ITIS Puffer Classification

[KorrepZ]

Aye, i agree.

That the whole reason i did not post any pictures alongside with my first post. The only intention I had was that if you do use the strange/unknown names from the list to google you find cool puffers you have never seen before. Even tho, like you said, you can not be sure its actually that species. But still cool to look at tho!

itis would have been a way better site if pictures were added. To bad they dont

[pufferpuggirl]

Someone posted a link to a website a while back (it was Chinese I believe), and it showed most puffers, fresh, marine and brackish, although the pictures were like computer-generated, they were quite good. I've got print-offs from those web pages, but I can't find the website, as it's not listed on the printed-off pages. Shame because I think they are quite good for identification purposes.

[Corvus]

But Corvus? on what ground/experience do you claim this is outdated?

On modern taxonomic works such as the ones by Kottelat from the last few years in the case of Monotrete (forum search on Kottelat and my user name will reveal the exact references), which were not incorporated into the database, yet (just like fishbase). They will be incorporated when there is time, but given as much new material is published every year, some commercially less attractive species are not updated all that often.

Aint it so that a trained biologist looked at the fish and classified it?

Yes. But such things are published in articles in scientific magazines and not directly into databases such as fishbase or the later itis. Other people transfer some of the information into the databses, but they are far from complete and if you really want to be up to date you got to read the articles (which means you have to go to university libraries, because not everything is found on the internet).

Who are we, as hobbyists to say they are wrong?

If something is outdated one can say so, no matter if you are a hobbyist or a scientist (I count myself to both groups). It's not about who you are, but what you claim and what your arguments are.

Or did they later on reviewed their opinion and altered it?

Oh yes, T. biocellatus; M. cochinchensis and many others have been re-classified many times.

It's interesting to see that they don't use the genus Monotrete at all.

Aye... the whole Monotrete Genus is classified under the Tetraodon Genus. I am really interested and intrigued why we classify them as a seperate Genus. Do you know why Corvus?

Monotrete is NOT classified under the Tetraodon genus, it's in the Tetraodontidae family, but not in the genus. It's a genus of its own. The arguments why are in detail discussed by Kottelat (forum search on Kottelat and my user name will reveal the exact references)

[Corvus]

Aye, i agree.

That the whole reason i did not post any pictures alongside with my first post. The only intention I had was that if you do use the strange/unknown names from the list to google you find cool puffers you have never seen before. Even tho, like you said, you can not be sure its actually that species. But still cool to look at tho!

itis would have been a way better site if pictures were added. To bad they dont

You will find all the information on itis along with pictures (where available) on fishbase.

[pufferpuggirl]

Once again Corvus comes through!

[KorrepZ]

It's interesting to see that they don't use the genus Monotrete at all.

Aye... the whole Monotrete Genus is classified under the Tetraodon Genus. I am really interested and intrigued why we classify them as a seperate Genus. Do you know why Corvus?

Monotrete is NOT classified under the Tetraodon genus, it's in the Tetraodontidae family, but not in the genus. It's a genus of its own. The arguments why are in detail discussed by Kottelat (forum search on Kottelat and my user name will reveal the exact references)

I ment they classified the Montrete Genus under Tetraodon on that ITIS site i posted and I was wondering why as I didn't know it was outdated. I was in no way undermining your knowledge oh wise Corvus the puffer oracle! hehe....

Thanks for all the great answers. I've been keeping puffers for over a year now but just recently started to get intregued by the classification. So my apologies if im diggin up old issues that we closed already. I'm kind of following a breadcrum trail to the right stuff and your advice and experience was a big push in the right direction. Thanks Corvus!

Funny thing that you mentioned T. biocellatus btw.... Today I was just wondering why there were 2 kinds of T. biocellatus. The ones with a big 8 on their back and the ones with smaller "messy" 8's. Secretly 2 different species under one name? I always thought it was an age thing but somebody from my dutch forum now owns one of each and they are the same age...

[Corvus]

I ment they classified the Montrete Genus under Tetraodon on that ITIS site i posted and I was wondering why as I didn't know it was outdated.

Ah OK, you mean the Monotrete species the pufferforum site lists following Kottelat's classification are still in Tetraodon on itis as well as fishbase. Yes, that's true.

I've been keeping puffers for over a year now but just recently started to get intregued by the classification.

If you really are into taxonomy, you'll certainly start to read those scientific papers. Once familiar with the terms it's really captivating.

Secretly 2 different species under one name?

I guess many changes will happen to those Asian puffers' taxonomy: T. nigroviridis, T. biocellatus, T. fluviatilis and the "cryptic" GSPs or T. sabahensis. I believe at some point in time they will get their own genus, since Tetraodon was originally created for African species, which have totally different nostrils (which are an important character at the genus level). Everyone can see that, it's just a matter of time until it's written and official.