Taxonomy

[Rick Thibert]

Who is the authority on taxonomy?

I assume there is one body that all current genus/species names are listed???

I know many taxonomists are at work reworking previously accepted classifications. However, where does the authority lie for final say so??

Thanks in advance.

BC

[Juan Artigas]

The final authority is the Nomenclature Commission of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (http://www.iczn.org/), whose members are spread all around the globe. They resolve taxonomic conflics and set the rules for naming a species. The rules are published in the ICZM (International Code on Zoological Nomenclature), available at their site.

The list of species is worked by a team lead by William N. Eschmeyer at the California Academy of Sciences (http://www.calacademy.org/research/ichthyology/catalog/fishcatsearch.html). The list of cichlids, pictures and information about them is also keep here in the Cichlid Room Companion catalogue (http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/default.php) . We list in addition potentially undescribed species as well as geographical variants.

[Willem Heijns]

I'm afraid I have to disagree here. the Nomenclature Commission's authority only applies to questions concerning the ICZN-rules. if the rules have been followed the published name is available. the taxon to which the name refers is another thing. whether names are valid or not (i.e. synonyms) really is a matter of opinion. as an example: both Thorichthys ellioti and Thorichthys maculipinnis are available names. they have been described according to the rules. which one is accepted as valid wholly depends on one's opinion. if you think there is only one species of Thorichthys in the Papaloapan drainage the name should be Thorichtys maculipinnis (the current belief) with ellioti as a junior synonym. if you believe there are two species in the area then both names might be valid.

the species list by Eschmeyer merely represents his opinion (and that of his co-workers) about the validity of names.

[Juan Artigas]

I don't see the point of disagreement concerning the CZN (Commission of Zoological Nomenclature), as I said before the comission resolves taxonomic conflics and set the rules for naming a species. Whenever there is a conflict with the application of the code the comission gives the official interpretation of it. This is of course all related to names and descriptions, nothing to do with actual fish. Let's say Parachromis gulosus and Parachromis managuensis both are generally agreed to relate to the same taxa. The name Parachromis gulosus normally would have to be applied to the taxa because it was described before a second description naming the same taxa Parachromis managuensis was published. Under certain conditions this could be reverted, under the interpretation and ruling of the CZM, and the fish could be officially named Parachromis managuensis, as we know it nowadays. This an example of the role of the CZM.

Where I have to disagree is in that Eschmeyer list of species is merely his opinion and that of his coworkers. There is absolutelly no opinion given by Eschmeyer in his list, he merely mantains the list of species in a database and the opinions established there are those of others that were published in taxonomic works (with data to support them in most cases), and it is clearly established so.

Let's see an example showing one record of the Eschmeyer's database:

managuensis, Heros Günther 1867:602 [Proc. Zool. Soc. Lond. 1866 (pt 3); ref. 1984]. Lake Managua, Nicaragua. Holotype (unique): BMNH 1865.7.20.32. Described in more detail in Günther 1868:463, Pl. 77 (fig. 3) [ref. 1944]. •Valid as Cichlasoma managuense (Günther 1867) -- (Bussing 1987:208 [ref. 22927], Page & Burr 1991:333 [ref. 18983], Conkel 1993:123 [ref. 22949], Espinosa Pérez et al. 1993:68 [ref. 22290], Fuller et al. 1999:422 [ref. 25838], Nelson et al. 2004:152 [ref. 27807]). •Treated as a synonym of Parachromis gulosus Agassiz 1859 -- (Kullander & Hartel 1997:193 [ref. 22732] after recognizing gulosus as available and valid). •Valid as Parachromis managuensis (Günther 1867) but with remarks -- (Bussing 1998:369, 372 [ref. 24179]). •Valid as Nandopsis managuensis (Günther 1867) -- (Burgess 2000:50 [ref. 24818]). •Valid as Parachromis managuensis (Günther 1867) -- (Kullander in Reis et al. 2003:640 [ref. 27061], Mundy 2005:422 [ref. 28379]). = Parachromis managuensis (Günther 1867). Cichlidae. Distribution: Costa Rica, Cuba (introduced), El Salvador (introduced), Guatemala (introduced), Honduras, Mexico (introduced), Nicaragua and Panama (introduced); introduced in Hawaiian Is. Habitat: freshwater

In this record Parachromis managuensis is first established as a described name, in second and chronological terms Bussing (1987), Page & Burr (1991), Conkel (1993), Espinosa Pérez et al. (1993), Fuller et al (1999), Nelson et al (2004) treated it as valid (available), so it was actually those author's opinion and not Eschmeyer's given . The continued list of treatment of the species continues in the record. The reference numbers are those of the CAS (California Academy of Sciences). Of course, not always the full treatment of the species is included in the database record and may not always reflect the most current status of the species treated.

