Hexanematichthys seemanni -> Sciades seemanni?

[MatsP]

It appears that the Hexanematichthys has been renamed to Sciaedes, and as such the H. seemanni entry in the Cat-eLog needs to be updated.

I don't know if the reference cited for this is changing other species/genus too, but here's the reference:

Systematics of the family Ariidae (Ostariophysi, Siluriformes), with a redefinition of the genera. Zootaxa No. 1416: 1-126.

Edit: Should mention that BOTH COF and FB agree on this name.

--
Mats

[daniel60]

What about Ariopsis? That seems to be CoF's choice:

•Valid as Sciades seemanni (Günther 1864) -- (Marceniuk & Menezes 2007:110 [ref. 29031]). •Valid as Ariopsis seemanni (Günther 1864) -- (Bussing 1987:100 [ref. 22927], Nelson et al. 2004:83 [ref. 27807], Kailola 2004:126 [ref. 28108], Ferraris 2007:33 [ref. 29155], Betancur-R. et al. 2007:348 [ref. 20268]). = Ariopsis seemanni (Günther 1864).

[MatsP]

I'm looking into this. It seems like CoF is "mixed" between Ariopsis and Sciades - depending on what species you look at, it says one or the other.

--
Mats

[racoll]

I don't know if the reference cited for this is changing other species/genus too, but here's the reference:

The paper is open access, so you can get the information is straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak.

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2007f/zt01416p126.pdf

It does get confusing as another independent study was published in that year, and they don't cite each other:

Betancur-R., R. , A. Acero P., E. Bermingham and R. Cooke 2007 [ref. 29268]. Systematics and biogeography of New World sea catfishes (Siluriformes: Ariidae) as inferred from mitochondrial, nuclear, and morphological evidence. Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution v. 45: 339-357.

I haven't read them, so don't know if the conclusions were different.

Let me know if want the paper.

[MatsP]

After a long time, I've come back to this matter...

The second paper is also open access and available here:
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/9/175

Since both of these papers seem to be more or less concurrent, and do not refer to each other, it's still a decision as to which one to follow.

Does anyone know of any further papers that may clarify or substantiate one or the other choice?

Catalog of Fishes is still sitting on the fence, and Fishbase is going with Sciades.

--
Mats

[racoll]

The second paper is also open access and available here:

That's a different paper Mats.

[MatsP]

The second paper is also open access and available here:

That's a different paper Mats.

Ah, doh! So the above paper also puts the H. seemanni as Ariopsis rather than Sciades - may be a lumper vs. splitter type thing, but do you agree that it's leaning that way?

And the original paper is here:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... e207992670

I will have a look later on.

--
Mats

[racoll]

may be a lumper vs. splitter type thing, but do you agree that it's leaning that way?

Looks to be more of a question of phylogeny and priority of names.

I'll email you the MPE paper.

[MatsP]

Well, it's a question of whether Ariopsis is separate from Sciades or not, really, right? The "new" paper with DNA analysis [that I thought was the original paper] has both Sciades and Ariopsis, where the Zootaxa paper doesn't.

And cheers for mailing me the paper - when I found the older DNA paper, I thought it was open access, but trying to actually get to one of the pages further in - so I do indeed need a copy... ;)

--
Mats

[Jools]

If we're going to change it right now I'd go with Ariopsis, however, it will need review over the next few years.

Jools

[MatsP]

Jools, that is what I was leaning towards too - but I would like to spend an hour or two at least reading at the papers involved. (reading != understanding ;) )

--
Mats

[racoll]

Okay, here's my interpretation:

Betancur (2007, 2009) carried out independent phylogenetic analyses on molecular and morphological data. Both these datasets agreed that Ariopsis and Sciades are distinct. The type species of both genera were included, so we can be sure the right names apply.

Marceniuk & Menenzes (2007) treated Ariopsis a synonym of Sciades based on morphology, but didn't carry out a phylogenetic analysis.

In light of this, I would go with Betancur, and call Arius seemanni Günther, Ariopsis seemanni.

[Jools]

It is time for me to write a synonym editing page I think!

Jools

[MatsP]

It is time for me to write a synonym editing page I think!

Jools

Yes, I think we need that!

And just to make sure, we also need to move Hexanematichthys mastersi!

It sounds like we've decided on Ariopsis as the way to go. Someone tell Fishbase that they have it wrong. ;)

I will make the move when we're ready with the synonyms.

--
Mats

[Jools]

OK.

Jools

[Jools]

Should have the synonym facility ready over the weekend.

Jools

[Jools]

I will make the move when we're ready with the synonyms.

This feature is now available.

Jools

[MatsP]

Ok, I'm on it. Or should that be ONIT?

--
Mats

[MatsP]

Hexanematicthys seemanni is now Ariopsis seemanni and the former added and latter removed from synonyms list.

--
Mats

[Jools]

Moved to resolved.

Jools

[MatsP]

Not quite sure what to do with H. mastersi tho' - move to Ariopsis? Fishbase has it under Sciades, as they do with the seemanni, so I'm not quite sure.

--
Mats