Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Discussion about discus
Locked
Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Heiko Bleher » Thu Jul 29, 2010 11:30 am

Hi guys,

I can only suggest to update the names of the genus Symphysodon on this great site.

S. discus Heckel, 1840
S. aequifasciatus Pellegrin, 1904
S. haraldi Schultz, 1960

S. tarzoo is a nomen nudum and the subspecies have been synonomized since 1986. See also:
http://research.calacademy.org/redirect ... /index.asp

All the best,

Heiko Bleher
www.aquapress-bleher.com
www.aqua-aquapress.com
Heiko Bleher

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Sun Aug 08, 2010 3:23 pm

I think the readers will be interested in more information about the three nominal Symphysodon species. Like where they are found. Could you specify the type localities and/or distribution ranges for each of them?

Further I don't believe tarzoo is a nomen nudum. Because both the specific name Discus and the subspecific name Tarzoo in the original description start with a capital (which is/was strictly prohibited by the ICZN, even in those days) the published name can only be regarded as a popular name with no scientific meaning whatsoever. So Bill Eschmeyer is wrong in saying that the current status of tarzoo is synonym to aequifasciatus.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

User avatar
Philippe Burnel
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 1115
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 5:54 am
Location: France/ Normandy
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Philippe Burnel » Mon Aug 09, 2010 12:56 am

To get a complete Idea of the problem, it's also important to read :

Discus fishes: mitochondrial DNA evidence for a phylogeographic barrier in the Amazonian genus Symphysodon (Teleostei: Cichlidae) J. S. Ready*†, E. J. G. Ferreira‡ and S. O. Kullander*
Journal of Fish Biology (2006) 69 (Supplement B), 200–211

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Tue Aug 10, 2010 2:13 pm

Heiko,

It seems to me that it is easier for you to find time to reply to what you probably consider "personal attacks from the past" in the other thread than to answer the question or reply to the comment in this topic.

Why is this?
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Wed Aug 18, 2010 2:11 pm

Heiko,

I asked you a question 8 days ago which was a second attempt to get an answer on my question of Sunday 8 August. So far you did not reply. Since you posted on the BCA forum only minutes ago, you are apparently present on the web. Why not answer my question?
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Heiko Bleher » Sat Aug 21, 2010 11:40 am

Dear Willem,

sorry I do not get informed from this forum when there is a question (most other so). Also: I am not retired like you and have to make a living, in addition I like what I do and will do it until I disappear and I have at least a thousand other things I am doing (like we have at this very moment over 1000 orders for my new DUSCUBBOOK01, which brings money to finance my next expeditions starting next week), and you know that. You have not all the time in the world like some others on this and other forums, who seem not have anything else to do (and maybe because of this they are jealous and attack other people...or because they have a miserable life... or because they are unhappy with what they do, or where they gotten to in life).

Anyhow just trying to respond:
1. I am sure you undersatnd than I will not repoeat the diustribution of the nominal species here, there are hundreds of pages written already and you (and anyone interested ) can read them in detail, but for you just brief:
S. discus Heckel, 1840 - middle and lower Rio Negro basin; Rio Jatapu basin; Rio Urubu; Rio Nhamundá, Rio Abacaxis and Rio Marimari;
S. aequifasciatus Pellegrin, 1904 - in the southern Rio Solimões from the Coari region west to the Rio Jantiatuba basin, in the northern part in the southern Rio Japurá region including Apaporis, and west to the Tonino and in the Putumayo basin.
S. haraldi Schultz, 1960 - from the lower Amazon in the lower Tocantins all the way to the border of Colombia with the distribution north and south of the Amazon and Rio Solimões, but south not west of the Rio Coari and this species is restricted to clear waters and lives in much higher pH and conductivity parameters then the two others.

2. If you believe Tarzoo is a valid name, then you stand alone against all ichthyologists and taxonomists today (/also agains Kullander). But naturally you can believe what you want. That is called democracy (and maybe we should say goodby to science).
And just for your information:
If you say "the subspecific name Tarzoo"? I cannot follow this, as such a thing is unknown to me. What is "subspecific" Do you mean subspecies? or you are you trying to say?

In adition you write "in the original description start with a capital (which is/was strictly prohibited by the ICZN, even in those days) the published name can only be regarded as a popular name with no scientific meaning whatsoever." Which means to me: "Tarzoo" is a popular name according to your own statement.

Besides, remember that "Tarzoo" was NEVER described ! There is no description, just a popular article which even in the article it is stated by the auther "Unoffical" name.
In addition: NO SPECIMEN exists anywhere in any museum in the world, no holotype, no lectotyp, no paratype.

So Bill Eschmeyer is correct, but again if you think he is wrong why don't you do his work, then probably all he does is wrong, although is is recognized world wide as one of the prime ichthyologist and taxonomists a riound the world (and not only according to me, but to everyone of of the scients working with fishes, even Joseph Nelson). He just received the highest award (the Bleeker Award):
http://www.aquapress-bleher.com/index.p ... &Itemid=42

How many awards have you? And when did you study ichthyology and taxonomy? Maybe I forgott. Just tell everyone, I also would like to know.

In any case, I wish you all the best, and remember what I told you in Dusiburg: I have nothing against you (and for this matter against anyone else on this forum). I am a very peaceful person doing my work (and I think I am the only one on this and most forums working all its life only with fishes and plants, ichthyology, taxonomy and science). And I try to do it very correct, although I can also do some errors, but for sure not very many. And I always helped and do help this hobby to grow constructively and do not attack others, except for a very few, who live of lies and damaging this beautiful aquatic world or which try oiut of jealousness or unhappyness my work.

Always

Heiko Bleher
www.aquapress-bleher.com




.
Heiko Bleher

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Sat Aug 21, 2010 4:08 pm

Dear Heiko,

Thank you for taking the time to respond in this topic. As a retired person I have all the time in the world to spend on my passion, which is cichlids. Just like you.

As for aequifasciatus:
I understand from your statement that you believe this species to have its range in western Amazonia. I am afraid I do not agree with you here. I quote from my paper (reviewed by both Sven Kullander and Axel Meyer) on this subject:

In 1904 Pellegrin describes a new variety of Symphysodon discus as Symphysodon discus var. aequifasciata. He uses three specimens for his description. They are labelled MNHN 02-134, MNHN 02-135 (both from Tefé) and MNHN 02-130 (from Santarém). The specimens are in the Muséum National de l’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France. In our terminology (because Pellegrin did not designate a holotype) these are the syntypes of the new variety of Symphysodon discus. Their numbers are stated in the description and the specimens in the museum (also called the typeseries) are indeed labelled as aequifasciatus. You can go to Paris and check if you want. Pellegrin uses the epiphet aequifasciata instead of aequifasciatus, following the feminine gender of the term “var” (varietas).
Schultz (1960) raises aequifasciatus to species rank when he describes three new subspecies for his Symphysodon aequifasciata (S.a.aequifasciata, S.a.haraldi and S.a.axelrodi respectively). Through this action (and by reference to Pellegrin’s description) he removes our three specimens in Paris from Symphysodon discus and places them in Symphysodon aequifasciatus.

The years that followed yielded the insight that the three specimens in Paris do not in fact belong to one species. Their localities are too far apart (Tefé is almost 2,000 km to the west of Santarém). So now we have the situation where one typeseries contains specimens belonging to two different species. The three Paris specimens can no longer be syntypes of one species.

In 2006 Heiko Bleher publishes his long awaited book “Bleher’s Discus”. On page 135 (English edition) it says: The type material of aequifasciatus (deposited in Paris) consists of three specimens: two 221-68-2-2 (90.5 and 122.5 mm SL) from Tefé and one 221-68-2-1 (without size) from Santarém. Followed by (and I quote): “It is imperative (in view of the principle of taxonomic stability and the importance of the form among aquarists, where it is called the “green discus”) that the action of L.P. Schultz (followed by Burgess) be complemented by the designation of Pellegrin’s two Tefé specimens as lectotype and paralectotype”.
Interesting things are happening here. First, we see a new set of numbers for our Paris specimens. Bleher’s book itself gives the answer to that problem. On page 116 is a picture of the two jars in the museum of Paris holding the three specimens. The jars are numbered 221-68-2-2 (with two specimens in it from Tefé, labelled 1902-134 and 1902-135) and 221-68-2-1 (with one specimen in it from Santarém, labelled 1902-130). Clearly our syntypes. In the original German version of the book Bleher uses the word “dürften” which translates to “could be” as to the identity of the specimens in the jars.
The second interesting thing is in the quotation. For one Bleher states that it is “imperative” (in the original German: “zwingend geboten”) that the Tefé specimens be designated as lectotype and paralectotype. But by saying that it is imperative, do you therewith accomplish the nomenclatural act? Or are you saying somebody else should do it? And second, which of the two specimens in jar 221-68-2-2 is to become lectotype and which paralectotype? Remember, only one specimen can be lectotype of a species. Could it be that the first one mentioned (the one with size 90.5 mm) is to become lectotype?
So the question is: do we have a valid nomenclatural act here? If so, the specimen with size 90.5 mm must be the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. The peculiar thing here is that the designation doesn’t point to a specific catalogue-number. So I checked the online catalogue of the museum (MNHN) in Paris. It shows that the size of MNHN 1902-134 is 90 mm. This specimen therefore should be the lectotype. The size of the other specimen (1902-135) is given as 125 mm. That specimen automatically becomes the paralectotype.
Bleher of course believes the nomenclatural act is valid (Bleher et al 2007: “Hence the two specimens from Tefé are lectotype and paralectotype since 2004, rendering any subsequent lectotype designation invalid.”). Kullander (pers.comm.) is convinced it is not: “No, there is no designation here. A designation must be specific, i.e. point clearly to just one specimen; there is no doubt whatsoever about this.”
Later in 2006 Ready et al publish a paper on the genus Symphysodon. On page 207 they address the issue of the specimens in Paris. They state: “MNHN 1902-130 from Santarém is selected as lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus”. This designation is not to be misunderstood. You can’t be more specific than that. But is it a valid nomenclatural act? That depends. If nomenclatural act by Bleher is accepted as valid, then Ready et al are simply too late. The Tefé specimens in Paris will be lectotype and paralectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. The status of the Santarém specimen is (in that case) unclear. But if the nomenclatural act by Bleher is declared invalid Ready et al will be proven right.
Another interesting aspect of this is that, depending on the outcome of the above dilemma, Symphysodon aequifasciatus is either a species from Western Amazonia (type locality Tefé) or a species from Eastern Amazonia (type locality Santarém).

Bleher et al publish a revision of Symphysodon in 2007. With respect to our Paris type specimens they give the following:
Page 142: “Géry & Bleher in Bleher (2004) designated one of Pellegrin’s two Tefé specimens as lectotype (MNHN 221-68-2-2, 90.5 mm SL) and paralectotype (MNHN 1902/134-135, 122.5 mm SL) of Symphysodon aequifasciatus.”
Page 162: “lectotype designated by Géry & Bleher in Bleher 2004: MNHN 1902-135; 90.6 mm SL; paralectotype: MNHN 1902-134; 122.5 mm SL.”
Page 167: a full quote of the relevant passage in Bleher’s Discus (see above).
Page 172: “Géry & Bleher (2004) designated a lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus (MNHN 1902-134, 122.5 mm SL).”
Now I’m getting quite confused. The statement on page 142 is a reference to the lectotype using the number of the jar and a reference to the paralectotype using the numbers of both specimens in that same jar. In recent e-mails I have exchanged with Bleher he states that the order in which the specimens are mentioned (as indicated by their sizes) is sufficient for a type designation. Bleher’s e-mail to me (May 2nd, 2008) says: “134 represents the first and 135 the second specimen”. This is in accordance with the statement in the book (Bleher 2006).
The most specific statement is on page 162. Here it clearly says which specimen is the lectotype and which is the paralectotype. But then on page 172 the paralectotype has suddenly become the lectotype. This error has been corrected in a later issue of aqua, where it reads: “lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 (MNHN 1902-135).
By the way, do not go looking for a paper by Bleher in 2004; you will not find it. The problem here is that it took very long for Bleher to finish his book. An understandable fact. Maybe the taxonomic part of the book had already been finished in 2004, but for a nomenclatural act only the publication date counts. And that was 2006 (Bleher’s Discus). The revision of Symphysodon (Bleher et al., 2007) merely contains references to this book. Thus the revision itself does not constitute a nomenclatural act. At least not as far as the types of Symphysodon aequifasciatus are concerned. This is very important. The revision (Bleher et al. 2007) clearly contains more specific information on the lectotype designation than the book (Bleher’s Discus 2006) does. It might very well be that this information is both essential en necessary for the designation of the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. If that were to be the case, then the revision must be seen as the paper in which the designation has been published. At the same time it becomes an invalid nomenclatural act, because Ready et al. (2006) published their paper designating a(nother) lectotype for this species at an earlier date. The priority rule of the ICZN.
And finally, even if the book (Bleher, 2006) should be regarded as the publication holding the nomenclatural act, we are stuck with the fact that the first specimen mentioned in the book must be the lectotype (MNHN 1902-134, 90.5 mm according to the catalogue of MNHN and confirmed by Bleher on 2 May 2008) whereas in their revision Bleher et al. (2007) select MNHN 1902-135 as the lectotype. Unless of course the catalogue of MNHN is wrong...

As for tarzoo:
When I say I don't think tarzoo is a nomem nudum I don't mean to say I believe it is a valid name. On the contrary. A nomen nudum has some sort of status (being defined in the ICZN), whereas tarzoo has "no status whatsoever". Indeed it is only a popular name and nothing more than that. We agree on that I guess.. 8)
With subspecific name I mean the name of a subspecies. In the current (binomial) naming system a third name always represents a subspecies.

Finally, I don't have any rewards and I don't need them to think logically. Do you?


PS: e-mail sent to inform you about this post.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Heiko Bleher » Sat Aug 21, 2010 6:03 pm

Dear Willem,

first of you do not read well (maybe it is your English?):
1. I am NOT retired and I never will sit on my ass do nothing but waste my time to find errors which are not there - at other before those of yoursel (I do it).
2. I told you in Helsinki, you should study ichthyology as you mix up many things, and do not seem to want understand it (that is why no scientist answered you, I am foolish enough doing it here, but for sure for the last time).

As for aequifasciatus:
If you do not believe the distribution, as you do not believe anything as it seems, that is your problem. Why do you not go and publish a book about it - contradict my 336 Amazon expedition (at the time I published it, in the meanwile 20 more) and research work on location. You can do it and then write and proof I am wrong and not just like this, wasting time (sorry, you are retired...)

Do I understand that you have officially published a paper? Which was peer-reviewed? Then PLEASE send me a PDF of it and then I will answer to that. But below some of arguments (in "" are your words) I will fast answer:

"In 1904 Pellegrin describes a new variety of Symphysodon discus as Symphysodon discus var. aequifasciata. He uses three specimens for his description. They are labelled MNHN 02-134, MNHN 02-135 (both from Tefé) and MNHN 02-130 (from Santarém). The specimens are in the Muséum National de l’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France. In our terminology (because Pellegrin did not designate a holotype) these are the syntypes of the new variety of Symphysodon discus. Their numbers are stated in the description and the specimens in the museum (also called the typeseries) are indeed labelled as aequifasciatus."
Answer: I have published this all long ago and I was the first to open the jars in Paris long before you thought of Discus - as you can see it is all in my book (Bleher's 2006) and in the Revision (Bleher et al. 2007). This proofs that you did not read my work (or only fractions of it).

"Pellegrin uses the epiphet aequifasciata instead of aequifasciatus, following the feminine gender of the term “var” (varietas).
Schultz (1960) raises aequifasciatus to species rank when he describes three new subspecies for his Symphysodon aequifasciata (S.a.aequifasciata, S.a.haraldi and S.a.axelrodi respectively). Through this action (and by reference to Pellegrin’s description) he removes our three specimens in Paris from Symphysodon discus and places them in Symphysodon aequifasciatus."
Answer: This is a old hat and known, latest since 1960. You just repeat what everyone who works knows.

" The years that followed yielded the insight that the three specimens in Paris do not in fact belong to one species. Their localities are too far apart (Tefé is almost 2,000 km to the west of Santarém). So now we have the situation where one typeseries contains specimens belonging to two different species. The three Paris specimens can no longer be syntypes of one species."
Answer: also very well documented and natural that not all can be syntypes (anymore).

"In 2006 Heiko Bleher publishes his long awaited book Bleher’s Discus. On page 135 (English edition) it says: The type material of aequifasciatus (deposited in Paris) consists of three specimens: two 221-68-2-2 (90.5 and 122.5 mm SL) from Tefé and one 221-68-2-1 (without size) from Santarém. Followed by (and I quote): 'It is imperative (in view of the principle of taxonomic stability and the importance of the form among aquarists, where it is called the 'green discus') that the action of L.P. Schultz (followed by Burgess) be complemented by the designation of Pellegrin’s two Tefé specimens as lectotype and paralectotype”.
"Interesting things are happening here. First, we see a new set of numbers for our Paris specimens. Bleher’s book itself gives the answer to that problem. On page 116 is a picture of the two jars in the museum of Paris holding the three specimens. The jars are numbered 221-68-2-2 (with two specimens in it from Tefé, labelled 1902-134 and 1902-135) and 221-68-2-1 (with one specimen in it from Santarém, labelled 1902-130). Clearly our syntypes. In the original German version of the book Bleher uses the word “dürften” which translates to “could be” as to the identity of the specimens in the jars."
Answer: So you want to find errors (sorry I forgot you are retired). My English is not my mother tongue and German is not the mother tongue of the translator, so EVERYWHERE some spelling errors may hapen, but I guess you are perfect, and it does not happen to you (spelling errors).

"The second interesting thing is in the quotation. For one Bleher states that it is “imperative” (in the original German: “zwingend geboten”) that the Tefé specimens be designated as lectotype and paralectotype. But by saying that it is imperative, do you therewith accomplish the nomenclatural act? Or are you saying somebody else should do it? And second, which of the two specimens in jar 221-68-2-2 is to become lectotype and which paralectotype? Remember, only one specimen can be lectotype of a species. Could it be that the first one mentioned (the one with size 90.5 mm) is to become lectotype?
So the question is: do we have a valid nomenclatural act here? If so, the specimen with size 90.5 mm must be the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. The peculiar thing here is that the designation doesn’t point to a specific catalogue-number. So I checked the online catalogue of the museum (MNHN) in Paris. It shows that the size of MNHN 1902-134 is 90 mm. This specimen therefore should be the lectotype. The size of the other specimen (1902-135) is given as 125 mm. That specimen automatically becomes the paralectotype.
Bleher of course believes the nomenclatural act is valid (Bleher et al 2007: “Hence the two specimens from Tefé are lectotype and paralectotype since 2004, rendering any subsequent lectotype designation invalid.”). Kullander (pers.comm.) is convinced it is not: “No, there is no designation here. A designation must be specific, i.e. point clearly to just one specimen; there is no doubt whatsoever about this.”
Answer: So you are after hair-splitting (there is a hair in every soup, also in yours, and in any scientific paper I have seen - and few thousand published in aqua so far and I could, if I had the time and someone would pay me to quote errors from 2 out of 5 published papers I have seen - or more - I would do iut for you, but as long as they are accepted and no new revision or MS comes out to proof it wrong, which was passed by 3 top reviewers, this scientific work is valid, also for you, if you like it or not, same for me).

"Later in 2006 Ready et al publish a paper on the genus Symphysodon. On page 207 they address the issue of the specimens in Paris. They state: “MNHN 1902-130 from Santarém is selected as lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus”. This designation is not to be misunderstood. You can’t be more specific than that. But is it a valid nomenclatural act? That depends. If nomenclatural act by Bleher is accepted as valid, then Ready et al. are simply too late. The Tefé specimens in Paris will be lectotype and paralectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. The status of the Santarém specimen is (in that case) unclear. But if the nomenclatural act by Bleher is declared invalid Ready et al will be proven right.
Another interesting aspect of this is that, depending on the outcome of the above dilemma, Symphysodon aequifasciatus is either a species from Western Amazonia (type locality Tefé) or a species from Eastern Amazonia (type locality Santarém)."
Answer: You want to discuss, you always can - and about every single thing in life. But you can also try to be reasonable and think (I hope you get to this age), because that is why we analized the specimens and all the original texts in detail in the museum - what not Schulz, not Kullander and not Ready et al. did (and I am sure you also did not do it). And the first two (the majority of the 3) specimens classified by Pellegrin as aequifasciatus shows the detail of the Green discus the one he named as var. aequifasciatus – still today, after more then 100 years. Then he also added, the later collected specimen by Jobert (and even 4th one, which we were unable to find in the museum, nowhere) and wrote that it is a different from the others. Have you noticed his handwriting? It is en my book - the original from pellegrin - I am sure not. So Pellegrin already noticed the difference (which no other researcher had paid attention to).

"Bleher et al publish a revision of Symphysodon in 2007. With respect to our Paris type specimens they give the following:
Page 142: “Géry & Bleher in Bleher (2004) designated one of Pellegrin’s two Tefé specimens as lectotype (MNHN 221-68-2-2, 90.5 mm SL) and paralectotype (MNHN 1902/134-135, 122.5 mm SL) of Symphysodon aequifasciatus.”
Page 162: “lectotype designated by Géry & Bleher in Bleher 2004: MNHN 1902-135; 90.6 mm SL; paralectotype: MNHN 1902-134; 122.5 mm SL.”
Page 167: a full quote of the relevant passage in Bleher’s Discus (see above).
Page 172: “Géry & Bleher (2004) designated a lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus (MNHN 1902-134, 122.5 mm SL).”
Now I’m getting quite confused. The statement on page 142 is a reference to the lectotype using the number of the jar and a reference to the paralectotype using the numbers of both specimens in that same jar. In recent e-mails I have exchanged with Bleher he states that the order in which the specimens are mentioned (as indicated by their sizes) is sufficient for a type designation. Bleher’s e-mail to me (May 2nd, 2008) says: “134 represents the first and 135 the second specimen”. This is in accordance with the statement in the book (Bleher 2006).
The most specific statement is on page 162. Here it clearly says which specimen is the lectotype and which is the paralectotype. But then on page 172 the paralectotype has suddenly become the lectotype. This error has been corrected in a later issue of aqua, where it reads: “lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 (MNHN 1902-135).
By the way, do not go looking for a paper by Bleher in 2004; you will not find it. The problem here is that it took very long for Bleher to finish his book. An understandable fact. Maybe the taxonomic part of the book had already been finished in 2004, but for a nomenclatural act only the publication date counts. And that was 2006 (Bleher’s Discus). The revision of Symphysodon (Bleher et al., 2007) merely contains references to this book. Thus the revision itself does not constitute a nomenclatural act. At least not as far as the types of Symphysodon aequifasciatus are concerned. This is very important. The revision (Bleher et al. 2007) clearly contains more specific information on the lectotype designation than the book (Bleher’s Discus 2006) does. It might very well be that this information is both essential en necessary for the designation of the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus. If that were to be the case, then the revision must be seen as the paper in which the designation has been published. At the same time it becomes an invalid nomenclatural act, because Ready et al. (2006) published their paper designating a(nother) lectotype for this species at an earlier date. The priority rule of the ICZN.
And finally, even if the book (Bleher, 2006) should be regarded as the publication holding the nomenclatural act, we are stuck with the fact that the first specimen mentioned in the book must be the lectotype (MNHN 1902-134, 90.5 mm according to the catalogue of MNHN and confirmed by Bleher on 2 May 2008) whereas in their revision Bleher et al. (2007) select MNHN 1902-135 as the lectotype. Unless of course the catalogue of MNHN is wrong..."
Answer: I really do not see your point (maybe someone else does). There have been a small mixup which was corrected and it seem that for you it is just a point of arguing! Much more intelligent people, workers and taxonomists, reviewers, Prof Fritz and Dr Eschmeyer (and I will not name all others) have corrected it have a look under California Academy odf Science:
aequifasciata, Symphysodon discus var. Pellegrin [J.] 1904:250 [Memoires Societe Zoologique de France v. 16 (nos. 2-4); ref. 3419] Santarém, Amazonas, Brazil. Lectotype: MNHN 1902-0130. Paralectotypes: MNHN 1902-0134 (1) Tefé, 0135 (1) Santarém. Type catalog: Blanc 1962:222 [ref. 20868]. Symphysodon is masculine, aequifasciata is apparently an adjective; it should be aequifasciatus. Lectotype designated by Géry & Bleher 2004:135 [ref. 29228] but perhaps confused in Bleher et al. 2007:172 [ref. 29227]. See errata in v. 13 (no. 1):42. Ready et. al. 2006:207 selected MNHN 1902-0130 as lectotype. •Valid as Symphysodon aequifasciata Pellegrin 1904 -- (Ortega & Vari 1986:20 [ref. 9708], Kullander 1986:226 [ref. 12439], Fuller et al. 1999:447 [ref. 25838]). •Valid as Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 -- (Kullander in Reis et al. 2003:642 [ref. 27061], Bleher et al. 2007:162 [ref. 29227]). Current status: Valid as Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904. Cichlidae: Cichlinae. Distribution: Western Amazon River basin: Brazil, Colombia and Peru. Habitat: freshwater.

And I have nothing more to ad to this argument.

And your subjetct "As for tarzoo:
When I say I don't think tarzoo is a nomem nudum I don't mean to say I believe it is a valid name. On the contrary. A nomen nudum has some sort of status (being defined in the ICZN), whereas tarzoo has "no status whatsoever". Indeed it is only a popular name and nothing more than that. We agree on that I guess.. 8)
With subspecific name I mean the name of a subspecies. In the current (binomial) naming system a third name always represents a subspecies."
Answer: OK now I undertsnd what you mean.

Good night,

Heiko Bleher
Heiko Bleher

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Sun Aug 22, 2010 8:39 am

Dear Heiko:

Some comments on your reply of last night.

about the tone of voice:
You misread my remark on retirement. But comparing retired people (and me) with people who "sit on their ass do nothing but waste my time to find errors which are not there" is quite offensive. I resent being adressed in such a manner. I have never done that to you and I expect you to treat me with the same respect.
Ironcally, with that remark I was merely praising you for being in the situation of pursuing you passion all your life, whereas I could could start doing that after my retirement as bank manager. Both of us are at present in the same situation. As masters of our own time statements like "I don't have time for this" should always be read as "I chose to do other things".

about the process:
Yes I have published a paper. It was written for hobbyists and it appeared in Buntbarsche Bulletin (ACA), DATZ and Cichlidae (NVC). Also, I have a vivid memory of our discussion in Helsinki. This memory is dominated by:
1. you asking me if I had "nothing better to do"
2. you walking out of the conversation twice
3. you telling me that you wanted to save me from "making serious mistakes" by publishing my paper, which was in preparation then.
4. me offering to send the manuscript to you for review.
When the manuscript was finished I sent it to you, Sven Kullander (co-author of Ready et al 2006) and Axel Meyer (co-author of Bleher et al 2007). You chose not to respond, but both Kullander and Meyer (respected scientists I would say) did and I changed the paper accordingly.
Rest assured, I have read every relevant paper/book on this matter, contrary to what you suggest several times in your reply. See my remark under tone of voice. As for your book I read the English version and checked the German version for the identification numbers. There is no difference between them.

about the issue:
Here's a summary:
1. There is a jar in the Paris museum labelled 221-68-2-2 holding two specimens of cichlid fish labelled 1902-134 and 1902-135. It is pictured in your book on page 116. The online catalog of the museum gives the sizes of these specimens as 90mm (1902-134) and 125mm (1902-135)
2. The ICZN states that the designation of a lectotype should clearly point to one and only one specimen. To quote Kullander: "A designation must be specific, i.e. point clearly to just one specimen; there is no doubt whatsoever about this."
3. In your book (2006) you state that "two 221-68-2-2 (90.5 and 122.5 mm SL) from Tefé"..should be designated as...."lectotype and paralectotype". If order is important here the specimen measuring 90.5mm (first mentioned) should be lectotype. This is confirmed by your e-mail to me dated 2 May 2008): “134 represents the first and 135 the second specimen”. But no specific specimen number is mentioned in the book. The ICZN does require a number.
4. In your revision (2007) on page 142 you refer to the book as having designated the types "lectotype (MNHN 221-68-2-2, 90.5 mm SL) and paralectotype (MNHN 1902/134-135, 122.5 mm SL)" A reference to a jar and to two specimens respectively and thus not in accordance with the ICZN.
On page 162 you go on to say: “lectotype designated: ....... MNHN 1902-135; 90.6 mm SL; paralectotype: MNHN 1902-134; 122.5 mm SL.” which is inconsistent with the book and also switched the sizes of the two specimens. And finally on page 172 it reads: "lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus (MNHN 1902-134, 122.5 mm SL)” The same specimen as in the book again but with the wrong size. Note that the book only gives the size (and not the specimen number). So mixing up the sizes here is of great consequence.
5. In an attempt to corrct the error in aqua (2008) you say: “lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus Pellegrin 1904 (MNHN 1902-135)".

So, in chronological order you designate as lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus:
2006: a fish with a size of 90.5mm in jar 221-68-2-2 (1902-134 by inference?)
2007: jar 221-68-2-2 size 90.5mm
2007: MNHN 1902-135 size 90.6mm
2007: MNHN 1902-134 size 122.5mm
2008: MNHN 1902-135 no size given

My question to you is: which of the fishes in jar 221-68-2-2 (containing 1902-134 (90mm) and 1902-135 (125mm) is the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus?


e-mail sent for your attention.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Heiko Bleher » Sun Aug 22, 2010 9:42 am

Hi,

The tone I have, is because you drag this issue on now for years and seem nothing else to have to do. I did try to tell you several times if you would invest your time productively and teach people nice things of what you have done, and show them the nature and the biotopes of fishes, you would get respect and people can learn from you. Instead you try to find errors, do not believe scientists (ie Eschmeyer), you do not read correctly what people write (see above), and you do not listen to me (not in Helsinki, and not in Dusiburg and not here) therefore this tone.
But maybe you do it because: a) you get paid for this nonesense from the popular magazines (you only write for those magazines, whos editors are jealous of my work, or because I do not give them my articles), or b) because you need this argument, c) or as mentioned you have nothing better or productive to do.

At least I know now that you did NOT do any scientific work about this topic.

I have answered every question and also given you the reference of that what the reviewers and scientists who DO NOTHING ELSE THEN THIS (it is their work) have come up with - and ONLY THOSE RESULTS COUNT, not your publications in popular magazines, those are NOT PEER REVIEWED by any scientist, they are just publsihed for the sake of publishing (anything).

You can argue as long as you want, just as I said, because you seem to have nothing else to do. Instead you could publish a real scientific paper, but remember:
1. You do not get paid as in popular magazines;
2. They have to go through the process of Peer-reviewers - at least 3 experts in the this group - and if they all 3 accept it, it will be published and the scientific community (and me) will lookm at it. You can even send it to aqua, International Journal of Ichthyology, Dr Helen Larsen is the scientific editor - look at www.aqua-aquapress.com

If you are convinced you are right and all the rest of the scentific community is wrong, then you should do it. And then I will get involved again in it an not before.

And I will not answer this anymore, before you have done your homework correctly (scientifically).

If you go on and want to make me look bad (as it seems the only porpose of your war against me, not the actually facts - as those you do not want to look at), then be my guest, but I will not answer on this topc until I see your scientific publication.

Best regards

Heiko Bleher
www.aquapress-bleher.com
www.aqua-aquapress.com
Heiko Bleher

User avatar
Willem Heijns
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 799
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2005 4:18 pm
Location: Stiphout, Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Willem Heijns » Sun Aug 22, 2010 10:11 am

I think we can close this issue now.

I can do nothing but conclude that:

1. Heiko Bleher hides behind his peer reviewers
2. Heiko Bleher refuses to answer a simple question "what is the lectotype of Symphysodon aequifasciatus?", a subject he has published about in a book and a scientific paper (with additional correction).

I rest my case.
Slàinte mhath!

Uilleam

User avatar
cichla
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 468
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 11:31 am
Location: Berlin, Deutschland

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by cichla » Mon Aug 23, 2010 11:28 am

The article by Heijns: ''Symphysodon. Unser Diskusbuntbarsch – wie heißt er denn nun korrekt?'' DATZ 10/2008: 23, is – in contrast to the statement by Bleher – a peer-reviewed publication. DATZ is a major league Journal for aquarium-fish. DATZ does not publish such articles without a critical review. Kottelat (Commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature) even published descriptions of new species in that journal. Kullander, the leading expert for Symphysodon and Commissioners of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, published his revision of the genus in the DATZ. Hence, it is evident that the paper by Heijns has to be treated as a serious source. Heijns' article is a good investigation on the subject in question, all statements are documented by literature sources. He is right to point out the shortcomings concerning the ''revision'' by Bleher. However, I understand the contribution by Heijns as a basis for further discussion than as a final resolution.

Willem Heijns is not only known as an expert for biotops, but also for taxonomy. He is recognized as a pre-peer-reviewer even by the leading ichthyologists in the field of American Cichlidae. He is far away from being a person who deserves to be treated as it is done by Bleher here.

To Heiko Bleher: I never read such a polemic contribution in this forum as yours before. You used personal data for denigrative statements. This is just despicable. Please stick to the facts.

Laymen usually believing in authorities and academic degrees, but the majority of the educated people trust in evidence.

Greetings, IS

By the way: I devoted my whole life to fish. I have no kids (just to prevent that someone can keep me away from my beloved fish species). I am studying fish taxonomy for more than 75 years. I have fished in hundreds of puddles which were never even seen by man before. I have been traveled in ichthyological unexplored areas. I have seen hundreds of new species. Some of them are the most beautiful ones. I never worked for the railroad and dont get a pension either. Thus, I am the only authorized persons in the world of ichthyology.

User avatar
michi tobler
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Nov 27, 2003 2:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by michi tobler » Mon Aug 23, 2010 1:02 pm

Hi all,
I would like to reinforce Ingo's statement, especially regarding Willem Heijns' credentials and expertise. I have noticed how several discussions have turned sour in recent weeks, which is something I can't remember seeing in this forum in the past years. I hope discussions will come back to cichlids here. I have not devoted my whole life to fish, thank god, but in the scarce time I do have, I'd rather read about cichlids rather than personal bickering. So I hope people will hold their breath and communicate through private channels about their issues in the future and only speak up (write) if they have something constructive to contribute.
Thanks Willem for detailing the issues with Symphysodon taxonomy.
Cheers, m
Humans are not the pinnacle of evolutionary progress but only an aberrant side branch of fish evolution - Moyle

Website

Heiko Bleher
CichlidRoom Expert
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon May 21, 2007 6:09 pm
Location: Italy
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Heiko Bleher » Mon Aug 23, 2010 10:50 pm

Hi,
Mr. Tobler and thank you for putting your name here, this what you are saying is actually what it was all about: to have a constructive thread, that is what I intended to start (as elsewhere). I wanted to point out why on this forum the scientifically accepted names are not recognised, as it seemed to be a good point. I am sure you know what science is, although not always perfect as nothing is, but it represents the latest understanding of species. And their valid names with their holotypes, lectotypes, paralectotypes, etc., and this is well documented. I even gave the extract from California Academy of Science, where those can be verified and I do not need to repeat the same. But it seems to me, that nor Willem, nor those who argue do want to look at it.
Instead of accepting this (science), Willem is for a long time after me (and I know with others behind him), with his problem. And instead of publishing a well-researched scientific paper (which I asked him several times to do), if he feels (or knows) that Eschmeyer, Fricke, Bleher et al., etc., are wrong, Willem writes only for popular magazines, and only for those magazines which do not like me; or my work; or are jealous; or because I do not write for them; or because they cannot accept facts which I say (as here); or whatever. This is a fact I know very well, actually in Germany most people know about this – see Cichla, who has to hide behind a name!? (But fortunately I make more friends with my work and contribution to nature and biodiversity, then enemies.) I think Willem also writes for them because they pay, which science does not. And now he even claims I hide behind reviewers!? What can I say... I know Willem has given many lectures and shown nice films, and could do much more, instead of arguing (or just work on a scientific paper - he has time).
Unfortunately I encountered almost every time when I wanted to start a constructive thread on this forum, wanted to pass on information or a link, to help people in this hobby (as there is no science here, as I can see, or it is of little interest to some), all I get is counter productive answers and personal attacks, because one does not want to see the facts nor stay with the topic (and much less Cichlidae).
This is definitely my last thread and post, as I am sure some will argue again, instead of being constructive, and those will continue to attack me because of their hate (jealousness?), against my person and because it seems they have nothing else to do. I am very fortunate in life (because I worked always very hard and could not dream of retiring ever), and the entire real scientific community - around the globe - respects me, and my work (but not all aquarists). I will continue enjoying life also very well without this forum (or much better). Here the truth does not seem to be a welcome act also not facts (actually this is a fact).
I thought I can help. I was wrong (same as with AFC, or Axelrod). I still think it is a good forum, but not everyone of its writers. Those are destructive and I can only feel sorry for thoem and their miserable life.
Best regards
Heiko Bleher

PS And you know to the hiding person under Cichla: Your sad comments are positively a mirror of your miserable life and unhappiness.I can only feel sorry you have nothing else to say.
Heiko Bleher

Bas Pels
Posts: 2258
Joined: Fri Mar 03, 2006 9:17 am
Location: Nijmegen - the Netherlands

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Bas Pels » Tue Aug 24, 2010 1:40 am

A very remarkable posting from Heiko

It starts with expressing a desire to keep discussions nice, that is not personal, and it ends with declaring other people's life miserable

The idea I got from reading Heiko's postings on this forum is that Heiko is rather satisfied with himself - something one should not be in my culture. This last posting only makes this worse.

Personally I know nothing about discus, and therefore I read this topic more out of curiosity, and later, yes, entertainment. Whi is right? I don't know. I do know, however, Heiko communicates on a way I dislike. Therefore I'm happy Heiko is mostly intersted in discus - so I can ignore him

nick a
Posts: 68
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 1:25 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by nick a » Tue Aug 24, 2010 8:06 am

FINALLY, something said in this (and the other similar threads) which I can agree with 100%.

User avatar
Lisachromis
Administrator
Posts: 2876
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2003 9:11 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Contact:

Re: Suggestion to update the Symphysodon species

Post by Lisachromis » Tue Aug 24, 2010 3:25 pm

Ok, since this not constructive anymore, I'm locking this thread.

Locked

Return to “Discus”