Recommend me some good books please

[P.W.]

Hi Mervin!

Sorry, but I didn`t saw your message until today!
This is the book I´m refering to:

http://www.amazon.de/exec/obidos/AS...2169/sr=1-5/ref=sr_1_11_5/302-8539108-4606435

Hi Michael!

Why not buying it from Amazon.de? I think that the prices are quite competitive, even if you add the freigth charges.

Best regards/ Per

 

[Mike Wise]

Why is it so that they are hesitant to publish it in English ???
Believe there is a huge market for the English version, no ????

Based on the experience of publishers like Tetra Verlag, German publishers are hesitant to publish English language editions. Tetra's popular books in Germany just didn't sell as fast as they do in Germany. Linke & Staeck's popular book on dwarf cichlids, for example, went through at least 3 revised editions while they couldn't move the stock of the only English edition. For its time (1994), this was a very good book.

I believe that part of the problem with late arrival of the English edition of Römer's Atlas (released in German in 1998, but not published in English until late 2000) was because the publisher, Mergus Verlag, wasn't willing to print copies until they were assured that they had enough committed buyers to make pinting worthwhile.

I don't know about other countries, but in the USA it seems that people just don't read as many books that they could. Call me cynical, but the answers to many of the questions asked on this & other forums can easily be found, if only these people were willing to buy a few books and read.

 

[apistodave]

So far I know of only 1 misidentified fish in the whole book (A. sp. Serpa = A. sp. Piexoto). In this respect, it is far superior to any other book presently out there.


Mike, Uwe's mis-identifications are not mis-identifications. They are dis-agreements. Just cause Uwe doesnt agree with some of the others, doesnt make him wrong--after all they disagree with him, maybe they're wrong. I have been to some conferences over there and seen some big arguments- Staecke and Romer against Koslowski, Kowslowki and Romer against Bork or Mayland. Just because these guys all disagree on some identifications does not mean it's fair for you to characterise Uwes opinion as mis-identifications.
As far as your last post as to why these books are not done in English you are right. I talked to Baensche and before I could get the copies I sold, Uwe and I had to subscribe a certain number of copies before he would print in English. Even then there were only about 45 books subscribed and I had 100 copies left to sell here. It took me 4 years to sell those. Americans dont read! Maybe if the next ones were done as a TV serial it would be more successfull. Right now it is not a done deal that the 2nd and 3rd editions will be printed in English--we will see.

 

[apistodave]

Ancient dude if you walk into a German LFS and buy some copies of the aqualogs you are not going to save money and the hassle of bringing them back will negate any savings. Now if you can go straight to Glasers and buy a few copeies--that might be a different story.

 

[Mike Wise]

Mike, Uwe's mis-identifications are not mis-identifications. They are dis-agreements. Just cause Uwe doesnt agree with some of the others, doesnt make him wrong--after all they disagree with him, maybe they're wrong.

David, part of what you say is very true, but there are several obvious errors in Uwe otherwise excellent atlas:

1. A. brevis does not have extended dorsal fin lappets. The fish listed as brevis in Uwe's book appears to be very close to or identical with A. personata.

2. A. juruensis does not have the expansive black chin patch (p. 512, 513 top & 521) nor the narrow abdominal stripes seen on Uwe's fish. A. juruensis has a longer face (distance between eye & snout) & smaller lips that Uwe's fish. We now know that the fish pictured in the Atlas are found in the Rio Nanay, a tributary of the Peruvian Amazon. A. juruensis is found only in the upper Rio Juruá, a tributary of the Brazilian Amazon. Hundreds, if not thousands of water miles separate the two drainages. Before the source of Uwe's fish was ascertained, I also mistook this species (A. sp. Schawrzkinn/Black-chin) with A. juruensis, but I now know I made a mistake. I will agree that they are closely related, like A. cacatuoides & A. luelingi, but they certainly are not the same species.

3. A. maciliensis. After seeing photos of fish that Jeff Cardwell brought back from lakes in the middle Guaporé - like the collecting localities of both A. trifasciata maciliensis & A. t. haraldschultzi - I now belive that there is no separate species "A. maciliensis". Cardwell's fish look just like A. trifasciata except they show no diagonal third band when live. They appear to be just a lake dwelling race of A. trifasciata. We might call them A. trifasciata maciliensis, but ichthyologists are trying to shy away subspecies names right now. The fish Uwe lists as "A. maciliensis" is an undescribed species most commonly called A. sp. Mamoré.

4. A. personata. Compare the fish Uwe calls A. personata with the type specimen (p. 678). Uwe's fish are more elongate, have a shorter face, a broader continuous lateral band (missing scales make it look like it has a separate spot), no rows of spots in the central part of the tail fin, nor rows of spots in the soft parts of the dorsal & anal fins &, much shorter ventral fins (although not visible on Uwe's photo of the holotype of A. personata). Maybe I'm seeing things, but the upper jaw seems to have a small pale blue patch in the corner of the jaw - a feature found in species related to A. agassizii. I believe Uwe's fish are very very old A. gibbiceps.

5. Even Uwe must admit that the fish he pictures as A. pulchra is nothing like the real A. pulchra. Uwe's fish show a prominent caudal spot, something the true A. pulchra does not have. The tail is squared off with 2 or even 3 caudal extensions instead of being round. The real A. pulchra is related to A. agassizii & has the blue patch at the corner of the jaw. Uwe's fish are not that closely related to A. agassizii & do not have the jaw patch. In actuality, Uwe's fish is an undescribed species first pictured by Kullander in his description of A. hippolytae. It later was imported into North America as "A. sp. Lyretail Purus", into Japan as A. sp. Rondonia, & into Germany as A. sp. Erdfresser/Earth-eater.

6. A. sp. Rio Acre (now A. acrensis). Compare the photos on p. 883. The lower fish has black scale edges on the 2nd and 3rd rows below the lateral band. The upper fish has these dark scale edges on the 1st & 2nd scale edges below the lateral band. Staeck, who collected both fish, acknowledger that the upper fish is A. urteagai & the bottom fish is A. acrensis. The upper fish on p. 886 is also A. urteagai. The fish on p. 887 are not even that closely related to the two fish named above. The bright area between the end of the lateral band and the caudal spot is indicative of members closely related to A. regani. It probably is A. sp. Gelbwangen/Yellow-cheeks.

7. A. sp. Smaragd/Emerald displays all of the diagnostic features of the holotype of A. geisleri. Other than the lovely emerald green color, there is no difference in the 2 forms. Smaragd/Emerald very probably is a geographic color morph of A. geisleri, not a separate species.

There are several more misidentifications in my opinion, although not easily explained without going into a long description (this is already too long).

I have always wondered why some of the more obivous error were published. Could it be that the publisher demanded pictures of every described species - even if the IDs had to be "stretched" a little? Hopefully Uwe will correct his errors in his new volume.

 

[Rolo]

Hi,

nice compilation, Mike.

I think, mainly you can accuse Uwe Römer of failing to see his mistakes.
Mistakes or mis-interpretations can (but shouldn't) happen in publications, especially in such big ones like his atlas... but it seems, that all feedbacks, arguments and facts are blowing in the wind and he still stays on his opinion... without listening to somebody elses opinion and without better arguments ...just not to to concede a point to the other "experts".

...but that's of course just my "feeling" ;-)

greetings,
Rolo

 

[apistodave]

Rollo he listens but his attitude is that in the end the truth of it comes out and why get upset in the meantime. If someone has a better "truth" --Publish! Rollo if the other "experts" had gotten together and jumped on him that would be one thing--but dont forget--they are busy jumping on each other at the same time!!!!!!!!!!!! It is one big jump fest their in Germany!

 

[apistodave]

Oh ! You guys need to know something too-I am not talking to Uwe on this stuff right now these are my opinions on what I've seen. Uwe doesnt like to get involved in these arguments on the internet. He just doesnt have the time, and his servers cant take the heat!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rolo]

Rollo he listens but his attitude is that in the end the truth of it comes out and why get upset in the meantime. If someone has a better "truth" --Publish!

Yes, but sometimes, he didn't catch, if the truth came out ;-)
Who decides, when something is true?

What about A. juruensis? What about A. sp. "Nanay"?... and what about these points from Mike above?

In case of A. juruensis for example, I collected several informations, also from you, if you remeber. I found your arguments quite interesting and I had to think about it and I also asked some others to build an own opinion. I told them your arguments and discussed them... and at the end I think, Römer is definitely wrong, at least in this case.
Many of these other cases of misidentifications are not a matter of opinion, they are comprehensible facts. But I never heard, that Uwe agreed with one of these critics. He still stays in his nomenclature. Or am I wrong?

greetings,
Rolo

 

[apistodave]

Well Rollo I have not asked Uwe about this so I dont know his opinion. I shall ask him and get back to you. It may very well be that he has changed his opinion and it will come out, but I dont know. But I think your first statement is very telling--who decides whats true? You see the arguments just go on and on. Science is about change--the points Mike made above may be true today and then 10 years from now some one comes along and changes them. Dont forget that people beleived the earth was flat for a long time--it was science --and then along came a guy who proved it wasnt. There are very few absolutes. What if some guy comes along in ten years and says hey these fish are so close to Geophagines that Apistogramma is a false Genus, then it all changes again. The "truth" in science seems a lot of time to consist of the theory that's most popular at the moment. But at the same time this is what makes science a search for the "truth" and not a finding of the "truth". Really, since I represent the more commercial side of the business my main objection is that when you say something like there is a mis-identification in the book, the next guy says there are some mis-identifications in the book, and the next guy says there are a whole bunch of them and the next guy says the book stinks, you see my point? You have to be carefull when you characterise something because people wont remember the good things you said about it, but the bad things will inevitably be magnified. I had a hard time selling this excellent book and who knows, maybe this was a factor. It's an excellent book, the best one out there on Apistogramma and maybe someone reads this and thinks it aint that good and doesnt get it.

