Changes needed in Taxonomy

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo

ewurm

Aimara
MFK Member
Jan 27, 2006
28,496
79
132
16
*
I've expressed my views on this issue before, but it really frustrates me. Every time I research for a fish identification, I end up searching through many different names for the same fish. There are usually multiple common names, multiple scientific synonyms, and the current accepted scientific name for a fish. It creates mass confusion. Here's my proposal to streamline the system:


  • For existing described species, each fish would be assigned a serial number in addition to it's scientific name. The serial number would not be representative of genus or species. Just a number. This would make it easy to catalog every fish regardless of it's genus or species. If a fish were to change genus or species name, the number would be retained. The only obstacle I can foresee is when two different morphs that previously were considered the same are split.
  • For newly described species, each fish would be assigned a scientific name and a common name by the discoverer. An international taxonomy board would review each common and scientific name. Both must include some clue as to the identifying characteristics of the species. No more naming fish after your mom, your best friend, or some guy that borrowed you his boat and snorkel to go collecting. The board would then assign a serial number to that species which would not change.
  • If a species were to be reclassified into a different genus, the genus name would change, but the species name and serial number would remain the same. If the species name was no longer appropriate, that would also change but the serial number would remain the same for that specimen.
  • A searchable database would be created by the International Taxonomy board and made available online.
 
RedDevilDon2005;3392361; said:
so for different morphs half numbers then? thats not a bad idea.


If a color morph was proven to be a distinct separate species, it would be given it's own serial number.
 
RedDevilDon2005;3392446; said:
i see. why havent they went that route already?


I'm not sure. Some of the loaches and cichlids have been reclassified so many times that it's a mess. The worst is when the species name of the fish is named after a person. It gives no clue as to what the fish described actually looks like.
 
ewurm;3392457; said:
I'm not sure. Some of the loaches and cichlids have been reclassified so many times that it's a mess. The worst is when the species name of the fish is named after a person. It gives no clue as to what the fish described actually looks like.
But how can a number build someone's ego?
 
You mean the Aulonacara StevensSteindachnerbleheri?
 
RedDevilDon2005;3392488; said:
i also agree with Levi, what if there isnt a loaced named after you Wurm? lol


If I find a new loach species, it's going to be Botia Bobsagetii
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com