Re: NANFA-- silverjaw minnow

Jay DeLong (thirdwind_at_att.net)
Fri, 09 Mar 2001 21:50:15 -0800

<x-flowed>
Well, Chris, you stud. That was an excellent response! Thanks for that
information. By the way, the Cavender who wrote that paper was likely the
same Cavender who taught my class it was called Ericymba buccata and showed
me that fish for the first time:-) I'm guessing your spelling of Cavender
was a misspelling, right?

--
Jay DeLong
Olympia, WA
where shift happens

At 09:21 AM 3/9/01 -0400, you wrote: > >Thanks. When I was in school in the mid 80's I was taught it was > >Ericymba. That one paper I cited from 1981 also called it Ericymba. I > >wonder why the AFS kept it as Notropis in the 1991 names publication? > >The AFS was following the advice of a paper by Coburn and Cavendar which >submerged various notropin subgenera -- Ericymba, Hybopsis, Pteronotropis -- >back into Notropis. According to the authors, "...raising subgenera of >Notropis (s.l.) [i.e., sensu lato, in the widest sense] to generic level >before >the interrelationships of these nominal groups have been determined with more >certainty that at present could create polyphyletic taxa. Therefore, we >submerge >Hybopsis and Ericymba into Notropis. Both may, and probably will, re-emerge as >genera enlarged by species now placed mostly in Alburnops." > >In other words, because no one's yet figured out the precise lineages of all >notropin sugenera, let's just toss them into the Notropis "wastebasket" until >someone does. > >Ten years later the AFS names committee is reconsidering this decision. >According to Melvin Warren, "The committee felt the reallocation of this >long-established genus name for the silverjaw minnow [Ericymba] into the genus >Notropis was premature and reflected a 'wastebasket' reallocation of an >established genus in the absence of demonstrated close relationships." >However, >as of June 2000, the AFS had not reached a final decision whether to retain >Ericymba. > >I know that many of you are thinking -- assuming you've even read this far! -- >that all this nomenclatural switching back and forth is confusing and >pointless >and just the work of egghead scientists too old or lazy to do field work. >Well, >in the case of Ericymba, you may be right! But the thing to remember is, a >fish's scientific name is more than just what everyone from around the world >calls it, irrespective of native language. A scientific name should also >give us >some sense of how the organism is related to other organisms. Notropis is >a big, >catch-all genus with many species that may look similar, but followed multiple >separate evolutionary paths. Slowly but surely systematists are tracing these >paths. It's not always perfect and precise work. There's a lot of guessing and >subjectivity involved. But as any scientific pursuit should be, it's >self-correcting. > >Personally, I find the work stimulating because it forces one to look at each >species very closely. Morphology, osteology, genetic structure, historical >ecology, and life history are all taken into account to determine a fish's >lineage. I confess that I don't understand 90% of what systematists are >talking >about. And I get frustrated when it appears that no two systematists can agree >on a resolution. But still, I try to keep up and learn what I can. As Rick >Mayden demonstrated at the NANFA convention in Jackson, understanding a >species' >evolutionary relationships can aid in its conservation. > > > also wonder why this wasn't named the silverjaw > > shiner instead of silverjaw minnow. I never understood > > the shiner, chub, minnow logic. > >That's because there is no logic! > >In a broad sense, they're all minnows, since that's the vernacular name >for the >family Cyprinidae. Although chub, shiner and dace are used to distinguish >between various genera of minnows, the words themselves are informal and >have no >scientific meaning. For the most part, shiners are compressed and >predominantly >silvery, chubs are stout-bodied and less silvery, and daces are small minnows >with very fine scales. But that doesn't mean that all chubs are related to >other >chubs, all daces to other daces, and so forth. Nor do the names always >describe >the fish. The spotfin chub (Erimonax monachus), for example, is clearly a >shiner, while the chub shiner (Notropis potteri) is, well, Išll leave that one >up to you. > > >Chris Scharpf >Baltimore > >/----------------------------------------------------------------------------- >/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily >/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes >/ Association" >/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association >/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word >/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to >/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to >/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. >/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org

--
Jay DeLong
Olympia, WA

/----------------------------------------------------------------------------- /"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily / reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes / Association" / This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association / nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word / subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to / nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to / nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead. / For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org </x-flowed>