A recent paper research by Tino Moritz and Ralf Britz - Revision of the extant Polypteridae.
In the paper it was concluded by this 2 dude that the P. Lapradei and P.Bichir Bichir is no longer a valid subspecies or a species of its own. They're merged all into just P. Bichir.
"Based on analysis of our data we synonymise P. lapradei and P. bichir katangae with P. bichir and only recognize a single species, however, with geographical variation in meristic counts. The cause of the sometimes striking differences in coloration remains unclear."
This is a big blow for the fish hobbyist especially for those trophies collectors. And I guess it will be chaotic for new comers as anybody can sell PBL with 7 marking as PBBs. Apart from this it is actually a sad news, what have they done? Science is always about moving forward, but this 2 buggers just took everything backwards and lets breakdown the publish paper and see how they had derived to this mad conclusion.
"Material examined. 148 specimens."
heres the list :
The 148 specimens includes 95pcs of recorded specimens since year 1799 The remaining specimens actually done by this 2 is
"Additional material. (53pcs) nile Basin: DMM IE/10412, 2, Sudan: Khartoum [central fish market]; T. Moritz et al., Apr 2008."
I presume central fish market is a wet market selling dead food fish. Now let us go for a joy ride of the life of the Polypterus Lapradei:
"In 1869, Steindachner published the description of a new bichir from the Senegal, Polypterus lapradei. He noted that the essential difference between P. lapradei and P. bichir is the shape of the head, whereas counts of dorsal-fin spines and scales show an overlapping gradient: 14-15 vs. 15-17 dorsal-fin spines, 60-62 vs. 64 scales in lateral row, 13-14 vs. 12-13 pre-dorsal scales (values given in Steindachner, 1869). "
The discovery of P.Lapradei by Steindachner in 1869. (Senegal)
"Polypterus lapradei had been regarded as a valid species until Poll (1941a-b, 1942) referred to it as a subspecies of P. bichir"
But poll 1941 published a Polypterus Bichir Katangae (Congo) an enigma sp Congicus unconfirm until today. Possible that I got it wrong or they got it wrong, poll seems not connected to P.Lapradei.
"Since the beginning of the 1970s this view has become widely accepted (Gosse, 1984). In his keys for West African polypterid species, Gosse (1990, 2003) employed the following criteria to distinguish both subspecies: number of scales in a longitudinal series and number of dorsal-fin spines, but noted that both meristic characters show overlap. He also stated and illustrated disjunct distribution areas for the two subspecies: the Benoué River and river basins west of it for P. bichir lapradei, and the Chad basin and river basins east of it for P. bichir bichir (Gosse, 1990, 2003)."
Gosse further reconfirm that P.B.lapradei being a subspecies. (Nigerian)
" Schäfer (2004) in his popular book on bichirs treated P. lapradei again as a valid species, and distinguished it from P. bichir by details of the color pattern: P. lapradei was considered to possess usually clearly marked longitudinal stripes in the anterior region of body"
P.Lapradei was again promoted back to a valid species by Schäfer in 2004. (Nigerian)
"Based on analysis of our data we synonymise P. lapradei and P. bichir katangae with P. bichir and only recognize a single species, however, with geographical variation in meristic counts. The cause of the sometimes striking differences in coloration remains unclear. "
Everyone was so eager to read the new paper as we hope that for sp koliba and sp kolonton to be a subspecies or a species of its own, but instead they concluded that everything is now group into Polypterus Bichir. No more PBB no more PBL no more everything.
They were so confused with all the variant of PBB and all the variant of PBL and they even mixed in sp koliba. Furthermore any experience bichir keeper knows that it is near impossible to ID a dead bichir from a wet market probably all wash out color and pattern. I wonder how this 2 dude manage to ID them without DNA sampling. They were totally lost and made a conclusion to group them all up that they have forgotten the Nigerian Lapradei!!!
They have only compared meristic data and Morphometric characters in a Box-and-whisker plots statistic. No DNA samples were taken from any of the bichirs. And the blunder so great on the P.B. katangae that are in the Congicus group is now mixed into Polypterus Bichir.
Can a research paper get anymore sloppier than this? It was an insult to all the previous ichthyologist. They were supposed to catch on site the fish from nigerian or any other place proposed for the study. Not just passed a conclusion based on some 200 years old record.
Without catching the fish yourself you are depending on fisherman to tell you the origin of the fish, is this science? 99.9% fisherman will not reveal the actual catch location! and they didnt know this? What good is there in buying dead fish from Sudan 1000 miles away from nigeria where the population of PBL is? Of coz you'll see differences from those previous catalog specimen...geezzzz!
In laymans term:
Dr.A found a nigerian lap and said hey look I found a lap
Dr.B found koliba in guinea and say so this is how lap look like and gave a description
Dr.C found kolonton and gave another new description
This 2 dude publish a paper and say too many discrepancy, lets scrap everything and put them all in PB.
There you go he totally forgot the most important Nigeria lap.
Pray hard that this 2 do not do any research on marulius and Marulioides!
In the paper it was concluded by this 2 dude that the P. Lapradei and P.Bichir Bichir is no longer a valid subspecies or a species of its own. They're merged all into just P. Bichir.
"Based on analysis of our data we synonymise P. lapradei and P. bichir katangae with P. bichir and only recognize a single species, however, with geographical variation in meristic counts. The cause of the sometimes striking differences in coloration remains unclear."
This is a big blow for the fish hobbyist especially for those trophies collectors. And I guess it will be chaotic for new comers as anybody can sell PBL with 7 marking as PBBs. Apart from this it is actually a sad news, what have they done? Science is always about moving forward, but this 2 buggers just took everything backwards and lets breakdown the publish paper and see how they had derived to this mad conclusion.
"Material examined. 148 specimens."
heres the list :
The 148 specimens includes 95pcs of recorded specimens since year 1799 The remaining specimens actually done by this 2 is
"Additional material. (53pcs) nile Basin: DMM IE/10412, 2, Sudan: Khartoum [central fish market]; T. Moritz et al., Apr 2008."
I presume central fish market is a wet market selling dead food fish. Now let us go for a joy ride of the life of the Polypterus Lapradei:
"In 1869, Steindachner published the description of a new bichir from the Senegal, Polypterus lapradei. He noted that the essential difference between P. lapradei and P. bichir is the shape of the head, whereas counts of dorsal-fin spines and scales show an overlapping gradient: 14-15 vs. 15-17 dorsal-fin spines, 60-62 vs. 64 scales in lateral row, 13-14 vs. 12-13 pre-dorsal scales (values given in Steindachner, 1869). "
The discovery of P.Lapradei by Steindachner in 1869. (Senegal)
"Polypterus lapradei had been regarded as a valid species until Poll (1941a-b, 1942) referred to it as a subspecies of P. bichir"
But poll 1941 published a Polypterus Bichir Katangae (Congo) an enigma sp Congicus unconfirm until today. Possible that I got it wrong or they got it wrong, poll seems not connected to P.Lapradei.
"Since the beginning of the 1970s this view has become widely accepted (Gosse, 1984). In his keys for West African polypterid species, Gosse (1990, 2003) employed the following criteria to distinguish both subspecies: number of scales in a longitudinal series and number of dorsal-fin spines, but noted that both meristic characters show overlap. He also stated and illustrated disjunct distribution areas for the two subspecies: the Benoué River and river basins west of it for P. bichir lapradei, and the Chad basin and river basins east of it for P. bichir bichir (Gosse, 1990, 2003)."
Gosse further reconfirm that P.B.lapradei being a subspecies. (Nigerian)
" Schäfer (2004) in his popular book on bichirs treated P. lapradei again as a valid species, and distinguished it from P. bichir by details of the color pattern: P. lapradei was considered to possess usually clearly marked longitudinal stripes in the anterior region of body"
P.Lapradei was again promoted back to a valid species by Schäfer in 2004. (Nigerian)
"Based on analysis of our data we synonymise P. lapradei and P. bichir katangae with P. bichir and only recognize a single species, however, with geographical variation in meristic counts. The cause of the sometimes striking differences in coloration remains unclear. "
Everyone was so eager to read the new paper as we hope that for sp koliba and sp kolonton to be a subspecies or a species of its own, but instead they concluded that everything is now group into Polypterus Bichir. No more PBB no more PBL no more everything.
They were so confused with all the variant of PBB and all the variant of PBL and they even mixed in sp koliba. Furthermore any experience bichir keeper knows that it is near impossible to ID a dead bichir from a wet market probably all wash out color and pattern. I wonder how this 2 dude manage to ID them without DNA sampling. They were totally lost and made a conclusion to group them all up that they have forgotten the Nigerian Lapradei!!!
They have only compared meristic data and Morphometric characters in a Box-and-whisker plots statistic. No DNA samples were taken from any of the bichirs. And the blunder so great on the P.B. katangae that are in the Congicus group is now mixed into Polypterus Bichir.
Can a research paper get anymore sloppier than this? It was an insult to all the previous ichthyologist. They were supposed to catch on site the fish from nigerian or any other place proposed for the study. Not just passed a conclusion based on some 200 years old record.
Without catching the fish yourself you are depending on fisherman to tell you the origin of the fish, is this science? 99.9% fisherman will not reveal the actual catch location! and they didnt know this? What good is there in buying dead fish from Sudan 1000 miles away from nigeria where the population of PBL is? Of coz you'll see differences from those previous catalog specimen...geezzzz!
In laymans term:
Dr.A found a nigerian lap and said hey look I found a lap
Dr.B found koliba in guinea and say so this is how lap look like and gave a description
Dr.C found kolonton and gave another new description
This 2 dude publish a paper and say too many discrepancy, lets scrap everything and put them all in PB.
There you go he totally forgot the most important Nigeria lap.
Pray hard that this 2 do not do any research on marulius and Marulioides!
Polypterus Bichir Bichir (Chad)
Polypterus Bichir Lapradei (Nigeria)
Comments
Post a Comment