BIBLIOGRAFIA DE LOS PECES CONTINENTALES DE LA ARGENTINA

HUGO L. LÓPEZ; ROBERTO C. MENNI; RICARDO A. FERRIZ; JUSTINA PONTE GÓMEZ; MARIELA V. CUELLO

ProBiota

FECNyM, UNLP

Lugar: La Plata; Año: 2006 vol. 9 p. 1 - 164

INTRODUCTION For the present list, references on freshwater fishes of Argentina were compiled from the period between middle XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a groupdedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects.Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects.Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding aluable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to makehis (or her) own evaluation.XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a groupdedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects.Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects.Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding aluable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to makehis (or her) own evaluation. The authors