Cichlid hobbyists are rightly concerned that the name given to a cichlid is both unique and correct. This is a certainly a noble cause, as correct naming ensures fish are easily identified and not mistaken for other species. The use of common names in the hobby is problematic and causes considerable confusion. For example, in the USA, Hoplarchus psittacus is commonly referred to as the parrot cichlid, as are a number of different cichlid hybrids collectively referred to as blood parrots. In Australia, Hoplarchus psittacus is not available and Hypsophrys nicaraguensis (sometimes placed in the genus Copora) is the “parrot cichlid”. It is thus, much easier to use to the scientific name to avoid these types of miscommunications.
It is noteworthy, however, that cichlid taxonomy is still under considerable revision. Recently, for example, most central American cichlids were rendered incertae sedis, when the genus Cichlasoma was restricted to a group of South American cichlids (Cichlasoma dimerus and similar fishes) by Kullander, (1983). A number of authors writing for the hobby have attempted to address this problem by placing fish in the genus they believe is most appropriate. For the hobby this causes a great deal of confusion, as otherwise reputable authors, assign cichlids to genera without any clear scientific reasoning.
An recent example of this practice by writers for the cichlid hobby surrounds the placement of “Cichlasoma” nigrofasciatus (convict cichlid) into a genus. The currently valid genus for this fish is Archocentrus; which was proposed as subgenus in 1877 for convicts and similar cichlids. An article in a cichlid hobby magazine (L’An Cichlidae) by Allgayer (2001), however, proposed that the fish in this genus belonged in a new genus (Cryptoheros). Cichlid hobby texts have therefore adopted the name as published in a cichlid hobby magazine. The problem is clear - taxonomy is a matter of science. It should be noted that I’m not criticizing the description of Cryptoheros by Allgayer, however I do wonder at the merits of publishing a description of a new genus, Cryptoheros, in a hobby magazine. There are plenty of good scientific journals which concern themselves with icthyology, and the taxonomy thereof, so why not publish in a scientific journal? Indeed, some of you might be asking “What’s the difference between a hobby magazine and scientific journal?” The difference lies in the way in which articles are reviewed for publication. In a hobby magazine articles are published on the approval of the editors, presumably based on what he or she might think the readership will enjoy. In a scientific journal, by contrast, all journal articles are peer reviewed. This essentially means other scientists critique any work you care to publish and check it for accuracy.
I could, for example, write a plausible “scientific” article and send it to a hobby magazine such as Practical Fish Keeping or Tropical Fish Hobbyist on the taxonomy of the genus Exampleochromis, my personal view being that this cichlid genus needs serious revision. In my hypothetical article in Practical Fish Keeping or TFH I create two new genera Davidochromis and Midgleyeros and place species therein, these then get picked up (and included) by hobby book authors and the names get passed to hobbyists. What’s to stop me doing this? The things I’m proposing might be unscientific (they might be total nonsense!), but if the journal is not reviewed by taxonomists (preferably in the cichlid/ichthyologic field) then how are the editors to know? I should stress I am not suggesting authors publishing matters of taxonomy in hobby magazine are fundamentally dishonest, however, we need to be aware of the implications of publication in a hobby magazine vs. a scientific journal.
Scientific journals aren’t without errors, but having three scientists in the field (i.e. cichlid taxonomy) “review” your methods, interpretation and conclusions means that an error is considerably less likely than in hobby magazines.
I cant think of any positive reasons to publish otherwise scientifically sound taxonomic data in a hobby magazine. Here’s some possibilities:
-
The work is not scientific, is wrong, there is insufficient evidence, is speculation or a combination of these factors
-
The work may have already been rejected from numerous scientific journals (for any of the above reasons)
-
The author may not wish to have his/her work reviewed by cichlid taxonomists (see 1.)
If a name has recently “changed” (this includes new names in books!) the hobbyist is therefore best advised to check the reference for this change, FishBase.Org is a good place to begin your search, prior to accepting it as gospel. If the primary reference is a hobby magazine article, do not say I did not warn you. David Midgley.
References:
Allgayer, R. (2001) Description d’un genre nouveau, *Cryptoheros*, d’Amerique central et d’une espece nouvelle du Panama (Pisces: Cichlidae). l’An Cichlide13-20.
Gill, T. N. and Bransford, J. F. (1877) .Synopsis of the fishes of Lake Nicaragua. Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phila.175-191
