Has Acara margarita been rediscovered?

[Rico Morgenstern]

Sparus acara is used by Cuvier & Valenciennes and other authors

Thanks Ingo, I have overlooked this. However, C. & V. (1830) give no more than a list of genera, to which they assign, per footnote, La Cepéde's Sparus. Another reference where it was mentioned is Sonnini (1803), who quotes literally La Cepédes description. None of this authors applies the name to certain specimens. It is not mentioned by Heckel (1840), Gill (1858), Günther (1862), Steindachner (1875), Eigenmann & Bray (1893), Regan (1905), Eigenmann (1910, 1912), Haseman (1911) or Eigenmann & Allen (1942), nor by Kullander (1983: as La Cepéde's work is listed in the references, he seems to have inadvertently omitted the name). In CLOFFSCA (Kullander 2003) it is listed as a species inquirenda. Perca bimaculata Bloch and Acara margarita Heckel have been treated as junior synonyms of Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus) (then a catch-all taxon) since Günther (1862), until Kullander (1983) redefined this species.

It is pretty unlikely that the specimen (type) pictured by Marcgravius (1648) is conspecific with C. santifransiscense, because this species is distributed in the Rio Sao Francisco (and smaller drainages south of the mouth), but with the Cichlasoma from Recife (then Pernambuco).

According to Kullander (1983: 190) it seems possible, that Marcgravius had collected fishes also from the Rio Sao Fransisco drainage. If this is correct, it would also be impossible to apply Perca brasiliensis to a certain species. I have checked the pages relevant in Marcgravius (1648), there are indeed two fishes (a Loricarid and a Knifefish) mentioned as taken in Rio Sao Fransisco.

Marcgravius' book is available here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nyZCAAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Historia+naturalis+brasiliae&hl=en&ei=bFSYTrOqD8PdsgbNuOSEBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&sqi=2&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

For authors it seems more profitable to create new names instead of using (protecting) old, historic, taxonomically available names. This is the tragedy.

Although you are right that it may be more fruitful to create new names than to do necessary revisional work on older taxa, I think this is not the reason for disregarding the names discussed here. As long no new findings allow their proper identification, they should be reagarded as nomina dubia (names of doubtful application, which seems to be the appropriate term for such names; judging from Ingo's explanation of species inquirenda, this would rather fit to something like Ottoni's Australoheros species or Rocio ocotal). And since the names are not in use (except perhaps for Crenicichla brasiliensis), there is nothing gained from arbitraryly 'reactivating' them.

Willem, your overview is quite comprehensive. It should be noted, however, that Marcgravius (actually Georg Marggraf, a German, born in Liebstadt, Saxony, not very far from were I live ) accompanied Prince Moritz as a Naturalist on his Brazilian expedition.

@Rico: the type of Perca bimaculata cannot be the specimens (if any) Marcgravius might have used. In 1648 there were no rules governing this. The Code stretches its influence back to 1758 and of publications before that date only the information (names and descriptions) could be used (article 3.2). Therefore the type can only be associated with the first publication after 1758 and thas is Bloch (1792). He used a drawing (made by Prince Moritz), so that drawing is the type.

Interestingly, even Kullander (1983: 191) stated that "...the type is, accordingly, the drawing used by Bloch". However, see Article 72.5 for what is elegible as name-bearing type, and also the following:

73.1.4. Designation of an illustration of a single specimen as a holotype is to be treated as designation of the specimen illustrated; the fact that the specimen no longer exists or cannot be traced does not of itself invalidate the designation.

73.2.1. Syntypes may include specimens labelled "cotype" or "type" (both used in the meaning of syntype), specimens with no identifying label, and specimens not seen by the author but which form the bases of previously published descriptions or illustrations upon which the author founded the new nominal species-group taxon in whole or in part [Art. 72.5.5].

Finally, a general question: what is the use of publishing replacement names if they disappear into (objective) synonymy?

All the replacement names discussed here were used as valid when proposed. The fact that they are objective synonyms of the names they replace does not render them automatically invalid (remember our discussion of what a synonym is), unless the reasons for regarding the original name invalid turn out to be wrong (unneeded replacement names) or another subjective or objective synonym has priority over a replacement name.

What is the version of the code we are assuming rules on those nomenclature acts?

Always the one currently in force, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition (1999). A Fifth Edition is in preparation and may soon replace the current one.

[Juan Artigas]

Always the one currently in force, International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, Fourth Edition (1999). A Fifth Edition is in preparation and may soon replace the current one.

I hope you don't mind I ask this before going into research in the code but it is quite puzzling. How edition four of the code can rule over a nomenclature act that happened 160 years before its publication. Namely the declaration of synonymy by Heckel of Perca bimaculata over Acara margarita and the subsequent assignation of types. I can understand certainly that current decisions made over that work should abide the code, but is it really possible that we judge and declare Acara maragarita a nomen nudum because the current rules were not followed 171 years ago?

[cichla]

@Ingo: the term "species inquirendae" apparently has no nomenclatural status. Or am I missing something?

Actually the term "species inquirenda" (singular), "species inquirendae" (plural) appears in article 67.2.5. (ICZN). In the glossary of the code it is explained that it is a species of doubtful identity.
Perca bimaculata is called by Kullander (1983, 2003) as a "species inquirenda". All the other authors (Eigenmann, Regan &c.) treat it (without doubts) as a Cichlasoma. This is why I do not call Perca bimaculata (= Sparus acara) a "species inquirenda". In my view it is the Cichlasoma from Recife (then the Dutch colony „Pernambuco“).

As for the identity of Perca bimaculata, it has been suggested (Schindler, 1995) that this species is the same as Cichlasoma orientale Kullander 1983. If this is correct, Cichlasoma orientale becomes a synonym of Perca bimaculata. Assigning this name to Cichlasoma would create a homonym (Labrus bimaculatus is now Cichlasoma bimaculatum), so the next available name has to be applied. That would be Sparus acara, rendering Cichlasoma orientale a synonym of Cichlasoma acara (Lacepède 1802).

If we following this conclusion then Cichlasoma orientale become virtually a junior synonym. However, from a nomenclatural point of view nothing would be changed, because neither Perca bimaculata nor Sparus acara was used as a valid species after 1899. Hence, C. orientale would be still the valid name.

Although you are right that it may be more fruitful to create new names than to do necessary revisional work on older taxa, I think this is not the reason for disregarding the names discussed here. As long no new findings allow their proper identification, they should be reagarded as nomina dubia (names of doubtful application, which seems to be the appropriate term for such names; judging from Ingo's explanation of species inquirenda, this would rather fit to something like Ottoni's Australoheros species or Rocio ocotal). And since the names are not in use (except perhaps for Crenicichla brasiliensis), there is nothing gained from arbitraryly 'reactivating' them.

It seems (at least virtually) the terms „ nomina dubia“ and "species inquirenda" are synonyms. Rico, you can not call the species delimited by Ottoni as „ nomina dubia“. Ottoni's species taxa are diagnosed, comprehensive described and named in concordance with the code. If you use it in such a broad sense then you are in need to label almost all South-American Cichlids with this mark, because the majority of taxa never (independently) checked by a second author. Just for clarification: The definition (explanation) of "species inquirenda" is not mine, but adopted from the leading dictionary for 'Evolution and Systematics'.

@Rico: I do not understand why Perca brasiliensis is used as the valid taxon name for a Crenicichla but Perca bimaculata is treated as 'unusable'.

[Willem Heijns]

Ha, that's a good one! I thought the Code is about names and naming of taxa, so I checked the glossary under "name" and "nomen". To say "a species of doubtful identity needing further investigation" is a taxonomic statement in my view. And the Code aims at refraining from taxonomy. Oh, well....

@Ingo:
Are you implying that Perca bimaculata and Sparus acara are nomina oblita? Kullander (1983) doesn't seem to think so, at least not for Perca bimaculata. Also, he should have called in article 23.9 of the Code to make Cichlasoma orientale a protected name. He did neither of these.

@ Juan Miguel:
I fell into that trap a couple of times too. Every new edition of the Code is written in such a way that it completely supersedes earlier editions. When needed, statements are made as to which names and publications are affected by the changes. Best example is that the Code regulates nomenclature as of 1758, but the first edition (the Regles) only came into force in 1905.

