Darrell Ullisch wrote:I'd say you are making a heck of a lot of assumptions.
Darrell Ullisch wrote:1. you are assuming that a dark, preserved specimen is the same as a live, patterned fish because they were apparently collected in the same area....
Darrell Ullisch wrote:2. Because Ribbink, et.al., say the fish resembles perspicax, and may be conspecific, you are assuming that it is the same fish....
Darrell Ullisch wrote:3. you are assuming that you can assign the species to another genus based on the above assumptions....
Darrell Ullisch wrote:4. You are assuming that Dr. Ethelwynn Trewavas couldn't figure out that a specimen didn't belong to a genus she described.
Darrell Ullisch wrote:However, you have shown me no evidence that it is the same species as Melanochromis perspicax, only that it might be.
Darrell Ullisch wrote:If by some chance it turns out that the fish you are calling Ps. perspicax is not the same as the specimen described as Melanochromis perspicax, you will have created a nomen nudum.
Darrell Ullisch wrote:there is nothing in the information you gave me that positively ties the two together within the rules of the Code
Michael Oliver wrote:Not an assumption of mine. I have great respect for what she achieved in advancing cichlid taxonomy, so long ago, working initially with only preserved material. The fact is, though, understandings of the limits of genera change, and more than 70 years has passed since ET's minimal original characterization of Melanochromis. It does not reflect badly on her that some species are no longer classified in the same genus where she described them; usually it means our knowledge has advanced. I'm confident that she would agree (but, of course, I can't prove it).
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests