Heiko Bleher and The Process of Discovering and Classifying New Fish Species! 

You seem to know what you’re talking about. Have you met our host? 😂

Your take on the process is not quite on track. Whilst it is accepted nowadays that a new species can be described by a competent taxonomist, and then the description has to accepted and published in a peer-reviewed journal, it has not always been the case. Certain American, German and British aquarists have arrogantly ignored these protocols and published descriptions of fishes that arrived mixed in with wild shipments. This has led to some confusion in the hobby, and a lot of frustration amongst the ichthyologists who have had to spend time and resources sorting the situation out. The problem in these cases lay with the publishers of the magazines, who, in their enthusiasm for sales, ignored the accepted rules and published the descriptions, which, BTW, were often inadequate. Taxonomists are not obliged to name a new species for the collector/discoverer. They try to choose the most appropriate name, usually a distinctive feature of the species, such as an unusual limb or organ, or its colour, or after the type locality if it is limited in its distribution. To have a species named for yourself is quite an honour. As long as the species is not placed into synonymy, the specific name stands for ever. The Venezuelan ram, Mikrogeophagus ramirezi, is a good example of genus hopping. Of all people, Heiko, who has done more than any other collector to bring species to the attention of scientists and hobbyists around the world, deserves to have species named in his honour.

@@majorbruster5916 Thank you for the observation Major - not a taxidermist or zoologist for that matter, I passed along what I learned from Heiko, who at least knows more than I do - but your discussion makes sense. The scientific names for some the the species I sell seem to be up for reclassification from time to time, and I always wondered who got to make the change?