I have been spending some time with the new DATZ book that I got from Mike Wise (I don't know if he has any left but if you didn't get one from him you should!).
One of the ideas they are advancing is the establishment of an A number system for Apistos. The thinking is that by giving every fish an A number it will not matter if there are multiple names or new names established. While I am all in favor of better IDs and names I am very skeptical about the A numbers. I saw in a recent post that Mike has a few of the same concerns I have. My biggest questions:
The current numbers were assigned based on relationships to each other. However, I don't see where there is any provision to add new species into the appropriate places. Therefore a new species that is very similar to another might have a hundred or more numbers between them. Along the same line, two new species that are very different could end up being one number apart. I see a lot of confusion coming.
Next, who assigns new numbers? Who arbitrates numbers? Is DATZ going to become the worldwide naming organization? If not can anyone add a new A number? If this is the case how do we know when new numbers are used. I can see the day coming when two or three different fish end up with the same new number and we are left with greater confusion than we have now.
Also, I have to believe that there are ID experts who don't agree with all of this book as far as ID goes. It seems to me that we are being asked to not only accept the numbering system but also to agree with the authors about their IDs. (having said that, I am not disputing any of the names I saw - I do have a few questions but those are for another post).
Does anyone out there believe that the A numbers are going to be a better way to ID our fish? I am really interested to hear from anyone who thinks the numbers are a good thing. I am currently thinking that I will not be using them.
Bob
One of the ideas they are advancing is the establishment of an A number system for Apistos. The thinking is that by giving every fish an A number it will not matter if there are multiple names or new names established. While I am all in favor of better IDs and names I am very skeptical about the A numbers. I saw in a recent post that Mike has a few of the same concerns I have. My biggest questions:
The current numbers were assigned based on relationships to each other. However, I don't see where there is any provision to add new species into the appropriate places. Therefore a new species that is very similar to another might have a hundred or more numbers between them. Along the same line, two new species that are very different could end up being one number apart. I see a lot of confusion coming.
Next, who assigns new numbers? Who arbitrates numbers? Is DATZ going to become the worldwide naming organization? If not can anyone add a new A number? If this is the case how do we know when new numbers are used. I can see the day coming when two or three different fish end up with the same new number and we are left with greater confusion than we have now.
Also, I have to believe that there are ID experts who don't agree with all of this book as far as ID goes. It seems to me that we are being asked to not only accept the numbering system but also to agree with the authors about their IDs. (having said that, I am not disputing any of the names I saw - I do have a few questions but those are for another post).
Does anyone out there believe that the A numbers are going to be a better way to ID our fish? I am really interested to hear from anyone who thinks the numbers are a good thing. I am currently thinking that I will not be using them.
Bob