So we all know that if two genera are merged, the older one's name takes priority. But what happens if they were both described at the same time, by the same person?
What happens when two genera described at the same time merge?
- Thread starter Hybridfish7
- Start date
The process (the red tape) one goes thru to describe a species, is not simple, or happens overnight (often years).
So it is seldom that it happens on the same year, same month, same day and submitted for review consecutively with another scientist half way around the world.
And review can sometimes take eons
Take Vieja melanura. (formerly syspilla)
Regan described in a 1905 as Cichlasoma melanura.
Hobbs described it as synspilla in 1935.
And both of these were when simple communication took months, not the fraction of a second in todays world.
But it wasn't until 2010 (with DNA sequencing that the combination between the two now single species they are today, was made.
As science is constantly evolving, many challenges as made and either accepted or debunked
Even today, with Parachromis multi fasciata there is still agreement on which is which.
It was first described by Regan in 1905. From species he described in an expedition to Central America, but....
There is a bit of doubt as to where the specimen he described was from the lake he said it came from, and whether or not he actually went to that lake.
Was it actually from Lake Peten
Later Bussing found the species (we long called loisellei) in Panama, at least 2000 km away.
Was multifasciatus confused with friedrichshalli, which is still considered a vilid name?
Or is multofasciatta really loisellei?
Throw into the mix that managuensis has been transplanted to Panama, and may have hybridized where loiselliei .
I was at a resort near lake Gatun, that had an aquarium, and was told all the species in it were native to the lake.
They were an oscar, a P manages, and a Tilapia, I had to chuckle.
So it is seldom that it happens on the same year, same month, same day and submitted for review consecutively with another scientist half way around the world.
And review can sometimes take eons
Take Vieja melanura. (formerly syspilla)
Regan described in a 1905 as Cichlasoma melanura.
Hobbs described it as synspilla in 1935.
And both of these were when simple communication took months, not the fraction of a second in todays world.
But it wasn't until 2010 (with DNA sequencing that the combination between the two now single species they are today, was made.
As science is constantly evolving, many challenges as made and either accepted or debunked
Even today, with Parachromis multi fasciata there is still agreement on which is which.
It was first described by Regan in 1905. From species he described in an expedition to Central America, but....
There is a bit of doubt as to where the specimen he described was from the lake he said it came from, and whether or not he actually went to that lake.
Was it actually from Lake Peten
Later Bussing found the species (we long called loisellei) in Panama, at least 2000 km away.
Was multifasciatus confused with friedrichshalli, which is still considered a vilid name?
Or is multofasciatta really loisellei?
Throw into the mix that managuensis has been transplanted to Panama, and may have hybridized where loiselliei .
I was at a resort near lake Gatun, that had an aquarium, and was told all the species in it were native to the lake.
They were an oscar, a P manages, and a Tilapia, I had to chuckle.
Then they stop being a specific genera and just become generic.
I'm waiting for the official adoption of the newest SA cichlid genus: Velcrosoma
The name comes from the Latin root velcro, in reference to the fact that all the name tags need to be changed every couple of years and velcro would make peeling them off and re-using them much easier...
The name comes from the Latin root velcro, in reference to the fact that all the name tags need to be changed every couple of years and velcro would make peeling them off and re-using them much easier...