PlanetCatfish.com

Hi,

just read the General Remarks on L. marmoratus:

Until recently (2003) classified as L. marmoratus and will appear labelled as such in many texts. Leiarius longibarbis was originally described as an Arius (back in the first half of the 19th century when a lot of the big catfishes were) and latterly moved into synonymy with Leiarius pictus. It was thought to be the same fish as that which was latter described as Leiarius marmoratus and so the name L. longibarbis would have had precedence although it is uncertain or unproven that synonymy is actually the case.

shouldn´t the first sentence read "[...]classified as L. longibarbis[...]"..?
Or did I miss the point?

Cheers, Sandor

Clearly that text doesn't make sense. I think it's related to the comment on L. longibarbis. I'm pretty sure there is a "resolved bugs" post about the correct ID of the Leiarius species.

I suspect what happened was that it was originally called L. longibarbis, then renamed to L. marmoratus where these two names were considered synonyms, and the synonym was then broken - the comment appears to refer to a "uncertainty in synonymy".

I will try to find that post about splitting the species...

Edit:
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 17&t=23298

--
Mats

I've completely rewritten the comment ... Should be online when Jools have approved it.

--
Mats

Updated.

Jools