PlanetCatfish.com

How certain are we on the ID in the clog? I was looking at the images of the holotype and it appears much less dorsally depressed/flattened than the fish in the clog, and more laterally compressed. The head seems too wide and body too elongated in the fish in the clog.

http://acsi.acnatsci.org/base/getthumbn ... get=135003
http://acsi.acnatsci.org/base/getthumbn ... get=135138

For reference:


--
Mats

I'd came from Lee aaaaages ago if I recall correctly. I am not certain of the ID, but didn't find much wrong with it at the time (I didn't read the full description certainly).

The question, as always, is: If it's not that then what is it!

Jools

Hi Jools

If it isn't P. parva, I'm not certain what it is. There are still some undescribed driftwoods out there.

Having just seen a picture of a living Glanidium melanopterum, I would say this is also a Glanidium sp. It has the right head shape, body shape, and caudal fin shape. I'll try and dig around and see if any species match.

Looking through Glanidium, I came across Glanidium piresi, which is now Tocantinsia piresi. The image that purports to be T. piresi on the clog, matches exactly (IMO) the image of 'Pseudotatia parva' albeit one is better fed than the other. I think these two are the same fish, and they are not P. parva. I haven't got the description of T. piresi but IMO that is a better possibility. The drawing of T. depressa [= T. piresi] in Mees, reproduced on page 235 of Burgess' Catfish Atlas is a close match for shape etc.

Hi all.

Jools, it wasn't me on the use of the name Pseudotatia for the George Fear photos.

I think that Steve is right on with the diagnosis of Tocantinsia for the fish pictured as Pseudotatia in the Cat-eLog.

Lee

I suggested some time ago that we should have a "identified by" field for each image. That way, we can at least discuss with the right person about this kind of ID issues.

--
Mats

I have checked with Carl Ferraris and although he can't be certain based on images alone he too thinks the images captioned as P. parva are T. piresi.

MatsP wrote:I suggested some time ago that we should have a "identified by" field for each image. That way, we can at least discuss with the right person about this kind of ID issues.

As I replied some time ago, I don't think this is a good idea. In fact, I'm dead against this. The reasoning being that first of all it drives some people away from making an ID. Usually the more an expert someone is, this more likely they are to not be sure. Secondly, so what? We've all been very wrong. Thirdly, opinions change as knowledge changes, so to have something ID'ed 100% one year, it might very well be wrong the next. Again, that an expert has ID'ed a picture as opposed to otherwise is meaningless with a why. In some, thankfully rare, cases it also plays to an ego. The bigger the ego, the greater the certainty of ID, but not correctness (those two things are very different) and usually the less willingness to share info.

What I would really want to do is to record the discussion around ID characteristics and so on and have them on the catelog data sheet. That's priceless info. It also means that, several years on when we've all forgotten why an ID was made, that's it's there for us to go back to directly.

If Lee didn't ID that catfish, then the ID has come from me and I am wrong. What's the point in storing that unless we know why?

Jools

Ok, so perhaps a "Id notes" would be the right thing to have for each picture. That note would be indicating "why does the picture adder think this is the fish it's listed as", whether that is "Lee Finley says so" or "The serrations on the dorsal are unique to this species" or "See <link to thread in the forum>".

[Obviously, the "Serrations are unique" may well change when further species are discovered that have serrations in the dorsal fin - but knowing that this was the the key to identification in this case may well be useful to determine whether it is certain to be the new or old species too].

--
Mats

OK, agree with the ID comments above. I have thought about it and added an admin per image note facility.

Lee, sorry, I half thought it was your advice, but clearly not. Thanks for confirming.

Change made.

Jools