Talk:Acentrogobius

Links

• BHL bibliography
• Acentrogobius – Taxon details on Encyclopedia of Life (EOL).
• Global Biodiversity Information Facility. 2019. GBIF Backbone Taxonomy. Checklist dataset. Taxon: Acentrogobius.
• ION
• Nomenclator Zoologicus

Talk

Id like to draw the attention to the article on english Wikipedia en:Acentrogobius kranjiensis, which I think is unvalid as species, but synonymous with Drombus kranjiensis, why I initiated a discussion with the creator of the article and on en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes where I have listed some soruces that support that the valid species is Drombus kranjiensis. Opinions and input is apprecieted. Dan Koehl (talk) 16:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Could wind up being complicated.
• Acentrogobius in the World Register of Marine Species does not mention A. kranjiensis at all, but specific name comes up as Drombus kranjiensis, with original genus as Ctenogobius. WoRMS does not mention Acentrogobius kranjiensis. However, running A. kranjiensis on Google Scholar shows PDF, Annotated checklist of the Gobioid fishes of Singapore 2009, where it is listed as junior synonym of Drombus globiceps (Hora, 1923), on p. 148, but not as A. kranjiensis combination. This paper is excellent source of synonymies with good reference citations.
• In summary, I could not find direct citations for Acentrogobius kranjiensis in that combination. Hope that helped slightly. Looks like fish taxonomy is as much fun as older barnacle taxonomy.
• Last night, I created ZRC in Repositories complex. Seems on 1 April 2014, new name is Lee Kong Chian Museum of Natural History. Apparently will still keep acronyms, but as yet no collections d-base. Their present collections portal is more along line of "Wow, we have lots of stuff". Neferkheperre (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • As I said also at enwiki, I would put this fish under Drombus globiceps per the Kottelat paper of 2013 as listed at Catalog of Fishes. I question whether the combination Acentrogobius kranjiensis was ever actually published, but apparently the Thai source is getting it from somewhere. Koumz (talk) 18:22, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The opposite of valid is invalid, not "unvalid". Even if Acentrogobius kranjiensis is better placed as Drombus kranjiensis, which is unclear as yet, it would still be a valid species, it just may be a valid species in a different genus. The combination Acentrogobius kranjiensis has been published, see details on that page. I have yet to investigate the possible synonymy with Drombus globiceps Stho002 (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, there is some literature justification for the synonymy, but it is weak. I have therefore put Drombus kranjiensis as a synonym of Drombus globiceps, but with a question mark ... Stho002 (talk) 22:16, 14 January 2015 (UTC)