Latin Taxonomy Terms, etc.
Contents:
- labeling fish
by Marco Lacerda <marcolacerda/ax.apc.org> (Fri, 03 Oct 1997)
- Germans
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Wed, 03 Jun 1998)
- Germans
by Marco "T\zlio" Lacerda <marcolacerda/ax.apc.org> (Thu, 04 Jun 1998)
- Lyreate tail
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Sat, 10 Oct 1998)
- A. afanini?
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Fri, 12 Feb 1999)
- Derivation of name Apistogramma
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Wed, 28 Apr 1999)
- 'bullnoses' and other questions
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Thu, 14 Oct 1999)
- ancestral apistos
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Mon, 22 Nov 1999)
- Saying it (more or less) correctly
by jaredmarkw/mindspring.com (Tue, 28 Dec 1999)
- Saying it (more or less) correctly
by Wright Huntley <huntley1/home.com> (Tue, 28 Dec 1999)
- Saying it correctly
by "Alex" <girardinus/dubouchet.com> (Mon, 27 Dec 1999)
- Aquatic Plants Digest V3 #1476
by "Tom Brennan" <brennans/ix.netcom.com> (Mon, 27 Dec 1999)
- native names (was cara pintada)
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com> (Wed, 20 Sep 2000)
by Marco Lacerda <marcolacerda/ax.apc.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 1997
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
Jota Melgar wrote:
> I'm sorry. I forgot to mention that you already clarified that this is not
> Apisto gephyra but a related species. However, I was referring back to the
> ACA convention where you had those fish labeled as Apisto gephyra "Rio
> Xingu" and not A. sp. aff. gephyra "Rio Xingu". In any case, that was not
> the point I was trying to get across. The point was that wether you give a
> new fish an already known scientific name or a commercial name you will
> never please everybody.
> I don't know enough about the rules of taxonomy to argue in favor or
> against the use of sp. aff. for the gephyra. If I had to guess, I would say
> that the term sp. aff. is used when the identity of the fish is unknown but
> it has a striking similarity with that fish and that further taxonomic
> study will decide if it is gephyra or not. I'm not so sure that sp. aff.
> gephyra is the same as to say that is NOT gephyra. Hopefully someone can
> clarify the meaning of the term sp. aff.
The International Code for Zoological Nomenclature is not a
complicated book to be used, and it says:
- aff. = affinis, to species you know are distinct, but closely
related. (ex: Apistogramma aff. agassizii, means a fish you know is
NOT agassizii, but a related species to it)
- cf. = confer, to species you supose to be same. (ex: Apistogramma
cf. agassizii, means a fish you believe to be agassizii, but needs
better scientific determination to confirm)
> >On that I agree with you, and I think it is very important to add
> >locality data when labeling new species. In your example, it has been
> >"Rio Xingu".
>
> Yes, that is a very good practice and I do recognize that you always
> mention the river where they come from and try to give as much of a
> description as possible.
> I'm sorry if I caused you any grievance. That was not my intention.
Not any grievance, Julio. That's all ok.
We are only discussing opinions, and I believe it is healthy to
exchange ideas! I just wanted to clear my point of view, now I
understood yours, I hope the terms "aff." and "cf." are clear now.
> Regards
> Julio
All the best, Marco.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 1998
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
I think that the Germans weren't just the first in apistos, but in all
aquarium
fish (as opposed to pond fish). Even the American hobby was started by
German
immigrants. It's interesting that many of the German ichthyologists
were also avid
aquarists.
With regard to apistos, most of the people studying them were
ichthyologists only interested in taxonomy. In the 1930s the first of
the German of the combination ichthyologists/hobbyists appeared on the
scene. This was Ernst Ahl. Then in the 1960s and early 70s there was
Hermann Meinken. Both were well known aquarists as well as
ichthyologists.
Ahl described A. parva (1931), A. weisei & A. ornatipinnis (1936), A.
aequipinnis (1938), and A. reitzigi (1939). All of these have been
reduced to
junior synonyms, thus invalid species (I, however, wouldn't be surprised
if
either A. aequipinnis or A. reitzigi is eventually recognized as a valid
species.). During this period in German history, relations were
strained between
it and many of the other countries with reference collections. Perhaps
Ahl
couldn't get access to much of this material or even foreign journals.
I don't
know. I do know that Ahl based most of his species on specimens
collected for the aquarium trade and kept for a long time in captivity
before being preserved and examined. Use of domestically raised fish
are not favored by most present day taxonomists because fish raised in
an aquarium tend to be larger with heavier bodies and more extended
finnage.
Meinken described the following species: A. wickleri & A. trifasciata
haraldschultzi (1960), A. sweglesi (1961), A. klausewitzi (1962), A.
kleei
(1964), A. hoignei (1965), A. gibbiceps (1969), and A. geisleri (1971).
The
first five species are now recognized as junior synonyms of previously
described
species, but he was accurate on his later descriptions. (I won't go into
his mess
with the rams here.) Again he was dependent on the hobby trade for his
specimens. This resulted in the same problems Ahl had. His latter
species were
also from the aquarium hobby, but most came from hobbyist who collected
the fish
in the wild, not imported fish.
The late-70s saw an upsurge of German "professional" hobbyists. These
were
people who specialized in writing books and articles on fish. Many
actually went
to South America to collect their own fish. Heiko Blehrer, Hans
Mayland, Dr.
Wolfgang Staeck, and Werner Schmettkamp were the best known in the dwarf
cichlid
area. Many eventually formed partnerships with many of the German
importers,
either owning them or collecting for them. These men encouraged many
more German
hobbyists to go on collecting expeditions in the later 80s and 90s.
The mid-80s and 90s brought back the German scientist/hobbyist again.
While Dr.
Sven O. Kullander was doing traditional taxonomic work in Sweden,
biology
students/hobbyists like Ingo Koslowski and Uwe Römer were working with
importers,
collectors, and hobbyists. They wrote for many of the German aquarium
magazines,
introducing many of the scientifically undescribed species presently in
the
hobby.
Unlike Ahl and Meinken, Koslowski and Römer were interested in more than
simple
taxonomic identifications. They studied ecology, behavior, and
phylogeny in the
dwarf cichlids.
Why the Germans seem to have a lop-sided majority of dwarf cichlid
specialists, I
don't know. The French have Dr. Jacque Géry (Characoids), the
Netherlands has
Dr. Hans Nijssen (Catfish), England has David Sands (Catfish), the US
has Dr.
Stanley Weitzman (Characoids), Don Conkel & Rusty Wessel (Central
American
Cichlids), Dr. Paul V. Loiselle (African/Madagascar Cichlids), and Dr.
Wayne
Leibel (South American Cichlids), so the wealth of serious
hobbyists/scientists
is pretty well distributed. I get the feeling, though, that there is
something
in the German psyche that makes them more single-minded (fanatic) in
their search
for knowledge that they're interested in. They also seem to put more
time and
money into their hobbies. I also think that most Americans are to
provincial,
unwilling to go somewhere too different than their home unless
accompanied by a
guide.
Doug Brown wrote:
> While the list is kind of quiet maybe someone can tell me why there is such
> a Germanic history behind apisto studies. How did this come to be? Who
> started it? My Smaragds want to know!
>
> -Doug Brown
> debrown-at-kodak.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Marco "T\zlio" Lacerda <marcolacerda/ax.apc.org>
Date: Thu, 04 Jun 1998
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
Mike & Diane Wise wrote:
>
> I think that the Germans weren't just the first in apistos, but in all
> aquarium
> fish (as opposed to pond fish). Even the American hobby was started by
> German
> immigrants.
Dear Mike:
Very interesting your historical summary.
I would like to add that one of the first ichthyologists to study South
American fishes was Carl Eigenmann, who was a German immigrant to the
USA. Myers was perhaps the leading ichthyologist on South American
fishes of his time (he was once a student of Eigenmann) and described
several dwarf cichlids, as Taeniacara candidi and Crenicara (now
Dicrossus) filamentosus. Weitzman that you mentions is one of the best
ichthyologists of our time, and he was once a Myers' student.
