Foxface LO?

[fixed_14]

I was cleaning my tank and i guess
spooked my foxface and it SHOT
up from the bottom
of the tank at my arm
(i dont think it didnt get me)
but how harmfull to humans is its venom?

And i guess i should wear gloves
while messing in my tank to huh?

_-FiXeD-_

[Ninong]

Hi fixed_14,




The dorsal and anal spines of the Foxface Rabbitfish (Siganus vulpinus and S. unimaculatus) are venomous. It is not life-threatening but it can be very painful. It all depends on how much venom you receive and how sensitive you are to the venom.

I never had a problem with my Foxface but I certainly didn't want to take any chances either. The good thing about this fish is that it will not go after you like some fish when you stick your arm in the tank to clean the glass, etc. My Foxface was very friendly. He took food from my hand.

[fixed_14]

so is it more like what DR.F&S
say about one of the lions
"like a bee sting only more potint(S/P)"
and i checked myarm no stings..but i went to shower and found a TINY like needle hole on the side of my
hand if it is the sting i should not worry about it?
it didn`t hurt and my hand feels fine

but thanks for letting me know its not
DEADLY

i can sleep safe tonight..lol

[Ninong]

All Siganids have glands at the base of each spine (13 dorsal and 7 anal) that store venom. It's possible that you accidentally came into contact briefly with one of these spines but without receiving any venom at all. If you had received any venom, you would have known it instantly. As I said before, how bad it turns out depends on how much venom you received. Fortunately in your case, you received none.

I have no idea what Drs. Foster & Smith might say about the risks attached to fish they are trying to sell but I don't put much stock in warnings posted by the seller. After all, they're not in business to run off business.

Most people consider lionfish envenomation to be a more painful experience than rabbitfish envenomation. I'm sure it varies by species but I'm not really into lionfish.

The fish that is by far the most dangerous as far as envenomation is concerned is the stonefish. They are sometimes deadly.

[Ninong]

Additional update (I forgot that the pelvic spines are also venomous). I found the following on a marine fish envenomaton site:

Rabbitfish

Rabbitfish (genus Siganus) fins contain multiple spiny processes, all associated with venom glands. To be exact, there are 13 dorsal, 4 pelvic, and 7 anal spines. The spines have two deep grooves that contain venom glands along the distal third of the spine. The spine is covered with an epidermal layer that is ruptured by trauma, releasing the venom in much the same way as with stingrays. The pain is sudden and severe lasting for hours to several days and producing considerable distress. Like surgeonfish, the wound swells, becomes numb and pain radiates to the regional lymph nodes. The immediate area can become cyanotic with a surrounding red area.

[Ninong]

Additional information just for the heck of it:

Drs. Foster & Smith refers to this fish using the common name "Foxface Lo." "Lo" was a previous generic name that is now invalid. Lo vulpinus has been replaced by Siganus vulpinus. "Lo" is not valid as either a genus or sub-genus.

Drs. Foster & Smith has the incorrect scientific name for this rabbitfish. They show it as Lo uspi, which is invalid. The valid name is Siganus uspi. Online vendors, including Drs. Foster & Smith, frequently give incorrect scientific names and often the fish pictured is not the same as the scientific name given for it, which can be very confusing. Another thing I have noticed is that some vendors use the same scientific name for more than one species. And it doesn't do any good to question them about it because invariably they have no idea what you're talking about.

The sort of error that really ticks me off is this one where Drs. Foster & Smith not only uses the incorrect scientific name, but they also call the animal something it is not. The correct scientific name is Elysia crispata. It was changed a good 10 or 12 years ago and it's not a nudibranch. This is just perpetuating bad information. It's no different than offering a kitten for sale and calling it a puppy and then in the description pointing out that some people refer to it as a kitten.

Drs. Foster & Smith incorrectly calls this fish Siganus magnifica. The correct scientific name is Siganus magnificus. The generic name Siganus is masculine and the specific name, since it is a descriptive adjective, must agree in gender. Therefore, the correct specific name is magnificus (m.) and not magnifica (f.). This sort of mistake is quit common in the trade. Unfortunately, it is even found occasionally in the scientific literature when some recognized experts fail to follow the correct rules of zoological nomenclature.

Vendors often refer to both S. vulpinus and S. unimaculatus by the same common name, Foxface Rabbitfish. In fact, Foxface Rabbitfish is used as the common name for several different species of Siganids. It would be better if they used it only for S. vulpinus. S. unimaculatus is more properly called the "one-spot rabbitfish," as its name implies. These two species are very closely related and vendors often confuse them. In fact, some vendors don't even know the difference. Here we have a vendor who shows a picture of Siganus vulpinus, which he correctly identifies as S. vulpinus (2-2.5" Sold Out) but just under that one he shows a picture of S. unimaculatus (4-6") which he incorrectly identifies as S. vulpinus. Obviously this vendor, like many others, has no clue that these are two different species.

When I purchased my juvenile S. vulpinus four years ago, it was in a tank with several S. unimaculatus. I told the LFS owner that I wanted "the one without the spot." He then "informed" me that "all of them develop that spot as they grow." This guy has been in the business for more than 20 years but you would be amazed at what he "knows." I told him he was wrong but he's one of those LFS owners who thinks he knows everything. I got the fish I wanted and it never developed the spot that is the defining characteristic of S. unimaculatus.

