Leptolebias fractifasciatus Barra de Maricá

[whuntley]

I just took a quick look at Langton's Wild Collections of Killifish 1950-2000 and he uses parenthesis for location only, but never for the collection code. [Neither are ever in quotes.]

His is considered the definitive work on this topic for the USA hobby, and I suspect that long-term usage should be followed if we want to reduce rather than compound the confusion. Guess I need to change some of my habits.

That's easier said than done, at my age, but I figure that when I quit smoking about 30 years ago, I can break any other habit.

Wright

[hwchoy]

I just took a quick look at Langton's Wild Collections of Killifish 1950-2000 and he uses parenthesis for location only, but never for the collection code. [Neither are ever in quotes.]

Wright

thanx Wright, as you may know the authority reference is also sometimes written in parenthesis so I particularly share your concerns with confusion

like I said, I have no issue with how the killifolks read their location and collection codes, it is more my concern when non-killifolks reads it. but then I may be worrying too much I should be more concerned with luring that darn L. fractifasciatus out of hiding for a good shot. :wink:

[stormhawk]

Since its quite small in size, it would possibly be much of a shy individual. Catch him while he's sleeping and snap a quick pic. It should however, come out more often when the tank is quite shaded or during non-light hours.

[whuntley]

thanx Wright, as you may know the authority reference is also sometimes written in parenthesis so I particularly share your concerns with confusion

We are derelict, in the hobby, in that we almost never use the Author and Date in anything much short of formal articles or atlases. I don't think it is likely to confuse many if the location and the authority citation are in two sets of parentheses, will it?

For the purposes of breeding and exchanges, the location and/or collection code are the very most important information. Species comes next, and then genus (particularly if the species name is not a unique one, as in marmoratus). The authority reference adds little to the breeder/hobbyist's useful information, as it is usually unavailable as a reference and/or it's in a language not understood. [It's fine for the academic with unlimited library access and time.]

Just my US$0.02,

Wright

[CM Media]

Hi Guys,

I'm back for action...:P

Below is the shot I took on the fish

[hwchoy]

Hi Guys,

I'm back for action...:P

Below is the shot I took on the fish

Pretty! Tonight will be the S. whitei's turn and then the S. trilineatus. :wink:

[hwchoy]

the correct picture has been added to the start post.

[stormhawk]

Choy, nice picture but a little not sharp.

Apart from that the little fella needs some fresh worm foods to fatten it up. Starting to look emaciated there.

[hwchoy]

Choy, nice picture but a little not sharp.

Apart from that the little fella needs some fresh worm foods to fatten it up. Starting to look emaciated there.

worm was fed, this fish not eating muich.

[stormhawk]

That's odd. I would suggest smaller foods like daphnia to entice it. Once a fish starts to have a badly sunken-in stomach profile, it almost always is close to death. Sometimes they can be saved but their profile remains the same and they feed very little.

This species has a rather small mouth to start with so smaller foods would be advisable. Leptolebias species, in as much as I understand, feed primarily on freshwater crustaceans in their natural habitat. Tubifex worm is also taken most of the time.

[hwchoy]

slightly better picture updated. the fish is feeding on live bloodworm, albeit slowly.

[hwchoy]

I just took a quick look at Langton's Wild Collections of Killifish 1950-2000 and he uses parenthesis for location only, but never for the collection code. [Neither are ever in quotes.]

Wright

So I would write Fundulosoma thierryi Gh 1/94 Accra Plains as

Fundulosoma thierryi (Ahl 1924) (Accra Plains) Gh 1/94 ?

[TyroneGenade]

Fundulosoma thierryi (Ahl 1924) (Accra Plains) Gh 1/94 ?

No. You only put the name of the original describer and date in brackets if the fish has been reclassified or renamed. It should be
Fundulosoma thierryi Ahl, 1924.

Regarding location codes, it is generally accepted world over to use Genus species " or ' Location/strain ' or " collection data. So:

Fundulosoma thierryi 'Accra Plains' GH 94-1. It used to be GH 94/1 but we now prefer to use a "-" instead of a "/" as it is harder for "-" to become a "1" than "/".

Nowhere out there other than Roger's book will you find the strain name in parenthesis. You will however find disputed genera disignations in parenthesis after a name such as Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum (Archocentrus). Huber made a big deal about this several moons back as this is wrong. This would indicate that you consider Archocentrus to be an alternative to Cichlasoma. The correct way should be Cichlasoma (Archocentrus) nigrofasciatum to suggest subgenus such as Aphyosemion (Diapteron) abacinum. Today to indicate disputed genera or genera under review we display the genera as <genera>.

I'm getting way off track here but the point is, DO NOT PUT THE LOCATION CODE IN PARENTHESIS. Huber does not do this on his site and nor should you attach it to your pictures. Brian Watters doesn't do it either. This will only confuse matters. In fact Brian puts the whole location and collection codes in quotes. The reason for this is simple: so nothing gets lost.

Also, do not include the name of the describer along with the location data... this could be misinterpretted as "Ahl" being the collector or "Accra Plains" being the type locality. Keep the fish naming system separate from the science as far as possible. This makes things simpler and so much easier for cross referencing.

If you look in the BNL you don't find quote at all... Why? because the names are clearly in italics (as they should be) and the location data in normal san serif type. (At least this is how it used to be... looking at the online Aug BNL I only see san serif font. Somebody's bottom needs a paddy-wack.)

tt4n...

P.S. the spell checker is still nor working...

[hwchoy]

No. You only put the name of the original describer and date in brackets is the fish has been reclassified or renames. It should be
Fundulosoma thierryi Ahl, 1924.

Well you are correct. Actually the parenthesis got there because I was checking FishBase and apparently some thinks it should be reclassified as Nothobranchius.

Regarding location codes, it is generally accepted world over to use Genus species " or ' Location/strain ' or " collection data. So:

Fundulosoma thierryi 'Accra Plains' GH 94-1. It used to be GH 94/1 but we now prefer to us a "-" instead of a "/" as it is harder for "-" to become a "1" than "/".

Nowhere out there other than Roger's book will you find the strain name in parenthesis. You will however fins disputed genera disignations in parenthesis after a name such as Cichlasoma nigrofasciatum (Archocentrus). Huber made a big deal about this several moons back as this is wrong. This would indicate that you consider Archocentrus to be equivalent or an alternative to Cichlasoma. The correct way should be Cichlasoma (Archocentrus) nigrofasciatum to suggest subgenus such as Aphyosemion (Diapteron) abacinum.

I'm getting way off track here but the point is, DO NOT PUT THE LOCATION CODE IN PARENTHESIS. Huber does not do this on his site and now should you attach it to your pictures. Brian Watters doesn't do it either. This will only confuse matters. In fact Brian puts the whole location and collection codes in quotes. The reason for this is simple: so it doesn't get lost.

Also, do not put the name of the describer along the location data... this could be misinterpretted as "Ahl" being the collector or "Accra Plains" being the type locality. Keep the fish naming system separate from the science as far as possible. This makes things simpler and so much easier for cross referencing.

this was what I was afraid of, even among you killifolks there appear to be so many different ways. As the popular computer science saying goes, "standards are wonderful, there are so many to choose from."

I have decided that for my own annotation, I will use

Genus species Authority

collecting-location population/collection-code

since this will also tie in with how I will annotate other fish specimens with known collecting location.