Page 1 of 1
Some L #'s missing from the Catelog
Posted: 02 Oct 2010, 02:51
by nvcichlids
I was trying to look up Yann's suggestion for what Jacksters ancistrus might be and noticed L371 and 372 are missing. Is there a reason for this (are they now described?)
Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog
Posted: 02 Oct 2010, 05:11
by racoll
Probably because nobody has submitted a photo yet.
can be difficult to ID, so being sure it is LXXX and not LYYY is not easy unless you can provide bona fide locality data, which is also not easy to get.
Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog
Posted: 02 Oct 2010, 05:16
by MatsP
I don't think there is any particular reason they are not in the Cat-eLog.
When I'm not watching motorbike racing this weekend, I'll try to fix this along with the Peckoltia bachi that was pointed out elsewhere (need a new species to replace the old one anyways).
--
Mats
Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog
Posted: 02 Oct 2010, 10:34
by Jools
That's great. Note also that I think Sandor is going to add L400+ missing ones.
Jools
Re: Some L #'s missing from the Catelog
Posted: 23 Oct 2010, 10:49
by MatsP
This is now done..
--
Mats