 

[apistodave]

PS--maybe Herr Baensche thinks --well they didnt like the first one and it didnt sell so good so we dont put 2 and 3 into English, that could happen too, very easily!

 

[Rolo]

But I think your first statement is very telling--who decides whats true? You see the arguments just go on and on. Science is about change--the points Mike made above may be true today and then 10 years from now some one comes along and changes them.

Well, you shouldn't see it like this in this context. Otherwise you can say, what you want and nothing can be wrong... that is not the best precondition to get the things clearer ;-)
Of course, science is flowing and the "truth" is just a momentary point of view and taxonomical science isn't very exactly, too. But you can't say "ok, what I say is maybe wrong, and all of you think it's wrong, but what you think is just a momentary truth, which can be false in ten years, and then I'm maybe right" Even without giving a reason for the different opinion and even, if the points of critics are some facts, who surely will be righ in ten years, too. ;-) As I said, it is no matter of opinion, if e.g. two fishes are the same or not. If different fishes are the same species or not... that is something, what can change during time. ... but I never read, that Römer makes a clear statement, that he knows, that a fish is called different, as things are now in science, but he don't agree with it with giving a reason against the arguments of the others.

So I can't really believe your words ... but that doesn't matter. I don't want to argue with you or Uwe. I just wanted to say, that I miss the discussion about the critics and Uwes arguments against them.

Really, since I represent the more commercial side of the business my main objection is that when you say something like there is a mis-identification in the book, the next guy says there are some mis-identifications in the book, and the next guy says there are a whole bunch of them and the next guy says the book stinks, you see my point? You have to be carefull when you characterise something because people wont remember the good things you said about it, but the bad things will inevitably be magnified.

I never said to anybody, he shouldn't buy this book. It's quite the contrary, although I'm in close relationship with Ingo Koslowski... but I understand, what you mean. I react the same, when people say, some pictures in Koslowskis book are too bad printed and therefore dismiss the whole book. (But Koslowski don't say "No, they are fatastic!" *g*... he just say, it's not his fault, but he feels sorry for that more than all others. ;-) )

But if the Atlas includes some - belonging to the momentary science *g* - mistakes, I wouldn't ignore this, if someone asks me. I usually advise, not to believe only ONE source like the atlas. Everybody should buy it and read it ... especially, because it included the most species when it was released. But you can't deny, when I say: don't believe things without reflection. It's not all the "truth" in the cichlid atlas. Read other books as well.

I never said something else...

greetings,
Rolo

 

[apistodave]

Rollo come on man all through here you agree with me and then tell me I'm wrong!

 

[apistodave]

BTW I am coming over Sept 8 to Sept 29

 

[aspen]

romer's book is one of the best fish books i've seen so far. i know i can spend a few years in this hobby without finding any things to complain about, and LOTS to be pleased with in it. it isn't cheap, but well worth the money imo. any hobbiest serious about keeping and breeding s/a dwarfs should own it. there may be things in the book to debate, but i've kept a number of species now and haven't run into any serious contradictions in the species i've kept yet.

i hope the english version of koslowski's book comes out soon. i'd like to take a a look at that one too. (i don't read german and i won't be buying the book just for the pictures.)

imo, the aqualog books are not worth anywhere near what the romer book is. they are simply species identification books, with a very small key at the bottom to tell you what sized tank the fish should be kept in, temp, etc. they are very over-priced in comparison, imo. romer has a bunch of very interesting reading on each species plus the many added articles and sections. 'and the pictures are nice and bright too!' (he he sorry rolo) i hope koslowski gets a look at the book before it goes to press and approves the photos next time.

rick

 

[Rolo]

Rollo come on man all through here you agree with me and then tell me I'm wrong!

First, I don't say, you're wrong!... I said, Römer is wrong ;-)
(not just of the contents and statements, but in the way to handle the things and make everything on his own, not discussing other arguments.)