@Rico:
But Prince Moritz was leading the expedition.

@Rico:
So the type of Perca bimaculata is/are fish, (supposedly) collected by Marcgravius in the mid 17th century, drawn by Moritz and redrawn by Bloch in 1792? And the fish (if ever present) and the drawings are lost? That is weird.

@Rico:
I don't think I quite understand the concept of replacement names. How can an available name be invalidated by a replacement name? And shouldn't the reasons for this be explicitly stated?

[Rico Morgenstern]

Rico: I stil have my doubts about Heckel. He did not say that he recognized his Acara margarita to be Perca bimaculata; he merely suspected it (ahnen = to suspect).

Thanks Willem, you are of course right! Nevertheless, the synonymy proposed by Heckel is unambigous, and he must have had reasons for identifying Bloch's species with A. margarita rather than with A. tetramerus, A. viridis, A. marginata, A. dimerus, A. punctatus or A. gronovii, all of which are superficially similar.

I hope you don't mind I ask this before going into research in the code but it is quite puzzling. How edition four of the code can rule over a nomenclature act that happened 160 years before its publication.

When the 'modern' Binominal Nomenclature emerged, there were no rules at all. Among other things, it were problems like this (i.e. the arbitrary replacement of names by an author's own discretion) that led to the development of the first body of nomenclatural rules (in Zoology, it is the so-called Strickland Code, published in 1843), which included the Law of Priority as the most important principle. As the rules were established to solve the problems caused by the former 'anarchy', it is logical that they must have retroactive force. It is just consequent that this was also adopted in the successors of the Strickland code. Furthermore, it is much better and easier to have one body of rules which covers the entire field of Zoological Nomenclature than to search everywere for scattered updates and amandments.

Also, it should not be forgotten, that the current Code makes allowence for the development of the rules. If you look, for example, at the criteria of availability of names, you can see that they become successively more rigorous for names published before 1931 (Art. 12), after 1930 (Art. 13), after 1960 (Art. 15) and finally after 1999 (Art. 16). Cases in which names previously available become unavailable under a new edition, are thereby avoided as good as possible.

Namely the declaration of synonymy by Heckel of Perca bimaculata over Acara margarita and the subsequent assignation of types.

There is no subsequent assignation of types, the type(s) on which both names are based were always the same. The Code gives only guidance for determining what are the types.

is it really possible that we judge and declare Acara maragarita a nomen nudum because the current rules were not followed 171 years ago?

Acara margarita is not a nomen nudum. It is an available name which is, however, not applicable to a certain taxon since it is currently not determinable to which species the types belong. If this should be changed one day, the name can nevertheless not become valid again for being a junior objective synonym of Perca bimaculata Bloch, 1792 and Sparus acara La Cepéde, 1802. The Principle of Priority requires that the oldest available name is the valid one unless invalidated by another provision. Therefore, as Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Bloch, 1792) would be a junior homonym of Cichlasoma bimaculatum (Linnaeus, 1758), the valid name was Cichlasoma acara (La Cepéde, 1802). For the case that it proves to be identical with one of the species described by Kullander (1983) the name may nevertheless remain invalid because of the rulings concerning nomina oblita (Arts. 23.9 - 23.11). However, as long as the identity cannot be determined, we need not care about this issue.

It seems (at least virtually) the terms „ nomina dubia“ and "species inquirenda" are synonyms. Rico, you can not call the species delimited by Ottoni as „ nomina dubia“.

I did not say that these are nomina dubia, but that they would be species inquirendae according to the definition you have given (one may call them questionable species in the taxonomic sense). According to the definitions in the glossary of the Code, there would indeed be little difference between a nomen dubium and a species inquirenda.

@Rico: I do not understand why Perca brasiliensis is used as the valid taxon name for a Crenicichla but Perca bimaculata is treated as 'unusable'.

You can only ask Kullander! In my view, either both are applicable to a certain taxon or none. From what I learned about Marcgravius I am inclined to prefer the latter view.

@Rico:
But Prince Moritz was leading the expedition.

