Re: NANFA-- OT: African Butterfly Fish

Bruce Stallsmith (
Wed, 12 Jan 2000 17:02:16 EST

I stand corrected about the Bull. MCZ; I'm glad UA Tuscaloosa gets it, I'll
check it out myself sooner or later.

I've just started reading Eisenhour's dissertation. He raises _M. hyostoma_
to species level in his disseration, along with (I think) three other groups
in the aestivalis complex. I haven't received my Dec. Copeia yet (or I've
deep-sixed it), but I'll have to go to the UAH library. I suppose that by
publishing it in Copeia it may be accepted as a new species; also Brooks
Burr was chair of his doctoral committee that approved his research, so that
would seem to lend weight to it. And his dissertation has a good photo print
page with B& W photos of 8 _Machrybopsis_ spp. or populations. The fish I
have look most closely like _M. hyostoma_ from Missouri or Illinois, not
that I think they are.

As to the PCA, if he did what you say, using means instead of raw data, I
would say that's an argument for Copeia to bite the bullet and hire a
statistics editor like _Ecology_ or other journals. I'll reserve further
comment until I read the article, and at least a lot of the dissertation.

--Bruce Stallsmith
Huntsville, AL

>>Dave, do any libraries in Alabama receive the Bulletin of the MCZ?
>UA-Tuscaloosa sunscribes to it.
>>Anyway, my own bibliographic adventure of the day was receiving a copy of
>>David Eisenhour's dissertation on the systematics & variation >of the
>>_Machrybopsis aestivalis_ complex west of the Mississippi. >I'll catch up
>>on the western variants of speckled chub. (My wife >thinks I'm crazy...)
>Hey, have you read his _M. tetranema_ paper in the Dec issue of Copeia?
>This might seem picky, but he refers to _M. hyostoma_ throughout as a valid
>species, but nowhere has it been formally elevated to species status yet.
>This seems somewhat problematic.
>Also, I don't know how stats-proficient you are, but what do you think
>running PCA on the means (!) of a data set (instead of the raw data
>and then expressing wonder when they separate completely along all axes...
>I'm not trying to slam his study, it's certainly the most thorough
>of the group ever done (and is VERY thorough!). I just don't understand why
>one would use this method...

Get Your Private, Free Email at

/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ Association"
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ For a digest version, send the command to
/ instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page,