Leuciscus or squalius?

[Paulg]

I always have and probably always will regard the chub as being a leuciscus cephalus.....but apparently it isn't anymore, or at least hasn't been since last year. If I'm reading it correctly then it is now a squalius cephalus. This comes as a shock

[Dick Dastardly]

I thought leuciscus reffered to the higher classification? But agree that's what has been the generally accepted Latin name!

[chesters1]

Just call it a chub you dont need to know latin to catch one

[corydoras]

I always have and probably always will regard the chub as being a leuciscus cephalus.....but apparently it isn't anymore, or at least hasn't been since last year. If I'm reading it correctly then it is now a squalius cephalus. This comes as a shock

It hasn't been since about 2003. Pesky taxonomists.

http://www.mediterranea.org/cae/squalius_articulo.pdf

[Vagabond]

Pesky taxonomists.

 

LOL. The in-fighting (and name-calling, pun intended) amongst taxonomists makes politicians look like tyros.

 

At the root of it is a series of protocols and rules of precedence, all of Byzantine complexity that make the binomial system something of a nightmare. Thus the taxonomist requires the mind-set of a lawyer rather than a biologist

 

Although biology teachers earnestly insist on using the "scientific" name to "avoid confusion", in some cases this name changes from time to time.

 

In this case, the alderman, chevin, chavender or chub started out as Cyprinus cephalus under the auspices of no less a person than Linnaeus himself in 1758

 

It was classified as Leuciscus cephalus by Berg in 1949 and about that time Squalius was considered a sub-genus. Although Leuciscus cephalus had already been in use for some years (Houghton 1879)

 

Now we have Squalius cephalus and all your textbooks are "out of date"

 

There is a spiteful note in the literature

Leuciscus - (is) published in a work that does not conform to the principle of binomial nomenclature

 

So there !!

 

I think it is worth remembering that taxonomy is a man-made system, rather analogous to how books are classified in a library.

 

Ideally all should use the same system, but human nature being what it is, differences arise. Thus what is "right" or "wrong" is somewhat subjective. I think I have suggested before that H.G.Wells's short story "The Moth" sums up the world of taxonomy rather well.

Edited April 2, 2015 by Vagabond

[Latimeria]

Here are some of the synonyms under which this fish has been known (in part due to the wide distribution and variation between populations).

http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature/SynonymsList.php?ID=4482&SynCode=51642&GenusName=Squalius&SpeciesName=cephalus

[Vagabond]

Here are some of the synonyms under which this fish has been known (**in part due to the wide distribution and variation between populations).

http://www.fishbase.org/Nomenclature/SynonymsList.php?ID=4482&SynCode=51642&GenusName=Squalius&SpeciesName=cephalus

LOL I have got the California Academy of Sciences three (weighty) volumes of "Catalog of Fishes" (American spelling) and if I decided to wade through it, would probably finish up with a similar list.

 

I usually use the "Catalog" for "translating" a synonym from a foreign field guide to the "recognised" name, I well remember the problems we had in identifying the various piranhas and catfishes and sorting out the recognised names of the fish I got in the Matto Grosso - many thanks for your help BTW.

 

**....and in part due to the desire of ichthyologists to discover a new species !

[chesters1]

 

Cyprinus kittaibeli

 

 

I used it what are these taxonomists going to do about it?

[Latimeria]

I usually use the "Catalog" for "translating" a synonym from a foreign field guide to the "recognised" name, I well remember the problems we had in identifying the various piranhas and catfishes and sorting out the recognised names of the fish I got in the Matto Grosso - many thanks for your help BTW.

 

I went through a phase of obsessively collecting ID books for fish from all corners of the globe, such that I have them for places such as the State of Utah, the shoreline fish of Oregon and the rivers of Bhutan. I decided that way lay madness and a painful credit card bill. Fishpaste is OK but Calacademy is much more reliable. Was my pleasure though, I really enjoy the process of ID and I'm fortunate to be able to do it in the same way that a birder can do it from a glimpse of wing.

 

 

**....and in part due to the desire of ichthyologists to discover a new species !

 

In their defence (I have friends who are taxonomists..), historically it was very hard for someone in say, eastern France (or wherever), to check with all the literature and specimens across Europe, particularly as for a decent part of the past 300 years there has always been someone at war with someone else. The illustrations often left a lot to be desired, and the darker side of human nature always played a part, nationalism, ego and the desire to please funders by naming a fish after them. In general the ICZN rules do work. The internet makes it all much easier along with other technology, I even know of researchers who have had scans of morphological features sent via dropbox so they can be replicated on a 3D printer and compared with others. The dodgy stuff still goes on, there were some African fish recently described in an obscure and expensive Polish journal with no English translation (English is the lingua franca for the taxonomic world), deliberately (in the view of some) to stop people from casting a critical eye over the work.

[Vagabond]

1. I went through a phase of obsessively collecting ID books for fish from all corners of the globe,

 

 

 

2. the darker side of human nature always played a part, nationalism, ego and the desire to please funders by naming a fish after them.

1. I managed to limit mine to countries where I intended to fish - but I know the feeling.

 

it applies to bird books also, which brings me to 2.

 

When we visited Cuba about 15 years ago, shades of the Cold War meant we had to have a minder wherever we went.

Ours was a nice chap called Orlando, who could sing at professional opera level, had (with his brother) represented Cuba at

Wimbledon (reached men's doubles semis once) and was also a bird guide.

 

He was a knowledgeable ornithologist but had a fixed idea that most of the Cuban birds were separate species from their North American counterparts. Complicated because of migrants, vagrants and the like. I remember having a long lecture about the differences between an American Kestrel and a CUBAN American Kestrel, - behaviour, and a moustachial stripe.

 

We were driving along and I spotted a kestrel

 

"Is it Cuban ?" asked Orlando from the other side of the car, as he couldn't see it.

"Has it the forked moustachial stripe ?"

"How is it flying ?"

 

"Don't worry, Orlando, it's Cuban alright" I said

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

 

"It's smoking a cigar"