Loaches Online Forum

Jim Powers wrote:Hmmmm, lets see. What should I believe...Dr. Maurice Kottelat, well known expert on the fishes of Asia...or speculation.....Hmmmmm.

Oh, I'd say you should most certainly follow Dr.Kottelat, given that there is no alternative classification system in place today. A questionable system is better than none at all.

However, the inherent limitations of Kottelat's knowledge and approach, and the apparent failure of morphological methods for reptiles (see the link above -- it is not a speculation, it is real science, and it is actually fairly interesting and relevant) should make one very careful about any assertions based on morphology.

One thing i do know after long years workign in Bio is that certainty ain't gonna happen, and any scientist worth his salt won't use that word. It's all a question of likelyhoods. It's very likley that this indian loach is different from the burmese because there's a mountain range or an ocean in the way... and the indian has more vertibrae.

If you need certianty.... well, stick to collecting and enjoy the experience.


Andyroo

andyroo wrote:One thing i do know after long years workign in Bio is that certainty ain't gonna happen, and any scientist worth his salt won't use that word.

It's all a question of likelyhoods.

I'm well aware of this (I actually worked on some real bio projects); and I'm also well aware that any critique of the "likelyhood" approach caused very emotional reaction among most biologists.

Still, imho it needs to be understood that we are not dealing with established facts here, and that there are better techniques on the way.

It's very likley that this indian loach is different from the burmese because there's a mountain range or an ocean in the way... and the indian has more vertibrae.

Of course, and I'll bet $100 against $1 that it is different. But I would not bet a $1000.

But on the CL subspecies issue, I'd bet even money that they do exist.

If you need certianty....

I don't need certainty and I know I'm not likely to get it soon....but I do need the awareness of uncertainty....this is really the only way to learn more.

If this is the precursor to an argument for "intelligent design" I can't promise that I won't throw things.

cybermeez wrote:If this is the precursor to an argument for "intelligent design" .....

huh? what does this have to do with ID?

mikev wrote:

cybermeez wrote:If this is the precursor to an argument for "intelligent design" .....

huh? what does this have to do with ID?

LMAO! Classic!!

Graeme Robson wrote:

mikev wrote:

cybermeez wrote:If this is the precursor to an argument for "intelligent design" .....

huh? what does this have to do with ID?

LMAO! Classic!!

Can I stand beside you Cybermeez and throw very heavy, multi-layered quotes on quotes? Perhaps we can subdue the beast with a carefully crafted net of inverted commas

Martin.

Martin Thoene wrote:

Graeme Robson wrote:

mikev wrote: huh? what does this have to do with ID?

LMAO! Classic!!

Can I stand beside you Cybermeez and throw very heavy, multi-layered quotes on quotes? Perhaps we can subdue the beast with a carefully crafted net of inverted commas

Martin.

The Beast is most certainly impressed by the intellectual depth of the recent responses and opts to join the deepening fun.

Too bad, this could have been an interesting thread.

Oh no, this is an interesting thread. The variances of shape and appearance between populations of roughly similar appearing fish has been dealt with before on LOL....well partially.

http://www.loaches.com/species_pages/bo ... short.html

This wasn't on long, lanky Clowns. It is logical to assume that geographically separated life forms of a given species develop separate DNA sequences creating localized differences. The base DNA remains the same, but genetic variances lead to different proportions or whatever.

A classic example is Rift Lake Cichlids. The rock-dwelling cichlids are so dependant on rocky outcrops within the sea-like huge lakes that they will not venture away from their outcrop. This leads to geographically separated population differences even though the "barrier" between the fish is only a perceived one. Therefore, within the hobby, these fish are generally referred to as Latin Name (Bay or island within Lake, i.e. location).

Same with certain species of L-number Loricarids...you may get Panaque sp. (or cf) nigrolineatus (Rio Tocantins). Now it is, I guess a fault of the fish collecting trade that they as a business are somewhat less anal about Clown Loaches than us here. This creates a situation where there is no requirement within the hobby for specific location data on the fish we keep. We could create that demand, but........well whatever.

In the past, this forum has had many intellectual discussions on such subjects as Clown Loach noise production and the possibility of local "dialects" which might mean one group might not accept an individual from another area. Differences in populations of modestas which in my own case I have seen yellow finned ones totally ignored by red finned ones. There is as has been pointed out before a wealth of past experience within the LOL community. Just because you don't see it in this thread, doesn't mean that there aren't intellects out there.

I agree that long-term studies on any subject are better than jumping to conclusions. Experience on this forum has allowed a group of us to build up a wealth of knowledge on differentiating between honest inquizitiveness and inflamitory twisting of a thread to create an effect.

