[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: N. eggersi
Ian Sainthouse wrote on Mon, 31 Jul 2000 17:48:31 +0100
(snip)
>Finally I agree with everything Brian Watters has written on this subject
>recently. Also I know that, like me, Brian gets upset at the frequency with
>which names, including localities, are incorrectly quoted yet I believe it
>should take so little effort to get right. This is not just a problem in
>the US - it is worldwide. How can this problem be eliminated?
>
Thank you for that historical perspective. I have no qualms about *getting
it right*, I try to inquire about questionable geneology whenever I can. I
do take offense however, when someone decides to take issue using some very
disparaging, inflammatory language, presenting accusatory statements as to
impropriety. In most aquarists circles, they are basically two categories
of strains, the wild form and the aquarium strain. I understand the
argument for location codes, but I believe the problem arises not only from
carelessness by hobbyists, but confusion brought about by incongruencies of
appearance through selective breeding. When a phenotype is drastically
changed from it's known existence, that warrants a change in nomenclature.
My question has been, who makes that determination and when should it occur?
Here is a not so simple solution: perhaps we should require more
ichthyologial skills and classify by genotype.
-Darryl Tsutsui
________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe