Why not call the Apisto SP. with the name instead of SP.

[bigbird]

Hello All,

I would like to know, why there are so many Apisto SP. ?

Even Apistos with proper names, still get challenged with their given name, so why not just call the Apistos Sp with their name until somebody challenges or proves otherwise ? Some Apisto SP have been there for years .

Anyway just thought this would generate interest, because it does baffle me.
Cheers jk :biggrin:

 

[apistobob]

I think that there are two reasons with the most important being money. It is much easier to sell a new fish, especially one that is rather drab, than a long established species. Therefore, many exporters will assign their own trade name to a species that has already received a name from one or more other people. Givcing a fish a new name generates new interest and more sales.

THe other reason I believe there are multiple names is ego. Many people want to be able to say that they were the first to keep, breed or discover a fish. If it has already been introduced, bred, etc. under one name they can claim credit by introducing it under another name. This is aided by money as well as there can often be a personal financial advantage to the person who "names" the fish. This benefit comes in the form of publishing royalties or author fees.

This has been a problem for a long time but at least today we have the Internet so that we can quickly compare photos to determine what a fish actually is.

Just my opinions

Bob

 

[Mike Wise]

To add to Bob's excellent reply, those species/forms that have not been scientifically described have no firmly set name. Only when they are described scientifically do they receive a species name that never changes (if indeed they are a new species).

Most authors use "A. sp." to indicate that the fish is not scientifically described. They then use a common name. Thus, A. sp. Pebas is an scientifically undescribed species with Pebas as a common name. Koslowski prefers to avoid any confusion about the scientific validity of a fish by calling fish with valid scientific names by their scientific name and undescribed species as, for example, Pebas-Apistogramma instead of A. sp. Pebas.

 

[tjudy]

I guess I do not understand your question. Are you asking why there are so many fish without a valid taxonomic name, or why do we not just give them a name without the 'sp' designation?

THe anser to both questions has nothing to do with selling cichlids. It takes time to do the research in order to name a fish. Sometimes the effort to do so is never made. Usually because the number of available fish is too small. A sicentist cannot simply buy fish from an exporter adn use them. Very specific collection location data must be known, and verifiable.

When a scientist first discovers a fish and gives it a 'sp' designation (such as A. sp. 'rotpunkt') they might be doing so after collecting only one or two specimens. Not enough to base a formal description on. Commercial exporters may go to that same place and collect many more.. or they might go to one stream over, or twenty miles away... and use the same name. Those comercially collected fish may not be the same fish. A scientist must go, or have someone go, specifically to collect specimens for study. For example, Uwe Romer's recent drescription of A. barlowi was based upon wild collections of 32 preserved specimens and 50 live specimens all collected at the same time and place. Until the descriptive work is completed a fish cannot be given a valid taxonomic name, so the 'sp' designation was to suffice.

One of the problems is that there are probably different 'sp.' names for the same fish. This is because a collector from the USA might find the same fish that a collector from Germany does and give it different names. That is why it is not a good idea for hobbyist collectors to go around naming fish. A more responsible way to do it is for hobbyist collectors to arrange with a scientist to receive preserved specimens. The scientist will tell teh hobbyist collector how to do this correctly, and the data needed form the collection site. When the collector catches fish some of them should be preserved and marked to go to the scientist. The scientist can them designate a 'sp.' moniker and publish that so everyone will know.

 

[Mike Wise]

That is why it is not a good idea for hobbyist collectors to go around naming fish. A more responsible way to do it is for hobbyist collectors to arrange with a scientist to receive preserved specimens. The scientist will tell teh hobbyist collector how to do this correctly, and the data needed form the collection site. When the collector catches fish some of them should be preserved and marked to go to the scientist. The scientist can them designate a 'sp.' moniker and publish that so everyone will know.

In an ideal world, that would be great. But most new forms do not enter the hobby through hobbyists, but through commercial suppliers. These do not necessarily want to divulge collecting data or supply sizable numbers of new fish to taxonomists. Most professional taxonomists don't have the time to quickly review fish and give a collector a common name for the fish.

Instead, it probably is best if someone publishes a hobby article on the fish with a name. Then other hobbyists will report it on sites like this, where others will probably recognize it, if it is some already known species if it is. The loricarid and cory people use L- & C-numbers. There are also A-numbers for apistos. I am not really fond of these because it requires a 'clearinghouse' for giving the numbers. Unless you can find someone to do this & publish the photos, it's not feasable. Otherwise some fish will have multiple numbers (confusing, but not terrible) or some numbers will be used for multiple species (bad idea).

 

[bigbird]

Thanks all ideed for your replies.
I would however think that before pictures and scientific and collecting data is published in any book, that it would be confirmed and verified. I am sure that there are daily countless new discoveries of new Apisto sub groups and species, that this would be very difficult indeed. As you all have stated IE If I would go on a 2 months expedition to the Amazon , then come back with so many new species or not know species of Apistos, then I could in theory release so many Apisto Sp. in the domain and publish my findings. I just find that it is so difficult nowadays to get the fish that the LFS states it is. I hope that ethics, rarety and colour do not, in future , harm this wonderful hobby of apisto breeding. I hope that wholesale or even retail outlets and local breeders keep this in mind. Use the correct name or if not known then state this. I as many other I am sure, do by all means like to collect the rarer Apistos or harder to breed ones. It just gets a little upsetting when we then post pics for ID and find it is not what we were told or sold by the LFS. Some LFS just get the fish from Europe and that is where I think the majority of the problems start. Not using the correct name in the selling wholesalers.
When you look at Uwe Romers atlas 1 and 2 , the Aqualog books etc, every attachment has new SP species. This must make it hard for all.
Anyway I still love the might Apistos and just hope that one day, all will get a name and the SP are not even published unless correctly identified and scientificly approved etc.
cheers jk :biggrin:

Ps My Hongsloi have fry again about 30 and my Teaniatus Molive as well, just great these tiny fish

 

[Lisachromis]

Unfortunately we do not live in a perfect world. The LFS isn't trying to mislead you but is only going by what their supplier tells them the fish is. I guess it's sort of like buying used cars. Sometimes you get a really good deal, and other times you get sc****d.

Heck, I'd be happier if my LFS actually sold more than a couple of male cacatuoides or sp. blue once in a while.

 

[Mike Wise]

I don't think this is the dealer's problem, either. He depends on his suppliers and the suppliers are not taxonomists. Your best defense in disappointment is to get a good understanding about how to identify the different species of apistos. Never depend on the given names.