Status of Malapterurus teugelsi

[bekateen]

KONAN, F. K., BOUSSOU, C. K., BONY, Y. K., KONAN, M. K., EDIA, E. O., & DIALLO, B. (2018). Near Threatened Fishes of the World: Malapterurus teugelsi Norris, 2002 (Siluriformes: Malapteruridae). Aquatic Science and Technology, 6(2), 1-5. doi:10.5296/ast.v6i2.12755

http://dx.doi.org/10.5296/ast.v6i2.12755

ABSTRACT

Malapterurus teugelsi

Norris, 2002, an endemic electric catfishes of the Kogon River Basin in Guinea, is assessed as Near Threatened due to its restricted distribution area, fishing pressure, mining activities, loss of habitats and aquatic pollution. This fish has a high cultural representation in the folklore of the local population. Moreover, in addition to its very limited distribution, very little information exists on its reproductive biology and its food ecology. Therefore, singular care must be paid to it for its conservation.

• Keywords: Malapterurus teugelsi, Malapteruridae, Near Threatened, West Africa
• Synonyms:
  Malapterurus electricus
  (Gmelin, 1789) (Teugels, 1992).*

*This paper states that Malapterurus electricus is a synonym of Malapterurus teugelsi. According to the Catalog of Fishes, these are distinct species and not considered synonyms, either of the other.

[Lycosid]

*This paper states that Malapterurus electricus is a synonym of Malapterurus teugelsi. According to the Catalog of Fishes, these are distinct species and not considered synonyms, either of the other.

How could this even be true? M. electricus is the oldest Malapterurus name, older than even the genus. Did they mean "we used to call this M. electricus and then we learned better"?

[bekateen]

How could this even be true? M. electricus is the oldest Malapterurus name, older than even the genus. Did they mean "we used to call this M. electricus and then we learned better"?

Exactly. Are they saying that a local population previously considered to be M. electricus has been split off of the parent species and now is considered a distinct species, M. teugelsi? That would make sense. But if they mean that two two species have been synonymized, then if anything, M. teugelsi would be the synonym of M. electricus, not the other way around. But as I mentioned above, both are currently recognized as distinct valid species in the Catalog of Fishes.

Here is more text from the paper:

Taxonomic notes
Initially regarded with two species (Teugels et al., 1988; Teugels, 1992), genus Malapterurus
was reviewed based on morphometric characteristics data by Norris (2002) and Norris (2003)
with 16 species in West Africa.

Malapterurus teugelsi were identified in the Kogon River system (Norris, 2002; Norris, 2003;
Eschmeyer et al., 2017; Froese & Pauly, 2017). This species is devoid of dorsal fin and has an
adipose fin. The anal fin is composed of 8 to 10 soft rays. The number of vertebrae varies
from 38 to 40.

Cheers, Eric

[bekateen]

And what latitude/longitude is "latitude: 1227672 / longitude: 632220"? I'm not familiar with that system.

As an aside, here is a good link that covers the same location and shows photos of the habitat:

SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROJECT TO EXPAND THE ACTIVITIES OF CBG (COMPAGNIE DE BAUXITE DE GUINÉE): INVENTORIES OF FISH AND AQUATIC MACROINVERTEBRATES (Report prepared for Sylvatrop Consulting, September 25, 2014)

[tablabarba]

I believe Malapterurus was described by Bonnaterre in 1788, so I think the authors are saying that Gmelin (1789) identified M. teugelsi as M. electricus.

[Lycosid]

I believe Malapterurus was described by Bonnaterre in 1788, so I think the authors are saying that Gmelin (1789) identified M. teugelsi as M. electricus.

Well, if so, they sure didn't use any of the terminology that would make that clear. I agree that's probably the most sane choice, but come on - I'm an ecologist and I know enough not to misuse "synonym" like that in a taxonomic context!

[bekateen]

I believe Malapterurus was described by Bonnaterre in 1788, so I think the authors are saying that Gmelin (1789) identified M. teugelsi as M. electricus.

Well, if so, they sure didn't use any of the terminology that would make that clear. I agree that's probably the most sane choice, but come on - I'm an ecologist and I know enough not to misuse "synonym" like that in a taxonomic context!

Exactly. Stating that a population of fish which was once called species X (M. electricus) is now recognized as species Y (M. teugelsi) is very different than saying that one species is a synonym for another.

[lfinley58]

Hi - This was going to be a Cat-eLog note, but I decided to put it in with this thread. Please move it if it is felt necessary.
1. I was going to note that the date on the Norris revision of Malapteruridae is 2002.
2. Regarding the drawing in the paper under discussion (Figure 1a) (and now picture number three in the Cat-eLog entry), I went through the Norris work and didn't find that drawing at all. In addition, note that the caudal bar and saddle clearly evident in the two photographs is distinctly absent from the drawing. I would suggest removing the drawing from the Cat-eLog for this reason.

Although the given locality and the photos in the paper fit in nicely with the Norris description of the Malapterurus teugelsi more than a little of the provided information (as has been noted in previous posts) is often poorly worded and in some cases just wrong.

Lee

[bekateen]

I was going to note that the date on the Norris revision of Malapteruridae is 2002.... Regarding the drawing in the paper under discussion (Figure 1a) (and now picture number three in the Cat-eLog entry), I went through the Norris work and didn't find that drawing at all. In addition, note that the caudal bar and saddle clearly evident in the two photographs is distinctly absent from the drawing. I would suggest removing the drawing from the Cat-eLog for this reason.

Hi Lee,

Thanks for checking the Norris publication. I tried to find it but didn't have access.

The authors of this article in question attribute the drawing to "Norris (2001)" but they do not list any 2001 paper by Norris in their Lit Cit. So my question mark and "[sic]" were intended to draw attention to that uncertainty. I also ran a Google image search for the drawing and found no matches, so I didn't find a source for the drawing. But I did find this post with the same image, but attributed to "Norris, 2002." Is there a Norris 2001 paper, or even another 2002 paper on this (or conversely, is it possible that you overlooked the image in the Norris 2002 source you have)? Like you, I too noted the difference in tail banding patterns between the photos and the drawing.

Given these discrepancies, I'll remove the image. It can always be added back later if the discrepancies are resolved.

Thanks, Eric

[lfinley58]

Hi Eric,
Thanks for your follow up. The link that you provided is interesting and I would have to venture a guess it might be where the authors got the illustration from. I am pretty sure that I did a good check on the 2002 Norris revision, but for QC will check again tomorrow (all 155 pages!). There is no size given on the fish in the two photos (a shame) in that Norris does note that the definition of the caudal saddle and bar patterns decrease with age. In any case, with using the two photos it is probably good to just drop the drawing - with your caveat that "It can always be added back later if the discrepancies are resolved."

Lee

[bekateen]

Thanks Lee.

Also, I found a similar attribution on Fishbase, but I can't confirm it on my phone. Will do so later.

FYI, I won't be able to delete the image yet. We don't have a "delete" image function. I'll need to wait until there's a new image of any other fish to upload, then I can use it to remove this picture.

Cheers, Eric

[lfinley58]

Hi again Eric,
Re Fishbase: the lateral photo view of the fish is of the holotype which is 138.7 mm SL, which Norris noted to be a young adult. In using the increase size feature the you can easily see the (granted pale) caudal saddle and bar pattern on the fish. The largest specimen that Norris had available was 212 mm SL.
In any case, and for my two cents worth, lacking a primary source it is still probably good to scratch the drawing (at least for now).
Lee