Fish articles, was Re: Apistogramma sp. Schwarzsaum

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@bewellnet.com>]

Fredrik hit the nail right on the head. It is not that Kullander doesn't like
Römer's overall work. Kullander found nothing wrong with Römer's original
description of A. mendezi, for example. Kullander simply found the A.
atahualpa/panduro paper unacceptable in its printed form. I was given a copy of
the original manuscript by Uwe and it is nothing like what got printed! If it had
been juried by other taxonomists for a scientific journal it would never have
been published the way it was. The problem was caused by several factors. First,
Uwe wanted it out as quickly as possible since these descriptions aid enormously
in our understanding of the cacatuoides-complex (sensu Staeck and Römer), both
the cacatuoides- and nijsseni-subcomplexes. Since most scientific publications
have at least a year lead time, Uwe didn't want to wait that long. Secondly, Uwe
chose the BB (Journal of the American Cichlid Association) because they would
print his article with its color figures quickly, & without charge - many
scientific publications charge the author for color prints. Sadly, the ACA had to
over-edited the manuscript because they have to limit the length of papers they
publish for cost reasons. The ACA accepted the challenge mainly because of the
paucity of papers being offered to them at the time. They simply needed material
for the BB. This is a sad commentary on our (non-commercial) part of the hobby.

(Soap box time) I find too many expert aquarists are becoming too mercenary when
it comes to writing articles. They are thinking more about selling articles
(money, money, money!) than distributing information where it will help the most
- the average hobbyist. Now I have nothing against anyone writing for money in
commercial magazines, I've done it - and they do supply the hobbyist with
information at a price. I stopped taking TFH because I didn't think I was getting
$40 worth of information out of it each year. Now I go to the library and read
it. But remember, who puts on all the local, regional, and national conventions?
Not the commercial magazines! Who supplies all the monthly informational club
meetings? Not the commercial magazines! Without our local & national fish clubs,
our hobby would go to Hell in a hand basket very fast. These clubs - especially
the national ones who depend on their journals to entice new and keep present
members - are finding it harder to compete for good articles with the commercial
publishers who offer the Almighty Dollar. Without these organizations we as
hobbyists will lose a major source information - especially those wonderfully
valuable one-on-one discussions we get so much out of at meetings & conventions.
Sure this mailing list, personal email, and web pages help, but what about those
who are "electronically challenged". Anyone receive email  from David Soares
lately? (And if you did, could it be anywhere near as colorful as talking to him
in person or over the phone? Would you be able to take the time to read it?). Do
we ship these people to some fishy Limbo because they don't have the knowledge
and equipment needed? I hope not!

So, what to do? Easy. Those of you out there who write exclusively for commercial
mags, write one or more good articles for a local or national club each year. For
those who are afraid their writing isn't good enough for publication, submit
something to your local or national club. You'd be surprised at the response you
will get.

I hope I didn't step on too many toes, but supplied some food for thought.

Mike Wise

Erik Olson wrote:

> On Wed, 9 Dec 1998, Dave Mosley wrote:
>
> > i wonder what the current feelings are among the scientific
> > community about the validity of naming species in "hobbyist
> > publications"?
> >
> > i've witnessed heated p*ssing matches about this in the past...
>
> Mike Wise pointed out a particularly fun one on Kullander's site
> (http://www.nrm.se/ve/pisces/acara/apistogr.html.en)
>
> "...These small colourful fishes are unfortunately attractive also for
> amateurs wishing to publish names on new species (see especially Römer
> 1997)."
>
> Based on that (Uwe Romer is well respected as a professional icthyologist
> in the circles I know, even though he has been known to cavort with some
> of us low-life hobbyists), I can't even begin to speculate what Sven or
> similar-minded folks might do if, say, Apistogramma kolsoni were proposed.
> :)
>
>    - Erik
>
> --
> Erik Olson
> erik at thekrib dot com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!






-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!