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...Unless one actually does the research and know the scientific name, its only the aquarists own fault if he or she gets a sub...I find the hobby much more enjoyable the more knowledge I gain... 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?
Okay, perhaps Herichthys wasn't the ideal example for me to pick. I was going from memory, from about half a century ago...but how about the others I mentioned, or the many, many others that didn't immediately come to mind? You can't possibly deny my assertion that Cichlasoma has been split into a vast array of "new" genera...and yet Cichlasoma persists, but is now a genus that includes the relatively few cichlids that were never in it from the beginning. The scientific nomenclature does nothing in this instance to clarify things; rather it adds confusion.
The aquarium trade is likely looked at with derision by
"serious" scientists...but someone must pay the way for expeditions to far-flung corners of the world in search of shiny new fish. In many cases, it's the trade that makes these little jaunts possible.
...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.
Lol, tell me another one; I need a good laugh today! This would be believable IF it were actually possible to trust any given source that the scientific name they were using was indeed the correct one. It's not like there is any central authority that categorically states that
this name is correct, and all these others floating around are wrong. Taxonomists often seem like starlings at a bird feeder; each trying to be
the one that makes the most noise, the one that muscles his way to the front to get the lion's share of food or attention.
When a new species is found...whether it be in a creek draining a remote jungle mountainside, or in a jar of formaldehyde sitting at the back of a shelf in a museum for 80 years...there is a rush to "describe" it and the winner gets the prize: the chance to name the fish. That first name tends to stick for awhile, so the confusion is limited. But after a few decades, new up-and-coming experts latch on and then the fun begins.
I have a tank of assorted Goodeid livebearers; Xenotoca eiseni, X.doadrioi, X.lyonsi, Characodon eiseni and C.variatus. Normally I am very strongly anti-hybrid, so I would never dream of allowing all these closely-related species to have a chance to interbreed...but in this case, they are all exactly the same fish, so I feel pretty safe. Sure, some of those names are a century out-of-date, but the three Xenotoca monikers have all been used relatively recently. I also just read a statement that yet another taxonomist, out to make a name for a fish and for himself, is pushing to change Xenotoca to something new; Xenotichthys, i think?
duanes
, please don't take offense. I am trying to keep my tongue firmly in my cheek throughout this rant. You are telling it the way it is supposed to be...but until there is a recognized authoritative body that states "This is now the correct name!" it will never be that way.
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....Basically, scientists are weird and sometimes have other motives but in the end things should be organised
Thank you sir!
And thank you,
F
FJB
for that terrific post. I hope you don't take offense at my comments regarding taxonomists; this was all meant as a light-hearted jab at the field and shouldn\t be taken personally. Your final comment..."but trust me, there are good reasons for some of these changes, and they are necessary. " is a refreshing relief. It also seems to imply that there are also some changes for which there are
not good reasons...
