PlanetCatfish.com

I'm going to add etymology, sizes (where applicable), distribution, etc. from the Panaque description...

--
Mats

Go for it. The only sticky one is L418, but I am going with it as the description matches. Also, I am removing one of the Panaque cf_nigrolineatus (it is about to be shrunk into a new Otocinclus).

Anyone got pictures of really big L191 or L330? It is a shame these were not looked at in the PanaquePanaque revision.

As an aside, I am considering splitting the genus and having genera of Panaque(Panaque), Panaqolus(Panaque) and Scobinancistrus(Panaque). I am aware that's backwards, longer and that Scobinancistrus wouldn't eat wood if you hit them with it.

Jools

Re. Scobinancistrus. This is mentioned as a side-note in several papers, but shouldn't we wait for a paper directly dealing with Scobinancistrus to come out [and gets accepted] and place it in Panaque, rather than "leading the way"?

And doesn't this really belong in the subfamily section?

--
Mats

Nope, it's a subgenus not a subfamily. The reason for me putting the sub genus before the genus rather than the other way around was to minimise the (in my view rather daft) inclusion of Scobinancistrus in Panaque. Put it this way, why would you accept Panaqolus(Panaque) and not Scobinancistrus(Panaque)? It also begs the question about using Hypostomus(Cochliodon) too which is why I am nervous of it.

At the moment, however generic level data for Panaque is not very useful and that was my main reason behind the (odd) split.

Jools

And I suppose that you wouldn't want to add Subgenus to all the data-sheets.... ;) I can just see that the clog-tags will be even harder for people toget right, on some fairly frequently kept species...

And what's the (real) difference between a subfamily called Panaque, containing the genera of Panaque, Panogulous (spelling?) and Scobinancistrus?

--
Mats

Well, it'd be the very odd name Panaqueinae! No, I don't want to get into the grey areas of fiddling around the edges of classification. The change would meant, for example, clog tag users having to type Panaque(Panaqolus) maccus unless, of course, there were synonyms.

Which is a point actually, all the dwarf described species should have synonyms of Panaqolus...

Jools

I know it doesn't matter too much, but FWIW:
1: I think they'd actually drop the "e" in Panaque if adding an ending onto it, similar to what Isbrucker did to make the name Panaquolus.
2: A supergeneric group to retain Panaque, Panaquolus, and Scobinancistrus at the genus level would HAVE to be a subtribe to fit below the Ancistrini tribe, rather than being a subfamily. Subtribes use the ending "ina".

Ergo, a subtribe based on the name Panaque would be "Panaquina". In the end, whether you put three genera into a subtribe or three subgenera into a genus doesn't make a huge difference, but its not our realm to erect names. If I understand it correctly, Jon's goal was to make the taxonomy fit the phylogeny; thus, dividing a genus into subgenera is better than erecting a whole new subtribe. Furthermore, erecting a subtribe is probably not good when it was unclear how he would erect other subtribes to break up the rest of the tribe Ancistrini (ie. how Jon was able to divide the subfamily Hypostominae into tribes).

Anyone got pictures of really big L191 or L330? It is a shame these were not looked at in the PanaquePanaque revision.

How big is "really big"? AFAIK, Nathan got every preserved specimen of Panaque he was able to. Large Panaque specimens are exceedingly rare in collections.

I was thinking out loud in terms of representing sub-genera. I am not sure how we got to sub-families and beyond. Anyway, the catelog isn't that sophisticated.

By "really big" I mean 30cm or larger. It appears to me that L191 and L330 are not covered in this revision but I am not sure what they look like large.

Jools

Jools wrote: Anyone got pictures of really big L191 or L330?

This is the largest I have at hand, listed at 45cm. I probably have a couple more big L330 pictures saved somewhere. I've got lots of large L191 (although it's debatable what they are). These aren't my fish or photos.

