Jump to content


Percina nevisense valid?


2 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_mette_*

Guest_mette_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2008 - 11:58 AM

I saw several Chainbacks when sampling in the Eno River the other day. I based the ID on both DWQ data and what other folks have told me to expect from the site, but other sources came up short. I found entries on Fishbase and Natureserve for this species, but it's absent from both the Rhode et al and Menhinick books, which are my primary references for NC fishes.

Can anybody fill me in on the taxanomic status of the species? Was this species lumped with another during the period when both books were published, then split again afterwards? Can anyone tell me what species it was lumped with? I just skimmed Phylogenetic Relationships of Percina (Near 2002), and he places it in a clade (potentially a subgenus) with roanoka, peltata, and crassa.

Anyhow, it's a valid species, right?

#2 Guest_fritz_*

Guest_fritz_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2008 - 01:40 PM

It's valid. Formerly lumped with peltata, originally described by Cope in 1870 The paper came out in 1998 (Eugene Maurakis of VA Musuem of Science), way after Menhinick and our book were published.

Fritz Rohde

oops. The redescription by Gene M was in 1998 in Va Journal of Science.

Edited by fritz, 13 April 2008 - 01:41 PM.


#3 Guest_mette_*

Guest_mette_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2008 - 02:30 PM

It's valid. Formerly lumped with peltata, originally described by Cope in 1870 The paper came out in 1998 (Eugene Maurakis of VA Musuem of Science), way after Menhinick and our book were published.

Fritz Rohde

oops. The redescription by Gene M was in 1998 in Va Journal of Science.

Straight from the horse's mouth. Thanks for posting, Fritz.



Reply to this topic



  


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users