Don't forget also Haseman, who worked at some dwarf cichlids at the
Carnegie Museum, in the 1910's (Eigenmann's time, I think he was also
one of Eigenmann's students).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request-at-majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1998
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
Jason,
Closed & open lyre tails are just my descriptions for the two types found on
apistos. Usually I use broad & narrow lyre tails. An open, or broad, lyre tail is
the same as what the German authors call double tipped. This is basically a
squared off tail with extension at the top and bottom. Examples are: A.
steindachneri, A. cacatuoides, and some A. macmasteri. A closed, or narrow, lyre
tail is a round or oval tail with extension more toward the middle edge of the
fin. Examples are: A. uaupesi, A. gibbiceps, A. mendezi, and A. elizabethae
(until it grows together to form a spade shaped tail).
As for spines, this requires some definitions for fish fins. Fins are made up of
bones and fleshy membrane material. Spines are fin bones that are heavier and do
not branch. Rays, on the other hand, are finer bones that have a branch that
forks off of the main bony section. These are listed in scientific description in
this manner:
D. XIV.7 A. III.6
This means that the dorsal fin has 14 spines (unbranching) & 7 rays (branching)
and the anal fin has 3 spines & 6 rays. Spines and rays don't "stick out" of the
fin unless there is a bad case of fin rot. Sometimes there are spines with their
associated lappets that extend above the rest of the fin, however.
There is fleshy membrane found between the bones. Lappets are membranes that
extend above and back from the bones (spines and rays) (e.g.. A. cacatuoides, A.
sp. Breitbinden, and A. macmasteri). Other fish have lappets fused together to
form a sail like fin (e.g.. A. pertensis, A. uaupesi, & A. iniridae). Fish with
low, even, dorsals (e.g.. A. agassizii, A. regani, & A. nijsseni) don't have
lappets.
Mike Wise
Mayalauren@aol.com wrote:
> Mike,
> Could you explain the difference between an open and closed lyre tail, if
> there is on?
> Also when talking about spines, I just want be sure that they are the ones
> that "stick out" of the fin.
> Jason
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
Strictly speaking, Frederik is correct. "cf." (Latin for confer = compares with),
as used in scientific papers, indicates that the specimen resembles the named
species very closely, but has certain minor features not found on the type
specimens. Whether it is a different population of the named species or a
different species altogether would require more research into the species'
population variations than was undertaken by the author. "sp. aff. or affin."
(Latin for affinis = related to) is used in similar papers for specimens that are
closely related to the named species but show features that make it obvious that
it is a different species. In practical terms the author decides whether to use
"cf." or "sp. aff." based on his own experience (bias?).
Dave Gomberg wrote:
> At 07:23 PM 2/12/99 +0100, Frederik wrote:
> >I'd like to mention that P. sp. aff. pulcher
> >also is quite different from P. cf. pulcher in taxonomical terms, the latter
> >meaning a species similar to P. pulcher and despite minor differences
> >most likely is that species.
>
> Gee, I thought P. cf. pulcher meant literally "compare", so that it means
> to figure out what this is compare it to pulcher, which means the author is
> quite unsure about whether it is pulcher or not. Fredrick, I think your
> definition applies to P. pulcher(?).
>
> --
> Dave Gomberg, San Francisco mailto:gomberg@wcf.com
> http://www.wcf.com/co2iron
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1999
To: apisto/admin.listbox.com
--------------D65BE32543F8ABE2211C1E6C
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Tom,
The actual etymology of the name Apistogramma isn't known for certain since Dr.
Regan never explained the meaning of the name. We do have clues, however.
