Microgeophagus Frey, 1957, is a valid genus

[cichla]

The valid genus name for ramirezi is Microgeophagus Frey, 1957.
I am glad that Isbrücker confirm my point of view in not using Mikrogeophagus.
Greetings, IS

Isbrücker, I. J. H.(2011): Zum Gattungsnamen der Schmetterlingsbuntbarsche. DATZ 5/2011: 10-17.
Abstract: Microgeophagus Frey, 1957, type species, by original monotypy, Apistogramma ramirezi Myers & Harry, 1948 = Microgeophagus ramirezi (Myers & Harry, 1948) is a valid genus group name, with Mikrogeophagus Meulengracht-Madsen, in Schiötz & Christensen, 1968, Pseudogeophagus Hoedeman, 1969, Microgeophagus (Apistogramma) Axelrod, 1971, Papiliochromis Meulengracht-Madsen, in Schiötz & Christensen, 1975, Papiliochromis Kullander, 1977, and Licrogeophagus Géry, 1983 as junior synonyms, here arranged in chronological order, and including also Pseudoapistogramma Axelrod, 1971 which is an invalid name, not a genus group name in the sense of the ICZN. Microgeophagus Axelrod, and Papiliochromis Kullander are not only synonyms but also junior homonyms.

[Darrell Ullisch]

Oh, great, now I have to go through and change all my slides and digital images again!

I thought Frey's description was invalidated long ago for being somehow inadequate. Wish I could read that article, unfortunately my German is pretty much limited to Gesundheit, danke schoen, and Schiess Kopf (my dad used that one a lot with us boys! ).

[cichla]

Dear Darrell, Dear all,
to the question (by the DATZ editor) of ''How will ichthyologists and aquarists react on that?'', Isbrücker answered: ''Ichthyologists and aquarists may be satisfied that once more the right name for one of the more well-known fishes is confirmed.''

Well, I never used Mikrogeophagus, because there was not a single publication which supported it.

I am strongly convinced (as probably the majority of taxonomists) that scientific names should not based on personal opinion, but on facts and rules.

Isbrücker (2011): ''Scientific names of organisms are everybodies tool for permanent and global communication. Names represent therefore relatively simple, yet important knowledge and names should be correct. An incorrect, doubtful or otherwise instable ‘name’ actually is not a reliable basis, but a potential, often long lasting problem. As long as names are instable they are the opposite of what names should be!''

Greetings, IS

[Mike Wise]

I thought the paper (short note, really) by Robins & Bailey (1982) in the journal Copia explained why Fry's citation was 'nomen nudem'. I believe that Dr. Kullander made a request for the ICZN to determine the valid name for the genus about 10 years ago, but nothing came out of it. I agree, it will be good to have a final determination, but I doubt that this article will have any more influence on the name than any others published in non-professional publications. Only time (and the taxonomists) will tell. Personally, I believe Kullander's description and name (Papiliochromis = Butterfly Cichlid) are the best. It definitely is junior to other names, but junior names have been given 'senior status' in the past by the ICZN because the genus was better known under a junior name. My preference really doesn't matter!

[Rico Morgenstern]

The explanation for considering Microgeophagus Frey,1957 a nomen nudum given by Robins & Bailey (1982) was mostly based on the assumption (as was Kullander's disregard of the name when establishing the genus Papiliochromis), that is was not all intended as a scientific name. This is, however, not the case. Frey has indeed suggested to place Apistogramma in a genus of its own, for which he proposed the scientific name Microgeophagus. The fact that it was proposed conditionally does not render the name unavailable for being established before 1961 (see Article 11.5.1 ICZN). Furthermore, his proposal is clearly no 'hypothetical concept' in the sense of the code (quoted from the glossary)

concept, hypothetical, n.
A taxonomic concept that when published contained no animal then known to exist in nature,
past or present, but only in the mind of the author whether a prediction or not [Art. 1.3.1].

So, the availability of Microgeophagus Frey, 1957 is demonstrated in my view. The principle of priority requires that the oldest available name of a taxon is the valid one (unless invalidated by another article or by a ruling of the Commission).

There was no application on this matter to the Commission by Kullander or someone else so far.

Personally, I believe Kullander's description and name (Papiliochromis = Butterfly Cichlid) are the best.

Of course, Kullander's 1979 description of Papiliochromis is the only 'scientifically correct' propasal of a generic name for ramirezi. Insofar I fully agree that it would be the 'best' one. However, neither the style of a work in which a new nominal taxon is established, nor the reasons for doing so are regulated by the code. That means that the availability of a name is not affected by being established in a 'good' or 'bad' work. And remember that Kullander himself has dug out a name from an aquarium book (Mikrogeophagus Meulengracht-Madsen) and rejected Papiliochromis.

Personally, I hope that the issue is settled now, but I fear it is not so for there's as much 'politics' in it as in the never-ending Maylandia-Metriaclima debate.

[Philippe Burnel]

why "never ending" ? Maylandia is absolutly valid, and there is no discussion possible (except for those who are not able to read french correctly)

Philippe (spending good time in Spain among wild orchids and wonderfull diving)

[Rico Morgenstern]

Well Philippe, that's exactly what I meant. There's should be no nomenclatural problem, but the discussion is going on and on for some people (including some who can read french, I guess) insist on Metriaclima regardless of any arguments brought forward. However, I do not wish to start a new discussion on these names here, it was only an example...

[Philippe Burnel]

it was only an example...

and it was only a joke from me

[cichla]

Dear all,
your contribution, Rico, is pretty informative and important. I think it is now settled that Microgeophagus is the correct genus name for the 'ram'. Well, I agree with you, Mike, if I may vote I would select Papiliochromis. However, the die is cast and Microgephagus is it. I just hope that Nordic ichthyologists who are able to read German will agree, too. Otherwise it will be such never ending story as for Mailandia vs Metriaclima.
Greetings, IS

[Tachymarptis]

Oh, great, now I have to go through and change all my slides and digital images again!

I thought Frey's description was invalidated long ago for being somehow inadequate. Wish I could read that article, unfortunately my German is pretty much limited to Gesundheit, danke schoen, and Schiess Kopf (my dad used that one a lot with us boys! ).

You should perhaps rather write a small routine to change your slides automatically, in case of some cladists find that Microgeophagus must be embedded inside Geophagus, Cichlasoma and so on to prevent it being paraphyletic.

[Tachymarptis]

Dear all,
your contribution, Rico, is pretty informative and important. I think it is now settled that Microgeophagus is the correct genus name for the 'ram'. Well, I agree with you, Mike, if I may vote I would select Papiliochromis. However, the die is cast and Microgephagus is it. I just hope that Nordic ichthyologists who are able to read German will agree, too. Otherwise it will be such never ending story as for Mailandia vs Metriaclima.
Greetings, IS

I would also vote for Papiliochromis for the "Schmetterlingbuntbarsch", but Microgeophagus is not so bad, after all.

[cichla]

The discussion continues ...

In the current issue of DATZ (10/2011) Martin Geerts challenged the validity of Microgeophagus. He believes (if I understand it correctly) that Microgeophagus Frey 1957 is not valid because (1) Frey do not intent to create a new scientific name, (2) no character is mentioned which is suitable to differentiate Microgeophagus and (3) only morphological characters are usable to establish a new taxon.

[Rico Morgenstern]

In my view, Geerts' argumentation is not correct.

(1)If Frey intended to propose a new generic name or not (I believe, indeed, he did) does not matter at all, such an intention must be stated explicitely only for new nominal taxa established after 1999.

(2)If a description is sufficient or not, or if the given characters are actually correct or suitable to distinguish the new taxon is not only not regulated by the code, but would also violate one of its basic principles:

The Code refrains from infringing upon taxonomic judgment, which must not be made subject to regulation or restraint.

This means, a name cannot be rejected as unavailable (= nomen nudum) just because the taxon is insufficiently defined or described, except, of course, if there is no description or definition at all. However, Frey has given a (albeit short) description of the behavior of this fish, followed by a statement that it differs in this respect from the remaining Apistogramma (the behavior of which is described in introduction of the genus), and that therefore its placement in a new genus Microgeophagus is suggested.

[Willem Heijns]

Another interesting dispute.

Having read Martin's piece in DATZ I believe his main point is that Microgeophagus Frey 1957 has not been described/diagnosed according to the rules. Since I have not read Frey's description and as it appears to be rather brief, could someone give us a (full) quote of it?

[Willem Heijns]

Apistogramma ramirezi (het "antennebaarsje") was my very first cichlid, given to me over 35 years ago by my then manager. It lived in my tank with livebearers and other small fish for about five days. And then it died.

My interest in this issue is of course for other reasons. Both Ingo and Rico were kind enough to send me the pages from Freys book (thanks, guys), giving me the chance to do some text analysis. The main question is: did Frey provide enough and sufficient information to have proposed a new generic name for ramirezi?