If you ask me, I would say:

1. PC creating it's own taxonomy is probably a bad idea
2. I don't really like the idea of subgenera, subspecies or other "non-standard" (i.e. not often used in ichthyology) classifications. It makes a really elegant system rather cumbersome.
3. Using subgenera here would be confusing. For the aquarist layman, the whole Linnean system is confusing enough already.
4. Switching around the subgeneric and generic names on PC is a nice idea, but even more confusing.

My solutions would be either:

1. Name them all just by subgenus (Panaque xxx, Scobiancistrus xxx, Panaquolus xxx) - but this conflicts with other databases.
2. Name them by genus (all Panaque spp.) - but this will not be popular here.
3. Leave things as they are, and make a note in Scobiancistrus - but this ignores the taxonomy.

Ultimately the problem is to balance information for fishkeeper (what genus eats what, how big do they get) with keeping the site up-to-date with other literature and databases. Possibly option 1 may be the best choice for PC. It is not completely ignoring the taxonomy and is perhaps mroe useful to the aquarists than just calling them all Panaque.

Option 1 is also the least amount of work required...

--
Mats

matthewfaulkner wrote:

Jools wrote: Anyone got pictures of really big L191 or L330?

These aren't my fish or photos.

Thanks, but I can't use them without permission.

Jools

racoll wrote:If you ask me, I would say:

1. PC creating it's own taxonomy is probably a bad idea
2. I don't really like the idea of subgenera, subspecies or other "non-standard" (i.e. not often used in ichthyology) classifications. It makes a really elegant system rather cumbersome.
3. Using subgenera here would be confusing. For the aquarist layman, the whole Linnean system is confusing enough already.
4. Switching around the subgeneric and generic names on PC is a nice idea, but even more confusing.

I would ask you!

1. Totally agree, I would only chose an existing path.
2. Neither do I, but its there.
3. Well, I think having Scobinancistrus and Panaqolus in the same genus page even more confusing.
4. As 3.

racoll wrote:My solutions would be either:

1. Name them all just by subgenus (Panaque xxx, Scobiancistrus xxx, Panaquolus xxx) - but this conflicts with other databases.
2. Name them by genus (all Panaque spp.) - but this will not be popular here.
3. Leave things as they are, and make a note in Scobiancistrus - but this ignores the taxonomy.

1. Then Jon Armbruster will send me another warm email! It's less of an issue now in terms of other databases.
2. This is how it's been here for most of the last 15 years.
3. Ditto.

It boils down to the database being taxonomically "correct" versus useful to its users. A toughie.

Jools

CoF & FB both agree on Panaqolus gnomus.
Besides, given the name (gnome) I take it this is a smaller species and thus no Panaque?
Or do we still exclude Panaqolus?

Panaque gnomus was described at the same time as P. maccus by Schaefer and Stewart in 1993. It is one of the Panaque (subgenus Panaqolus) species.

Really? Well, if we change this, we change a LOT of entries. Also, I note fishbase accepts the genus.

http://fishbase.de/NomenClature/Scienti ... ackstep=-2

I wonder if it is time to adopt this genus, it would be interesting to note why FB has.

Jools

Ferrari's checklist is recognising Panoqolus as a genus.

--
Mats

Might be worth using just to allow everyone to get used to spelling the name!

This is a really big change, not because it's any different from any other revision but because of the work involved here.

Technically, I also need to ensure "My Cats" populations can move automatically when genera are changed too. Panaqolus already exists on the database and moving all pictures and species is a few hours simple work. If the population data gets messed up then it's a real mess taking days to fix. Other tasks would be reviewing the genus level data and also adding synonym entries for all of them.

This change makes a lot of sense for me to do now, but I still have a nagging worry - possibly because I adopted this name a long time ago now and still remember how much work it was to change and change out.

Leave it with me a while...

Jools

I think Panaqolus will have been accepted by FB due to Ferraris (as mentioned by Mats).

