Crenicichla reclassified

[neutrino]

Just when you think you know what you're talking about they throw some curves at you:

The Crenicichla have been reclassified - Aquarium Glaser GmbH

Revision of the generic classification of pike cichlids using an integrative phylogenetic approach (Cichlidae: tribe Geophagini: subtribe Crenicichlina) | Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society | Oxford Academic (oup.com)

 

[duanes]

About 23 species formerly in Crenicichla , are now considered Lugubria.
No surprise..... this has been long in the works, but still leaving 60 species in Crenicichla

 

[neutrino]

Looks like they're being further divided.

However, the remaining 49 species are so different from Crenicichla in the proper sense that they have been transferred to separate genera: Wallaciia (type species Crenicichla wallacii) with 8 species, Lugubria (type species Crenicichla lugubris) with 16 species, Hemeraia (type species Crenicichla hemera) with 2 species, and Saxatilia (type species Sparus saxatilis) with 23 species.

 

[Chet E.]

Folks must justify their wages.
It is nothing to rename fish, but everything to describe them. And not just the scale count (now days DNA analysis etc.), but to actually describe them.
Consider C. compressiceps, there are what I call the red and green variaties. I've been waiting decades for discussion concerning these two species. I've kept both. Others who've kept them do not seem to notice a difference.
Rather than the difficult work of studying a fish people waste effort renaming it.
It's all about wages.
Each generation new folks begin the process all over again.

 

[neutrino]

It's all about wages.
Each generation new folks begin the process all over again.

Something like planned obsolescence in the commercial world? I suppose there's a debate there, but to some degree revisiting the process is a natural consequence of new insights, methods, technology, etc. What's happened, though, on a much wider scale than cichlid taxonomy (and apart from ideological debates on what it should mean for conservation), is our understanding of adaptation, ecosystems, and diversity has changed compared to decades ago-- though a lot of people rely on old ideas and haven't kept up.

 

[duanes]

There really isn't any money in the science of reclassification.
A friend, a Dr. in ichthyology spent many years taking trips to Lake Malawi discovering (and reclassifying )3 new species of Labeotropheus, including L simoneae Pauers.
He's been working on this project since before 2016, and spent way more personal money than he made.

 

[Kevin@TUIC]

Folks must justify their wages.
It is nothing to rename fish, but everything to describe them. And not just the scale count (now days DNA analysis etc.), but to actually describe them.
Consider C. compressiceps, there are what I call the red and green variaties. I've been waiting decades for discussion concerning these two species. I've kept both. Others who've kept them do not seem to notice a difference.
Rather than the difficult work of studying a fish people waste effort renaming it.
It's all about wages.
Each generation new folks begin the process all over again.

Their is really almost zero dollars made in doing this kind of work. Often it is a losing proposition and only helps with the advances of science and technology going forward. The hoops and hurdles required to describe a species these days is very strict and not just anyone can do it and have it count and where & how the fish are sourced is strict. No peer-reviewed, respectable descriptions can occur without samples that come from a formally documented museum/university source with exact gps coordinates, permits, etc. There exists a chain of supply process that's necessary for descriptive work.

 

[jjohnwm]

The animals don't care. They exist on a broad continuous spectrum of life. Science, however, is obsessed with fitting each and every individual into one or another discrete pigeonhole. And scientists...human beings complete with egos and a need to be relevant and a desire to use that relevance to get and hold a job in their field...will always disagree regarding how many individual pigeonholes...i.e. species...there should be.

DNA simply tells us how close some pigeonholes are to others; it still doesn't categorically state when it's time to form new pigeonholes, or combine others that already exist. That's done by scientists, each one trying to chirp the loudest and draw the most attention to him/herself. They're like newly-hatched birds clamoring for food; the biggest mouth and loudest chirp gets the attention, i.e. gets fed...i.e. survives.

The animals don't care.

Personally, I want to hear the AI perspective on this whole thing...

 

[Gourami Swami]

Browsing my old copy of Dr Axelrod's Atlas, it is interesting to see how many of the names have changed over the years. I can barely keep up with reclassifications, but this is an interesting read nonetheless.