We are all absolutely able to identify DNA sequencing that points to one or more sub-species of Ichthyoforum trollidensis. Most examples of this species aren't actually 'dense' at all.....nor particularly 'deep' either. They just relate to others in an unnaceptable fashion.

People come here for help and advice, not confrontation. That is the one twist of the Troll DNA that is unmistakable. Refusal to take other's knowledge and meld it with your own is a somewhat illogical act when you should be trying to improve your fish's lot. If that's genuinely what you're here for?

The best threads on LOL over the years have been the ones that morph into a deep discussion on a subject. The worst are those that get hijacked and used as a tool to create dissent. There can be no discussion without opposing views. How one deals with the opposition and finds some middle ground or a sensible conclusion is what marks an intellectual discussion in my opinion.

I'm not sure about "Intelligent Design" being of any relevance here, but it has about as much certainty as Gravity. Yesterday I tested gravity. Fell 12 feet and sprained my ankle.....I have a bump on my head. It hurt. This much I know is true......yet even gravity has those who would question it's true nature.....

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39512

Holy sh*t!

Mike, just be nice, or go play with the traffic on the freeway.

Martin.

mikev wrote:huh? what does this have to do with ID?

It was the phrase, "Still, imho it needs to be understood that we are not dealing with established facts here." It's the same thing the ID crazies say when talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Their argument is something along the lines of, "It's a theory, not a fact." To which those of us who paid attention in science class and don't think the world is flat reply, "A scientific theory is an explanation based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, particularly one that has been tested and has reproduceable results." As opposed to a theory which is a synonym for a possiblity.

You are an ungrateful devil, Mr. Thoene. ; )

I received this PM this afternoon. Somehow I just knew I would. Mike, here at LOL we believe in full disclosure so I'm not dealing with this in a PM, but here in the open:

hi, Martin,

I think it may be best to try to talk to you off-forum. I genuinely fail to understand what is going on. It appears that I managed to upset you guys somehow, but where?

* I don't think I gave any bad advice as you have previously thought I did.
* I most certainly was not looking for a confrontation, but you find int necessary to say: People come here for help and advice, not confrontation.
* And the references to ID, Beast, and Trolling (Ichthyoforum trollidensis---very neat) are certainly most puzzling. Quite confrontational, in fact.

Perhaps you can explain what is REALLY wrong, because I'm fully in the dark.

Right Mike, I'll switch the lights on for you then. Now for all I know you may well be a dedicated fishkeeper who believes they have some knowledge to impart. It's just the methodology that causes a problem.

You have been the subject for a couple of weeks now of private E-mails between certain parties here with long-term experience of fishkeeping. Those mails express deep concern for your attitude and ways of expressing yourself, the accuracy and correctness of advice you give others...... and come from multiple people, so don't think that i have a personal beef with you. I just have a beef with anyone who is deliberately disruptive to the smooth functioning of this forum. If you're not doing it on purpose then you really DO have a problem. Maybe the fact that you claim to be "in the dark" is a symptom?

I am known here for tending to be non-confrontational, but I have limits. Others reached theirs too. Important people with proven knowledge. People with provenance. Just like when you start a new job, you don't waltz in and start telling established people how to run the show. Nobody sensible thinks they can get away with that sort of thing. No faster way to p*ss off people.

So please think on those words.

Martin.

cybermeez wrote:

mikev wrote:huh? what does this have to do with ID?

It was the phrase, "Still, imho it needs to be understood that we are not dealing with established facts here." It's the same thing the ID crazies say when talking about Darwin's Theory of Evolution.

Their argument is something along the lines of, "It's a theory, not a fact."

OK, I understand where this comes from at least now. Darwin's theory simply does not have any particular classification model.

As you wish, Martin,

Martin Thoene wrote:I would. Mike, here at LOL we believe in full disclosure so I'm not dealing with this in a PM
.......
You have been the subject for a couple of weeks now of private E-mails

I do wonder just why such obviously important things as the accuracy and correctness of advice would remain buried in PM's, especially in light of the "full disclosure" policy, but never mind. Not acting on such PM's quickly does seem irresponsible to the posters who might gave obtained a bad advice.

Most certainly, I've not been in any way telling established people how to run the show; but sadly you chose to see it this way.

Given that I cannot compromise on my methodology --- which is merely to express what I know to be true and hope it to be useful to someone --- and yes, I DO have a problem with doing it any other way --- I greatly doubt that the communication problems would be easy or possible to resolve.

It has been an interesting experience talking to you and I do appreciate the advice you have given. Hopefully, some of what I said was likewise useful or interesting to others.

mikev wrote: Hopefully, some of what I said was likewise useful or interesting to others.

And that's the real pain here. Some of it was good....and interesting.

Martin.