My article on the Endler's livebearer is in the latest issue of WetWebMedia online magazine.

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/ca/WWMDigitalMagV6.htm

Click the fish on the cover then click "5" in the contents page.

This is similar to the article I wrote for "Livebearers" earlier this year, though geared more to the general public than experienced fishkeepers.

Nice article, but at least two history factual errors:

1. Rosen did classify the livebearers he received from Endler. He told him they were guppies, this is well known to those who were around at the time. Absence of further classification was not due to his passing, but because he had already determined that they were, in his opinion, Guppies. Kallman called them Endler's as a sort of joke, but the distinct appearance caused hobbyists to think it was a new species. So that debate has existed from the very beginning.

2. The Endler "classification system" was invented at Swamp River Aquatics, Endler had nothing to do with it. Adrian then tried to declare himself to be the sole arbiter of what classification a fish fell into. Credit is due for the fact that SRA was the largest and most prolific distributor of these fish, and they created many of the hybrid lines that are so colorful and popular. However, the classification system was an attempt to control the market.

I know both of these to be facts, as I was around when they happened. Jim Langhammer knew all parties involved in the original naming of "Endler's", and was my source for that info. I have also discussed Swamp River Aquatics with several oldtimers on Aquabid, where the classifications were first used as a selling point.

I'm not going to dispute any of that because I have only the resources I have, and I have no interest in getting involved in the still somewhat hot war of words.

Interesting, though, that I ran both of those items past John Endler for the article in Livebearers (which had essentially the same information as this one) and he did not dispute any of it.

I think I'm done writing about this fish though. Somebody always has their toes wherever I step.

Well, I, for one, thoroughly enjoyed reading it. Thanks.

I expected that kind of reaction, I see it all the time from the Endler's keepers. However, you did not have the full context of the situation. Your article gave the impression that ichthyologists considered it as a new species from the beginning. This is the exact opposite of the truth, and this fact was well known at the time. How it has disappeared from the record is beyond my knowledge.

In the late 90s, we had exactly one population of Endler's. We did not know precisely where in Venezuela they had been found. No serious ichthyologist at the time considered them to be anything other than a population of Poecilia reticulata. It wasn't until someone went and collected more fish, and more populations, that anyone with a scientific background considered that possibility. Even then, old school ichthyologists did not believe the differences were sufficient to describe it as a new species. Bear in mind, DNA was still not in wide use at that time.

The debate at the beginning was between aquarists, who saw behavioral and appearance differences, and ichthyologists, who could not find significant measurable distinctions. The description of Poecilia wingei did not resolve the issue, as the characters they used were still considered insufficient by many ichthyologists. Since then at least one DNA analysis, which also was used to describe yet a third species of Guppy, also showed definite distinctions between Trinidad Guppies and Cumana Guppies. But the debate continues, as many old school ichthyologists don't believe that DNA is usable at the level of species distinction.

If you read the previous carefully, you will see that I have not declared whether or not I believe P. wingei is a valid species. That's because I don't consider the matter to be fully resolved at this time. It may never be, and I really don't care enough to obsess over that part of it. But I do care that the history be correctly preserved. It is an important part of the perpetual debate between lumpers and splitters.

Expected exactly what kind of reaction? Nothing I wrote above is knee-jerk nor is it accusatory. I did not put any words into your mouth, nor have I anywhere expressed an opinion on the matter of whether it is a separate species, either. And nothing was fired at you specifically.

However, taxonomists have declared this fish a separate species, and until they declare it something else, it remains a separate species. It is only a classification for convenience and really doesn't make that much difference in the grand scheme of things. I personally don't care. I don't have a horse in the race.

All I said was that the statements you claim are false were not flagged as errors by Dr. Endler, who saw those statements in the manuscript I passed across his desk and was ultimately published in Livebearers. The statements in the WetWebMedia article are unchanged from that version, except that the people involved with the classification was shortened from a list of names to "Endler and others." If you find that misleading, I apologize.

That said, Endler did not deny his involvement with the classification system, nor did he say anything about Rosen classifying the fish as a guppy. In fact, he provided me with documentation consistent with what I wrote:

Endler, John A. "Integrative Commentary on Evolution and Ecology of Poeciliid Fishes." Ecology and Evolution of Poeciliid Fishes. Evans, Pilastro, and Schlupp, eds. University of Chicago Press, 2011.

Quote:

Additionally, the statement about the name Endler's Livebearer being a "surprise for Professor Endler" was inserted into my manuscript by Dr. Endler himself and therefore I was not about to remove it.

It comes down to this. I consulted with Professor Endler and with AdrianHD. Where they disagreed on information, I excluded it. Where the agreed, I included it.

If the truth is different from what I wrote and what these two men do not dispute, then somebody who was present and involved needs to publish the truth because it ain't out there right now.

I'm not afraid to stir the waters up anymore, so here is my opinion. The entire Endler classification system is a nice marketing tool. This system is based solely on the use of "wild stock" as the guideline. I read the article and wasn't surprised to see the photo credits of SRA's Adrian. ALL FISH CAME FROM WILD STOCK!!!!!!!!! I grow weary of seeing color variations of Endler Guppies (lines bred by SRA) listed on Aquabid as created from "wild stock". I have a nice strain of Koi helleri coming up, should I use the "wild stock" label to increase their potential retail value? These fish obviously don't have this color variety in the wild, but since they are simply X. helleri, can't I list them as Wild Type from "wild stock" to get a higher price? You cannot cross the line when classifying a species when the waters are muddied by putting your own labels or classification system on it. I vented on this subject a short while ago and find myself still frustrated. Yikes!!! BTW, I respect the opinions of everyone, because I may or may not agree with you is not reflective of a respect level.

I asked Adrian for the photos because he has access to fish that I do not. That is the only reason I used his photos.

<p>
I think the rules and guidelines of responsible journalism were more than upheld in this article. Disagreeing with the information provided does not mean it was irresponsibly obtained. Were that the case, all journalism would be irresponsible because there is never a time that everyone agrees with everything in any article.</p>
<p>
Usually when 'wild stock' is mentioned, they are referring to a recent cross or out-cross. It's typically intended to strengthen the line or to breed a hybridized fish with a wild appearance. In the case of Endler hybrids, they may be hybridized to obtain a Guppy color and then bred to otherwise look like an Endler. 'Wild stock' or 'Wild-type' is often used to indicate a line is traceable and pure.</p>
<p>
Koi Swordtails differ in that the line is not traceable to wild purity. They're hybrid Xiphophorus.</p>
<p>
&nbsp;</p>
<p>
PS:&nbsp; I have no idea why I'm seeing html code in this post.&nbsp; This software is going to drive me even crazier...LOL.</p>