General remarks in Synodontis irsacae
Posted: 08 Oct 2010, 05:58
A bunch of minor typos in the remarks for . These are highlighted in bold and underlined.
When starting a sentence, the genus name is generally spelled out in full rather than abbreviated. Thus, the second line should read “Synodontis dhonti (Boulenger....” and the third line should read “Synodontis irsacae (Matthe....”
They are pretty obvious (octogenetic should be changed to ontogenetic).An explanation as to why S. irsacae has often been called S. dhonti in the past. S. dhonti (Boulenger 1917) was described from a single specimen collected in 1912. S. irsacae (Matthe, 1959) was placed in junior synonymy with S. dhonti by Matthes in 1962 with specimens of S. irsacae being thought to be juvenile individuals of S. dhonti. Wright & Page in 2006 put forth that none of these specimens have carried on any octogenetic changes that would support the idea of S. irsacae being a juvenile form of S. dhonti. Mathes also cited a specimen n 1962 as being intermediate between the two species and this fish turned out to actually be a specimen of S.tanganaicae. Major differences separating S.irsacae from S.dhontibeing the absence of an axillary pore, retaining it’s spots and a smaller adult size.
When starting a sentence, the genus name is generally spelled out in full rather than abbreviated. Thus, the second line should read “Synodontis dhonti (Boulenger....” and the third line should read “Synodontis irsacae (Matthe....”
