The Cichlid Room Companion

Contributions to public understanding of Science

In the past decade, the Internet has fundamentally transformed the relationships between the scientific community and society as a whole, as the boundaries between public and private, professionals and hobbyists fade away; allowing for a wider range of participants to engage with science in unprecedented ways. The educational and citizens science task of the CRC has been acknowledged in the formal scientific literature, both as source of data, information and awareness among fish hobbyists about topics like the threat of releases of invasive species from domestic aquaria, as well as promoting ethical behavior in the fish hobby. Furthermore, while for the most part, the CRC is a popular resource, a number of articles in it have some academic value, and have been cited as primary sources in the scholarly literature.

Recognitions and awards

Over the years, the CRC has received several recognitions. On January 5, 1999, it was recognized by the Project Cool Home Page as inspirational, for its effective use of the web as a medium that in some ways shows off the web's potential. Furthermore, on January 10, 2010, “TheReefTank” awarded the CRC with the “Recommended Reading” recognition. The CRC has also been awarded “the Cichlid Mania Site of the Week” by Mike Hanlon’s Cichlid mania home page, among other recognitions.

Criticism

Biological systematics is a scientific discipline, which requires scientific training. It is often professed in the scientific community that reliable contention of scientific papers is restricted to scientific publications, that are backed up with scientific facts. "Hobby publications are non-scientific literature", and the scholarly use or discussion of names and other nomenclatural acts "dropped in hobby is entirely questionable". Hobby articles, both printed and electronic, are usually published on the approval of the editors, whereas in a scientific journal, by contrast, all articles are peer reviewed. Moreover, in the case of the CRC, the site is not edited by a person educated in systematics or with an advanced degree in ichthyology or a related field. As of January, 2015, the catalogue section in the CRC and the FFM displayed a disclaimer stating that they are "not to be considered as published in the sense of the Code, and statements made therein are not made available for nomenclatural purposes". Even so, the site has been criticized for censoring taxonomic information based on its editor’s arbitrary, personal, subjective views (e.g. the synonymy of Paraneetroplus and Vieja sensu McMahan et al. 2010 (prior to 2015); the validity of Maylandia Meyer & Foerster 1984 vs its junior synonym Metriaclima Stauffer, J. R., Jr. and K. A. Kellogg 2002; the split of genus Nosferatu De la Maza-Benignos, et al. 2014 from Herichthys,; or the recent review of the taxonomy and systematics of the herichthyns; among others), on the basis of an anticonventional argument that official, in the sense of the Code, nomenclatural acts are not “mandatory” (see editor’s comments). The site fails to substantiate and scrutinize the taxonomic criteria which it applies, giving nowhere within its pages an explanation of the methods, systematic principles used, or the followed taxonomic authority (e.g. W. N. Eschmeyer’ s Catalog of fishes; Catalogue of Life; The Zoological Record; FishBase; Joseph S, Nelson’s Fishes of the world, etc.). As an example, FFM does not acknowledge family groups Fundulidae and Profundulidae to mention two.

Science relies on evidence

Beliefs are not science and are not a substitute for science or the scientific method. The reiterated misuse of words of estimative probability like “very likely” and “most likely”; as in X species is most likely a junior synonym of Y species…; without providing any formal bibliographic support and/or scientific evidence conveys deceitful arguments (i.e. a statistical misrepresentation) that mislead the audience about the scientific nature of such claim.

Onus probandi: Moreover, and contrary to the general legal principle, affirmanti incumbit probation (the burden of proof is upon him who affirms), the site applies an “uncertain” category to a number of taxa depicted; an incorrect, misleading, arbitrary, begrudging and non-scholarly status in the sense of the Code, which is repeatedly used throughout. As an example see, Taxa described by Manfred Meyer, Ulrike Strecker, Mauricio de la Maza Benignos, and Juan Jacobo Schmitter soto, among many others.