Willem Heijns wrote:Let us not fall into the trap of accusing people who reject some type of conduct of having done the same in the past. I don't think that is scientific.
Juan Artigas wrote:I was aware of Sven arguments about Mikrogeophagus because of the CICHLID-L where if I remember correctly Martin Geerts exposed them and Sven crowned them with the finding of Mikrogeophagus (Martin advocated Microgeophagus), which appeared to me that he made in the research of the topic. Anyways you may not have noticed, but this site since 1996 has listed Mikrogeophagus as valid and you can read the genus profile that hasn't changed since the opening of this page back in May 1996. This is so since I have felt there is no arguments strong enough to change them. So Sven's article did not come to me as an illumination. And even so I have followed the discussion on this thread with interest as solid intelligent points have been expressed about the situation, that have brought new light into this problem.
I just don't like this thread to be disregarded in such a way as " Aquarists in social media were very fast to cover Isbrücker (2011, in the May issue), embracing the suggested change of name already on 22 April 2011 (cichla 2011). ". As I exposed, this site is a place to confront ideas and knowledge, it is not a valid taxonomic publication and ideas flow freely and nobody is embracing anything, and people make mistakes and change their minds as you can see by comparing statements in this thread and with others, like the Perca bimaculata thread. Those mistakes are better made here than in publications. This is all about this place, to discuss ideas and learn.
I also don't agree with his proposal that popular magazines editors should add a clause that everything they publish should not be made taxonomically available. Many important taxonomic publications have been made available in popular magazines, that is why I brought in Kullander's description. Also Miller published the description of Theraps wesseli in TFH, and many more, and nobody challenges that. In fact, I believe the British Association brought in the Strickland Rules, the Régles and the ICZM with that spirit as has remained so for a reason, that everybody following the correct procedure could name a species, not just a group of selected individuals that make money out of it (not because descriptions are payed but because it helps in their careers ... and many times egos), the code I feel was made with that philosophy and I don't like to see it challenged, I just don't agree. Also, I believe Science is for all not just professionals, as far as each can get in their possibilities and wishes, just remember Michael Faraday or Johann Heckel .
Unfortunately, a supporting document was not published, and it was never really clarified why Microgeophagus of Frey is unavailable or why Mikrogeophagus is the oldest available name.
Microgeophagus Frey, 1957, p 52 (unavailable; nomen nudum; no type species, not treated as valid, no diagnosis of
genus; no species included)
it is doubtful if any distinguishing characters are reported, as required by Article 13,
Still it is not unlikely that a comparision of the two species may warrant, on some future occasion, their separation from Seriola into a genus, which may be called Cubiceps
67.2. Species eligible for type fixation (originally included nominal species). A nominal species is only eligible to be fixed as the type species of a nominal genus or subgenus if it is an originally included nominal species.
67.2.5. A nominal species is deemed not to be originally included if it was doubtfully or conditionally included, or was cited as a species inquirenda, or as a species incertae sedis.
Willem Heijns wrote: But Kullander's interpretation of the word "möglicherweise" when it comes to the generic assignment of ramirezi is wrong. It does not say anything more than repeating the possibility of the erection of the new genus. And certainly not that the genus Microgeophagus, once established, might not include ramirezi.
"Evtl. neu aufzustellende Gattung aus der Familie der Buntbarsche oder Cichlidae (←), der möglicherweise Apistogramma ramirezi zuzurechnen ist."
Kullander wrote: The “aquaristic science” is certainly challenged by the perpetuation of disinformation in a long series of articles from Frey (1957) to Isbrücker (2011).
Rico Morgenstern wrote:I will take a closer look at the "hobbyists vs. scientists" issue in a later post
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests