Page 1 of 2

Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2017 4:44 pm
by Pete B
As I understood it in Pauers paper from 2016 Labeotropheus simoneae and L. chlorosiglos were found only only at Katale, but the profile on CRC shows photos of a male and female Labeotropheus simoneae from Manda.

Is this correct?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 12:39 am
by Philippe Burnel
I consider these 2 spp as synonym of trewavasae and fuelleborni
Philippe

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:45 am
by Juan Artigas
That was a mistake, the pictures have been removed, all we intended was to show the species from the type locality. The two species are listed as they have been officially and validly described but in no way that means we at the CRC endorse them. Most opinions from specialists point to their junior synonymy with L. trewavasae and L. fuelleborni and we would likely accept a reference making the declaration to list them as such

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:06 am
by Mark Smith
"The two species are listed as they have been officially and validly described..." In order to be consistent, oughtn't the entry for L. meleagris be reinstated?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 11:52 am
by Juan Artigas
Mark Smith wrote:"The two species are listed as they have been officially and validly described..." In order to be consistent, oughtn't the entry for L. meleagris be reinstated?
The record for L. meleagris is instated as I assume you know, just in synonymy, there is no inconsistency at all.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:07 pm
by Mark Smith
If that is the case, shouldn't the two new Labeotropheus species be placed into synonymy with L. fuelleborni and L. trewavasae respectively?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:29 pm
by Mark Smith
It seems like this is a clear inconsistency Juan. You are treating both the two new Labeotropheus species as valid on this site, even though Konings does not acknowledge them as valid. Is Cichlidae.com, following Konings' synonymizing of various cichlid species faithfully/consistently, or not?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 8:51 am
by Juan Artigas
Mark Smith wrote:It seems like this is a clear inconsistency Juan. You are treating both the two new Labeotropheus species as valid on this site, even though Konings does not acknowledge them as valid. Is Cichlidae.com, following Konings' synonymizing of various cichlid species faithfully/consistently, or not?
No Mark, not at all, we list the profiles for each mentioned species, as we always do, in the case of Lamprologus meleagris we chose to accept the declaration of synonymy made by Konings (1998). In the case of the two Labeoropheus there is no declaration made that I am aware of, if made we will eventually choose to accept it or not.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 12:00 pm
by Mark Smith
I see, thanks Juan. Didn't Konings write a piece in Cichlidae.com entitled Splitting out of Context about these two Labeotropheus species Wouldn't that constitute a declaration of sorts?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 1:26 pm
by Juan Artigas
Mark Smith wrote:I see, thanks Juan. Didn't Konings write a piece in Cichlidae.com entitled Splitting out of Context about these two Labeotropheus species Wouldn't that constitute a declaration of sorts?
Mark, Ad explains the problem, exposes the arguments and his opinions, but he falls short of declaring the two new species in synonymy, so I can not take that article as a base to set the two new species in synonymy, no matter how much I would agree with the arguments offered.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2017 10:29 pm
by Mark Smith
I see what you are saying. I cannot help but wonder why Konings is not declaring these two new species synonymous, since that is what he clearly is implying/suggesting in his short article. Strange to fence-sit.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 7:51 am
by Lisachromis
Since when is speculation fence sitting? He offered an opinion; as you are doing. Not a big deal until something is published (as in declaring new species). My 2 cents.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:35 am
by Mark Smith
So, are you saying that publishing an opinion online on Cichlidae.com is not as valid as if it were published in book form?

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Wed Apr 12, 2017 10:54 am
by Lisachromis
Are you trying to put words in my mouth? People are allowed opinions. Everyone has one. Speculating is something we all do as well. Speculating doesn't mean that you are stating a fact; but merely an opinion. As to that: most taxonomic acts are opinions but not all opinions are taxonomic acts.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 1:10 am
by Mark Smith
Hi Juan.

"Ad explains the problem, exposes the arguments and his opinions, but he falls short of declaring the two new species in synonymy, so I can not take that article as a base to set the two new species in synonymy, no matter how much I would agree with the arguments offered."

Aren't you splitting hairs? How can he have an argument and opinion that rejects the validity of these two new Labeotropheus species, that at the same time does not imply/declare the two species in synonymy with the existing Labeotropheus species. It really does not follow logically.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:54 am
by Juan Artigas
Mark Smith wrote:Aren't you splitting hairs? How can he have an argument and opinion that rejects the validity of these two new Labeotropheus species, that at the same time does not imply/declare the two species in synonymy with the existing Labeotropheus species. It really does not follow logically.
Declaration of synonymy is a code regulated act, not something subject to my opinion.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:00 am
by Mark Smith
If that is the case, why are you accepting Ad's opinion on the status of L. melagris/L.stappersi? After all, he just gave his opinion on the matter, right? It certainly was not a code regulated act.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:04 am
by Juan Artigas
Mark Smith wrote:If that is the case, why are you accepting Ad's opinion on the status of L. melagris/L.stappersi? After all, he just gave his opinion on the matter, right? It certainly was not a code regulated act.
In fact,it was a code regulated act and the declaration met the regulations

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:27 am
by Willem Heijns
I have to object here. Synonymity is about the validity of names and as such a taxonomic issue not regulated by the ICZN.

Re: Labeotropheus simoneae

Posted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:30 am
by Juan Artigas
Willem Heijns wrote:I have to object here. Synonymity is about the validity of names and as such a taxonomic issue not regulated by the ICZN.
So, if I give a name to a fish previously described (complying with the code rules), the synonymy is not regulated by the ICZN?