Yes, that's right, Moritz was the initiator. However, the participants of the expedition had different functions. Moritz, as the governor of the Colony, had administrative and military tasks, and he founded the city of Mauritsstad, now Recife. Marcgravius was responsible for exploring and surveying the land, and as a naturalist, for recording the fauna and flora. Therefore we can assume that he himself made the original drawings on which the woodcuts in the Book as well as Bloch's copper engravings were based.

@Rico:
I don't think I quite understand the concept of replacement names. How can an available name be invalidated by a replacement name? And shouldn't the reasons for this be explicitly stated?

The Code leaves us somewhat alone in terms of how we can recognize a replacement name. Anyway, a replacement name does not invalidate the name which it replaces, but it is established because the name to be replaced is found to be invalid. If it is later found that this is not so, we have an unneeded replacement name, which is objectively invalid (I have, e. g., an article in preparation in which Poecilia kykesis is shown to be an unneeded replacement name for Poecila petenensis). 'Modern' replacement names are usually given for homonyms, and normally they are clearly marked as such either by a term like "nom. nov." or by a clear statement in the text, that they are established for that purpose. However, as explained above, this was not so in the 'anarchistic' times before nomenclatural rules came into force, and some authors have given new names to already named taxa just because they found the old name inappropriate, insufficiently defined or for any other (perhaps even personal or political) reasons.

[Rico Morgenstern]

I have found and interesting case which is somewhat similar to the situation with Acara margarita. Regan (1905) described a new species as "Crenicichla cincta sp. n.". As type of the species he lists a specimen in the British Museum, collected by Goeldi in Para (BMNH 1895.3.29:32). However, Pellegrin (1904) described the same species as Crenicichla brasiliensis var. fasciata, based on a specimen collected by Jobert at Marajo Island (MNHN 02-95). Regan quoted this name in the synonymy, and in a footnote he states: "The name fasciatus is preoccupied in this genus by the Cychla fasciata of Schomburgk, which I regard as a synonym of Crenicichla johanna Heck."

Kullander (1986), while acknowledging that Regan rather produced a junior synonym than replacing the name proposed by Pellegrin, nevertheless considers Crenicichla cincta a replacement name by reference to Art. 60b of the Code than in force (Art. 60.2 of the current edition, possibly he meant rather Art. 60c, now 60.3). Therefore, Pellegrin's specimen MNHN 02-95 becomes the holotype according to Art. 72.7 (then 72e), while the BMNH specimen has no type status. Although both specimens are obviously conspecific and therefore a different interpretation would cause no problem, this case exemplifies well under which strange circumstances a name can be regarded as a replacement name.

[cichla]

@Ingo:Are you implying that Perca bimaculata and Sparus acara are nomina oblita? Kullander (1983) doesn't seem to think so, at least not for Perca bimaculata. Also, he should have called in article 23.9 of the Code to make Cichlasoma orientale a protected name. He did neither of these.

At least a kind of. However, actually Perca bimaculata can not be a nomen oblitum, because it was used by many authors and even by Kullander (1983, 2003). I think, this is why Kullander (1983) can not use this argument to suppress the available taxon. He needs to declare the Perca bimaculata as 'doubtful'. Heckel (1840) and other authors were able to see that Perca bimaculata is a Cichlasoma. Now, with the new version of the code Cichlasoma orientale will keep its priority over Perca bimaculata (= Cichlasoma acara) because Perca bimaculata was not in use as valid since 1899 (see also the contribution by Rico above).

@Rico: I do not understand why Perca brasiliensis is used as the valid taxon name for a Crenicichla but Perca bimaculata is treated as 'not usable'.

In my view, either both are applicable to a certain taxon or none. From what I learned about Marcgravius I am inclined to prefer the latter view.

Now I understand you and why you are supported Kullander's view about the treatment of Perca bimaculata. However, I like to acknowledge the achievements of the historic protagonists, instead of searching for every minor shortcoming in their contributions. For instance, McCosker et al. (1993) used an old available taxon name for a new speceies instead of creating a new name („Rather than add another taxon to the literature, we therefore refer our specimen to ...“ 1993: 165). Anyway, I think there is a consensus in the conclusion that the decision to use Perca brasiliensis as valid, but Perca bimaculata as not usable is subjective.
All in all, it seems so (unfortunately), that two historic taxon names (Perca bimaculata and Acara margarita) are ''gone''. What a pity and a 'tragedy' that the fine and comprehensive description of Acara margarita by Heckel can not link to a ''good'' species.

