narrative.

Thanks so much, Eric

[Dave Rinaldo]

It's also in the English version.

[bekateen]

Thanks again, Dave. "Most excellent!" (I'm channeling my best Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure catch phrase).

This is the earliest reference I've tracked down which uses that misspelling of "thomsoni; " perhaps it also appeared in the 1st edition of this book, but I think this is good enough for me.

That photo is also very helpful. Although it appears to me that this specimen is showing off its best "stress coloration," the fish does seem to look very much like C. formosae:


C. formosae, Image #10 on CLOG page

"C. thomasi" from Baensch & Riehl, 1985

So if the commercial trade routes were the same back then as they are today (coming from the eastern side of the Andes), this fish is almost certainly C. formosae rather than C. thomsoni.

Cheers, Eric.

[Dave Rinaldo]

That photo is also very helpful. Although it appears to me that this specimen is showing off its best "stress coloration," the fish does seem to look very much like C. formosae:

Cheers, Eric.

Check last sentence: "The identity of the species in the picture is not absolutely certain".

[bekateen]

Check last sentence: "The identity of the species in the picture is not absolutely certain".

Yeah I saw that. And in spite of that disclaimer, to this day people seem to be really certain of their ID, and you can go online and buy "C. thomasi" lots of places. For example,

• Ruinemans sells "Chaetostoma thomasi;" they use the same photo for their advertisement as PC displays as the position #1 photo of C. formosae!
  
• Bluegrass Aquatics sells "Albinus Rubber Pleco / Chaetostoma thomasi / L146a," and they are using an image which resembles L445... Crazy!

  

• Seagrest Farms sells "Albinus Rubber Pleco / Chaetostoma thomasi / L146a." That fish actually appears to have pale spots on an otherwise plain body, but it doesn't look like the "white spotted" fish mentioned below.

  

Finally, if you Google "Chaetostoma thomasi," you can find this scan of a 2001 book, Complete Encyclopedia of the Freshwater Aquarium by John Dawes:

By "white spotted," what does the author see that I don't? He mentions that the fish in the photo is the white spotted fish, and he says it might be "L188" (

Chaetostoma nudirostre

), but I can't see any white "spots" on that specimen (however, I DO see black spots on the head). If the author considers that "white" spotted, what is he thinking of when he says "black spotted?"

As with the Baensch and Riehl book, this author finishes with, "Considerable confusion therefore exists about the identity of this species." Given the fact that no scientist has ever described or formally named any fish "C. thomasi" and in light of the variation shown above at the three different retail outlets, these authors certainly didn't appreciate just how accurate they were with these qualifiers! LOL

Trying to understand commercial websites and 15-year-old (and older) books... Fun stuff.

[Jools]

We had it under that name on this site back in the day too. However websites have the advantage of being able to be improved over time!

I grew up learning "the names" from Baensch in particular.

Jools