Scientific names? Pfffft.....

[jjohnwm]

Scientific names...you know, the ones that some find so unpronounceable...are supposed to be the final authority when it comes to identifying living things. Common names are not trustworthy; they vary from one location to the next, and there is no rhyme nor reason to them...they are really just nicknames that have been attached to a critter over the years that happened to "stick". But the scientific designation...the capitalized generic name, followed by the small-case specific name, and sometimes with an added small-case subspecific name at the end...are intended to be unique and positive; the idea is that once you have the scientific name, you know beyond a shadow of doubt exactly which living thing is being discussed, with no ambiguity or confusion.

So...it really is a shame that this never works out in practice. Scientists are forever arguing, discussing, debating over changes in taxonomy. There are the "lumpers"; these are the guys who always try to "lump" more critters together into fewer and fewer species, but with more subspecies or varieties. Then there are the "splitters", who go the other way; they like every critter that displays even the slightest variation in colour or form or behaviour to be considered a separate, distinct species, and so if you follow their logic the number of species goes way, way up. We also must deal with species "complexes" or "clades", which seem to be terms indicating that no clear winner has been determined in the naming game. And of course, with the modern techniques of DNA analysis, huge changes are constantly being made to these categories, as guys sitting behind microscopes and lab equipment patiently explain to you how everything you "know" is completely wrong.

This hit home yesterday when I got my hands on some Cichlasoma dimerus fry from a local source. When I started in the hobby, just about every cichlid you could buy...which was a much smaller number than is available today...was in the genus Cichlasoma. Sure, there were a few exceptions...Oscars, Angels, Discus, Keyholes and Ports, Pikes and of course those mysterious Africans all had their own genera...but just about everything else was in Cichlasoma. There was no Herichthys, Thorichthys, Amphilophus, Australoheros, Parachromis or any of the other myriad "new" genera that we have to contend with today. The fish, of course, didn't and don't care; but the eggheads and lab-coat guys could not be happy with things as they were.

What struck me was that all the good old Cichlasoma species of my youth have all been moved into new taxonomic categories...but one look at these C.dimerus in person made me immediately think of the archetypical Port Cichlid, Aequidens portalegrensis. A bit of googling showed that many experts do indeed state that C.dimerus are very closely related to fish that i would have called Aequidens...but now they are in Cichlasoma! Huh? Take just about everything out of the genus, but then insert some stuff into it...stuff that would never have been considered to be a correct fit in the old days? I'm sure that there are rules that forced this; you know, somebody discovered that a previously-unknown expert back in 1926 used Cichlasoma first and so that's got to be the way it goes today. Pretty cool, in a weird way: you can keep and breed a fish all your life, and then suddenly, with the stroke of a pen...you have a new species!

But I'm not about to let science suck the joy out of the hobby for me just yet. You know what they say: i've read so many bad things about drinking, smoking and over-eating...that I've decided to give up reading...

 

[Deadeye]

The scientific naming is really just to get an idea of how closely related some things are in relation to others, annoying at times, but effective.
Definitely a pain when trying to ID fish whether trying to help someone else or get it for yourself.

 

[Hendre]

Taxonomy is a blessing, and a curse.

It has, for the most part, helped us organise most organisms into neat little boxes but life finds a way to escape most of the time. One of the drivers for constant shuffling is the horrendous academic environment that fosters 'publish or perish' to keep afloat and get the grant money in, even if the project is rushed or not entirely factual! And people trying to make a name for themselves.

The arrival of genetics and phylogeny threw another spanner into the works but makes for a good nail in the coffin for speciation, or opens a new can of worms! It has certainly helped when the morphology is variable and the species lines are blurred. Genetics is expensive and takes time, so many fields are lagging. The vast majority of species are cryptic and were described MANY years ago on now deteriorated material, this is an issue with fish especially, where the living colours are an important factor. As you said, it's messy! My little oil cats are on their third genus by now. You will find each of those names online.

SA cichlids are fairly well looked into, mostly. Imagine ants, there are countless subgenera separated on teensy little features. There are 400+ described in SA alone with ongoing work.

Basically, scientists are weird and sometimes have other motives but in the end things should be organised

 

[duanes]

In actuality the genus Herichthys, and the species Herichthys cyanoguttatus (often dubbed the Texas cichlid) was first scientifically described as a Herichthys in 1854 Long before you and I were a twinkle in our LFSs cash register.
I first heard that genus name in around 1960, when I got my first "Texas" cichlid.
But in between, Herichthys cyanoguttatus, has been dubbed many common nicknames, the Pearl Cichlid, the Rio Grande perch, mojarra del norte, and other names I may not be aware of, and I don't use.
Imagine if you walked into a LFS, because you saw a pic of cyananoguttatus and simply asked for a pearl cichlid, what might you get?
In some places you might get a Geophagus braziliensus, or a few other geophagines, and there are also a couple Africans known as pearl cichlids, even a cichlid from India, sometimes called the "pearl chromite".
Or you might get any number of herichthyines often called Texas, this or that, but in reality are not.
Below Herichthys carpintus "loc. Chairel)

Below Herichthys tamasopoensus

Below one of the Geophagus braziliensus clade sometimes called the pearl cichlid.

Unless one actually does the research and know the scientific name, its only the aquarists own fault if he or she gets a sub.
Most LFSs are not known for their accuracy, and in many cases only use nicknames, so using a scientific name is no sure thing of getting what you want,
but in many case the wholesalers do use them on shipments, so its usually there, on the list if needed.


Or lets say you walk into a LFS and ask for a red terror (but you really wanted Mesoheros festae).
Starting about 50 years ago Mayaheros uropthalmus were the only red terrors, and in many cases it is still used as a moniker today, at the time Mesoheros festae were barely known in the hobby, but are now also called red terrors.
Imagine the disappointment a few hours later when the aquarist gets home to discover what's been sold as one, such as a uropthalmus you didn't really ask for.
Below Mesoheros festae

Below a video of Mayaheros uropthalmus
Azul imovie edit

I find the hobby much more enjoyable the more knowledge I gain.
At one time both the cichlids below, were considered part of the genus Aequidens
Below Cichlasoma dimerus loc Bella Union

now Andinoacara coerleopunctatus

Just the differences in looks alone might suggest (at least to me) they don't belong lumped into the same genus, but beyond that, todays advances in DNA sequencing adds yet another area of separation, tracing ancestral lines that may clearly show differences justifying genus separation (maybe not to the casual aquarist) but is the aquarium trade what's important?

 

[esoxlucius]

I'll take it a step further. It's not just the chopping and changing of names or the scientists coming up with new species within a species that puzzles me. It's just scientific names perse that get me.

Just say for example I wanted a group of Balantiocheilos Monopterus. Firstly i'd have to look up the damn fish to find out what it's "proper" name was, as I just have now, lol. Then i'd have to write it down on a piece of paper so I didn't forget it. On the way to the fish store i'd be churning this name around in my head as to master it's pronunciation and not make myself look a cock.

Then when I get to the fish store I ask the young spotty assistant for a group of Balantiocheilos Monopterus, and his eyes glaze over. "I beg your pardon sir, I didn't quite catch that", he replies.

At this point I realise i'm onto a loser and just say. "Have you got any Bala sharks?" How much easier is that?

 

[BIG-G]

At this point I realise i'm onto a loser and just say. "Have you got any Bala sharks?" How much easier is that?

I feel the same.
What if there are five different species known as Bala sharks? As duanes points out then you are right back to the beginning.

It seems to me even as we hobbyist debate the pros and cons to the nomenclature a blend of both common and scientific is always going to be.

 

[KATALEKEEPER]

The worst is when the fish doesn’t even have a common name, and the scientific name changes!!!! Now how am I supposed to find my fish? Much less order it!

 

[duanes]

I must admit I haven't bought a fish from a LFS in over a decade, not because they use common names, but because most of the fish I'm interested in, don't have common names (Darianheros calebrensus, or Isthmoheros tuyrense are next on my wish list).
One of the last times I did buy from a LFS, they had, (and I bought) Herotilapia buttikoferi in a Convict tank mixed up as convicts (sold for $1.99 each)
Where I have most often bought fish, are from clubs and associations like the ACA (American Cichlid Assn) and the GCCA (Greater Chicago Cichlid Assn), at their conventions, with auctions and swap meets, where scientific names are always used (they will also add the common name if the cichlid has one) but in many cases if you don't know and recognize the scientific name, you may lose out.
Same thing at auction by the AKA (American Killifish Assn), where only a few species seem to have common names.
BTW, species names hardly ever change in science, although genus names do, especially now as DNA sequencing pins down relationships, and becomes the norm. So as long as you are aware of the species terminology, your luck in getting what you want, increases logarithmically.

 

[BIG-G]

I had to dig to find this duanes . Are these the two you spoke of?
Darianheros calebrensus

Isthmoheros tuyrense

 

[FJB]

I hear you, and share on the various levels of dissatisfaction and frustration regarding taxonomy and name changes. I will try to offer a different perspective, and to be brief.

- Taxonomy is necessary
- Taxonomy and nomenclature are not the same but both are needed
- Scientific names and common names are both useful and necessary, but each has its place and its purpose
- Recognizing, Naming and Referring to Biodiversity Elements (i.e., assigning a name to a distinct genetic entity) are the only way of positively refer to a biodiversity element, such that for instance, it can be protected by writing policy (laws, usually by others) that protect it, and its habitat. Again, for instance, if two names are considered synonyms, then it becomes harder to justify the elevation or approval of legislation for protection of some elements, since for instance, that species has now a broader distribution that originally thought. And conservation is only one of the many realms where taxonomy plays a role.
- Species (and subspecies), and all taxonomic levels for that matter, are HYPOTHESES. As such they are bound to change as additional tools and information allow further understanding of relationships between biodiversity groups. Modern times, particularly the last 3 decades offer tools that were not even dreamed of before.
- True species are less likely to change than higher taxonomic levels, such as Genus, or Family. Unless, with additional information, it is found that a certain taxon (species of subspecies) are within the known range of variation of another, already named taxon. In such case, a synonymy between those is proposed, which again is 'the currently ongoing HYPOTHESIS' regarding those taxa.
- Because of this, we should sweat less about changes at the GENUS level, because they matter less to us, aquarists, than changes at the SPECIES level. Yes, the changes may be uncomfortable, and a pain, but they matter little so long as we (and everybody else) can recognize and value a certain taxon, as different from others.

I am a taxonomist and an ecologist. My specialty is mollusks, particularly land snails and slugs. I have described 12 new species of neotropical land snails, and have had to both propose, and argue against proposed synonymies, changes from one genus to another, and changes from one family to another. My name is associated with one particular family of land snails, since I proposed it as separate from others, and is the current HYPOTHESIS regarding that group.

I realize some of these issues can become frustrating for us as aquarists, but trust me, there are good reasons for some of these changes, and they are necessary. But they have their place, and there are places where they matter less.
Cheers!