[Willem Heijns]

I hope this isn't getting too technical.

in my view the decision of the Commission only reverted the order of precedence between the names gulosus and managuensis. originally gulosus had precedence (being the oldest available name) over managuensis. in order to preserve common usage of names that precedence has now been given to managuensis. neither of these names was ever the "official" name of the taxon we know as Parachromis managuensis. the Code states nothing more than: if the names gulosus and managuensis both apply to one taxon (=species), then the name managuensis takes priority (after the ruling). deciding if this is the case (two names for one species) still is a matter of opinion. what if Agassiz' specimen of gulosus were to re-appear and turn out to be a different species (in some scientist's opinion)? that species would have to be called gulosus.

according to Eschmeyer: what I meant to say was indeed that his database contains opinions of other authors. Juan Miguel is perfectly right here. but still, they are opinions. if you want to call your fish Nandopsis managuensis or Parachromis managuensis, it's your own decision. if nobody agrees with your choice, you're alone. if everyone agrees the name of your choice will be generally accepted and become common usage. until someone else comes along and.........

[Colby Dixon]

I hope this isn't getting too technical.

In the Taxonomy forum, technical? ah never!

[Mark Smith]

Would the ICZN have binding authority on deciding the Metriaclima vs Maylandia controversy?

[Philippe Burnel]

Would the ICZN have binding authority on deciding the Metriaclima vs Maylandia controversy?

yes, of course, but I think that there is much more work to do before they decide anything about this.

I think I forget to post my answer to this :

The list of species is worked by a team lead by William N. Eschmeyer at the California Academy of Sciences (http://www.calacademy.org/research/icht ... earch.html). The list of cichlids, pictures and information about them is also keep here in the Cichlid Room Companion catalogue

so, Juan Miguel, you must use Maylandia as I do....

[Mark Smith]

Hi Phillipe

Might I inquire as to what "much more work" there is to do regarding this controversy?

[Philippe Burnel]

Hi Phillipe

Might I inquire as to what "much more work" there is to do regarding this controversy?

I just think that there are much more important problems with taxonomy.
Anyway, it seems to me that the committee must be alerted on the problem to intervene.
Who will do it ?

[Juan Artigas]

so, Juan Miguel, you must use Maylandia as I do....

In fact I do Philippe, it is just that I follow a wider arrange of references, I hence put Maylandia as a synonyn of Metriaclima! I never meant I will follow just the references found in Eschmeyer's catalogue.

I will give you an example of my catalogue policies, I had a recent reflection on a subject that is about to happen. Some new descriptions on Central Americans are in press. The descriptions are of species that in my heart and soul are synonyms of other already existant, I see very difficult that a diagnosis could be established (I wait with curiosity) for the people to follow clearly. I feel that if those descriptions are to be taken as standing there will soon be 900 Central Americans nobody can tell appart. There we have my own opinion, but then, how to proceed with the CRC catalogue? Well, I have no more to do than to list them as valid once published (if they are in terms of the ICZM), as there are no references yet that claim them invalid. So when people see the listing they may be inclined to think that I consider them valid, but in fact I dont. So, if you see in the listing something that disagrees this policy, I would welcome your comments, it is certainly a mistake.

[Willem Heijns]

isn't that a bit tricky Juan Miguel? what information do you need to put a name in the ranks of the synonyms? I hope it will not be the first or any author claiming so. by the same line of reasoning you could also reject the species. why include a species in the catalogue? just because one author says so?

I'm afraid there is no other option than to take a position (i.e. have an opinion) right from the start. unless you want to list every described cichlid species. check the catalogue by Ufermann/Allgayer/Geerts and you'll find them all

[Juan Artigas]

In fact, I do list (or I try) every described (an valid in terms of the IUZN) species. That is the easy (well not in terms of the work involved) part. The declaration of synonymy is harder. It is not based on my opinion though. If I have bases to think that a species should be declared synonym of other, I can produce a document giving my reasons and then refer to it. But you actually got me. What happens if one person declares in a paper that a species has to be a synonym of other, is one opinion enough to declare it so in the CRC catalogue? Probably not, probably I wait for a second paper, but probably I can also consult in the meantime field experts and based on their opinions declare it or not so in the catalogue, and then, as the catalogue I keep is different in structure (and objectives) to that of Eschmeyer. yes, I have to take a position and involve a desition based on opinions not written. I will try to do that as a last resource though.

[michi tobler]

I think the whole issue is not all that problematic. I think it is legitimate if you - Juan - take a position and present one or the other view of the current taxonomic classifications. If you explain your view or decision - with data or references - even better. I, however, think it is also important to state that the CRC catalogue is not a publication in the sense of the ICZN (see e.g. the disclaimer on Kullander's website), but it is intended as a reference and source of information (right?). Given the complexity of the issue and the popularity of CRC as a source of information, such a statement certainly would not hurt and might preclude potential problems in the future.

Cheers, m

[Juan Artigas]

Thanks for your comments guys, certainly help me to to structure an even more solid policy towards the CRC catalogue. if you have more comments, let them flow, I do not promise I will adopt them all though. The suggested disclaimer text by Michi is a good idea that is getting necessary at this point of development of the catalogue, and I should include in short. I have what I think are pretty cool projects to handle the database and present information in a way is not shown nowhere else yet. As time allows me...