About Cardinal tetra

[Innesfan]

Just a little history about the cardinal tetra (Cheirodon axelrodi), which we call "Red neon tetra" in the Czech Republic. The name cardinal tetra originated from the first scientific description, when on February 21, 1956 George Sprague Myers and Stanley H. Weitzman described this fish as Hyphessobrycon cardinalis (i.e. cardinal tetra). But one day before, on February 20, 1956, it had already been described by Leonard Peter Schultz as Cheirodon axelrodi.

A couple of footnotes to the above.

Since Weitzman and Fink's revision of Paracheirodon in 1983 which united all three 'neons' under one genus, the cardinal has been known as Paracheirodon axelrodi. The revision is universally accepted. Prior to the revision the neon was in Hyphessobrycon, the cardinal n Cheirodon and the green neon in Paracheirodon, which made no sense and was wisely corrected by these authors.

As for Weitzman and Myers being robbed of getting to describe the species, this was one of Axelrod's most scandalous and underhanded endeavors. The Schultz description naming the species after Axelrod was pubished in TFH, owned by Axelrod. It was a monthly magazine. But for the first time in its publication history it published an issue with a specific date, 2/20/56 to upstage Weitzman and Myers by a day. The latter filed a dispute with the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, who reluctantly decided for Schultz/Axelrod while pointedly noting in their decision that it was highly suspect that TFH had such a specific publication date for the first time ever.

Innes, after whom the neon was named and of whom Axlerod was pathologically jealous, published the 19th edition of his EAF while the dispute was happening. Here is the entry for the Cardinal. I love the last sentence.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

There are many stories about both basic neon tetras. Axelrod described in TFH how he discovered cardinal tetras after his return from the Korean War (where he served with Mash) and went to Brazil for the first time. He writes that a missionary showed them to him at that time in an Indian village. Even Bleher sometimes said that he was the first to discover them in a shop in Rio, but I lost this information and I can't find it. Paracheirodon innesi may have even reached Germany before World War II and when it was to be exhibited at the International World's Fair in the USA, it traveled there in the airship Hildenburgh. A very important figure was Fred Cochu, a trader who was the first to organize the capture and export from Brazil. In fact, we will probably never know the full story, because Axelrod and Innes were not exactly friends, and they even argued about the authorship of the photograph of Cichlasoma biocellatum (Jack Dempsey fish). I don't know who won, but I think the loser was sentenced to a $1 fine How incredible in this day and age, when most of us take quality photos of fish.
Aquaculture is a beautiful, detective-like hobby, almost a thriller. It's a great shame that it doesn't interest most young people. In my youth, every second boy absorbed information with great gusto.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

Just to add: in fact, the aso fish was discovered in Brazil in 1953 by discus fish collector Harald Sioli.

 

[Innesfan]

(Axelrod and Innes) even argued about the authorship of the photograph of Cichlasoma biocellatum (Jack Dempsey fish). I don't know who won, but I think the loser was sentenced to a $1 fine How incredible in this day and age, when most of us take quality photos of fish.

Not quite the case. There was more than one photo and there was never any question as to who the photographer was. It was Innes. The lawsuit concerned Axelrod stealing many of Innes's classic photos from EAF for another book published by his TFH. Here's Wiki on the subject:

"These color photos, considered works of art by many, became the object of a lawsuit some years later. Dr. Herbert Axelrod had used these photos from Exotic Aquarium Fishes in a book produced by his publishing company, TFH Publications. Innes sued and won the case in 1955, but was awarded only $1, plus court costs, since the court could not determine that any monetary damage had been done."

 

[anewbie]

When i was more academic oriented in a previous lifetime i heard about scandals and squabbles but it was only when i met people from mit that was expose to true unethical behavior.

Now i'm not saying innes or axelrod was right or wrong but it certainly seems unhealthy attitude by at least one of them in the pursuit of knowledge.

 

[gwand]

In Medicine, physicians historically named a newly identified disorder after themselves, e.g. Cushing’s syndrome, Conn’s syndrome, Kleinfelter’s syndrome etc. Then it became passe’. We grew up. Maybe it’s time for ichthyologists and other folk who hunt for new fish species to do the same. Publishing your findings and seeing your name in print should provide more than enough ego satisfaction.

