PlanetCatfish.com

Hey, is it just me or does Heptapteridae in the Cat-eLog not go to the right page? I'm getting a page that just has two species on it.

Yes, it appears indeed to be broken.

I will have a look at it tomorrow.

--
Mats

Mmmm, it's a problem becuase there is a genus called Heptapteridae too (for unidentified beyonf family species).

Jools

I´d just call that group "unidentified (members of) Heptapteridae".

Jools wrote:Mmmm, it's a problem becuase there is a genus called Heptapteridae too (for unidentified beyonf family species).

Could they be named Heptapterinae (sp1, sp2 etc) as in Auchenipterinae? Or would that scientifically be incorrect?

Marc van Arc wrote:

Jools wrote:Mmmm, it's a problem becuase there is a genus called Heptapteridae too (for unidentified beyonf family species).

Could they be named Heptapterinae (sp1, sp2 etc) as in Auchenipterinae? Or would that scientifically be incorrect?

I like that idea if it's correct!

Jools

Jools wrote:I like that idea if it's correct!

Unfortunately, it's not. The easiest solution would be to try and assign genera wherever possible and get rid of unidentified genera.

Just as so I understand, is that because there are no defined subfamilies in ?

Jools

Heptapterinae would be a non valid subfamily and would only lead to confusion.

AFAIK, there has been little work on the infrafamilial relationships within the Heptapteridae, so there isn't a decent hypothesis of relationships that would allow us to define subfamilies.

OK, so, how would one label (in text) a Heptapterid that doesn't sit well in (or has not been identified to) a genus as far as we can tell?

Jools

I would use “hepapterid” instead of Heptapteridae. But let me try to identify the two (although this is not a long-term solution). I believe sp. (1) is a juvenile Megalonema xanthum (It might also be a Cheirocerus, but these typically have a dark bar over the base of the dorsal spine which the fish lacks). I'm still working on sp. (2).

Sp. (2) looks like the fish identified as Rhamdella cf. leptosoma by Le Bail et al., (2000), so I'd refer it to this genus for now.

Silurus wrote:I would use “hepapterid” instead of Heptapteridae.

Ideal, I'll do that.

Silurus wrote:I believe sp. (1) is a juvenile Megalonema xanthum (It might also be a Cheirocerus, but these typically have a dark bar over the base of the dorsal spine which the fish lacks).

Maybe the Cheirocerus is the better option. I think I've kept this species and it doesn't grow move than 8cm. Is, also the adipose fin not a bit off too? Some of Mark's photos are very "fresh" imports and so it (the dark bar) could be a bit washed out.

BTW, I gave these fish to Adrian, so maybe he could take/post a few pics too?

Jools

Silurus wrote:Sp. (2) looks like the fish identified as Rhamdella cf. leptosoma by Le Bail et al., (2000), so I'd refer it to this genus for now.

Yes, it does initially, but look at the "bare back" distances from the dorsal to the anterior start of the adipose and the same between adipose and caudal. Also the eye size and snout look a bit off and are the reason I didn't put it in . Small differences, but I find so many of the Heptapteridae genera as such.

Jools

Did you (Silurus and/or Jools) actually mean for it to be Hepapterid rather than Heptapterid for these unidentified species?

--
Mats

Minor typo from HH and I missed it too when copying and pasting. The p should be inserted (as opposed to taken ).

Jools

Sorry, do you mean p or t?

--
Mats

Sorry, in-joke with myself - in retrospect, not very clever.

Insert the t, not take the p.

Jools

I will fix.

Edit: No I won't - there is no way to do that with the functionality I can use...

--
Mats

Fixed the typo.

Jools

OK, so there is a problem with this (e.g. planetcatfish.com/<genus name>) type of link due to the last fix/change. A placemarker so I can have a look at it at a better time.

Jools

Moved this to "Bugs" section based on the fact that it leads to "incorrect behaviour", rather than "the data itself is wrong" (which belongs in the Cat-eLog section).

Since "genus rename" doesn't exist, I can't fix this myself - Jools needs to "poke" the database (or I we need a new function in the admin pages).

--
Mats

Mats,

I've just read the post from top to bottom and I don't understand what the bug is. Can you explain what your understanding of it is?

Cheers,

Jools

I thought there was a problem with Hemibagrus, but looking at it again, I think it's fixed, so will move to resolved! [Another one bites the dust! ;) ]

--
Mats