Well, he certainly didn't intend to. On page 56 he writes (in part): "neuerdings wird Einbeziehung in eine neue Gattung vorgeschlagen", which translates to: "recently, assignment to a new genus is (will be?) proposed". And on page 375: "eventuell neu aufzustellende Gattung", meaning "possibly (or: if necessary) to be erected new genus". If Frey did mean to propose the name Microgeophagus himself and in this book, he surely chose clumsy words to do it.
All this doesn't mean much in the sense of the Code though, as has been pointed out before.

What is really interesting is the description/diagnosis of the new genus. Everybody knows that the behaviour of ramirezi is quite different from all other Apistogramma species, warranting assignment in a separate genus. But did Frey provide enough information in his book to come to such a conclusion?

The behaviour of ramirezi is indeed described by Frey. Some key points:

-they choose a spawning site and defend it against intruders
-they charge from their hiding place ("Versteck")
-both male and female take part in the care of the spawn/fry.

It is hard to find differentiating characters here. The only one I recognize is the equal participation of both sexes in the brood care. Most (all?) other Apistogramma species show a clear differentiation in the role of male and female. That is a well known fact nowadays. But did Frey mention that? Unfortunately I don't have his book, but on the page I have, no references are made to behaviour for the other two species (pleurotaenia and reitzigi).
And finally, the words: "Vorstösse aus dem Versteck heraus". I described this as: "charges from their hiding place". This hiding place might well be a cave of some sort. Frey doesn't specify this. But isn't ramirezi an open water spawner (as opposed to all other Apistogramma)?

Article 13.1.1 of the Code says: "To be available, every new name proposed after 1930 must be accompanied by a description or definition that states in words characters that are purported to differentiate the taxon".

So what do you guys think?

[Rico Morgenstern]

The crucial word in Art. 13.1.1 is "purported". According to several dictionaries, 'purport' can mean:

(1) to profess or claim as its meaning
(2) to give the appearance, often falsely, of being, intending, etc..

This means (unfortunately, the French edition and also the authorized German translation are less unambiguous here, however, in accordance with the principle quoted in my last post I would recommend to follow the present interpretation), that it is not required that the characters given in a description or definition actually do differenciate the taxon. Imagine what would happen otherwise: everyone could claim that a name he doesn't like is unavailable because he regards the original definition as insufficient. We had to bother with umpteen cases like this...

If Frey did mean to propose the name Microgeophagus himself and in this book, he surely chose clumsy words to do it.

I agree. I think he did not actually intend to establish a new genus himself. Rather, he wanted to propose a generic name to be used when such a genus will be established. Insofar, Microgeophagus is clearly intended as a scientific name, even if it was made available inadvertently.

[Willem Heijns]

It's remarkable to see how easy taxonomic judgement and interpretation of the rules can be confused. In this case:

the Rules:
-there is a description of behaviour
-there is a statement that behavioral characters differentiate Apistogramma from Microgeophagus
Thus, the Rules have been fulfilled.

Taxonomic judgement:
-it's a lousy description
-I couldn't tell the difference between the two genera from it.
Thus, a redescrption is necessary.

On a side note: I was really amused by the fact that Isbrücker used a list of ICZN articles to prove his point. But the important one (article 13) he skipped and instead he only referred to the recommandation attached to it.

[Rico Morgenstern]

Thus, a redescrption is necessary.

...and done. Just insert Microgeophagus for Papiliochromis in Kullander's (1977) work

[Willem Heijns]

Exactly my thoughts, Rico.

What amazes me, is that an issue, apparently so easily solved, has been lying around for more than 40 years. Not really unattended though. A whole list of reputable people (scientists and laymen alike) have published on the matter. I wondfer what will happen next.......

[cichla]

What amazes me, is that an issue, apparently so easily solved, has been lying around for more than 40 years. Not really unattended though. A whole list of reputable people (scientists and laymen alike) have published on the matter.

Yes, it is indeed curious why not everyone see the obvious. Anyway, ... more amazing is (to me at least) that „everyone“ jump on Mikrogeophagus Meulengracht-Madsen 1968 even almost nobody ever seen the Aquarium-book by Schiøtz & Christensen. Kullander (and some others) likes to seek in ''old'' aquarium-book and journals for forgotten names to re-introduce them as valid. There is, however, not a single publication (yet) which explains why Mikrogeophagus has priority over Microgeophagus.

I wonder what will happen next...

There are rumors that Kullander will publish a paper about that subject, as a reaction to the contribution by Isbrücker. It would be an interesting read for sure....