Modest_Man;2781529; said:
Kinda hard to use scientific nomenclature when these fish have not been described by the ICZN.
That is kinda my point. Is the question "What is the true
A. rivulatus?" or "what is the true green terror?". The difference is that there are ways to prove the first one, but you cannot prove the second one. When a species is described and given a Latin name then its all official, like your real name on your birth certificate. A common name is more like a nick name that you get at school, while it may be what a lot of people know you as, there is nothing to prove it and it certainly can't be used in any official sense like on a drivers license or in court.
Somewhere there will be a description for the fish classified as
Aequidens rivulatus, and it will be linked to a type locality from where the fish that was described comes from. There will be other populations of similar fish that may be the same species, or a subspecies, or just closely related species in the same genus. The classification will change depending on the opinion of the person doing the research, splitters and lumpers etc. Some may remain unclassified, and there will always be confusion and conflicting opinions surrounding them, and untill they are acrually described and classified then it is all speculation. And as for fish in the hobby, unless they are wild caught from a known locality, its pretty pointless argueing over the finer points of their classification unless you are 100% sure of their origins, which, lets face it, the vast majority of people keeping "green terrors" arent.
