If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, please register with your real full name as per the rules and regulations,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
who identified this Species as "Phlogiellus/Neochilobrachys"?
who, how or why (this label)? =
If you wish you can reID it (if I get a cast skin or dead specimen).
BTW, originally they come from the stock of J. Reifenrath – so I am quite sure you have already some material of this species yourself.
who identified this Species as "Phlogiellus/Neochilobrachys"?
Hi Volker,
Why is Martin calling this species Phlogiellus/Neochilobrachys?? Neochilobrachys was synonymised with Phlogiellus back in 1985 in published material (Raven). If you believe that Neochilobrachys should be resurrected, shouldn't you have something published before you use the term publicly. I may be a bit picky, but I'd think this does nothing but confuse other hobbyists into thinking Neochilobrachys exists. Until peer reviewed and published material supporting your claim exists I think this is a bit premature (considering this is your opinion and there is nothing peer reviewed to support your claim).
Then again, maybe you do have something published that I missed????
who identified this Species as "Phlogiellus/Neochilobrachys"?
Hi Volker,
Why is Martin calling this species Phlogiellus/Neochilobrachys??
Wondering why do you direct your question to Volker when you can ask me too why I have used this term? Do you believe Volker knows better why I use a certain term?
As you might have realiszed I wrote Neochilobrachys in brackets. I wrote this in brackets precisely because Neochilobrachys was synonymised with Phlogiellus back in 1985 by RAVEN, BUT this (and some other) species are still floating arround here in Germany/Europe as "Neochilobrachys" and I wanted to give the link between the new and the (here still more common used) old name. Maybe I should have mentioned a "syn." (= synonym) before Neochilobrachys to make this more obvious even for the very last.
But as Volker has told me some days ago, even Phlogiellus is very likely a wrong ID for this species and this might be something completely different... time will tell as so often! =
Neochilobrachys was synonymised with Phlogiellus back in 1985 in published material (Raven).
BTW, has RAVEN examined all relevant type material for his synonymisations, or on what are they based on?
If you believe that Neochilobrachys should be resurrected, shouldn't you have something published before you use the term publicly.
äähhhh, Volker hasn't used the term. As you might realize he used it in quotation marks because he "cited" me!
Hi Martin,
Well, I addressed Volker because you mentioned perhaps he could "reID it" and I was assuming he ID'd it in the first place, it looks like I was incorrect. Thankyou for clarifying for me and my apologies to Volker for assuming he ID'd the specimen
Now I understand why you wrote that, it seemed quite strange to me at first (my ignorance). I'm still interested in why Neochilobrachys might be used more in Germany/other European countries too? Is it because the junior synonym was the common term before 1985 and it has just carried on? Or is there a belief that this name should be resurrected?
I don't know if Raven examined all the type material, I'd have to ask him, unless you know better
some further infos I got made me to change the labels on my tanks. I now have labelled them as:
Selenocosmiinae (cf. Yamia) sp. ex Ranong
Yesterday I mated a couple of this species (a different [smaller] female than the one on the photo above).
The male on this photo has a bodylenght of about 1,3/1,4 cm. This is a small male, I have a larger one too.
Comment