 

[GaryE]

I may be naive, but most of the crooked shenanigans I've seen in the naming of fish have come from people like Axelrod or Bleher, who weren't scientists or taxonomists. Axelrod was a clever businessman who bought namings, and one of the few major fish people to end up in prison for his ethics. It seemed to me that Innes was a pretty straightforward guy who had to deal with an egotistical, narcissistic millionaire who wanted things named after him, and that would drive any decent person to fight back.

The best taxonomists I know don't often have fish named for them, unless a colleague decides to honour their contributions. I can't think of any who have named fish for themselves. The cardinal story sticks out as an extra sordid tale of manipulation and crookedness, and I think it fascinates us for its sheer crassness.

I guess there's a vanity to thinking your name will live forever in the scientific record, but then if it lives with a tale of fraud and justified imprisonment forever attached to it, did you win?

 

[anewbie]

I may be naive, but most of the crooked shenanigans I've seen in the naming of fish have come from people like Axelrod or Bleher, who weren't scientists or taxonomists. Axelrod was a clever businessman who bought namings, and one of the few major fish people to end up in prison for his ethics. It seemed to me that Innes was a pretty straightforward guy who had to deal with an egotistical, narcissistic millionaire who wanted things named after him, and that would drive any decent person to fight back.

The best taxonomists I know don't often have fish named for them, unless a colleague decides to honour their contributions. I can't think of any who have named fish for themselves. The cardinal story sticks out as an extra sordid tale of manipulation and crookedness, and I think it fascinates us for its sheer crassness.

I guess there's a vanity to thinking your name will live forever in the scientific record, but then if it lives with a tale of fraud and justified imprisonment forever attached to it, did you win?

It makes me feel better the a++++ was a business man as many business men are a++++. Astro folks have it easier if they find a new thing

 

[GaryE]

Axelrod did a lot of harm in his time, to a hobby that is in serious decline as is. So maybe his machinations get forgotten, along with some of the species he paid to have named after him. The latter would be a shame. He paid for lovely fish to be described.

Old Herbie hustled and scammed his way into becoming a millionaire many times over. He invented credentials and told fabulous stories. He truly found a way to become rich from our fascination. When I was a kid, I thought very highly of his books and magazines. He and Innes were the guys, although Baensch's work eventually blew Herbie out of the water.

He was on record as enjoying his ability to exploit the sincerity of scientific writers and fish serious fish people. If he thought you cared about the hobby, you were a target to be exploited. When I started working with TFH (after he had bowed out, but with the culture he'd created), they had very good subscriber numbers and were available in most medium sized magazine stores. I'd even bought it in pharmacy magazine racks, along with the 2 other big North American magazines. The magazine alone made money. But they paid $100 per article, if they paid at all. It was a license to print money. He sold the company for 70 million when he retired.

I very quickly negotiated a better deal once I had leverage, but the mag knew writers were disposable. I was offered a book contract by TFH at 15% of what I was already being paid by competitors. I passed on it.

Now we all write for free and feed AI's owners, so Herbert Axelrod was ahead of his time. But he was a shrewd businessman and scammer first, and not part of the scientific community. I believe his "Dr" was of education, but not anything fish related. But man, he was an unethical marketer's role model.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

I may be naive, but most of the crooked shenanigans I've seen in the naming of fish have come from people like Axelrod or Bleher, who weren't scientists or taxonomists. Axelrod was a clever businessman who bought namings, and one of the few major fish people to end up in prison for his ethics. It seemed to me that Innes was a pretty straightforward guy who had to deal with an egotistical, narcissistic millionaire who wanted things named after him, and that would drive any decent person to fight back.

The best taxonomists I know don't often have fish named for them, unless a colleague decides to honour their contributions. I can't think of any who have named fish for themselves. The cardinal story sticks out as an extra sordid tale of manipulation and crookedness, and I think it fascinates us for its sheer crassness.

