Name für Badis sp. "Buxar"

It's not sure at all that this is Buxar, so be careful when drawing conclusions haha. I'm trying to find out.

Hi,

mal ne ganz doofe Frage. Die Bilder von den Tieren, sind das Fotos oder gemalte Bilder???

Ich konnte mir diese Frage echt nicht beantworten, finde die Bilder sehr merkwürdig.

Und ich glaube, wenn ich an MEINE Buxars denke die ich hatte, ich glaub, dann hätt ich bis auf die typische Fleckenzeichnung an den Flossen auch keine so große Ähnlichkeit zu den Abbildungen gefunden.

Gruß, Bettina

(ps: Hi Stefan, nice to "see" you!!! Hope you´re well.)

The pics are of preserved animals.

Likewise!

I have been talking to the authors, well one of them, and although they appear similar, Buxar needs researching before any conclusions can be made. I agree with that assessmentm

although they appear similar, Buxar needs researching before any conclusions can be made.

Hi,

mag mir jemand diesen Teil erklären/übersetzen?

Dankeschön

Bettina

Hi Bettina!

"Obwohl sie (B. singengensis und B. spec. "Buxar") sich ähnlich zu sein scheinen, müssen bezüglich Buxar (also B. spec. "Buxar") Nachforschungen/Untersuchungen erfolgen, bevor man etwas endgültiges sagen kann."

B. spec. "Buxar" muss also erst taxonomisch (und wohl auch seine Verbreitung betreffend?) untersucht werden, um klar stellen zu können, ob er mit B. singengensis identisch ist, oder nicht.

aaaah....nu wirds logisch, lach...

dankeschön Richard!!

Ja...englisch "normal" kann ich einigermaßen, aber wenn´s in den aquaristischen Bereich geht, fehlt mir doch etwas die Übung.

Danke!

Bettina

Hallo!
Update:
Frank Schäfer bestätigt in einem Artikel in der neuen DATZ, daß Badis sp. Buxar mit B. singenensis identisch ist.
Die Begründung ist der diagnostische schwarze Fleck in der Anale, den sonst kein Badide hat.
Also heißt Badis sp. Buxar jetzt B. singenensis Geetakumari & Kadu 2011.
Gruß
Charly

There might also be 2 seperate, related species. Buxar still needs examination. Because an article in a commercial magazine says so is meaningless to science.

Hi, Stefan!
There might always be two or more separate related species and we don't know them yet. Even a well known fish like a newly imported Betta splendens can be something different as long as identity has not been not proven.
Frank says, and he's professional biologist and ichthyologist, that the spot in the anal fin is diagnostic for B. singenensis. The only fish we know with that spot in the anal fin is sp. Buxar. So we have to assume that sp. Buxar is B. singenensis. As long as we dont't find another fish with that spot. Yes, it can be that simple.
And that is no subject for a scientific paper. B. singenensi was described in a scientific paper. Frank stated that a trade name for a frequently imported fish has to be connected to that scientific name. And that's stuff for a hobbyist's paper. It may very well be meaningless to science, because trade names are usually meaningless to science, but it's not meaningless to aquarists, and that's what we are.
so long
Charly

I disagree; It is not that simple at all. Buxar needs to be examined and as long as that has not been done it cannot be identified properly for science, the trade or hobbyists. This is how chaos begins (see Betta) and is unfounded. Basing an ID on a single diagnostic character without proper examination and comparison of all diagnostics is unwise.

Hi, Stefan!
Following your opinion, we'd have to check each and every f... newly imported, let's say, Trichopodus trichopterus scientifically, whether it's really trichopterus or not. Because it only looks like trichopterus and it might be something different.
Stefan, sorry, but that's nonsense. Let's do it the pragmatical way. We've got a fish, that looks completely like Badis singenensis. So let's call him Badis singenensis.
Charly

That's not what I'm saying - at all! I think you might have missed my speaking with one of the authors of Badis singenensis about their new species and Buxar; she is not convinced because of the huge distribution gap and feels that the latter needs to be examined before drawing a conclusion and I agree it is the proper way. Your proposal is, from my point of view, an assumption, and errors always start with assumptions. If one would apply that same proposal to let's say the Betta pugnax or Badis badis group... I feel we cannot draw any conclusion before all the cold hard facts are in. But each to his/her own, of course.

I had also written and submitted a piece on Badis singenensis (before I spoke with one of the authors of the new species) to a German magazine but just heard that something has gone wrong with the translation from my English to the German (?). I have not had a proof to read and have not seen it yet, but will get back to the translation errors once I have seen it (shortly). I'll opt for an erratum and will clarify here.