Emphasis on "from 2017". There are a lot of those old listings with old taxa that have since been synonymized with valid species. - not only the date but even much more emphasis on the use of 'cf.' in that description.
"Crassipinnis=orbicularis="bumblebee"=possibly mikoljii as well?" - no, miklojii has and always will look more like the ocellatus that we all know and has never looked like crassipinnis. ever. They are not even from the same region of the world.
"No, mikoljii has always been a. sp. "orinoco". Admittedly mikoljii and crassipinnis/"orbicularis" have very similar looking juveniles, but that's why catch locations are kept, maintained, and listed when selling." - correct. and crassipipinnis look distinctively different from all other when adult and look absolutely nothing like the rio orinoco miklojii. In fact the rio caqueta juveniles I have look crazy ornate and like juvenile crassipinnis and they look nothing like them as adults. they also look like similar to the miklojii as adults. They are yet to be officially announced as described. they are about to be, which is why the edit to the name was made last week on my list for that population as well. again.. no other vendor apparently has done the homework.
"I already knew what TUIC was calling them before I started this thread. It's not about me "believing" you. It's about empirical evidence.
If it was as "cut and dry" as you're suggesting I think there would be a consensus by now amongst the reputable vendors still calling them all bumblebee oscars. If it had "happened years ago" then why is there still confusion? Why all the sudden is this mikoljii popping up? That's why I started this thread. It's an investigation, you see, you'll have to back up what you're saying with more than just "TUIC says so". Lol.
If TUIC has the pertinent information I'm inquiring about it, I want to see/read it.
If the nomenclature debate is rooted in genetic variance than this can be put to rest with some evidence.
If the nomenclature is depending on something more broad/less empirical like catch location than we are just relying on the hearsay of the importers/vendors.
Again, I intend no disrespect and actually respect the "opinions" of anyone with the knowledge to weigh in on the discussion."
This information is undisputedly, scientifically proven and can ALL be found online with research. I spend several hours a day doing this work. Often I can reach out the the people who did the physical work. This is why we always (or usually always) are light years ahead of other vendors on the information. case in point. last week I was with Steve, the owner of the Wetspot(yes, tuic and wetspot were hanging out together). He was checking out the miklojii in person. He, even as one of the countries other premier vendors did not even know of the new description. He does now lol. We have sourced this fish for a few decades and knew for quite a while the complex was being studied for redescription. It just so happened that I had them on hand the very day they were officially described.
TUIC has in the past and still to this day remains very close with the scientific community. Our species names are typically the most accurate. Any vendor marketing bumblebee oscars as anything other than crassippinnis has either not bothered to do the work or is looking to profit on a name that no longer exists. For me, while marketing under the newest name usually ups sales a bit, the real purpose of the name fixes is to be accurate.
What is comes down to is professionalism. This is what we do. We live and breathe this stuff. We are involved scientifically and not just shuffling fish. many, many, vendors incorrectly list fish as the species they imported. One vendor right now(and repeatedly has done so) is selling Geophagus albalios as surinamensis. A species that in the last 20 years has been imported at best twice(if that). why is he selling it as surinamensis. Ignorance... never bothered to research it. They flip fish that's it. We cannot be selling something that has not been available in 20 years AND more importantly has no source for getting them out of the only country they exist in. It is this reason why we see mislabeled, incorrectly identified, and old names being used. No connections to scientific community and likely no care to be involved in that aspect. TUIC literally supplies fish to the scientific community for such studies. heck, if you search the USGS website for invasive species guess whos photos you will find. they use our photos and information to correctly identify fish.
sometimes we might get it wrong on some obscure fish that arrives as a contaminant or from a region it is not 'supposed' to be in. In those cases we try our best, do the most research we can and ID it as close as possible based on that research.
