Who names new species of fish?

[Ichthys]

Interestingly, it looks like the L's currently go up to 455. 455 species out there just waiting to be described by science!

A lot of them have now been named (the L-number tends to remain after they’re described, just for reference). But the list is still growing. There’s also over 300 C-numbers and CW-numbers for Corydoras. Similar story there….

 

[Seisage]

I haven't seen a hobbyist description of a fish since DNA studies moved to the forefront. I think we're at the point we know that we can find creatures, and maybe suspect we have something unknown (nothing is new) from appearance or distribution, and then we have the harder task of finding someone who cares. I'm sure @Seisage is fabulously wealthy from their interest in taxonomy... If we can't eat it or sell it, it's hard to get money to study it, and scientists need to make a living too. There aren't any people doing the hard work of describing small and 'unimportant' species.

There were some meticulous hobbyists who learned the morphology well enough to do serious and credible descriptions in the past, but DNA technology erected a barrier even as it added so much to understanding. If a friend of mine looks very ill, I may be able to make an educated guess at what's wrong with him, but I'm sending him to a trained doctor and then to a trained surgeon. I'm not pulling out the hacksaw and the power tools.

I wish we had a different system for scientific papers that result from these studies. There is so much research hidden behind very expensive paywalls, and I often see papers that look extremely interesting, just out of reach. I'm a harmless parasite on the work of others. I like learning.

Yes, the process of getting funding for science is much like pulling teeth... It's indeed rather difficult. I have to make the disclaimer that I am not a taxonomist, although DNA/molecular phylogeny interests me. I would probably describe myself as anything but wealthy

And yes, DNA is very much a double-edged sword, and there are instances in which it actually can't tell us as much about speciation as morphology can. And, of course, as you mention, there's the cost and training involved. I think it has overall helped more than hindered, but you're right, it is still a barrier to entry, which is a shame.

Regarding scientific papers... Considering I'm associated with a university, I have access to a a lot of the paywalled journals. Certainly not all, but if you or anyone else has a publication in mind that you'd like to read, feel free to PM me and I'll see if I can access and share it with you!

Edit: actually, if you Google "scihub", you should be able to find a website that hosts a lot of publications for free. There's no constant url, for obvious reasons (the journals really don't like this website haha), so the url has to change every now and then. Any publications published before 2020 should be accessible

 

[OnlyGenusCaps]

Lots of discussion here. Quick answer, the rules for how to name a fish species are outlined in the "The International Code of Zoological Nomenclature". I've known lots! of folks who have added to this list! In fact, I have a friend who works on a clade that is little studied and she farms the naming out to undergrad students because it's too much work for her. Note, that the international bodies that deal with plants and animals (plus fungi and microbes, etc) are different. So, there can be a genus that is not specific to an animal vs a plant (e.g. Pieris). I could go into vastly too much detail about how the rules are determined, but I'll spare you (it was an honor to get to chat with some older scientists about how the rules came about in the early 1900's!). Suffice it to say, there are rules, but with a good case anyone can do it. This DNA argument is hogwash! Note, DNA can turn over your nomenclature, but it is hardly a requirement.