First we should realize that Apistogramma wasn't the first name given to the
genus. The first apisto described was A. taeniata. Günther gave it the name
Mesops taeniatus in 1862. Other apisto species were placed in other genera, like
Geophagus and Biotodoma. Regan, in cataloging South American cichlids discovered
that the genus Mesops had already been used for a genus of beetle. The cichlid
genus Mesops was invalid and a new name was needed. In 1906 he grouped all of the
apisto species then known (6) into the genus Heterogramma. In using Heterogramma,
he referred to one of the features he used to separate the genus from the closely
related genus Geophagus - the upper lateral line (sensory organ) lays closer to
the dorsal fin on apistos than the same lateral line on Geophagus. In this
respect Heterogramma means "different (lateral) line". A few years later Regan
again discovered that the genus Heterogramma was preoccupied by a genus of beetle
(There are a hell of a lot of beetles out there!). So, in 1913 he erected the
name Apistogramma. Again he didn't discuss the etymology of the name. Like you
said, Tom, "apistos" is Greek for unreliable. I guess this is the closest word to
"heteros" Regan could find. As for "gramma" it can mean "line or stripe" or
"letter or writing". The following is what Kullander had to say in his 1980
apisto monograph:
"In not explaining explicitly the meaning of his names, Regan left us with a
problem. There are two Greek words that can be latinized into gramma. viz. gramma
and grammh. The first is neuter (actually he got them switched around - mw) and
means letter, something written, or basic knowledge (cf. English words grammar,
program), the second is feminine and means stripe or line. If the meaning is
considered, there can be no doubt about which word Regan had in mind. Meinken (in
Holly et al.) explains Apistogramma as meaning "mit unzuverlässiger Seitenlinie"
(= "with unreliable lateral line" - mw), i.e. the feminine word is the one
sought, and it retains its gender after latinization. -a is also the common Latin
feminine ending. The "gender problem" was first observed by Schmettkamp (1976),
who noted that neuter endings to specific names were commonest in literature, but
that also masculine (amoenus) and mistakingly, feminine (pleurotaenia) occurred."
For those interested, last year the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature ruled that Apistogramma is feminine and species should have a
feminine ending (unless named after a man).
So there you have it in a nut shell. Apistogramma now means "unreliable lateral
line" and has nothing to do with markings on the fish.
For those interested in the history of apistos in the scientific literature, I
would recommend reading section 2 in Kullander's 1980 monograph.
Mike Wise
Thomas Fischer wrote:
> This isn't the most burning question in the world, but does anyone know the
> etymological meaning of the name Apistogramma? As far as I can make out, it
> seems to mean something like "untrustworthy/unreliable
> letter/character/marking." Could this have something to do with the fishes'
> various body markings?
>
> Tom Fischer
> Boston
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
--------------D65BE32543F8ABE2211C1E6C
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!doctype html public "-//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en">
<html>
Tom,
<p>The actual etymology of the name Apistogramma isn't known for certain
since Dr. Regan never explained the meaning of the name. We do have clues,
however.
<p>First we should realize that Apistogramma wasn't the first name given
to the genus. The first apisto described was A. taeniata. Günther
gave it the name Mesops taeniatus in 1862. Other apisto species were placed
in other genera, like Geophagus and Biotodoma. Regan, in cataloging South
American cichlids discovered that the genus Mesops had already been used
for a genus of beetle. The cichlid genus Mesops was invalid and a new name
was needed. In 1906 he grouped all of the apisto species then known (6)
into the genus Heterogramma. In using Heterogramma, he referred to one
of the features he used to separate the genus from the closely related
genus Geophagus - the upper lateral line (sensory organ) lays closer to
the dorsal fin on apistos than the same lateral line on Geophagus. In this
respect Heterogramma means "different (lateral) line". A few years
later Regan again discovered that the genus Heterogramma was preoccupied
by a genus of beetle (There are a hell of a lot of beetles out there!).
So, in 1913 he erected the name Apistogramma. Again he didn't discuss the
etymology of the name. Like you said, Tom, "apistos" is Greek for unreliable.
