In recent years, we’ve seen the classification of Pseudanthias slowly get whittled down in the light of molecular and morphological revisions. This has resulted in the expansion of Nemanthias from 1 to 6 species, the recognition of Mirolabrichthys as a valid genus (formerly a subgenus), and the description of some new genera, Pyronotanthias & Compsanthias.
There is, however, much work left to be done. For example, Pseudanthias hangapiko, described in 2021 from the mesophotic depths of Easter Island, likely requires a new monotypic genus, as this species forms a sister group of Compsanthias. The remaining species in Pseudanthias fall into a large, messy clade, together with the Luzonichthys Splitfins and the small, mesophotic basslets in Tosana. Given the heterogenous nature of their ecology and morphology, it’s expected that this will require further reclassification. Those species most closely related to the type species, the Squarespot Anthias P. pleurotaenia, would retain the name Pseudanthias, while several species more closely related to the Red-Bar Anthias P. cooperi could find themselves in a previously synonymized genus, Leptanthias.
This would still leave one other small, but distinct, group in need of taxonomic attention, and it’s a group that will be very familiar to aquarists and divers. Herein we find the ubiquitous Lyretail Anthias or Sea Goldie P. squamipinnis, itself comprising an allopatric complex of species in need of revision. Also closely related to these is the drably colored P. hutchii and its Polynesian sister species, P. olivaceus. Together, these anthias can be diagnosed by an elongated 3rd spine of the dorsal fin and the presence of scales extending onto the dorsal fin. In 1914, the renowned ichthyologist and eugenicist David Starr Jordan used these traits to establish a new genus for this group, Franzia.
Sadly, the etymology of this genus does not derive from the beloved boxed wine, but rather is named after a prominent Nazi, Victor Julius Franz, who had in 1910 published an important work on the Japanese fish fauna, Die japanische Knochenfische der Sammlungen Haberer und Doflein. In this work, Franz documents specimens collected by another German zoologist, Franz Theodor Doflein (of giant octopus and sea anemone fame), resulting in the description of 31 new species, many of which are still recognized today, including the anthiadines P. elongatus and P. nobilis. The latter species would soon become the type species of Jordan & Thompson’s new genus, Franzia, though over the years opinions have varied as to whether this distinctive Japanese population is truly different from P. squamipinnis.
Following his foray into ichthyology, Franz took a position at the Neurological Institute of the University of Frankfurt, which he describes in his autobiography as a period that profoundly shaped his anti-semitic views. In the aftermath of the First World War, during which he was stationed on the Western Front, Franz found his way into a professorship at the University of Jena, where he would spend the remainder of his career. In 1930, he formally joined the Nazi Party, and together with some of his colleagues at the university, he belonged to what has been dubbed the “Racial Quadriga”, whose teachings emphasized race and Social Darwinism. Such views were widespread in Europe during the late-19th and early-20th centuries, with one of the loudest voices belonging to the famed zoologist Ernst Haeckel, who had taught at the University of Jena for nearly a half-century prior to Franz’s arrival. Haeckel is perhaps better known today for his beautifully drawn illustrations of marinelife than for his odious views on human biodiversity. Franz would prove to be instrumental in canonizing Haeckel within Nazi Germany, including the publication of a biography in 1934, Das heutige geschichtliche Bild von Ernst Haeckel.
The recognition of Franzia has vacillated over the years, with some authors favoring it as a valid genus, others treating it as a subgenus, and still others synonymizing it within a broadly defined concept of Pseudanthias, but the molecular and morphological data all strongly point towards this being a distinct clade that warrants recognition at the genus-level. As such, Franzia, the taxon named after a Nazi, will more likely than not be returning soon. Alas, such unsavory nomenclature is far from a unique phenomenon within the annals of taxonomy. The failed painter Adolf Hitler has a cave beetle named in his honor, specimens of which are reportedly highly valued within the weird world of Nazi memorabilia. And there are other beetles named for the less-accomplished war criminals Bush, Cheney, & Rumsfeld. Returning to the reefs, the dragonet Synchiropus moyeri and the leopard wrasse Macropharyngodon moyeri are named after the marine biologist Jack Moyer, who conducted important research on Japan’s coral reefs, but his legacy later became tarnished when it came to light that he was a serial sexual abuser of young children while employed as a teacher; Moyer would ultimately take his own life.
This is all to say that the naming of species and genera after individuals is often problematic. Not surprisingly, there has been some recent effort within the broader scientific community to reconsider the rules governing nomenclature, to allow for a renaming of taxa deemed unsavory. This is, to be sure, a minority view at the present time, and one that is particularly unpopular within the insular community of taxonomists, as it inherently undermines the bedrock upon which Linnaean classification rests, the idea of priority in taxonomy—once a species or a group of species has been named and formally diagnosed in an acceptable publication, then that is the name in perpetuity. Challenging that basic rule of taxonomy is controversial, to say the least, and invites any number of slippery slopes onto which today’s moral zeitgeist can be used to litigate perceived sins from the past.
The end result of such a change would be to destabilize the system that has been in unwavering use since its creation in the mid-18th century by Carl Linneaus, a system that has reliably allowed us to classify our planet’s biodiversity. Proponents exist for both sides of this argument, and it’s unlikely that any consensus will be reached in the near future, particularly given how neglected and fractured the field of taxonomy is within Academia today. Ultimately, when viewed from a longer lens, those who care about such pedantic issues are vanishingly few in number. The average aquarist or diver will never know about the Nazi past of the Lyretail Anthias or the pedophilia behind Moyer’s Dragonet. Is it acceptable to turn a blind eye and sweep such problems under the proverbial rug if it better enables us to maintain a consistent nomenclature for these organisms? Aquarists are at the vanguard when it comes to complaining about taxonomic changes… would those complaints diminish if the changes were justified on some moral high ground, or would they increase in volume as familiar taxa are replaced en masse. I tend to think the latter is more likely, given the sheer number of problematic figures lurking in taxonomic history.
Main image: P. nobilis, a dull-colored relative of P. squamipinnis, endemic to the Northwest Pacific. Credit: Shigeru Harazaki
(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});
