finally I have a moment while holding Amanda in my arms.
Contrary to what Mark and Philippe write, I have always been a very correct person and never lied – was educated this way – but I have one error, and that is : I trust people, and I should not. Yes this has been the error of my life (my mother always told me and I paid for it - with all I once possessed - every house and even my retirement money...).
I only answer the above accusations here because of correctness, but I will not write on this topic again, even if anyone of you all feels contrary, then that is (for me) your own problem, you have to live with.
First in regards to photos (Mark and Philippe):
I wrote already: "But there are people on this forum who do not like me, some who do not do their home work ie Mark, I have a letter from Allgayer, and the late president Jean-Claude Nourissat, that all photographers will be asked prior publication and get their consent, ..."
And the funny thing here is, that Philippe now and here confirms the error the AFC made and all this mess Mark is carrying on now for 20plus years, and that it was caused by the negligence of AFC - maybe by Philippe himself (who possibly now wants to look good and denies it, as he was there with the first meeting, if I recall). But I think it was Allgayer, as he was the secretary and in charge.
Philippe writes here: "Nourissat and Allgayer asked me to write to EACH photographer to ask them if they want to give their pictures FREE of charge AFTER the publication ...". I do NOT BELIEVE Jean-Claude has asked you ONLY AFTER the publication to write, I am sure (knowing Jean-Claude very well, he was a extreme correct person), he has asked you because he also saw what had happened (from the complaints, also from me), and that is why he told you (probably again) to write also AFTER AFC's negligence according to our clear agreement.
We had a meeting all together PRIOR to the publication of the AFC Atlas, and it was VERY CLEAR, that the colour-separations can ONLY BE USED AFTER THE RESPECTIVE PHOTOGRAPHERS HAVE BEEN CONSULTED AND GAVE THEIR OK, except for mine, for which I had given green light. At this meeting was Jean-Claude, Allgayer and I do not remember who else, I did not know all the other AFC board members, but I believe Philippe was there. And this agreement was made clearly PRIOR any publication and it was not fulfilled, and I am to blame but not those who caused this mess! And yes Philippe, they talk bad about me since, except for those who finally were paid by AFC. Why did Mark not get his money?
And Mark, yes I made an error, the one of my life errors "trusting people". And it happened because Jean-Claude knowing about my work with all the cichlids, for the book to be published at TFH (which was never done), had asked me at the time if I could not help them for their publication and as I could never say "no" to him, such a gentle person (I did everything for him and he for me). But at the time I was in the middle of litigations in Paris, Singapore, London, Trenton and Frankfurt against one of the worst criminals this hobby has ever seen, defending myself against his worldwide lies (which seem mark wants to carry on here and has some supporters). I told Jean-Claude that I have the cichlid colour-separations but they need to get the authorisations, except for mine. he wanted the in the respective groups but i had no time because of the above, to sort them out (6000plus), they must do it. And after the agreement I handed them over - all of them. And that was my errors. In this you are correct, but in nothing else what you claim. But tell us: WHY have you not claimed these few of your photos at AFC to be paid for? Or do you want me to pay them¡ for those they have used and never me? Just tell me and I send you the 50 or 100 dollars, as it could hardly be more, for the few Cyprichromis species and an Astatotilapia sp. "Rock Kribensis" ...
Cichla: I have now, for nearly 20 years, published (sponsored and managed) a very respectful scientific journal - the only in the fish world in full colours free of charge to any scientist and peer reviewed with top ichthyologists on the editorial board and the prime gobiid-expert of this planet as scientific editor - and there the diagnostic characters of species are given in detail. This is, I am sure you know, how it is done correctly in ichthyology. I am happy to help hobbyists around the world (and probably do more then anyone on this forum), and it is appreciated in nearly 100 countries and on hundreds of forums (also when I inform people about a new publication - except here and in one or two more forums - which only want to see this as an advertisement, but never I notice the many others doing it), but I do no diagnostic on forums, sorry.
RM: I never refuse to expose your findings probably more then anyone else concerning fresh and brackish water fishes, but not on forums. On forums I help with advice, I answer aquarium concerned question, I do species ID from pictures placed (as good as possible), I give suggestions to biotope correct decorations, etc., etc., I think this is the purpose of a forum! NOT TAXONOMY (many do not want to use the correct one anyhow and believe they know better than ichthyologists, or they are not interested in it). I have in no place said it is a "new species" and I do not try to promote my book, firstly I do not need to, and secondly my understanding of such an information is, that it might be helpful to any serious hobbyist and nature lover. (Just for your information we sold over 1000 copies in less then a week, and you think I need to promote it? There are more then enough good people who know and appreciate my work - around the globe. Otherwise why do I get every year to be invited for over 50 lectures & seminars on every continent. And if I have to promote a book I do it there...)
I have said " like all the 9 natural angelfish variants (species) in detail". Did you see this or do you want to read it only to argue? And "There is a very large article on the real P. altum (demonstrating that it has never been bred before)." I wrote and you think that a "naked statement" can be given here in two or more lines. If so, please tell me why science still publishes hundreds o pages so to speak to describe a single species? And a 'new discovery' can imply many things, yes like a variant of possibly a already known species, or a new distribution (what is also there), and more.
And to PHILIPPE AND ALL OTHERS HERE TALKING BAD ABOUT ME :
Nothing to add.... this is the truth ! I you like it or not.