[Rico Morgenstern]

However, actually Perca bimaculata can not be a nomen oblitum, because it was used by many authors and even by Kullander (1983, 2003)

Ingo, I do not agree here

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899

The question is not, if the name was mentioned in the literature at all, rather it is: Has somebody used this name as valid in the sense of the Code?

valid, a. (validity, n.)
Of an available name or a nomenclatural act: one that is acceptable under the provisions of the Code and, in the case of a name, which is the correct name of a taxon in an author's taxonomic judgment.

In 1983 (p191) he states: "the names are consequently not applicable to anything", and his use of the term species inquirenda (in the sence of nomen dubium) would imply the same.

All in all, it seems so (unfortunately), that two historic taxon names (Perca bimaculata and Acara margarita) are ''gone''. What a pity and a 'tragedy' that the fine and comprehensive description of Acara margarita by Heckel can not link to a ''good'' species.

Name this species after Heckel, and the justice is served

[cichla]

actually Perca bimaculata can not be a nomen oblitum, because it was used by many authors and even by Kullander (1983, 2003)

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899

Ingo, I do not agree here.
The question is not, if the name was mentioned in the literature at all, rather it is: Has somebody used this name as valid in the sense of the Code?

@Rico: I am quite sure that your interpretation is not in congruence with the spirit of the code. Just an example: let species Aus xus be described by Aauthor in 1798 based on specimens from La Plata drainage and let there be a second species Bus cus by Bauthor in 1802 from the Amazon river. In 1820 Cauthor treat both (Aus xus and Bus cus) as conspecific. Later, let us say 1803, 1858, 1905, 1912 and 1958, Bus cus was listed as a synonym of Aus bus by different authors. Then, recently Smartauthor recognize that the species from the La Plata (taxon Aus xus) is not conspecific with Bus cus from the Amazon. So, what will happen then? The correct way would be to name the species from Amazon Bus cus (Bauthor, 1802) and not to declare Bus cus as a nomen oblitum just because the taxon was not used as 'valid' after 1899. Do you confirm this conclusion?

I think Perca bimaculata Bloch can not be treated as a nomen oblitum, because it was listed as an available taxon in the synonymy of Cichlasoma bimaculatum many times (even after 1899).

In 1983 (p191) he states: "the names are consequently not applicable to anything", and his use of the term species inquirenda (in the sence of nomen dubium) would imply the same.

Yes, you see: Perca bimaculata needs to be treated as 'not applicable', because it is not a nomen oblitum. This is why it would have been possible (see e.g. McCosker 1993) to use the 'old', available taxon Perca bimaculata (=Sparus acara) than to add another taxon to the literature .

[Willem Heijns]

I'm still confused about these replacement names. What could be the reasons for an author to propose one? Rico said that it could be because the author thinks that the replaced name is "found to be invalid". If that means that the replaced name was not published according to the Code, then the name would not even be available. So why replace it? If the replaced name was published according to the Code and thus is available, what would then be the need to replace it? And, as I said earlier, both names become objective synonyms (art. 72.7). The replaced name would be the senior objective synonym and have priority over the junior objective synonym. Nothing wil have changed....

But the main question remains: why are replacement names (in the species-group) necessary at all?

[cichla]

But the main question remains: why are replacement names (in the species-group) necessary at all?

New names (nomen novum) are necessary to prevent homonyms. A nomen novom is a proposed replacement of an available but preoccupied name. There are primary and secondary homonyms.

An example: An author described in 1955 a new species Aus xus from the Amazon. In 1958 a careless author named another species of the same genus from the Orinoco Aus xus. Since both species have the very same spelling the younger needs to be replaced by a nomen novum.

More complex are cases of secondary homonymy. That means for example that the second species is described as Cus xus. Later a taxonomist find out that both Aus xus and Cus xus are members of the very same genus. Thus Cus xus becomes Aus xus.... Hence, Cus xus needs to be replaced by a nomen novom.

