Can anyone help I’d this sheatfish species

[Jd72]

I’ve found this sheatfish in my lfs and neither myself or the workers are able to accurately I’d it I’m leaning toward either some kind of ompok or apogon but am at a loss really

 

[Fallen_Leaves16]

Looks like Kryptopterus spp., possibly cryptopterus but I personally am not familiar enough with the genus to be able to say more.

 

[Fishman Dave]

Would agree with kryptopterus cryptopterus

 

[jjohnwm]

Wow...is that actually the scientific name of a species? Kryptopterus cryptopterus?

Pffft...scientists...

 

[Milingu]

Wow...is that actually the scientific name of a species? Kryptopterus cryptopterus?

Pffft...scientists...

Actually thats a good example for applied science.

Bleeker described a lot of catfish in the 1850s. When he described the species cryptopterus (referring to its dorsal fin, described as a “short slender thread”) he put into the genus Silurus = Silurus cryptopterus, 1851.

A few years later he got another specimen of unknown catfish, not recognizing that it also belongs to S. cryptopterus. He described it as micropus. And he already knew a that point that Silurus as genus does not fit. So he created the new genus Kryptopterus for micropus = Kryptopterus micropus, 1857.

Much later in 1989 Roberts declared micropus as synonym of cryptopterus. And from there we have the name Kryptopterus cryptopterus.

 

[jjohnwm]

Actually thats a good example for applied science.

Bleeker described a lot of catfish in the 1850s. When he described the species cryptopterus (referring to its dorsal fin, described as a “short slender thread”) he put into the genus Silurus = Silurus cryptopterus, 1851.

A few years later he got another specimen of unknown catfish, not recognizing that it also belongs to S. cryptopterus. He described it as micropus. And he already knew a that point that Silurus as genus does not fit. So he created the new genus Kryptopterus for micropus = Kryptopterus micropus, 1857.

Much later in 1989 Roberts declared micropus as synonym of cryptopterus. And from there we have the name Kryptopterus cryptopterus.

Mmmm....okay...if you say so. It's always interesting to read about the logic that is exercised to justify all these name changes, and it's hard to see sometimes how science is involved at all. I was specifically referring to the difference in spelling between the generic and specific names. I wonder if the Boas that I used to keep...which were Constrictor constrictor...are now being called Konstrictor constrictor?

Or when and why science was "applied" to change Rams from Microgeophagus to Mikrogeophagus? Sure, they started out as Apistogramma, but research...done by researchers who really, really wanted to be relevant...switched them to Microgeophagus. Okay, fine...why did we then have spelling wars? I recall reading an article back in the day when the "C" became a "K"...some of those guys made it sound as though this was an absolute necessity, arguing for the K over the C as though they were disproving the Theory of Relativity.

Sounds less like applied science...and more like misapplied scientists...