[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: BOUNCE killietalk at aka_org: Message too long (>40000 chars)
> Juan Olcese wrote:
> But here in South America,we have another big problem.
> We receive the names from our wild fishes,when a group of learned
> knowleaged around
> table,in a confortable atmosphera take a decision for us.Never I was the
> to encounter any European or North American explorer in our ponds.And I collect
> my own fishes from the wild more than 48 years!!! And I was start in Perý
> as a kid
> (maybe 7 years ),when I born and I live now Argentina more than 30 years.
> But they says:Cynolebias it's now ASTROLEBIAS,and it's inmediately!The new
> In my case,and in the case of other fanciers here,they are honest and serious,
Please note that the split of the former Cynolebias into Austrolebias and
others, was made by the Brazilian ichthyologist Wilson Costa, not by any
American or European researchers! The revision vas published in:
Costa, Wilson J.E.M. (1998)
Phylogeny and classification of Rivulidae revisited:
Origin and evolution of annualism and miniaturization in rivulid fishes
(Cyprinodontiformes: Aplocheilidei) AND EVOLUTION OF
J. Comp. Biol. 3 (1)
(if you are interested in this paper - please let me know off-list. I will
then mail you a pdf version of the paper).
In fact, nearly all the descriptions, revisions and nomenical changes of the
South american species during the last 10-15 years, have been made by South
american researchers - only a very few be North american or european researchers.
And while we are at this subject, I am a bit puzzled by many peoples dislike
of the new genus names. E.g.. I know of a lot of people that refuses to use
the genus name Austrolebias.
One group simply refuses to use any new names, and always want to stick to the
"original names" - but isn't this just using the scientific names to create
The second group argues that the splitting of Cynolebias is wrong! But by what
arguments? In this case, Costa have examined several hundred specimens of all
nominal species, and has published 243 arguments for his hypothesis on the
relationships of all the South american species. Is it then enough just to say
that you don't believe he's right.
As a rule, it should always be the latest revision that is valid (no matter
how strange it may appear). If somebody thinks that this revision is wrong,
then they should "just" publish a new revision!
Keeping in mind, how many years many researchers are using, examining hundreds
of specimens - it seems a bit strange, that they arguments often are refuses
be hobbyists and amateurs as wrong (often nearly or completely without any arguments).
The ongoing name changes are simply a sign on, that our knowledge on this
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe