G. ctenocephalus

[Mark in Vancouver]

[Bagrus dude]

Still living in yesterday, I see.

[Jim Powers]

Nice cteno, Mark. That's quite a red tail.

[Mark in Vancouver]

Still living in yesterday? What did I miss?

[Bagrus dude]

This fish has been described (and known) as G. ocellatus for more than a year now. I suppose you still think the blue-tailed species is G. punctulatus, then.

[Mark in Vancouver]

What would you call the blue tailed species? Come on... Don't hold back. We like this kind of info here...

[Bagrus dude]

Gastromyzon ctenocephalus. Gastromyzon punctulatus has yellow fins.

All this info is according to the world's foremost expert on these fishes (not me).

[shari]

Who would that be? Please, inform us
Enquiring minds want to know. A link to the new classifications would be appreciated too.

[Bagrus dude]

http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/news/index.php?e ... ngfish.txt
http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/news/index.php?e ... -betta.txt
http://www.petfrd.com/forum/showpost.ph ... ostcount=3

[Martin Thoene]

Nah nah. Not good enough, HH.

Show me the money....original descriptions. This controversy has been going on for long enough and everyone has been dancing around conclusive proof.

The original descriptions of these species work for me. Show me something contradictory and I'll take notice.

Martin.

[Bagrus dude]

The weight of evidence favors Heok Hui, essentially because the revision of Gastromyzon was part of his PhD dissertation. He has seen more Gastromyzon, both alive and dead, than anyone on this planet. This includes all the types, all the descriptions, everything.

Be a skeptic (and be wrong) all you want. All I say is if you care so much about these damn fish, you should at least make a greater effort to identify them correctly, or at least contact someone with the resources to be able to do so.

In my mind, there is no controversy over the identity of this fish. I'd go with Heok Hui's conclusions any day.

[Martin Thoene]

HH, please don't think I'm refuting other's claims or information. I can only go on what I have seen. I'll be the first person to thank anyone who can point me in the direction of the current information. I would utterly love to know what is right, because being wrong only hinders others from getting the right information via me. I hate to be the purveyor of incorrect information, but I do love to spread correct information.

I'll believe that black is white if someone can let me read convincing proof.

Getting wider dissemination of correct species ID within the hobby is very important IMO, and has totally suffered because very often descriptions are made from preserved specimins that lack certain characteristics such as colour and markings present in live fish. Scale and ray counts, various dimension proportions, etc are all very well and good for academics, but they do little to help the hobbyist in his fish shop trying to ID a fish. Relating easily seen characteristics of live fishes to the acedemically collected data is surely the best for hobby and Ichthyology?

You have to remember these fish were known as just Borneo Suckers. At least we are getting some idea now of species names. Clarification within the hobby and ornamental fish trade is what is needed.

Can I reach Heok Hui Tan via Raffles

Martin.

[Mark in Vancouver]

I agree totally with Mr. T on this matter. And in the best of spirits, and with great respect for your knowledge, you can't just say there's been a change to the taxa that everyone knows about...

It seems that the spirit of this site is to expand and share all of these changes and to contribute the best science. We don't always see the papers posted here, and that is a shame, really. Because I think I can speak for some aesthetes here, really care about this obscure stuff.

If we can hook up with Heok Hui, even with Martin as our contact, it would be sweet. If this guy has seen so many loaches, we would LOVE to get some input from him.

Meanwhile, on an aquarium level, I'm not happy to be unsure of the species in my tank. It's the sort of thing I really like to know about. It makes loach keeping quite interesting, IMO. Unkown Schisturas, new hillstreams, 2? types of Yoyo...

Whatever the case with the "correct" taxonomy, loaches are where it's at, IMO. Cobitidae and Balitoridae are not settled as some types of fish seem to be. A lot is being passed on - from the true scientists like yourself to the puritans like us, and to the hobby through this site. Educate the weirdos, and you'll pass on good information.

By this ritual, we have passed back a substantial appreciation of loaches to the suppliers in the aquarium trade. But even now, this system seems hit and miss. As many importers know, the expected species could be anything.

And finally, the photographs of these newly imported (recently renamed) fish, are taken by those of us lucky enough to keep them and to spread news on their wellbeing. Access to good identification pictures is also largely due to this website (and Craig's generous Coppermine).

Me ranting at you - that's a joke. Sorry, HH. I meant this all in a general way. This site rocks, and the core folks here genuinely want to know how to dispense the BEST information going. Suffice to say that next time, please just say: You are wrong - here's why.

With ongoing respect and admiration,
MM.

[Jim Powers]

Well stated, Martin and Mark.

[Martin Thoene]

Detective work.....

http://rmbr.nus.edu.sg/bejc/archive/tanheokhui.html

I thought these words extracted from the article "SarawakII" by Heok Hui Tan were of interest, given Bagrus Dude's insistance that the spotted fish is not G.punctulatus. These words date from 1995, 4 years before HHT started his PhD doctorate on this subject, so maybe he was wrongly IDing the fish then? No wonder all these snippets from various sources have led many people to attach the G. punctulatus name to:



"Torrent fishes were also present in this river - Paracrossochilus vittatus, Homaloptera cf. tweediei, Gastomyzon fasciatus, G.punctulatus, Nemachilus saravacensis and Glyptothorax sp. I was very excited indeed! This was the first time that I had caught B.taeniata and Gastromyzon, moreover in the same habitat. Initially, when I first caught Gastromyzon I thought it was a torrent tadpole but on closer inspection, it had two pairs of splayed-out fins on the anterior part, with a rather colourful caudal, streaked with blue. The body colour was blackish, one species had a barred pattern (G.fasciatus) and the other was spotted (G. punctulatus). We met an Iban local, who identified B.taeniata in the Iban vernacular as "Ikan T'pachi". After this site, we headed back to Kuching for a celebratory dinner. "

One by one, bits of info may have created a false image and a false ID that was given to the pictured species. I'm totally prepared to call it by another name, given conclusive evidence.

Martin.