Apisto Wilhelmi or Abacaxis

[fredmir1]

Which is the correct name Apisto Wilhelmi or Abacaxis

 

[Apistoguy52]

Apistogramma sp abacaxis

 

[Jannik]

Apistogramma sp. "Abacaxis" is correct.

 

[Frank Hättich]

Both are common names and as such equally "correct". However, since many people omit the "sp." (which indicates that it's not a scientific name) the resulting A. Wilhelmi or worse A. wilhelmi looks like a proper latinized scientific name. Therefore, I prefer "Abacaxis" over "Wilhelmi".

 

[martin_c]

I wonder why it still hasn't been scientifically described yet despite being a popular species for a long time now.

 

[MacZ]

I wonder why it still hasn't been scientifically described yet despite being a popular species for a long time now.

My best guess: Big backlist of species to describe among the actually quite few people that do this. Additionally a species description takes type specimens and and a collection location... a lot of factors.

 

[martin_c]

I guess you're right, and i believe that it's a lot of work.
I just wonder about the priorities. For example Apistogramma flavipedunculata was already described even though it's new in the hobby (afaik) and only few people have ever seen it in real live.

 

[Mike Wise]

Money is the primary reason for the lack of taxonomic descriptions. The hours required to completely describe a new species are expensive. Many of the recent apisto descriptions were funded by the government in Brazil for economic reasons like impacts of new potential hydrologic dams. Another reason is that taxonomy has taken a back-seat to environmental impact and phylogenetic research that doesn't really need scientific descriptions of individual species.