I guess this is the closest word to "heteros" Regan could find. As for
"gramma" it can mean "line or stripe" or "letter or writing". The following
is what Kullander had to say in his 1980 apisto monograph:
<p>"In not explaining explicitly the meaning of his names, Regan left us
with a problem. There are two Greek words that can be latinized into gramma.
viz. <font face="Symbol">gramma </font>and<font face="Symbol"> grammh</font>.
The first is neuter (actually he got them switched around - mw) and means
letter, something written, or basic knowledge (cf. English words grammar,
program), the second is feminine and means stripe or line. If the meaning
is considered, there can be no doubt about which word Regan had in mind.
Meinken (in Holly et al.) explains Apistogramma as meaning "mit unzuverlässiger
Seitenlinie" (= "with unreliable lateral line" - mw), i.e. the feminine
word is the one sought, and it retains its gender after latinization. -a
is also the common Latin feminine ending. The "gender problem" was first
observed by Schmettkamp (1976), who noted that neuter endings to specific
names were commonest in literature, but that also masculine (amoenus) and
mistakingly, feminine (pleurotaenia) occurred."
<p>For those interested, last year the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature ruled that Apistogramma is feminine and species should have
a feminine ending (unless named after a man).
<p>So there you have it in a nut shell. Apistogramma now means "unreliable
lateral line" and has nothing to do with markings on the fish.
<p>For those interested in the history of apistos in the scientific
literature, I would recommend reading section 2 in Kullander's 1980 monograph.
<p>Mike Wise
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p>Thomas Fischer wrote:
<blockquote TYPE=CITE>This isn't the most burning question in the world,
but does anyone know the
<br>etymological meaning of the name Apistogramma? As far as I can make
out, it
<br>seems to mean something like "untrustworthy/unreliable
<br>letter/character/marking." Could this have something to do with the
fishes'
<br>various body markings?
<p>Tom Fischer
<br>Boston
<p>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<br>This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@majordomo.pobox.com.
<br>For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
<br>email apisto-request@majordomo.pobox.com.
<br>Search <a href="http://altavista.digital.com">http://altavista.digital.com</a>
for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!</blockquote>
</html>
--------------D65BE32543F8ABE2211C1E6C--
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 1999
To: apisto/admin.listbox.com
Scot,
On the first question, I have no idea what causes this bull nose problem. I have
some A. sp. aff. meinkeni that were wild caught fish that have this symptom so it
isn't restricted to domestic fish. These fish are well over 2 years old and still
going strong so it doesn't seem to bother them.
On the second question, A. borellii was named by Regan in honor of Dr. A.
Borelli, who discovered the species. A. agassizii is named for the J. Louis R.
Agassiz, the geologist/biologist on the Thayer Expedition to the Amazon in
1865-66. I don't know why Steindachner, who described the species, spelled it
with 2 "i"s but he did. As. Fredrik wrote, it doesn't matter if the species name
is misspelled. Once it's published it stays that way. This kind of error is still
going on. Römer named a fish for Chico Mendes. The publisher, however, misspelled
the name with a "z" instead of an "s". Uwe didn't catch the error in the galley
proof, so now the name is A. mendezi instead of "A. mendesi" If you consider that
A. panduro was named for both J. V. Panduro Pinedo and N. J. L Panduro Pinedo,
the name of the fish should be "A. pandurorum", the possessive (genitive) plural
ending in Latin. Even the name of A. atahualpa might be more correct as "A.
atahualpai" or "A. atahualpi" or even "A. atahualpae" (Since the name ends in "a"
(a feminine suffix in Latin) some say the name is feminine and should have a
feminine possessive suffix - but don't let the Inca know or he would come out and
haunt us!) So it really doesn't matter if the name is spelled correctly or not.
What is important is that the name is consistantly spelled the same way all of
the time.
Mike Wise
Scott Olson wrote:
> There are a couple of questions that have haunted me for some years now.
> Perhaps someone can help.