However, the last work looking at the group treats it as a subgenus, and I note that Armbruster does too on his website.

At the end of the day Jools I suppose it is up to you, do you deem it valid as a full genus? If you do then obviously you are free to treat it as such. If you want the site to follow current scientific practice then I suppose you shouldn't use it. Personally I think it is a valid genus.

I share the same personal view, and I also think there is a political reticence to use it because of its ugly beginning; or at least dig it out this quirky subgenus structure. Quite often matters such as these are quite academic, but the reason I struggle with this one so much is that using the new genus (outside of our usual policy of following recent works) is materially beneficial to users of this site and also I simply cannot accept Scobinancistrus' placement as a Panaque subgenus - so why should this be different.

Rock and a hard place. Yep, it'll be my call when I make it.

Jools

What is this ugly beginning?

Edit: I don't know if this has been brought up before but on the home page the second to last post is up as the last post, if you get me, so Jools' post is showing on the home page as last post, I noticed this a while ago but just thought I would mention it now for some reason.

grokefish wrote:What is this ugly beginning?

The genus (and 13 others) was introduced in a short article in DATZ, a hobby magazine, no peer review and very little evidence of the usual research that goes into erecting new genera. I adopted the new names only to find there was much gnashing of teeth in the majority of the scientific community and so backed most of them out. Goodbye to a couple of weeks. There is a lot more to it than that, but that's the short of it.

On a side note, it pains me every time I write it that there is no letter u after the q in Panaqolus.

Jools

grokefish wrote:Edit: I don't know if this has been brought up before but on the home page the second to last post is up as the last post, if you get me, so Jools' post is showing on the home page as last post, I noticed this a while ago but just thought I would mention it now for some reason.

That list is only updated periodically - it's not a live view.

Jools

On a side note, it pains me every time I write it that there is no letter u after the q in Panaqolus.

The name of the genus has always bothered me (as you know). It is a latinized dimunitive of the indigenous word panaque, which makes no sense at all. Linguisticly it should have been Panaquito, which has a very nice sound and literally means "small panaque." I am sure Clare would agree with me on this one
-Shane

Shane wrote:I am sure Clare would agree with me on this one

I agree too, but again, the jarring name we're stuck with is just another ugly part of this.

Jools

How about adding the name "Panaqolus" to the data sheet (for example in General remarks) for the time being? That'll give you some time to think things over and it's beneficial to users.

While the site isn't a democracy, and you get the final say Jools, I would be interested in hearing what other forum users think.

How about a poll?

I am sure the majority will vote for "revalidation" of Panaqolus, but it might be interesting nonetheless, and some people may actually prefer the status quo ...

racoll wrote:While the site isn't a democracy, and you get the final say Jools, I would be interested in hearing what other forum users think.

How about a poll?

I am sure the majority will vote for "revalidation" of Panaqolus, but it might be interesting nonetheless, and some people may actually prefer the status quo ...

I don't think this is a good subject for a poll. We should follow mainstream science, in my opinion. The real difficulty is that Armbruster, who sort of started this off, is viewing Panaqolus as a sub-genus. In my mind, that's just making things complicated in all sorts of ways. I personally think we should consider it a genus...

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:We should follow mainstream science, in my opinion.

MatsP wrote:I personally think we should consider it a genus

Then these are quite contradictory statements ;)

racoll wrote:

MatsP wrote:We should follow mainstream science, in my opinion.

MatsP wrote:I personally think we should consider it a genus

Then these are quite contradictory statements ;)

Hi racoll

No, I think what Mats means is "mainstream" science i.e. Ferraris considers it a full genus, whereas specialist (in terms of loricariids) science i.e Armbruster (followed by Lujan et al) use it as a subgenus. Apart from the scientific arguments, we all know why it has been used as subgenus.

At the end of the day it will come down to whether Jools considers it a full genus or not, based on the available information, his personal opinion on the group, and whether he is a splitter or a lumper.