Joined: Feb 24, 2007 Posts: 4066 Location: Miyapur, Hyderabad
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:19 am Post subject: How to describe a new fish?
I know nothing about Indian Native fish (I call all puntius as Puti Mach) but One question is sprouting in my head for some time.
We collect lots of fishes from wild, ID them. Even we claim to discover new species. Is there any panel of experts who does the validation of the fact we are claiming?? Or it's simply random?
Means if tomorrow I say, I found some Cardinal Tetra in my nearby lake and claim those fishes native to India, who is going to validate my claim and say, this is wrong? I don't think, anyone is going to a specific place to check if the claim is right or wrong.
If you found this question idiotic, forgive me. But do reply. I have to clear up this doubt.
Last edited by Tirtha C on Fri Feb 25, 2011 3:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Joined: Jun 29, 2003 Posts: 6985 Location: Bengaluru, India
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:50 am Post subject: Re: One confusion
Tirtha,
Yes all claims by IAHians will need to be validated.
The big problem is, the person who you approach to validate the claim, might take full credit for the new discovery,
and give you none, moreover he'd name the fish after himself ! Once you hand over all and every detail required, including specimens,
there's very little you can hold on to. There is another thread where this discussion came up briefly.
I guess many are even afraid to mention this as they'd have no where else to go.
Sad but very true. Hence the hesitation by many people to get the validation.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:51 am Post subject: Re: One confusion
Hi Tirtha,
AFAIK, one should publish in peer reviewed journals of the field, their documentation on the newly found result. That involves serious series of scientific investigations and proofs that how they have concluded.
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 2439 Location: Salem, TN
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 8:59 am Post subject: Re: One confusion
There is a difference between IDying a fish and claiming it to be a new species. When an interesting specimen is caught we try to match it with an already documented description. Every fish should have a distinct morphological character which we cal a key that should distinguish it from other closely related species/specimen. That's where ray count, scale count comes into play, not to mention there are many other factors. Fishes are seldom keyed out w.r.t their colors. To call/claim it a distinct species it should key out with atleast one or more distinct morphological character. For eg, 2 fishes like, say our own filamentosus, one completely red and other completely green are still filamentosus whereas 2 almost identical looking fishes Bhavania australis and [i]Travancoria jonesii[i] w.r.t color pattern are 2 different Genera with only 2 differences the former having shorter operculum and the pectoral fin overlapping the pelvic whereas the later doesn't.
Now, as with describing a new species, a definitive description is done with a DNA analysis. Most of the fishes in India aren't described genetically and we follow morphological keys. As a general procedure, if we doubt a specimen to be an undescribed one we send atleast 4 preserved specimen to ZSI for further validation. The collector in such a case gets a registered ZSI number, his name, year of collection & the type locality attached to that specimen and kept in ZSI office. The spot where the fish was collected is called the type locality. Then it is either keyed out as new or put under an exististing classification. When a group of similar looking fishes from different type localities are found and have pending classification, we simply put it under a complex for the time being.
But still things are so incomplete and that's why classification is endlessly revalidated, species are put under different genera, new genera are created and so on.
If someone goes into IDying a fish without giving a damn about any of these, he can name himself a discoverer and we call him an inventor.
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:57 am Post subject: Re: One confusion
Hi Tirtha, A very logical question..........
If you realise new fish (sp. nov & new records) are quite common these days. I guess that would have triggered your question.
Now I agree completely with Madan, because I have been in that situation. It is very difficult to get a fish validated if you are not familiar with using identification keys. Your next step is to look for a person who knows it.........that where the problem comes. When that person sees you have a interesting species he would just say it is common to you, but soon you would find that it gets published with no credit to you........
Like Anand mentioned, the best way to validate your claim is to publish in a peer reviewed journal. These journals have rules to be followed like depositing the specimen in public access museums like ZSI etc where your claim can be checked by any common man. This is not strictly followed as some author are cautious that down the line some young gun would pic up their specimen and call them wrong
Now this is where cheating comes in........I wouyld say 50% of the published material have wrong information in the form of premature conclusions, mis-interpretation or just plain lies and invention!! But such contributions do get the pay back when someone reviews the Genus or the Group.
Like Madhu said, you can deposit your specimens in ZSI (any regional centre) and get the register number (Madhu, Balaji and Rahul have their collections registered with ZSI Chennai). The advantage is even 100 years down the line any tom, dick or harry using your fish for study has to give you credit as the specimens are registered with your name as collector.
Now if you want to publish the fish on your own that is possible too.....you just have to compare the fish with its clossest Congener (relative) for example P. assimilis has to be compared with P. filamentosus. Using morphometrics (body shape) and meristics (scale, barbel, gill raker, fin ray counts) you can distinguish your fish and call it a new species. No journal can bar you from publishing. You will just have to convince the reviewers.
To conclude, the reviwers 'trust' the author.............if you show a cardinal tetra and tell you collected it in your backyard stream, no one is gonna come and check your backyard. That is why many clowns are passing off as ichthyologist these days BUT if someone else does take the pain and come down to your backyard and does a complete survey and finds nothing he would call you a clown and not only that if he publishes it the whole world will know you are a clown
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 2439 Location: Salem, TN
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:48 pm Post subject: Re: One confusion
In addition to Marc's, it all boils down to one simple fact. Do you want to work on it to understand them better or for bragging rights? Generally people who do it for the former get a reputation and the ones who get desperate for the later are considered clowns.
The problem with our native is, most of what we know for now is either highly approximate or way too old. Taxonomy is no different from other branches of science. What seems accurate today might be rubbished tomorrow. So its all upto the individual either to rot and die blowing his own trumpet or make a base on which later generations can work on so that they don't have to waste time working from ground zero.
Yes all claims by IAHians will need to be validated.
Sir, I didn't ask this question after seeing the discoveries by team IAH. I got this doubt after reading the inventions of someone else.
If you make 100 of collection trips and discover couple of new species, dumb like me, will not raise any question. But if you come up with new specimens, every time you dip your net into water, will make everyone suspicious. Specially when those very waterbodies were raided by many people many times, who know the subject too well.
If I agree with these new inventions then I must admit, IAH Fish chasers are a group of blinds. And if I disagree then someone must be fooling us a big time.
Joined: Jun 29, 2003 Posts: 6985 Location: Bengaluru, India
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:38 pm Post subject: Re: One confusion
Tirtha, this whole business of fish naming and discovery battle is going on for decades.
For a common man like you or me, who do this for a hobby, and would like to get credit,
but will end up seeing someone else take the game away from you, it's a nightmare.
There is so much giggri buggri in the whole system and we Indians will abuse the system where no chance for abuse exists,
you scratch my back I'll scratch yours peer reviews are very much there too, the whole matter is best left out of these forums as it is mind boggling.
Hi Tirtha, A very logical question.......... If you realise new fish (sp. nov & new records) are quite common these days. I guess that would have triggered your question.
Now I agree completely with Madan, because I have been in that situation. It is very difficult to get a fish validated if you are not familiar with using identification keys. Your next step is to look for a person who knows it.........that where the problem comes. When that person sees you have a interesting species he would just say it is common to you, but soon you would find that it gets published with no credit to you........
Even if you do know the identification keys, you then need to find a platform to repudiate the other person's claim and the perseverance to do all that.
This was one of the reasons I was told to find a really honest person to help out. Easier said than done.
Joined: Oct 28, 2004 Posts: 2439 Location: Salem, TN
Status: Offline
Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 1:49 pm Post subject: Re: One confusion
It all boils down to credibility Tirtha. Many of us have at least half a dozen specimen lying in our tanks which are yet to be IDed and others sent to experts. It would be foolish to call them new species just because we aren't able to zero it on an ID. For eg, I have 5 specimens of Schistura denisonii collected from the same waters with varying no. of stripes and presence/absence of a dorsal spot. They might turn out to be five different species or may not, but it would be highly immature to claim them as 5 new species right away. It is true that atleast 30% more species of fish that live in Western ghats are yet to be described/discovered, but just because its so incomplete we can't name every fish we come across as undescribed.
you then need to find a platform to repudiate the other person's claim and the perseverance to do all that.
I feel it is easier to persevere and publish than find a trustworthy person
Trust me it took me solid ten month to convice the editors/reviewers for my first paper as a single author. All this was just for a review paper..
Tirtha, this whole business of fish naming and discovery battle is going on for decades.
For a common man like you or me, who do this for a hobby, and would like to get credit,
but will end up seeing someone else take the game away from you, it's a nightmare.
There is so much giggri buggri in the whole system and we Indians will abuse the system where no chance for abuse exists,
you scratch my back I'll scratch yours peer reviews are very much there too, the whole matter is best left out of these forums as it is mind boggling.
The same old political battle everywhere. Fight for pride.
For eg, I have 5 specimens of Schistura denisonii collected from the same waters with varying no. of stripes and presence/absence of a dorsal spot. They might turn out to be five different species or may not, but it would be highly immature to claim them as 5 new species right away. It is true that atleast 30% more species of fish that live in Western ghats are yet to be described/discovered, but just because its so incomplete we can't name every fish we come across as undescribed.
Madhu.... this is not question about credibility. This is called shameless marketing. And sometimes it works.
Joined: Nov 01, 2003 Posts: 929 Location: Bangalore, India
Status: Offline
Posted: Fri Feb 25, 2011 10:17 am Post subject: Re: One confusion
Hi Guys,
Can you shed more light on how the entire process of depositing new specimens can be done at ZSI? Also what can be deposited and who needs to verify it. I have come across a few interesting specimens and hence I would like to know if they qualify for being sent over or not. Its a complete novice question guys so please try and explain as much as possible about the process.
All times are UTC + 5.5 Hours Goto page 1, 2, 3Next
Page 1 of 3
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
Guest(s): 464
![[News Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_news.png "News Feed"){kind=small}
![[Forums Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_forums.png "Forums Feed"){kind=small}
![[Downloads Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_down.png "Downloads Feed"){kind=small}
![[Web Links Feed]](images/powered/feed_20_links.png "Web Links Feed"){kind=small}
![[Validate robots.txt]](images/powered/valid-robots.png "Validate robots.txt"){kind=small}