Re: Re: Pelv. taeniatus bandewouri vs. wouri

[WndrKdnomo@aol.com]

In a message dated 2/17/98 12:45:46 PM, sawhite@bicnet.net wrote:

<<Bandewouri is a locality from the southern part of taeniatus' range. The
forms from Kienke, Nyong, Loukundje, and Dehane (even the Lobe and Grand
Batanga) are all similar forms.  The southern forms are considered the
"true" kribensis.>>

Now I'm confused.  I just made a post in reply to an earlier question about
"kribensis" stating that it is now know as "pulcher".  Certainly the fish I
first saw, and spawned, as "kribensis" in ca. 1970 were the same as is now
known as pulcher, definitly *not* taeniatus.
 
The only answer I can think of is that the fish originally  *described* as
kribensis was really a morph of taeniatus, (presumably previously described)
and that when "pulcher" was introduced, it was misnamed "kribensis",
compounding the error.  Am I making any sense? And, can anyone clear this up
for me.?

Jeff
WndrKdnomo@aol.com

PS .  I am a couple of days behind in my E-mail, I hope this hasn't already
been covered.  If so I apologize .