|View Thread | Return to Index | Read Prev Msg | Read Next Msg|
The Loach Forum Archives (6)
Posted By: Martin Thoene <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Monday, 21 March 2005, at 10:23 p.m.
L-numbers? This is Loaches Online right? L-numbers is a catfish thing right.
If you don't know the reasoning behiond them, read this excellent Shane Lindler piece:
What are L Numbers?
by Shane Linder
Two German magazines began featuring newly discovered loricariids in their magazines some time ago and since these spp. were not yet described to science they began assigning them "L numbers". The Duetsch magazine "DATZ (Die Aquarien und Terrarienzeitschrift)" started with the designation L1 for the sp. which has now been described as Glyptopterichthys joselimaianus. So now L1 is retired. The Duetsch magazine "Das Aquarium" also began to run a similar feature in its magazine and labeled the fishes as LDA. The DATZ L system is somewhere above L209 and the LDA system is above LDA26.
Along came the Aqualog series of books and they published a book with all the known L numbers and photos or drawings of each fish. This makes things a lot easier since not all of us have access to back issues of Duetsch aquarium magazines. There are apparently problems though because not all of the photos in the Aqualog book match the species in the photos that ran in the original magazines. So sometimes it is necessary to note where you L number is coming from (magazine or book).
New species of Corydoras are now being assigned "C Numbers". These fish can be found in both the German magazine Das Aquarium and the new Aqualog book "All Corydoras C Numbers".
So that's L-numbers.
Well I got to thinking after my thread with thegirlundertherainbow about her oddball Gastromyzon that maybe, just maybe we might need some sort of numbering system for Hillstream loaches.
If you check the thread, you'll see various pics of basically spotted fish that all have detail differences. So are these species, or regional variations? With Loricarids (hence L-numbers) there are species and regional variations, often designated with an L-number and then maybe a suffix, e.g. L124a instead of L124.
As Hillstreams come in often mixed batches, apparently containing different species are we in a position where numbering these varieties would have merit and be beneficial? Others might easily understand exactly what the appearance of a given variety that is being discussed is like. It could help with the international nature of the internet if we were all on the same page.
Scientifically positively ID'd species could be retired from the list as happens with the catfish.
A big problem we have is that some fish are described already, but we're not really, truly sure that those we call a given name are actually the described species. Greater clarification is certainly needed.
So if it was felt that this system would work for Hillstreams are we talking H-numbers, or B-numbers (Balitoridae), or what?
Any ideas, feelings, downtreading of my crazy ideas are welcome.
It's just that I think that it's quite possible that the publication of the Loach Book might just spike an interest in these fish. No book has featured them properly before and I believe our text and photos will do a hell of a sales job. Imports and variety may increase, causing even more ID confusion that a numbering system might just help out.
I mean, we have to help Ripley know what she's dealing with right?
Messages In This Thread