interesting
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1130
specially the other two species of premnas
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1130
specially the other two species of premnas
Amphiprion, premas all the same.
- Thread starter adtravels
- Start date
BonsaiNut
Premium Member
As far as I am concerned, if they don't exist on Google, they don't exist anywhere 
I believe they are misclassifications or synonyms for P. biaculeatus. The only reference I can find is the original one from Cuvier in 1830. Maybe Project Reef has a couple pair in his tank and he's holding out
I believe they are misclassifications or synonyms for P. biaculeatus. The only reference I can find is the original one from Cuvier in 1830. Maybe Project Reef has a couple pair in his tank and he's holding out
I don't see these other two names on FishBase, even as synonyms. They list one species of Premnas. My guess is that either this information is REALLY new or REALLY old (probably the latter). FWIW: when it comes to taxonomy, try not to think of it as a steady state, it is always in flux. Some people are lumpers and some are splitters, and things tend to go back and forth.
This does not mean that the animals are changing (that quickly anyway), or sometimes even that a new species was collected - just that somebody changed the name.
I use FishBase as my typical reference, it is usually kept up-to-date (at least better than books are).
Jay Hemdal
This does not mean that the animals are changing (that quickly anyway), or sometimes even that a new species was collected - just that somebody changed the name.
I use FishBase as my typical reference, it is usually kept up-to-date (at least better than books are).
Jay Hemdal
phender
Active member
I'm not sure you guys are getting the main point of the article.
The main point is, what some have suggested here before, that Premnas is not a valid genus.
It is saying that Maroon clowns should be Amphiprion biaculeatus.
As for the two other Premnas clowns. The link I saw listed both of them described by the same person who described P. biaculeatus and during the same year, 1830. My guess is that they were consolidated long ago.
The main point is, what some have suggested here before, that Premnas is not a valid genus.
It is saying that Maroon clowns should be Amphiprion biaculeatus.
As for the two other Premnas clowns. The link I saw listed both of them described by the same person who described P. biaculeatus and during the same year, 1830. My guess is that they were consolidated long ago.
Phil,
That really only means that one group has analyzed the fish and (as the headline says) is SUGGESTING that Premnas "isn't a valid genus". Taxonomists still have to accept the change and it is possible that in a few years, somebody will change it back...taxonomists need job security you know! If you go back to Jerry Allen's 1972 book, Anemonefishes, he only gives Premnas subgenus status, listing the fish as Amphiprion biaculeatus, so things have come full circle.
Like I said, some taxonomists are lumpers, some are splitters. I appreciate the fact that they used genetics and not just morphometrics for their analysis, but this was a really lame statement: "...has provided evidence to suggest that all clownfishes are descendents of a common ancestor". Phew, by that logic, you could lump the genus of chimpanzee with the same genus as humans.
(As a side note, I had originally wrote the previous line as, "the genus Pan with the genus ****" but had to edit it, because the online word police blocked my typing the genus name for humans - how sad!)
I was once imperiously informed by a young biologist that a sign over one of the exhibits at the aquarium that I work at "was wrong - the name had been changed". By the time I got around to updating the sign's scientific name a year later, the name had been changed back<grin>.
Jay Hemdal
That really only means that one group has analyzed the fish and (as the headline says) is SUGGESTING that Premnas "isn't a valid genus". Taxonomists still have to accept the change and it is possible that in a few years, somebody will change it back...taxonomists need job security you know! If you go back to Jerry Allen's 1972 book, Anemonefishes, he only gives Premnas subgenus status, listing the fish as Amphiprion biaculeatus, so things have come full circle.
Like I said, some taxonomists are lumpers, some are splitters. I appreciate the fact that they used genetics and not just morphometrics for their analysis, but this was a really lame statement: "...has provided evidence to suggest that all clownfishes are descendents of a common ancestor". Phew, by that logic, you could lump the genus of chimpanzee with the same genus as humans.
(As a side note, I had originally wrote the previous line as, "the genus Pan with the genus ****" but had to edit it, because the online word police blocked my typing the genus name for humans - how sad!)
I was once imperiously informed by a young biologist that a sign over one of the exhibits at the aquarium that I work at "was wrong - the name had been changed". By the time I got around to updating the sign's scientific name a year later, the name had been changed back<grin>.
Jay Hemdal
