[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: collection codes
>So if you were to return to a pool where you previously collected a fish,
>you would still refer to it by it's original location code, correct. If
another
>collector were to go to that same pool, he or she would also retain the
>original location code, as long as they were certain about the location of
>that pool. The likelihood of this happening is greatly increased today with
>the advent of GPS, as long as the exact coordinates are published.
I disagree. The codes as currently used start with the year of collection,
which is a very useful tool for telling how long an aqurium strain has been
in the hobby, out of the wild. It can be used as a rough indicator of how
many generations of inbreeding have occurred in that strain.
For example, the Beira '91 and Beira '98 strains of N. rachovii are
presumably the same "species". Somebody (Brian?) could tell us if they were
collected from the same pool on the left side of the road, or next to the
airport, or whatever. You could probably "cross" the two collection strains
with no interspecific hybridization problems and the resulting generations
could be fertile. But the '91 strain is now ~seven generations removed from
the wild and might be a little degraded due to typical aquarium husbandry of
breeding brothers and sisters for many generations. Furthermore, the '91
strain all descend from a single female and a few males. The '98 strain now
available in the hobby as f1 (first generation) is from a much large number
of imported wild fish. The more recent strain should have more genetic
variability left in it and would potentially be more valuable than the other
strain at this time.
Aphyosemion australe were collected from a small stream 18 km from the
Libreville Airport in the direction of Cap Esterias, Gabon, by Legros,
Eberl, & Cerfontaine in 1993. Their collection code was LEC 93/6. Eberl,
Tirbak and another collected at the same site in 1996. Their collection
from the very same site is coded EBT 96/27. The LEC 93/6 strain is not in
the hobby, but the EBT 96/27 strain is. The current strain WAS NOT
collected by E,B&T in 1993. I do not agree with the commenter that this '96
strain should be known as LEC 93/6. If it was, then you'd have to call it
something unworkable such as "the 96 collection by EBT of the LEC 93/6
site". Let's not go there.
Now, having argued that the inclusion of the year of collection is a useful
datum in the collection code, I would like to point out we have a "millenium
bug" problem facing us shortly. Continuation of the "98/xx" code format
will result in codes such as 00/7 or 02/8 in the next few years. I am
pretty sure the double-zero or "naught-two" prefix's will be dropped in
common usage and the current code numbering system will need to be replaced
with another. I kind of like Tomas Hrbek's collection code system. His
Rachovia pyropunctata Palmarito TH 95/80 fish were from his (TH's) 80th
all-time collection site, at Palmarito, Venezuela, which happed to be in the
year 1995 - NOT his 80th site collected in that year. Had he collected them
five years later, in the year 2000, his codename might be something like
Palmarito TH 00/162. I can see that being shortened to something like
TH/162, but we could probably find out when they were collected from his
future publications or other sources. THE CURRENT SYSTEM IS NOT GOING TO
WORK MUCH LONGER.
>I have heard some of the particulars regarding the description of N.
>fuscotaeniatus. All that aside, would it be practical to designate one
>location code a junior synonym and one the senior? To do so may
>reduce some confusion and make it easier to maintain the species and
>still adhere to the rigors of keeping separate and distinct populations. If
>so, then it would be likely the Seeger's location would be adopted as the
>senior, distasteful as that may be, because it's the location described in
>the publication describing the species originally.
Senior in terms of publication, but not in collection. But only because
Seegers rushed to publication to beat Brian's publication. For the record,
Brian discovered the fish, Seegers described it. I think Brian's list on
the AKA webpage handles this situation adequately, in that it indicates
which collection codes are from identical collection sites. The year
designation will tell you "who was there first", except in a very few cases,
such as fuscotaeniatus, where two collectors both collected in the very same
year.
The "senior" or "junior" synonym-ness of sites is already handled by the
designation of the type specimen collection and location described in the
first-published adequately described publication of the species. In this
case, both Brian Watters' and Seeger's location is the same, "Kitonga
north". I haven't read Seegers description, but I assume it describes the
type locality, which apparently is the same as that first discovered by
Brian. In future years, collections from this same site will be from the
"type locality", Kitonga north.
"Junior" and "senior" synonyms sounds too much like a slightly different
problem, the recognition that two described species are "synonymous". The
first-published name, the senior one, has "priority" and becomes the
from-then-on legal name for a species. The later-published species name,
the "junior synonym", would then become an invalid species name. Anybody
remember Aphyosemion bualanum?
If you want to call either rachovii strain just "Beira", great, just don't
call the new strain Beira '91. (Presuming Seegers collection is in the
hobby, ) if you want to call both fuscotaeniatus from this one site Kitonga
north, great, just don't use Seegers code for Brian's fish only "because it
has seniority". If you want to use the GPS location, fine.
Use of location descriptors such as "Kitonga north", or even GPS locations,
for killies-not-yet-described has led to later collectors (i.e. Seegers)
going to the site first discoverd by another and then having the later
collector publish first. As a result, collectors of newly discovered
species are switching to non-geographic code names to prevent this from
happening again. For example, a newly discovered species of Notho has been
give the code name of a popular east African soft drink, rather than a
geographic indicator, to prevent the situation that just happened from
occuring again.
/Bill
Follow-Ups: