Scientific paper on Discus

[raglan]

*** Edit by Vinz ***
This was copied from another post which was actually about a very different topic.

The parts not relevant to this thread has been deleted. The original post still contain the deleted parts.
*** End Edit ***

...

I noticed that they prefer your naming system and information to Ready Kullander et al. "Tarzoo report"
Can you tell us what this study found that was different from your findings or experience - or were they looking at a different aspect ?

I notice they didn't use too many specimens, and couldn't see any spotting on one group of preserved specimens they were sent, as an ID feature. Is using this few "sent" specimens a severe problem, and is not having personal knowledge of capture locale a severe problem here ?
http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...rm=iso&tlng=en

P.S. Did you meet Jim Robinson in Toronto and talk about altums ? I was the bright guy who phoned Jim to let him know, but then I missed your lecture day.

...

Dave Best.

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi,

...

Dave Best has made a question and I want to answer fast,
about the discus paper you posted a few posts back:

People (scientists around the world) prefer our naming system as almost everyone can see it is (must be) the correct and most updated scientific information we have (to this day) and that Ready et al.'s 2006 mentioned name "Tarzoo" is not available, as the name was never described = nomen nudum.
The findings (that there are 3 species and not 2 or 1 in nature) has been accepted by all since I published it in my book, Bleher's Discus, and already since our work on it together with the late Jacues Géry already in 2004. The difference Ready et al. only came up with, was the name (Tarzoo, which is not valid). But if you (or anyone) wnats to find out all the details readd the 48-page-publication in aqua 12(4) from 1. August 2007.

The other paper you are referring to: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?scri...rm=iso&tlng=en
is only about Chromosomes as some more recently published papers with similar results. But not one is as extensive work as we have done (Bleher et. al., 2007), nor with such a vast distribution and all are based on molecular (or Chromosme) results only and not taken the morphology in consideration.

Yes Jim Robinson in Toronto came to my talk and we had a good time. He (and all the other people) agreed that he was the only one (almost for sure worldwide), who has breed the fish described by Pelllegrin in 1904 as P. altum. And it happened by chance. Exactly at the time the real P. altum breed in nature . He had changed the water and took out all plants, made it nature-like. His fishes were those form the upper Orinoco (we compared his photos with photos of the types from the Paris Museum and it matched perfectly). He had them for almost 4 years already when it happened after this change. Unfortunately the person he gave around 200 babies to, lost them all.
All other fishes I have seen so far, which breeders showed me as bred P. altum, and those published in magazines and in the Internet, are not the fish I collected several times already in the 1970s and not those which Pellegrin had described as such.

Thanks for having called Jim to let him know. You know I am invitred again and will be in London, Ontario giving 3 talks May 12th-15th next year (2009). Maybe you can make it this time ...

Best regards and thanks again, it is all experiance, that's what it is,

Heiko Bleher
www.aquapress-bleher.com
www-aqua-aquaprtess.com

...

[vinz]

...

P.S. Did you meet Jim Robinson in Toronto and talk about altums ? I was the bright guy who phoned Jim to let him know, but then I missed your lecture day.

...

...
Yes Jim Robinson in Toronto came to my talk and we had a good time. He (and all the other people) agreed that he was the only one (almost for sure worldwide), who has breed the fish described by Pelllegrin in 1904 as P. altum...

...

Please continue this part of your conversation in private. Thanks.

[Gecko]

So readers have some background:

see comments:
http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/species.php?s=336

http://www.cichlidae.com/gallery/species.php?s=1655

And this:
http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=20

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi,

the information Oliver Lucanos (I guess it was him) compiled is not correct - or outdated. This is clearly explained in Bleher et al. 2007 (on 48 pages) and before in Géry & Bleher 2004 (in Bleher, 2006).
1. The Lectotype and Paralectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus based on two out of the three (those from Lake Tefé) Pellegrin's syntypes in the MNHN in Paris (1902-135 and 1902-134) designation was made - clearly in the orginal German text. See also recent text in a book review where it is also not correct (look under classification of Discus 1-14):
http://www.aquapress-bleher.com/inde...d=307&Itemid=1
The lectotype was specified correctly according to the rules of the International Code for Zoological Momenclature (ICZN) and the recognition of the specimen designated (and it is Géry & Bleher 2004 (not 2206) in Bleher 2006 on 1. January, 2006 (as with Lyons, Bleher's was published before – in 2005 – but the date in the book is 2006, which counts in science, and the first copies were delivered end of 2005). So the Lectotype for Symphysodon aequifasciatus designated by Ready et al. later (1. December, 2006) is not available for Symphysodon aequifasciatus (for the type locality Santarém).
The Cichlid Room should correct it, can also refere to today's most reliable source of scientific names at California Academy of Science:
http://research.calacademy.org/resea...ishcatmain.asp

2. The availability of the name tarzoo was rejected by Schultz (1960) based on the absence of a diagnosis in Lyons (1959 - publishing date in 1960 - see original) (see Schultz, 1960 in Bleher, 2006) and placed clearly into a nomen nudum. And there was NO latter study EVER done and no specimens of Lyons 1960: "unoffical name" Symphysodon aequifasciatus Tarzoo" (sic), as written in the Holiday issue of 1960, were ever deposited or seen (only black and white photo exists). In addition the writer of the Cichlid room overlooked the additional fact, that the name "tarzoo" was NEVER described (nor in popular, or in any scientific publication until today), although Kullander (1996) discusses the availability of names for Symphysodon species it was not described according to the

3. Also the distribution of Discus in the Cichlid Rooms text (and elsewhere) should be corrected. There is no overlapping in the Madeira and NEVER was a single discus collected, nor seen in the Madeira River. Such collecting data is misleading. I just did a lengthy seminars at the 7th international Discus championships about that mis-understanding/ or better mis-interpretation in scientific and popular publications/media.
http://www.aquapress-bleher.com/inde...=291&Itemid=24

Best regards

Heiko Bleher
www.aquapress-bleher.-com

[AngelAddick]

Hi Heiko,
It's good to see you active here again. Read that you were detained by the authorities on a recent trip to the Amazon, and happy that you were also to get out of the situation safe and sound.

Can you update us on the latest information on wild discus and for both P. Scalare and P. Altum?

Has there been much degradation to the habitat of the above species in the Amazon and are commercial export of the species each year reducing their numbers in the wild?

Thanking you in advance,
Phil

[Heiko Bleher]

Dear Phil,

thanks for the comments, you can read all about what happened on :
www.aquapress-bleher.,com
under LATEST NEWS: What's up in Brazil, also the comments form the worldwide community.

I made 3 expedition (destinations) in Amazonia this year (and several other worldwide destinations) and found a new angelfish species,possibly two.very different. I did not go to the upper Orinoco (P. altum area) this time. But I am not sure what exactly you wanted to know.

The deforestation is going as fast as never before. One of the fisherman who came with me, said something very true (and what actually is the problem with Amazonia) when I asked him about this amazing increase in burning and deforestation: "senhor Heiko, enquanto o mundo esta inestindo e dando dinheiro para salvar a Amazonia, vai sempre piorar mais" - ... as long as the world gives money to save the Amazon the wors it will get...". "O problem e o dinheiro que no para de chagar.." - the problem is the money that does not stop flowing.
And naturally, the more they burn the more money they will get...

There is no way (at all) that the (ornamental) fish species collected and exported can have any effect of reducing their numbers, as they are all non-eating fishes and temperature/weather/rainy season regulates their catch (it is only possible to catch them during the very low water season, for 2-4 month each year, which is very well explained in detail in my book volume I). The continuous degradation of their habitat will reduce the number and species in the wild in a speed unknown before in history (and has in many places taken place already – each location where it happened is extensively demonstrated in my up-coming volume II).

All the best and merry Christmas,

always

Heiko
www.aquapress-bleher.com
www.aqua-aquapress.com

[raglan]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...73dac02df1d1d6

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi,

it is already an old paper... naturally I have it. It is a work they had to publish (as they were paid for it), although it bring NOTHING new. And they have several things wrong:
1. They NEVER made collection in the "complete geographic distribution range of the genus" - you only have to look at their locations and the precise distribution of the genus as published in aqua 12(4),or in my book if you want.
2. Their sampling doe NOT include all phenotypic groups, species and subspecies (I cannot write here all the lost of places they missed, it is to long, but can easily compared with the above).
3. They go back to subspecies which is long history, actually accepted by all scientists since 1986 latest. This only confuses the issue (science).
4. If they had included also the types from different Tocantins, Alenquer and Santarém populations of S. haraldi (=blue & brown), that they would not have written such (none sense?) things about the Xingú-population and try to separate them.

At least they confirmed our publication what the difference of groups (=species) is concerned in regards to the water chemistry (something I had found out first and was long ago published).

But because they have not studied the morphology, nor any further detail about their biology (also with living fishes and at their natural habitat), except for taken my (?) records of the water parameters, their result had to remain contentious in reference to the taxonomy. Just another wasted publication and work, without any further, or any new discovery or result. I feel sorry for their years-long work on this.

Best regards

Heiko Bleher
www.aqua-aquapress.com
www.aquapress-bleher.com

[raglan]

I similarly feel sorry in advance for the latest Pterophyllum researchers. (Waiting for it) . If no specimens from the original altum collection locale were used to affirm it is the correct DNA, it's NO DICE.


Dave

[Plantbrain]

You are very correct, this hobby is not the issue with fish, it's likely one of things that will save and sustain the Rainforest.

Without the forest, there will be no fish anyhow.
So why bother going after aquarists and collectors when the real threat is deforestation and over population?

This makes no sense from a legal standpoint to prevent aquarist from collecting.
If anything, ost of the species will be wiped out to extinction and many might be saved by bringing them into the trade.

Such is the case with a number of fish.

You better get out and see and collect while you can.
Why worry about poraching if you have no where for the animals to live and exist? Zoos will be their only home.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[Heiko Bleher]

Hi Tom,

thank you for these words, you see it correctly like speaking from my heart.

All the best, also Merry Christmas to you,

always

Heiko

[Plantbrain]

Hi Tom,

thank you for these words, you see it correctly like speaking from my heart.

All the best, also Merry Christmas to you,

always

Heiko

I am from the plant side of things, but the issues are much the same. However, for fish, you cannot bring them back like you can many plants. I can restore a lake and add the right plants, algae, bacteria, but adding the right community of invertebrates and fish is very difficult.

I work to restore the destruction we have done in California USA, and to remove the invasive species that threaten the native populations. That is the 2nd most serious threat to species, with habitat lost being the first.
But the real root of habitat loss and most resource issues is overpopulation.

You cannot address anything with preservation and restoration without good management of humans and the natural world resources, and ecosystem services.

I have hope, restoration ecology is good for restoring some of the ecosystem services, however, it will be unable to restore the Rainforest and all the species, nor discover species we might never had seen, or described as of yet.

There's far more that we do not yet know.
One good example of restoration in the USA is the Ichetucknee springs state park in Florida. I think you will be surprised if you have not been to these springs at how similar they are to many other tropical regions. The park is wonderful now, but 30 years ago it was horrible.

Took a lot of work but wetlands and forest can bounce back rather well in few decades, invasive species are tough to control and most of the issue for many restoration projects.

Nile perch in Victoria for example, Tilapia in New Guinea, Hyacinth, Egeria, Cabomba in the Delta of California. These things also destory habitat.
Caulerpa in San Deigo, CA etc........

We have a different appraoch in CA, we nail it asap and the short term higher cost make the long term cost much less.

But in other places, such thinking is not part of the methods they use. Aquarist are made to be the scape goat without consideration to the larger issue or how these folks can help the enivornment.

Ironically, aquarists have a very strong committment and passion for preserving such places and managing them as a sustainable natural resource.
The general public is much less inclined to do so.

I often say this: "Take only from nature what she has to offer".

We get more out of the land by looking at the real cost of the rainforest as a supply of water, larger scale cosystem services such as O2/CO2 exchanges, flood reduction(ask those in LA, USA after the last Hurricane!), Ecotourism, Local indiginous population empowerment and preservation, animals, plants, diversity, agricultural uses for things ike Cacoa, Cassava and genetic resources that can help crops from pest, fishing and management for tropical fish trade, well managed, the aquarium hobby trade can be a nice balance.

It is not this horrible bunch of people out to rape Brazil, or wherever of their rare species.

That is what is sold to the public and buracrats. With good reason, the $ and bribes come from those that want the land and the short term gain's it offers, they want the wood, they want the cattle ranching.

There is no effective strong government in place to adress it.
Without good leadership, there's no way to stop it.

We have the same issues here too, but not as bad, we already cut down most of the old growth here

So I have little choice in CA, USA, where we lost 96% of our wetlands(Guess why we have lots of farms here now??), and reduced salmon populations down by 95% or more(take the water for those farms), but to look at what can restore and save that's left.

It's not like we or anyone else is morally any better either as a whole.
If you cannot kill a mean old dog, toss a jar of fleas on them. You do not give up.

We can slow them down and hopefully restore areas.
The Jungle can take over the area if left alone and restored, but the more we remove it, the worst it will become to try an fix. At some point is will become irreversible.

I wonder if that point has not already passed for many areas.

Still, logging interest, and other resource driven market factors are at work, I I am sort of glad with the ecocomic downturn, it's halts development and thereby resource and habitat destruction here. I'm sure it's world wide to some degree.

Funny thing here in CA, the Farmers are all worried and rightly so, about housing developments taking all the land away and their power as well. So it's a Farmer vs the Housing developer fight. Then add some water rights issues, they have not even startedon wate rrights yet there in Brasil, but wait, it will happen.

Then where will the Discus, Altums, and zebra plecos go?
Aquariums..................

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Heiko Bleher]

Dear Tom,

you should make it more public, you hit it on the spot, specially the issue with the aquarists and
"You cannot address anything with preservation and restoration without good management of humans and the natural world resources, and ecosystem services."

Which is the main, the root, of all. There are to many people on planet earth. My worldwide figures have reached twice as much as we are constantly told - at least from the 164 countries visited. Just last year in Indian again(many times I also researched and collected there) I asked my driver who spoke for of their languages (as we crossed 4 states collecting in 37 rivers and lakes of which 35 were just a dump for the garbage, chemical waste and everything else from the cities and housings) and I asked after driving 4500 km without ever exiting housing and high-riser buildings: "What do you think, I have read that in India should be 1,027,000,0000 people living, but to me after this trip again, it looks more close to 2 billion (2,000,000,000)" and his answer was "There are more than 2 billion...". I had the same experience in China and Brazil, and Mexico, and Indonesia, and all of the 50 African countries, etc.

What to do. In any event you keep up the good work (which many more would think and do what you do) and should reed my Amazon book (have you?) only true information... (some say that is why they arrested me - very few like the truth...)

And b.t.w. Caulerpa is taking over the Mediterranean Sea as well...

All the best,

always

Heiko

[Plantbrain]

Being quiet is not one of my strong points Always causes some conflict, particularly in this hobby. We managed to eradicate Caulerpa here before it got bad. So that's a good case for the rapid response program we have here. Aquarists are also well aware through a strong campaign in magazines and on line.

I read part of the book at a client's. I have not read it all, I spend more time working and fixing things than reading

This is more where I belong:

Or at the lab trying to see what electric feilds do germination of weed tubers such as Hydrilla and pondweeds.

Population control starts with women(men do not have babies), so they need the choice over that. Most do not. So what seems like an effort to save aquarium fish habitats ends up being a social frame work and women's right's issue. Like most aquarium issues, aquarist like to blame the methods etc or the fish or something, but not themselves.

Scape goating is easier. Same is true there as it is for many aquarist. I just try and stay a bit honest. I've long said that social science and this hobby have a lot in common, as well as anything to do with conservation and population control and planning. There are folks out there saying this and then there are those that turn the other way and ignore it.

But with my 5 aquariums and the resources they and other things use, I'm hardly the model environmentalist either, but I do recycle 90% of the resources I use, not many can say that in the USA. And 100% of the water.
Haha, so I am a bit of hypocrit. All aquarists are fish killers to some degree?
Breeding and selling the fry off makes up for that.

When the hobby can add money back inot the cost, then folks start getting more interested and committed to the aquarium hobby. This is why I like plants, cheap, easy to ship, transport, can keep virtually 400 species or more together, and they grow like weeds. So I can double the biomass in 2-4 weeks. So those aquatic plants will bounce back, the fish??

Not for many years if at all.

What will be interesting is how the gene flow will change in the coming years as sub groups are going to get killed off, more damning and other destruction occurs. Seems Discus will be around in the hobby forever, but wild discus will have a very tough time indeed. The same is true for most fish including the marine systems that are not managed.

My Zebra plecos will be fine as will many rare interesting high price animals due to breeding. Plants? Haha! They will take over and be weedy.
I'm not that worried, but hybridization of many pondweeds can be a bad issue, and most of the others are more centered on effective management and weed issues, not extinction.

The bureacrats change and come and go in Brazil, Africa, Indo China, the US etc...........so they might fools today and a but more enlightened tommorrow, but do not count on it. Many get those jobs for favors and they are expected to give favors in return. Your friend might be gone and now you have someone who's worse or has another agenda.


Regards,
Tom Barr

[raglan]

new kind of beard algae