>
> The first is the matter of 'bull-nosed' fish. I have seen entire spawns
> (not from my own fish) grow out to have a strange condition that I can only
> describe as bull-nosed, or perhaps bus-nosed. The fish end up with a
> curiously truncated head. The lips and everything are there. It's as if
> the fish have run repeatedly into some immovable object without causing any
> real damage, other than to the general form of the fish. Otherwise, the
> animals seem perfectly healthy. I have observed this condition not only in
> apistogramma (especially in A. hippolytae, though I doubt that species has
> anything to do with it) but also in one male of a reverse trio of young
> Psuedocrenilabrus - as they were then known - nicholsi that I picked up from
> a LFS. Can anyone tell me what causes this condition? Has anyone else
> observed it? If we understand the cause, perhaps we can undertake to
> prevent its occurence. I believe I have only observed the condition in
> domestically bred specimens.
>
> The second is the proper spelling of two specific names: agassizi and
> borellii. I have spelled them as I think they should be spelled. While I
> can't claim to be other than the rankest neophyte in either Latin or
> taxonomy, it seems that possession in Latin, at least as it relates to
> scientific nomenclature, is normally denoted by the addition of the letter
> 'i' to someone's name, just as apostrophe 's' is added in English. If this
> is so, and a fish is named after someone named Geisler, then the correct
> spelling of the specific name would be Apistogramma geisleri, or geisler's
> Apistogramma, in English. Since A. agassizi and A. borellii were named
> after individuals named Agassiz and Borelli, respectively, it seems that the
> correct spelling of these species' names is as shown above. It seems that
> in the hobby, these fish are consistently spelled agassizii and borelli,
> however. This seems to be especially true in the case of agassizi. Am I
> all wet? Which is the better spelling for each species?
>
> It may be evidence of some deep personal flaw, but I've pondered these two
> questions a number of times over the years, and would appreciate any
> elightenment!
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Scott
>
> ______________________________________________________
> Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@listbox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999
To: apisto/majordomo.pobox.com
Steven,
Kullander recently wrote a paper on South American cichlid phylogeny. He believes
that the genus Apistogramma and Gymnogeophagus are most closely related because
they show more plesiomorphs (ancestral characteristics) in common with each other
than any other presently known genera. My feeling is that Apistogramma originated
in the Mato Grosso region or along the northern slopes of the southern Brazilian
Highlands, in southeastern Brazil. When they split from their ancestral forms
(something that probably looked like Geophagus brasiliensis) is anyone's guess. I
imagine it occurred relatively recently (geologically), sometime in the late
Pliocene or early Pleistocene Epoch (3-2 million years ago). I have sent a paper
to the ACA for publication titled "A Suggested Phylogeny for Apistogramma
Species-Groups". It should be published sometime early next year. I'm not
entirely happy with it. There are just too many holes in our data that can't be
filled in. And since I wrote it, new discoveries have shown that some changes
need to be made to it already.
Mike Wise
swaldron@slip.net wrote:
> Mike and all,
> Where do we think the diverse Apisto fauna got its start? How old do we
> think the lineage is? What are the most ancestral forms? Is there a good
> phylogeny worked out?
>
> Steven J. Waldron
>
> http://WWW.ANURA.ORG
> "Natural History, Captive Husbandry, Conservation and
> Biophilia of Tropical Frogs"
>
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
> For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
> email apisto-request@listbox.com.
> Search http://altavista.digital.com for "Apistogramma Mailing List Archives"!
by jaredmarkw/mindspring.com
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
For another point of view and a discussion of Classical
vs. English Traditional Latin, see "Botanical Latin" at
http://www.sarracenia.com/faq/faq148a.html
which quotes Wm. T.Stearn:
"Botanical Latin is essentially a written language, but
the scientific names of plants often occur in speech.
How they are pronounced really matters little
provided they sound pleasant and are understood by
all concerned..."
That said, I think that at any International meeting, all
but some Anglophones would be using a basically Classical
pronunciation of Latin names.
Jared
by Wright Huntley <huntley1/home.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999
I'm happy I'm not the only one that gagged at the web site cited earlier.
The pronunciations were not close enough to Latin to be understood almost
anywhere but maybe the US midwest!