[Willem Heijns]

You are right, solving homonym problems is a good reason. But I fear it is the only one and not applicable to the cases at hand in this topic. So why use rules, meant to regulate homonyms, in situations where homonyms are not to be found?

[Rico Morgenstern]

@Rico: I am quite sure that your interpretation is not in congruence with the spirit of the code. Just an example: let species Aus xus be described by Aauthor in 1798 based on specimens from La Plata drainage and let there be a second species Bus cus by Bauthor in 1802 from the Amazon river. In 1820 Cauthor treat both (Aus xus and Bus cus) as conspecific. Later, let us say 1803, 1858, 1905, 1912 and 1958, Bus cus was listed as a synonym of Aus bus by different authors. Then, recently Smartauthor recognize that the species from the La Plata (taxon Aus xus) is not conspecific with Bus cus from the Amazon. So, what will happen then? The correct way would be to name the species from Amazon Bus cus (Bauthor, 1802) and not to declare Bus cus as a nomen oblitum just because the taxon was not used as 'valid' after 1899. Do you confirm this conclusion?

A name (we must strictly distinguish between taxa and names here) can only be declared as a nomen oblitum, if a younger name is in use for the same taxonomic taxon. It is a reversal of precedence, i.e. the younger name gets priority over the older, if the conditions specified ander Arts. 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2 (see also 23.9.6 for uses of the older name not to be taken into account) are met.

23.9. Reversal of precedence. In accordance with the purpose of the Principle of Priority [Art. 23.2], its application is moderated as follows:

23.9.1. prevailing usage must be maintained when the following conditions are both met:

23.9.1.1. the senior synonym or homonym has not been used as a valid name after 1899, and

23.9.1.2. the junior synonym or homonym has been used for a particular taxon, as its presumed valid name, in at least 25 works, published by at least 10 authors in the immediately preceding 50 years and encompassing a span of not less than 10 years.

23.9.6. The deliberate use of a name contrary to Article 23.9.1, or the mentioning of a name in a synonymy, or its mere listing in an abstracting publication, or in a nomenclator or other index or list of names must not be taken into account in determining usage under Articles 23.9.1.1 and 23.9.1.2.

In your scenario, Bus cus would of course become valid. However, if in the meantime Otherauthor had hat described the Amazonian species as Bus dus, and the name was in use since at least ten years (actually it would be difficult to prove that the 25 works do not exist, and it is not even specified what kind of works are to be used, however, if a new name was established less than ten years before the senior synonym is discovered, the requirements of Art. 23.9.1.2 are not met), the name Bus cus would have to be declared a nomen oblitum. If later someone finds that Bus dus and Bus cus are distinct species, the latter name becomes valid again.

Replacement names: well explained, Ingo. I would add, that replacement names can only be proposed when the preoccupied name has no known synonyms. An example: When Meek (1914) placed both Herichthys underwoodi Regan, 1906 and Tomocichla underwoodi Regan, 1908 in the genus Cichlasoma, he did not propose a new replacement name since he had by the same time synonymized Cichlasoma tuba Meek, 1912 with T. underwoodi. As the latter was preoccupied in Cichlasoma, the junior C. tuba became the valid name.

Furthermore, there are unneeded replacement names, which are proposed for the wrong reasons, i.e. not in accordance with the rules. Sparus acara and Acara margarita were unneeded replacement names. I have already tried to explain that there were no binding rules when they were proposed, and names were replaced for several reasons or even without any obvious reason. In more recent times, some replacement names were proposed to remove homonymy which doesm't exist, e.g. Theraps terrabae Jordan & Evermann, 1927 was established to replace Cichlasoma punctatum Meek, 1909, erroneously supposed to be preoccupied.

[cichla]

We have this (correct me if I am wrong)
(1)Perca bimaculata Bloch is available
(2)Sparus acara Lecepede is an available substitute taxon name
(3)Heckel determine Perca bimaculata Bloch as a Acara (now Cichlasoma) from Guapore
(4)Acara margarita Heckel is the second substitute name for Perca bimaculata
(5)Günther, Pellegrin, Regan, Eigenmann &c treat Perca bimaculata as a Cichlasoma
So, ...
(a) why not accepting the determination by these excellent authors and experts (means Perca bimaculata is a Cichlasoma), instead of treating Perca bimaculata as a "species inquirenda" ?
(b) Heckel identified Perca bimaculata as a (now) Cichlasoma (=Perlflecken-Cichlasoma) from the Guapore. Why not accepting this identification?
Then the Perlflecken-Cichlasoma may be called Cichlasoma acara Lacepede.

