What's the logic - panaque, ancistrini, peckoltia...

[geminiluna]

Ok, so I read through the "common names" versus "scientific names" thread, and figured I'd try to enlighten myself a bit.

Here's what I've always wondered, and pardon me if it's spelled out somewhere plain as day but I didn't find an explanation on this site.... What is the logic behind whether something is a panaque, an ancistrini, a peckoltia, hypancistrus, leporacanticus, etc.? (Please forgive spelling errors.)

And while we're on the topic... I know the whole "kingdom, phylum, class, order, family, genera, species" sequence... how does that apply here?

Let's use my favorite loricariidae hypancistrus sp L260 Queen Arabesque Pleco. Is loricariidae the family? Is hypancistrus the genera? Is L260 the species?

Thanks for setting someone straight who doesn't want to appear to be a complete idiot!

[Jools]

Is loricariidae the family? Is hypancistrus the genera? Is L260 the species?

What a great post! So loricariidae is the family you can tell as it ends in "idae". All families do.

ancistrini is a tribe I think. So, a family can be split into several sub-families and within a sub family the different genera can belong to tribes. The ending ini denotes this. I think all sub families end in ae but this is stretching the limits of my knowledge. There are more here who will correct me.

Hypancistrus

is indeed the genus (singular of the plural genera) and L260 is a non-scientific term used becuase the species is likely not described (doesn't have a species name). Formally, it should be written in upper case.

It's correctly written Hypancistrus sp. L260. The italics denote scientifically defined names.

Species is one of those odd words (like sheep) that is the same in the singular or plural.

An unofficial standard is when talking about species from the same families we talk about catfish, if talking about species from several families then we use catfishes.

More here: http://www.planetcatfish.com/general/ge ... sification

Jools

[Silurus]

At the suprageneric (i.e. more inclusive than genus) level, the following rules regarding suffixes apply:

Superfamily: -oidea
Family: -idae
Subfamily: -inae
Tribe: -ini
Subtribe: -ina

[dw1305]

Hi all,
The nomenclature of the Loricariidae is largely based upon morphological features, although some work on molecular systematics has been carried out.

Some of the posters on this forum are the scientists involved in this work and can give you a more complete answer, but have a look here: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_ ... index.html

L260 is a Hypancistrus species that has not been scientifically described. The L number has no significance scientifically, and is just a designation applied to a single fish by DATZ. We think that fish is a Hypancistrus based upon its morphology and dentition. Other fish with a similar collection site, morphology and dentition are called L260, but this does not imply that they are all the same species, the same species as the fish originally designated as L260 or that L260 is a species. Because of the morphological similarities of the "scribbled" Hypancistrus species, it is probably only DNA sequencing that can sort out whether they are very closely related or more distantly related but similarly patterned due to convergent evolution.

It is only when "L260" is scientifically described, with a collection site for the holotype and meta-data, that it can become a species. This is what has happened with H. debliterra (L129), Peckoltia compta (L134) etc.

cheers Darrel

[crkinney]

Great question and very good answers ,Sometimes it gets a little scientific for me and I have to go to the dictionary just to figure out what is being said.
Just think afew years ago I was eatting catfish and now I am calling them by their frist name.
mule

[geminiluna]

Jools, Silurus, and Darrel - thank you very much for your posts. The classification chart is fantastic, and I'm getting ready to explore the Auburn link during my lunch break. Remembering the endings at the suprageneric level may be a bit beyond me yet. Let me go look at this other link and come back with more questions!

[Suckermouth]

At the suprageneric (i.e. more inclusive than genus) level, the following rules regarding suffixes apply:

Superfamily: -oidea
Family: -idae
Subfamily: -inae
Tribe: -ini
Subtribe: -ina

Only somewhat relevant, but it should be noted that these endings only apply within animals. Plants, for example, use different endings.

Because of the morphological similarities of the "scribbled" Hypancistrus species, it is probably only DNA sequencing that can sort out whether they are very closely related or more distantly related but similarly patterned due to convergent evolution.

One day...

What is the logic behind whether something is a panaque, an ancistrini, a peckoltia, hypancistrus, leporacanticus, etc.?

Not sure if anyone answered this directly. Genera act as categories that tie closely related species together. Genera can be defined in any way as the original person describing it wants and are largely arbitrary categories. In any case, in the original description of a genus (or any taxonomic level), there should be diagnostic characters that distinguish that group from other groups. Hypancistrus is named for and distinguished by its longer lower jaw teeth (Hypo- meaning lower); it is additionally diagnosed by several characters of the skeleton that were added when the genus was redescribed by Armbruster. Some characteristics that define a genus are unique to that genus, and some are not exclusive to that genus, but are present in a combination not present in other genera. For example, Leporacanthicus is partially diagnosed by having a supraocciptial crest (a bump on the back of the head, basically), but this is not unique to this genus; the members of the former Glyptoperichthys (now included within Pterygoplichthys) also have this character. The presence of characters and combinations of characters in a species allows placement of that species in a genus.

"Ancistrini", as Jools mentions, is a tribe. This is used when we don't know what genus an undescribed species may fall under. You'll notice a few species of "Hypostominae" in the Cat-eLog as well; this is when we don't know what tribe of the subfamily Hypostominae a species falls under.

[geminiluna]

Not sure if anyone answered this directly. Genera act as categories that tie closely related species together. Genera can be defined in any way as the original person describing it wants and are largely arbitrary categories. In any case, in the original description of a genus (or any taxonomic level), there should be diagnostic characters that distinguish that group from other groups.

Thank you, Suckermouth. Yes, your answer helps me to understand the logic of why one member of the loricariidae family would be determined Hypancistrus genus versus Leporacanthicus genus. Your answer now puts context around the "Key" page in that Auburn link that dw1305 posted (see page titled "A Key to the genera of Loricariidae" here: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_ ... y/key.html).

It wasn't a quick "lunch-break" read for me, and I don't immediately grasp the flow of the key and the numbered hyperlinks in the third column. But it's a start.

I've learned several things from my original question today - from proper format (caps/italics) of a scientific name, to some beginning insight into what characteristics are common to one genus versus another!

It's frustrating to be intelligent (I DO have two post-graduate degrees and a professional license), but illiterate at the same time!

[Suckermouth]

Your answer now puts context around the "Key" page in that Auburn link that dw1305 posted (see page titled "A Key to the genera of Loricariidae" here: http://www.auburn.edu/academic/science_ ... y/key.html).

Dichotomous keys are long-held tradition in biology for identifying organisms. The idea is you have a fish in hand and you're trying to find out what it is, so you pull out a key and figure out what characteristics it has. The basic idea is that you are posed two options and your organism you are identifying should have one of the two options. If that option tells you to go to a number, you go to that number in the key and choose between these two new options under that number. Usually in print you have to find it (which can include flipping pages for long keys), but through the magic of HTML, Jon's page let's you click the number and jump to the next node. Since this is a key to genera, you will eventually hit a genus in this key. Occasionally, poorly written keys will mean that your fish might not be identifiable with that key, but Jon Armbruster's key is up to date up to 2004.

Dichotomous keys do have their downsides though, they're not perfect.

[Shane]

I'll lay this out a bit as I think many of us (at least myself) have fallen a bit behind on higher level loricariid taxonomy.

A little history...
For many year the family was neatly divided into six subfamilies and aquarists were quite comfortable with this arrangement.

Hypostominae was all robust (or "fat") plecos without cheek spines, Ancistrinae all robust plecos with cheek spines, Hypoptopominae all Otos and their kin, and loricariinae all the "flat" plecos. Nobody paid much attention to the remaining subfamilies, Neoplecostominae and Lithogeneinae, as they never showed up in the hobby.

Basically we could categorize them all as either fat spiny, fat smooth, flat, or dwarf. It was easy.

In 2006 the subfamily Ancistrinae was merged with Hypostominae and Delturinae was created. So we still have six subfamilies. Since Ancistrinae was merged with Hypostominae it was now necessary to further divide this (now massive) subfamily into manageable tribes.

The five tribes are Corymbophanini, Hypostomini, Pterygoplichthyini, Rhinelepini, and Ancistrini and contain over 50 genera between them. The entire family has just over 90 genera. None of the other five loricariid subfamilies have tribes.

Of these five tribes, the Ancistrini (fat plecos with cheek spines) represent the lion's share of popular aquarium fishes and L Numbers. In fact almost the entire L Number system is tied to this tribe.

-Shane

[racoll]

An unofficial standard is when talking about species from the same families we talk about catfish, if talking about species from several families then we use catfishes.

My understanding is that "fish" applies to one or more individuals of a single species, while "fishes" applies to individuals of more than one species.

from proper format (caps/italics) of a scientific name,

ancistrini is a tribe I think. So, a family can be split into several sub-families and within a sub family the different genera can belong to tribes. The ending ini denotes this. I think all sub families end in ae but this is stretching the limits of my knowledge. There are more here who will correct me.

Being super pedantic:

When writing, any classification above genus (i.e. families, subfamilies and tribes etc) should all start with a capital letter if treated as a singular entity (e.g. "the family Loricariidae is very large").

If treated as plural, the "ae" is dropped, an "s" is added, and there should no capital letter unless starting a sentence (e.g. "I bought some new loricariids the other day").

A similar pattern follows for the plural at subfamily level: Hypostominae becomes hypostomines. At the tribe level, Ancistrini becomes ancistrin.

Also note "subfamily" is all one word, and not hyphenated.

These above-the-genus categories shouldn't be italic (only genus and species names are italic).

[Silurus]

Being super pedantic:

If treated as plural, the "ae" is dropped, an "s" is added, and there should no capital letter unless starting a sentence (e.g. "I bought some new loricariids the other day").

A similar pattern follows for the plural at subfamily level: Hypostominae becomes hypostomines. At the tribe level, Ancistrini becomes ancistrin.

I can be more pedantic than you. The examples you quote are not, strictly speaking, plural forms of the proper nouns, but attributive adjectives derived from the proper nouns. Thus, it is more correct to say “I bought some new loricariid (cat)fishes the other day” (“loricariid” being the attributive adjective of the common noun “(cat)fishes”) instead of “I bought some new loricariids the other day”, but I guess it is human nature to be lazy, so we (almost always) drop the common noun and use the attributive adjective as if it was the plural form of the proper noun.

But hey, English isn't my native language, so what do I know, right?

[geminiluna]

Oh good grief. And to think linguistics was my dual major in undergraduate.

.... ya lost me.

[racoll]

I can be more pedantic than you.

Haha! Now can any one out-pedant Silurus, I wonder?

we (almost always) drop the common noun and use the attributive adjective as if it was the plural form of the proper noun.

Thanks for explaining this. It makes a bit more sense now.

I wonder why journal editors don't stop authors using the former context?

[Jools]

Pedantastic.

This might be one for Clare, but I think that it may be because it reads more eleganty. Also if writing, "loricariid catfish" for example, the use of scientific and vernacular together might be a bit jarring but the alternative "loricariid siluriformes" is verging on horrid. Avoid by using loricariid - less is more.

Jools