I guess there's a vanity to thinking your name will live forever in the scientific record, but then if it lives with a tale of fraud and justified imprisonment forever attached to it, did you win?

I really don't know what is wrong with naming certain syndromes after the doctors or scientists who first described them. It is concise, and every physician is familiar with the terminology.

And also some respect—there is little of that in the world today.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

Axelrod did a lot of harm in his time, to a hobby that is in serious decline as is. So maybe his machinations get forgotten, along with some of the species he paid to have named after him. The latter would be a shame. He paid for lovely fish to be described.

Old Herbie hustled and scammed his way into becoming a millionaire many times over. He invented credentials and told fabulous stories. He truly found a way to become rich from our fascination. When I was a kid, I thought very highly of his books and magazines. He and Innes were the guys, although Baensch's work eventually blew Herbie out of the water.

He was on record as enjoying his ability to exploit the sincerity of scientific writers and fish serious fish people. If he thought you cared about the hobby, you were a target to be exploited. When I started working with TFH (after he had bowed out, but with the culture he'd created), they had very good subscriber numbers and were available in most medium sized magazine stores. I'd even bought it in pharmacy magazine racks, along with the 2 other big North American magazines. The magazine alone made money. But they paid $100 per article, if they paid at all. It was a license to print money. He sold the company for 70 million when he retired.

I very quickly negotiated a better deal once I had leverage, but the mag knew writers were disposable. I was offered a book contract by TFH at 15% of what I was already being paid by competitors. I passed on it.

Now we all write for free and feed AI's owners, so Herbert Axelrod was ahead of his time. But he was a shrewd businessman and scammer first, and not part of the scientific community. I believe his "Dr" was of education, but not anything fish related. But man, he was an unethical marketer's role model.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

And he also built a large publishing house TFH, which brought the world a lot of lessons, science, and knowledge in the hobby. Nobody is perfect, but without people like that, the world probably wouldn't move forward much.

 

[gwand]

I’m opposed to it for several reasons. It is often the case that a young trainee recognizes the syndrome but receives no credit. Many times several physicians simultaneously describe a new syndrome and then politics adjudicates whose name becomes attached to the condition. As part of my academic duties, I wrote numerous chapters on Neuro Endocrine diseases. When discussing disorders with physicians names attached I always removed the apostrophe. So Cushing’s syndrome became Cushing syndrome. Etc Cushing didn’t own the disease.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

Jsem proti tomu z několika důvodů. Často se stává, že mladý praktikant syndrom rozpozná, ale nezíská žádné uznání. Mnohokrát několik lékařů současně popíše nový syndrom a pak politika rozhodne, čí jméno se k tomuto onemocnění připojí. V rámci svých akademických povinností jsem napsal řadu kapitol o neuroendokrinních onemocněních. Když jsem diskutoval o poruchách se jmény lékařů, vždy jsem odstranil apostrof. Cushingův syndrom se tak stal Cushingovým syndromem. Atd. Cushing si za tuto nemoc nevlastnil.

I’m opposed to it for several reasons. It is often the case that a young trainee recognizes the syndrome but receives no credit. Many times several physicians simultaneously describe a new syndrome and then politics adjudicates whose name becomes attached to the condition. As part of my academic duties, I wrote numerous chapters on Neuro Endocrine diseases. When discussing disorders with physicians names attached I always removed the apostrophe. So Cushing’s syndrome became Cushing syndrome. Etc Cushing didn’t own the disease.

From today's perspective, new and new syndromes described at the DNA level are mostly descriptions of collaborative scientific teams, and then I agree with you. In Cushing's time, a syndrome was simply a collection of several simultaneously occurring diseases and symptoms.

 

[Karel Zahradka]

A fish's specific name usually reflects its appearance, color, or place of discovery, or it honors a particular person. Scientists often choose names to honor family members, friends, or prominent figures; sometimes, the names are simply first names, or they belong to the individuals who first found the fish, recognized it as a new species, and provided it to scientists for study and description. Expedition sponsors get a look-in, too . It is certainly better—and easier—than if a fish were named something like *Paracheirodon* 23a