Re: labeling fish

[Marco Lacerda <marcolacerda@ax.apc.org>]

Jota Melgar/ Staff wrote:
> 
> Randy Carey wrote:
> 
> >>Note the different approach Marco uses (from a recent e'mail to this
> list):
>       Apisto sp 'emerald' seems to be a very colorful population of A.
>       geisleri, a species found near that (Alenquer) locality from several
>       collecting points nearby.
> 
> If this is true, I would name it A. geisleri 'emerald' or A. geisleri
> 'Alenquer',
> but not A. sp. 'emerald'.<<
> 
> Since Marco's original post mentions a striking similarity between A.
> geisleri and A. sp. "Alenquer", the right labeling should've been A. sp.
> aff. geisleri "Alenquer". Other than that I do agree with Randy that we
> must be very careful when labeling our fish, but is not easy. A good
> example is the one above. I must add though that the name A. sp. "Alenquer
> was given by Uwe Romer, a scientist and hobbyist we all respect.

Julio, it was Uwe Romer HIMSELF that first used the name Apistogramma 
sp 'smaragd' in aquarium literature first (in DATZ). You have all 
these aquarium names listed and updated from time to time by Mike Wise 
in 'The Apisto-Gram'. Mike makes a very useful work, compiling all 
common names that appeared in aquarium literature (he also does the 
same for valid scientific names), and I recommend you read the last 
up-datings.
To my concern, A. sp. 'Alenquer' was a name published in Aqualog, that 
is clearly a compilation full of mistakes.

> On the
> other hand, if we use names we already know we take the chance of being
> wrong. Take the A. sp. aff. gephyra "Rio Xingu" for example, Randy and I
> believe it to be a different species and as result we think that Marco
> misidentified the fish. 

That's not true, Julio.
I've already told you that this fish is NOT gephyra.
The word 'aff.' before gephyra, comes from the Latin aff.= affinis, 
meaning similar, related to.
This is the same to say that the fish is NOT gephyra, but a fish 
RELATED to it.
So I see no sense in your words when you say that I've 'misidentified' 
the fish.

> What I am trying to say here is that when
> collecting new fish it is very difficult to label new species and often we
> fall short of being perfect.

On that I agree with you, and I think it is very important to add 
locality data when labeling new species. In your example, it has been 
"Rio Xingu".
 
> About the Apisto sp. "Red Lobes Xingu", although there are some > > differences
> I find a striking similarity between the "Red Lobes" and Apisto sp.
> "Rio-Peixoto" (Aqualog pg. 67). What do you think?

Yes, this I also agree with you, although both species are 
geographically isolated by thousands of kilometers. Again Aqualog 
brings a bad information: the fish you are referring to was first 
named Apisto sp "Rio Peixoto-Azevedo" (which is the correct name for 
the river, "Rio Peixoto" is a short name Brazilians never use) by Uwe 
Werner, in his book Fishfangabenteuer Südamerika (Landbuch Verlag), 
page 109 (Š"Apistogramma-Art aus dem Peixoto-AzevedoŠ"), where there 
is a photo of a pair.
The Rio Peixoto-Azevedo is a tributary to Rio Teles Pires, which 
empties into Rio Tapajos.
The Apisto sp 'red lobes / Rio Xingu' was found around Altamira, in 
the Rio Xingu.
It is highly unlikely that those two species, geographically separated 
by thousand of kilometers might be the same species.

> Julio Melgar

All the best, Marco.