We have several systems of Latin pronunciation, here. There is the Church
system, and the very similar one taught in most schools. There is a bit more
ancient academic Latin that *no one* I know speaks. [Sorta like Chaucer's
English. :-)] Then there is fish-Latin. It is a subset of biology-Latin
which also includes plant-Latin. The American versions are unintelligible in
the extreme!
If we get in the habit of giving scientific names an American accent, we do
become unintelligible to the rest of the world. The whole purpose of
standardizing the nomenclature systems was to *improve* understanding.
Our local killy clubs have tended to have three or four European speakers a
year give talks at meetings and conventions. They all tend to use
standardized Latin to pronounce the names of fish and plants. I find that
strains my ears, for I am too accustomed to hearing our mangled versions.
If you want to be understood, get a 1st-year Latin textbook, and learn those
rules. If you really apply them, you will get it across in Italy or in
Holland or in the Phillipines with absolutely no trouble. Proper names are
the only exception. [Use the Latin if you don't know what the original
pronunciation was, and you'll get by.]
Pop quiz:
Pronounce *Cryptocoryne*.
Wright
- --
Wright Huntley, Fremont CA, USA, 510 494-8679 huntleyone at home dot com
"DEMOCRACY" is two wolves and a lamb voting on lunch.
"LIBERTY" is a well-armed lamb denying enforcement of the vote.
*** http://www.self-gov.org/index.html ***
by "Alex" <girardinus/dubouchet.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
>Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:48:23 -0500
>From: "John Godbey" <godbey@wizard.net>
>Subject: Saying it correctly
>
>Can anyone point me to a source, either on the web or in an available book,
>for the proper pronunciation of plant & fish scientific names? Something
>that would tell me, for example, what syllable gets the accent in
>"Aponogeton"?
>
>John Godbey
>Springfield, VA
John,
There's a book: "Composition of Scientific Words : A Manual of Methods and a Lexicon of Materials for Practice of Logo Technics" that could help you on this matter. The only drawback is that it is about 40 bucks. I used to use this book a while ago at the Smithsonian's Natural History Museum and it is quite comprehensive and fun to read. In case you want it, it's available at Amazon.com:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0874742862/qid=946338867/sr=1-11/002-6691348-6750613.
Alex duBouchet
Washington, DC
by "Tom Brennan" <brennans/ix.netcom.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999
John,
This is kind of a good link for people like us....the phonetically impaired
http://www.geocities.com/~tmfrench/Latin.html
Tom Brennan
| Date: Mon, 27 Dec 1999 08:48:23 -0500
| From: "John Godbey" <godbey@wizard.net>
| Subject: Saying it correctly
|
| Can anyone point me to a source, either on the web or in an available
book,
| for the proper pronunciation of plant & fish scientific names? Something
| that would tell me, for example, what syllable gets the accent in
| "Aponogeton"?
|
| John Godbey
| Springfield, VA
by Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise/bewellnet.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000
To: apisto/listbox.com
Tsuh Yang & Julio,
This is from Kullander's description of A. viejita:
"Etymology. Viejita is the vernacular name for Apistogramma spp. in eastern
Colombia; diminutive of Vieja (Spanish: old woman) vernacular for cichlids and
other fishes in various parts of South America."
I have read that some authors believe that it is due to the manner in which the
females lead their young like a mother ("the Old Lady"). Thus small cichlids are
called "little old women".
Mike Wise
Jota Melgar wrote:
> >is bujurque a native (indian) name or spanish?
>
> Definitely not Spanish. Now, I have no idea what native language it is,
> especially considering the number of tribes (Iquitos, Ucayalis, Huitotos,
> Omaguas, etc.) that inhabited the Peruvian jungle. Today that name is used
> throughout eastern Peru.
>
> >and why do they call cichlids "viejas" (old women) in spanish?
>
> No idea. The name is used mostly in Mexico and perhaps some Central
> American countries. I've never heard it used in South America.
>
> >now, julio, do you know what piaba means?
>
> Ornamental fish?
>
> Julio
>
The Krib
Apistogramma/Dwarf Cichlids
The Krib