... but I can understand, what you do, because I do the same (with Ingo), but it's a little bit different to "agree" ;-) ... exspecially with your argumentation about fluid science and the truth in 10 years to defend Römer, I don't agree ;-)

...but I think, that's enough. It's not our job to to resume the discussion, which normally should have been hold by Koslowski and Römer *lol*

greetings & good night,
Rolo (just ONE "L")

 

[apistodave]

For not saying Im wrong there are a lot of you's in there Rollo!---
Well, you shouldn't see it like this in this context. Otherwise you can say, what you want ---But you can't say ---So I can't really believe your words--- Well anyway you are right Rollo it's for them to fight over and boy do they I thought one time Staecke and Uwe were going to come to blows--but you know when they really get in a serious discussion these guys all get calmer and more methodical! Anyway we just keep the darn things--- any chance I see you in Sepptember Rollo?

 

[cootwarm]

I always keep an open mind about what I read. Almost everyone was telling Columbus the world was flat. I don't have enough experience or knowledge to form my own opinion so I like to hear different views and then form my own opinion after thought and reflection; not latch on to the first point of view to come along.

Eventually this "same/different" species controversy will be solved by science, not opinions. But science isn't instant, it takes time. In these modern times of instant news as well as instant everything else, everyone wants instant answers. Well there are very few instants answers in science. Answers in science usually require experimentation and data collection & analysis. Not to mention the manpower to carry this out. Until someone explains to me "why" and "why not", who am I to say whether the world is round or flat. :wink:

I'd rather be patient and let the evidence, pro & con be presented, then studied by experts who will make the decision based on science. After all what is the value of a wrong opinion. I'd rather have no opinion than the wrong opinion.

Having said that; I appreaciate Mike Wise for shedding light on the controversy as it shows me that the descrepancies range between insignificant and minor and they don't effect me (for now). There are very few parts of Romers Atlas that I haven't read. I've only been keeping apistogrammas for a year now, but I feel that Romers Atlas saved me years off the learning curve of experience. The thought of not purchasing volume 2 has never entered my mind. After reading volume 1, volume 2 is an automatic "must have"!

I understand Daves point of negative press. People tend to dwell on the negative. I also agree that the reason for low sales of the english books is the lack of interest in reading in general. Most people would prefer to see it on TV, they don't want to take the time to read. In turn, because they don't care to read, they place a low value on books. I'm a reader so I wouldn't hesitate to spend $50 on a good book, but a lot of people wouldn't spend more than $15 on a good book.

Also from reading a few posts on this forum, it appears that people are willing to spend more on apistogrammas in eastern europe & asia. I like to think of myself as a hardcore apistoholic, but $150 for a pair of apistos! 8O 8O 8O That's too hardcore for me! I wouldn't consider paying more than $25 for a pair of apistos of any type! Even elizabethae & diplotaenia. I'll just wait for them to be picked up by cable TV! :lol:

Michael

 

[apistodave]

well Mike when you want some good ones and not pay through the nose---

 

[Mike Wise]

Just for the record, I have always recommended Uwe's book to those interested in dwarf cichlids. The initial sections, based on information discovered while doing his PhD research, are exceptional. To me they are the best part of the book. I doubt that most hobbyists would agree. Most only skim over these sections & go directly to the species section.

Although I mentioned a few problems with Uwe's book, it certainly doesn't lessen its value. Just because the species name is wrong (e.g. A. sp. Erdfresser/Eartheater for A. pulchra), it doesn't make the other information in that section wrong. If you need to know how to breed Erdfresser, you can just look it up under A. pulchra in Uwe's Atlas and find valuable information there. In this respect, correcting identification errors actually improves the value of the book.

In regard to Ingo Koslowski's book, I would say that it is more oriented toward the serious apisto hobbyist and amature/professional ichthyologist. It provides a lot of information in comparitively little space. Römer's Atlas assumes that you know nothing and then leads you by the hand every step of the way. Koslowski's book assumes that you know something about apistos & provides detailed information in a very concise format.

Ingo asked me to be honest about my initial impression of the book. I told him that I consider his book far superior - particularly with regard to species identification - to Uwe's Atlas, but that the average apisto keeper will prefer Uwe book over his. Why? Because the 'cookbook' format (at least in the main 'species' section) of Römer's Atlas is designed so that the hobbyist only has to follow instructions to succeed. Koslowski's book provides the essential information without telling you what to do with it. Koslowski was happy to hear this. He wanted to orient his book toward the advanced hobbyist/ichthyologist. The condensation of information in Koslowski's book allows much more information on many more 'forms' (species & geographically distinct populations) in a book that isn't so large that it would be too expensive to publish commercially. If he followed the format of the Römer Atlas, Koslowski's book would probably have been over three times the size (and expense) of Uwe's book.

Which format you prefer is your personal choice. Both books have their strong points and weak points. Both are well worth buying. I will bring my rough draft translation of Koslowski's book to the ACA convention for those interested in seeing it.