PlanetCatfish.com

It seems like Fishbase and COF have adopted Panoqolus as a valid genus - this appears to be based on Ferraris catalog of catfishes, afaict.

--
Mats

Seems you're right.

I checked Ferraris and he does accept Panaqolus, but notes that Chockley & Armbruster reject it.

Hmmmmmm. What about other "DATZ 14" genera. Guyanacistrus for example? Not against this change, but I've been burned by this before.....

Jools

As far as I can tell (searching, plus manually checking the alphabetical genus listing - no genus beginning with G at all), Guyancistrus is not mentioned at all in Ferraris checklist.

--
Mats

The species recognized as Panoqulus are:
Panaqolus albomaculatus (Kanazawa, 1958)
Panaqolus changae (Chockley & Armbruster, 2002)
Panaqolus dentex (Günther, 1868)
Panaqolus gnomus (Schaefer & Stewart, 1993) [Not in Cat-eLog]
Panaqolus maccus (Schaefer & Stewart, 1993)
Panaqolus nocturnus (Schaefer & Stewart, 1993) [Not in Cat-eLog]
Panaqolus purusiensis (La Monte, 1935) [Not in Cat-eLog]

Obviously any undescribed small Panaque also needs changing, such as:
sp(2),
sp(3),
L002
L169
L204
L206
L271
L296 ??
L306
L329
L341 ??
L397
and the various cf/aff maccus variants.

--
Mats

So, what logic then to using Panaqolus and not the others?

Jools

Jools wrote:So, what logic then to using Panaqolus and not the others?

Jools

Who knows... I'm just reporting what I see... I'm not entirely sure what all 14 of the Datz genus are, so I can't say for sure which ones are accepted or not in the checklist - but Panaqolus is in the checklist and both Fishbase and COF do follow it.

--
Mats

It sure is strange how Ferraris inconsistently includes some of Armbruster's changes and not others. BTW, Ferraris recognizes Guyanancistrus as a synonym to Pseudancistrus, as Armbruster does.

Also, P. bathyphilus, as a hypothesized member of the P. dentex group, would also be included in Panaqolus (or however you spell it).

Thanks Steve. So, working through the checklist the following are present/Not present (as a "valid" genus):
Fonchiiichthys - Present
Lampiella - Present
Macrotocinclus - Present
Panaqolus - Present
Proloricaria - Present
Squaliforma - Present
Pseudolithoxus - Present

Ancistomus - Not present
Guyanancistrus - Not present
Leliella - Not present
Quiritixys - Not Present
Sophiancistrus - Not present
Watawata - Not Present
Zonancistrus - Not Present.

Interestingly: It's exactly 50% that made it in there, the other 50% got "rejected".

--
Mats

I was going to say that maybe Ferraris included genera he felt were monophyletic - he explicitly says that Panaqolus is a monophyletic group and for all I know it might be - but the presence of Macrotocinclus would seem to suggest that is not the case. Macrotocinclus as proposed by Isbrücker et al is obviously not monophyletic. That Isbrücker, Ferraris and Catalog of Fishes don't agree on which species are included in the genus doesn't inspire confidence either.

FWIW I've recommended FishBase to un-recognize Macrotocinclus until the fog has cleared.

Panaqolus/P. dentex group is also monophyletic under Armbruster's scheme. However, he uses it as a subgenus under Panaque, allowing Panaque to unite three monophyletic subgenera, Panaque, Panaqolus, and Scobinancistrus, into a single monophyletic clade. Of course, anyone familiar with the fish already knows that these three groups are closely related, but by making them subgenera in a single genus Armbruster allows the nomenclature to reflect phylogeny. So it's not because Panaqolus is not monophyletic that Armbruster considers it a synonym to Panaque, but because it is a subgenus in his scheme. This is discussed in his 2004 paper.

Not against this change, but I've been burned by this before.....

Aye. I would give this a bit of time to settle in. If additional authors start using those genera it will probably be safe to go with them. Until then, that is a lot of changs based on a single source that could be countermanded in short time.

-Shane

Hi!!

Pretty interesting...I also went on to check on Eschmeyer's Catalog of fish and Glyptoperichthys is considered to be valid in the current status!!!
While he accept Liposarcus to be synonm with Pterygoplichthys

Cheers
Yann

Yann wrote:Hi!!

Pretty interesting...I also went on to check on Eschmeyer's Catalog of fish and Glyptoperichthys is considered to be valid in the current status!!!
While he accept Liposarcus to be synonm with Pterygoplichthys

Cheers
Yann

Really? I don't find any species that is listed as valid when I enter Glyptoperichthys... Which species was this? It may be an error, and should be corrected?

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:Really?
Mats

Yes.

Glyptoperichthys Weber [C.] 1991:639 [ref. 19114]. Masc. Ancistrus lituratus kner 1854. Type by original designation. •Synonym of Pterygoplichthys Gill 1858 -- (Armbruster 2004:53, 61 [ref. 27644]). •Valid as Glyptoperichthys Weber 1991 -- (Weber 1992:14 [ref. 19714], Page et al. 1996:186 [ref. 22598], Burgess & Finley 1996:169 [ref. 22901], Montoya-Burgos et al. 1998:367 [ref. 23850], Isbrücker 2002:16 [ref. 27178], Weber in Reis et al. 2003:352 [ref. 27061], Ferraris 2007:290 [ref. 29155]). Current status: Glyptoperichthys Weber 1991. Loricariidae: Hypostominae.

It appears to be an error. I checked Ferraris (2007), and he lists Glyptoperichthys as a synonym of Pterygoplichthys.

Ah, so you are searching for genus on it's own, not the species.

--
Mats

I am going to move this to resolved. There are lots of these fishes waiting to be described, let's see what they are described as.

Jools