[Willem Heijns]

Perca bimaculata Bloch 1792 is indeed an available name. The problem is that there is no fish that can possibly be identified as Perca bimaculata, because:
-the drawing and the specimens drawn (the type(s)) are lost;
-there is no accurate locality and
-Bloch's drawing is obviously inaccurate.

As a consequence, the names Sparus acara and Acara margarita are unneeded replacement names and thus objective synonyms of Perca bimaculata. Their descriptions may be fine and correct, but the type remains the same as for Perca bimaculata: lost.

The treatment of Perca bimaculata by Günther and all other scientists as a synonym for other names illustrates the fact that they too thought the name Perca bimaculata was available. But that does not change anything for Sparus acara and Acara margarita. These names will for ever be objective synonyms of the name of an unidentifiable fish.

Therefore Acara margarita will never be rediscovered.

[cichla]

Willem, that's correct. I dont have any doubts
However, why should our conclusion dominate Heckel's. Heckel identified Perca bimaculata as a (what we now call) Cichlasoma from the Guopore. Heckel was a very excellant ichthyologist. Why counts his decission less than ours?
It seems the desire to create new names is much higher than to acknowledge the great work of the 'old' authors.

[Juan Artigas]

Willem, that's correct. I dont have any doubts
However, why should our conclusion dominate Heckel's. Heckel identified Perca bimaculata as a (what we now call) Cichlasoma from the Guopore. Heckel was a very excellant ichthyologist. Why counts his decission less than ours?
It seems the desire to create new names is much higher than to acknowledge the great work of the 'old' authors.

In that case, Perca bimaculata would probably has to be recognized as the Cichlasoma from the Guapore, if it is proven that Heckel's description matches as it was expressed in the recent article about the Guapore cichlids. And thus it has to being called Cichlasoma acara. A neotype could be chosen from Heckel's types and we are back to the beginning. almost

The fact is that we don't seem to have any strong argument against Heckel 's identification, and we don't have Georg Marggraf drawing as he did.

Is it at all possible that Marggraf fish was collected in the Guaporé? Does anybody know if there is of why there is not a preserved specimen. The model for Marggraf's drawing.

[Willem Heijns]

Ingo wrote: "Heckel identified Perca bimaculata as a Cichlasoma from the Guaporé". I would put it in a different way: "Heckel identified Acara margarita as being the same species as Perca bimaculata". All he saw to make this statement was a picture, apparently used by Bloch to describe Perca bimaculata. So it's not Heckel's judgement that is at stake, it is the material he had at his disposal. And that was (as it turned out) inadequate.

Marcgravius' fish certainly didn't come from the Guaporé, so we can be sure that it was not identical to Heckel's Acara margarita.

We therefore need an entry in the Catalogue for Perca bimaculata Bloch 1792 and an abstract from this interesting discussion to explain why we will never see a cichlid with this name.

[Juan Artigas]

As I already have a record for Acara margarita in the CRC Cichlid Catalog (now as a synonym of Cichlasoma bimaculatum following Günther, 1862) and as the catalog centers on fish, not on names. Being that both Sparus acara and Acara margarita have the same type (lost or not) as Perca bimaculata. I will create a record for Perca bimaculata and delete that of Acara margarita. Both Acara margarita and Sparus acara will just be listed in the taxonomic history of Perca bimaculata, which record will be listed as unidentifiable species.

@Willem
Willem probably you can give a detailed explanation of the taxonomic situation of Perca bimaculata? i will assign you as curator of the record as we spoke.

I still see as a tragedy that Acara margarita has to be disregarded as a valid name to be assigned to the specimens from the Guaporé River. But certainly some degree of blame has to be assigned to Heckel.

Thanks!

[Willem Heijns]

Will do as soon as I get back from Bonnie Scotland.