I'LL NAME THAT FISH IN ONE?

By Gerry Hawksby
This article first appeared in Ryedale Reporter, the monthly magazine of Ryedale Aquarist Society, North Yorkshire, England, in April 2003
Aquarticles

Aquarists, over the years, have been subjected to periods of confusion in that, having finally learned the correct scientific names for most of the species they maintain in their tanks, they are suddenly confronted with the fact that some of these species have undergone reclassification and now have a different species name. A most frustrating situation that has prompted many of our colleagues to pose the question 'what is the point of all these changes' and 'why not leave current names alone?'  I hope to answer both questions in the article that follows.

Reclassification causes our problems to become twofold for not only do we have to struggle with having to learn an often unpronounceable new name but also need to remember the old name too, in order to find the correct references to the fish in question in our now 'outdated' aquarium textbooks.

Although, as hobbyists, it may not immediately occur to us the renaming of any fish causes additional work for everyone in all branches of the hobby,  i.e. collectors, breeders, traders, authors, aquarists and, of course, Open Show judges. Is this renaming really necessary? As much as I dislike the idea I have to reluctantly accept that, in actual fact, it is. None of these decisions are taken lightly. They are, in fact, the considered findings of a panel of eminent authorities working on the most recent information provided by ichthyologists, biologists and geologists in order that all species are correctly and accurately named.

Aquarists are not the only ones affected by such name changes as it also involves every other keeper of living organisms; perhaps none more so than those who grow plants as a hobby.

To illustrate my point on accuracy of naming lets look at one particular species which, whatever the current scientific classification, will always be known to each and everyone of us, regardless of our level of interest in the aquatic hobby, as the Guppy. This little gem was first discovered in Caracas, Venezuela in 1859 and was classified by Dr. Wilhelm Peters, a Berlin Zoologist, as Lebistes reticulatus. Seven years later, 1866, the Rev. Robert Lechmere Guppy collected and sent specimens of a livebearing fish he found in Trinidad to London where the ichthyologist Albert Gunther was convinced that he was dealing with an hitherto unknown species that warranted their own genus.

Gunther thus classified these small livebearers as Girardinus and, as was the practice at that time, gave them the species name guppyi in honour of their discoverer. Further research followed the results of which led to the realisation that G. guppyi was, in fact, only one more colour variant of Lebistes reticulatus so, as a result, G. guppyi became an invalid name.

In the ensuing years since 1859 the Guppy has undergone no less than eight generic name changes. Purely for interest reasons they were - Lebistes, Girardinus, Acanthorphacelus, Haridichthys, Heterandria, Lebistes (again), Poeciloides and (in the most recent of times) Poecilia. The species name seldom undergoing change for, in general, this name describes the visible appearance of the fish or is the honorary name of the discoverer.

Since 1963 Poecilia reticulata has been the internationally accepted scientific name for this aquarium favourite. However, in 1991, it was suggested that Poecilia reticulata would, at some time in the future, revert to its original name of Lebistes reticulata (without straying away from our subject fish, such a situation is currently happening with the small cichlid known in the hobby as the Bolivian Ram, with ichthyologists having much heated debate as whether to resurrect a long forgotten genus name or leave the poor fish within its current genus classification).

Whilst on the face of it this may seem like a case of change for change sake it surely is an illustration of the lengths to which the Nomenclatoral Commission are prepared to go to ensure species are correctly identified.

I have heard it said that we should forget the Latin names and refer to our fish by their more easily remembered common names. This practice may be acceptable if restricted to use in one country but it could produce untold identification problems if used indiscriminately for whilst we, in the U.K., know which fish we mean when we talk about the Guppy elsewhere in the World other common names come into play, e.g. Millions fish - because of its capacity of reproduction, the Missionary fish - presumably from the discoverer's clerical association, and the Rainbow fish - due to the variety of colour patterns found amongst these fish.

As indicated the above are but three of the more commonly used names, and having mentioned the Rainbow fish I suppose, like me, you can think of at least five species which have rainbow in their common name, so even here we have a one in five chance of identifying the same fish.

In conclusion, whether we like it or not, we must use the Latin name to describe the species we are talking about so there can be no confusion. Reclassification forms part of this process and, as a result, we have no other option but to accept it is necessary - that way we are all singing from the same song sheet the World over.