"Arapaima gigas"? Try "Arapaima arapaima"

[SimonL]

Just my opinion, but the differences they find between the 'new' species are at the same level that you can find with in the human race. So, if that is true - then we all aren't the same species....right?

Modern humans are all the same species, regardless of differences in phenotype. There are no stark divisions between human populations which separate them into different species, just a long series of transition between geographical adaptations, nor is there genetic difference. A sub-Saharan is likely to be as similar or dissimilar to a European as they are to another person of the same region.

As for the Arapaima, perhaps sub species might be a better label, especially if there are ingrade or transitional forms between the "species".

 

[arapaimag]

Modern humans are all the same species, regardless of differences in phenotype. There are no stark divisions between human populations which separate them into different species, just a long series of transition between geographical adaptations, nor is there genetic difference. A sub-Saharan is likely to be as similar or dissimilar to a European as they are to another person of the same region.

As for the Arapaima, perhaps sub species might be a better label, especially if there are ingrade or transitional forms between the "species".

Don't you think that Prof (Dr) Donald Stewart and Dr Leandro Castello (Woods Hole Research Centre) are better qualified to determine if a genus (Arapaima) should have different species than any of us hobbyists?

Many of whom answer questions and give advice on this genus and have never even owned the fish.

While there are other scientists researching Arapaima. Who has done more recent studies than these 2 and their graduate and undergraduate students on Arapaima?

I was contacted by Kapil Mandrekar an Ichthyologist from the State University of New York College of Environmental Science and Forestry
located in Syracuse, last year and learned to further respect the focus of their lab in the area of taxonomy, ecology, conservation and biology of Arapaima. He is working on his graduate degree in Ecology under the guidance of Dr Stewart.

Remember Arapaima gigas was described by Achille Valenciennes in 1847, along with three other species: A. mapae, A. agassizii and A. arapaima. In 1868 Albert Gunther studied Arapaima but concluded that Valenciennes had got it wrong and there was only one species — and that was A. gigas.

Albert Gunther was wrong and these fish were correctly identified by A. Valenciennes 163 years ago. I feel Prof Stewart and Dr Castello are to be thanked on their research confirming the original diagnosis and the discovery of the 5th species.

 

[FLESHY]

Modern humans are all the same species, regardless of differences in phenotype. There are no stark divisions between human populations which separate them into different species, just a long series of transition between geographical adaptations, nor is there genetic difference. A sub-Saharan is likely to be as similar or dissimilar to a European as they are to another person of the same region.

As for the Arapaima, perhaps sub species might be a better label, especially if there are ingrade or transitional forms between the "species".

Phenotypes are regarded as the worst possible way to determine whether or not animals are the same species.

Let us remember that there is NO CONCRETE DEFINITION of what makes up a "species". As I mentioned before it is largely based on how many important scientists you can get to agree with you.

ALL animals have genetic variation (humans come in different sizes, body types, skin colors...ect). All animals do the same thing. All humans are the same species and you will find if you look into a lot of "new fish species" that there are a few things (# of fin rays...scales...whatever) that make them a "new species". They most likely are not. However, if geographically separated enough, fish with a different # of scales, might reproduce with one another exclusively to the point where they could no longer reproduce with the mother "species" and would only be able to reproduce with the species with the minute phenotypical difference.

Example: You send a group of people to mars...they reproduce for 1,000 years. Most of the people that come back might display certain new traits - in other words might be on their way to becoming a new species but, upon returning would reproduce back into the population, and therefore the genetic drift from homo sapien sapien would be set back to neutral.

I have not read the science behind the different "species" of arapaima. Maybe they are starting to drift, and we are observing that. But I doubt very highly that they are not interbreeding...and that would be the part of their research that I would be most interested in.

Just recently a professor that I am very close with who did his graduate work on north American gars, is collaborating with other scientists showing that the long upheld shortnose, and long nose gars are actually interbreeding. Not only that, but the young are sexually viable and can reproduce with any combination of the two or a "pure bred". The genetics are still being worked on. The point is that these things are CONSTANTLY changing...and very little is set in stone.

Getting yourself a new fish species basically comes down to whether or not the icthy world feels that you deserve a pat on the back for your work. If you search hard enough in south American streams you will always find a somewhat isolated reproducing group that is beginning to develop new or stricter phenotypes. Are these all new species? I guess it depends on who you ask.

I am open to discussing the science behind this with anyone...I rushed this so it is a little sloppy, and over simplified...so yea. Open for critique.

-Side note. I am not critisizing simonL in anyway. He just gave me a good quote to use as a "jumping point" for my part of this discussion.

 

[jerzyperson]

Next they'll be telling us something crazy like "Pluto isn't a planet."

that is so in my sig... great stuff.

 

[SimonL]

Don't you think that Prof (Dr) Donald Stewart and Dr Leandro Castello (Woods Hole Research Centre) are better qualified to determine if a genus (Arapaima) should have different species than any of us hobbyists?

Many of whom answer questions and give advice on this genus and have never even owned the fish.

I quite agree...I wasn't commenting on the Arapaima debate, it was just a side note to the human variation/different species remark...

 

[Egon]

Just my opinion, but the differences they find between the 'new' species are at the same level that you can find with in the human race. So, if that is true - then we all aren't the same species....right?

Correct,kind of: there is two subspecies of human. So we are all the same species and then it's broken down even more - the French and the Canadians

 

[FLESHY]

I can kind of see what zoo is saying. Its the same thing along the lines of what I am saying. Some people have lighter skin to be able to process more vitamin D at higher latitudes...same thing as a fish having two more scales, or one less fin ray. Does it really make them different? No.

 

[Noto]

Ooh, taxonomic debates are fun! But you guys are really playing softball compared to the debates taxonomists have with one another. It's a very quarrelsome field. I should probably be working now instead of joining the fray, but maybe I'll come back later if anyone is up for some debating. Not that I'm an expert by any means, but I have been reading a lot of taxonomic papers lately.

 

[gigas12]

Hi,thanks for sharing.

 

[zdavidz]

is anyone rarer then the others?