This is the current ITIS listing for the genus Siganus:

Kingdom Animalia
Siganus Forsskål, 1775 -- valid -- rabbitfishes
Siganus argenteus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) -- valid
Siganus canaliculatus (Park, 1797) -- valid -- pearly spinefoot, whitespotted rabbitfish
Siganus chrysospilos (Bleeker, 1852) -- valid -- yellowspotted spinefish
Siganus concatenatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- invalid -- blotched spinefoot
Siganus corallinus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid -- coral spinefoot
Siganus doliatus Guérin-Méneville, 1829-38 -- valid -- barred spinefoot
Siganus fuscescens (Houttuyn, 1782) -- valid -- dusky spinefoot
Siganus guttatus (Bloch, 1787) -- valid
Siganus hexagonatus (Bleeker, 1854) -- invalid
Siganus javus (Linnaeus, 1766) -- valid -- bluespotted spinefish
Siganus labyrinthodes (Bleeker, 1853) -- valid
Siganus lineatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid -- goldenlined spinefish
Siganus luridus (Rüppell, 1829) -- valid
Siganus magnificus (Burgess, 1977) -- valid
Siganus margaritiferus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid
Siganus marmoratus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) -- invalid
Siganus nebulosus (Quoy and Gaimard, 1825) -- valid
Siganus niger Woodland, 1990 -- valid
Siganus oramin (Bloch and Schneider, 1801) -- valid -- whitespotted spinefoot
Siganus puelloides Woodland and Randall, 1979 -- valid
Siganus puellus (Schlegel, 1852) -- valid
Siganus punctatissimus Fowler and Bean, 1929 -- valid
Siganus punctatus (Schneider and Forster in Bloch and Schneider, 1801) -- valid
Siganus randalli Woodland, 1990 -- valid -- reticulate rabbitfish
Siganus rivulatus Forsskål, 1775 -- valid -- black spinefoot
Siganus rostratus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- invalid
Siganus spinus (Linnaeus, 1758) -- valid -- bluntnosed spinefish
Siganus stellatus (Forsskål, 1775) -- valid -- blotched spinefoot
Siganus sutor (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid
Siganus trispilos Woodland and Allen, 1977 -- valid
Siganus tumifrons (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid
Siganus unimaculatus (Evermann and Seale, 1907) -- valid
Siganus uspi Gawel and Woodland, 1974 -- valid
Siganus vermiculatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid -- reticulated spinefoot, vermiculate rabbitfish
Siganus virgatus (Valenciennes in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1835) -- valid -- bluelined spinefoot
Siganus vulpinus (Schlegel and Müller, 1845) -- valid -- foxface

ITIS is a good source for verifying currently valid scientific names but it is sometimes a little behind, especially when the taxomony is under reorganization, such as it is in the case of dottybacks, for example. There are also a few errors that have been accepted by ITIS because of the insistence of certain recognized authorities who are incorrect in their understanding of the correct application of the rules of nomenclature. This is regrettable.

For example, the ITIS listing for the genus Centropyge contains three errors that have been accepted because the fish gurus who submitted them made the errors and have resisted correcting them. You will notice a lot of valid and invalid names in this listing. That's because the fish gurus discovered several years ago that the Greek generic name Centropyge is feminine. Of course, it's feminine, it's Greek and it ends in "e". They previously believed incorrectly that it was masculine. So they set about revising the specific names to agree with the feminine generic name except that they made a few errors.

Here is the ITIS listing for the genus Centropyge:

Kingdom Animalia
Centropyge Kaup, 1860 -- valid
Centropyge acanthops (Norman, 1922) -- valid
Centropyge argi Woods and Kanazawa, 1951 -- valid -- angelote pigmeo, cherubfish
Centropyge aurantia Randall and Wass, 1974 -- valid
Centropyge aurantonotus Burgess, 1974 -- valid
Centropyge bicolor (Bloch, 1787) -- valid -- black and gold angelfish
Centropyge bispinosa (Günther, 1860) -- valid
Centropyge bispinosus (Günther, 1860) -- invalid
Centropyge boylei Pyle and Randall in Pyle, 1992 -- valid
Centropyge caudoxanthorus Shen, 1973 -- invalid
Centropyge colini Smith-Vaniz and Randall, 1974 -- valid
Centropyge debelius Pyle, 1990 -- valid
Centropyge eibli Klausewitz, 1963 -- valid
Centropyge ferrugata Randall and Burgess in Burgess and Axelrod, 1972 -- valid
Centropyge ferrugatus Randall and Burgess in Burgess and Axelrod, 1972 -- invalid
Centropyge fisheri (Snyder, 1904) -- valid
Centropyge flammeus Woods and Schultz in Schultz, Herald, Lachner, Welander and Woods, 1953 -- invalid
Centropyge flavicauda Fraser-Brunner, 1933 -- valid
Centropyge flavipectoralis Randall and Klausewitz, 1977 -- valid
Centropyge flavissima (Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) -- valid
Centropyge flavissimus (Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) -- invalid -- yellow angelfish
Centropyge heraldi Woods and Schultz in Schultz, Herald, Lachner, Welander and Woods, 1953 -- valid -- very drab
Centropyge hotumatua Randall and Caldwell, 1973 -- valid
Centropyge interruptus (Tanaka, 1918) -- valid
Centropyge joculator Smith-Vaniz and Randall, 1974 -- valid
Centropyge loricula (Günther, 1874) -- valid
Centropyge loriculus (Günther, 1874) -- invalid
Centropyge multicolor Randall and Wass, 1974 -- valid
Centropyge multifasciata (Smith and Radcliffe, 1911) -- valid
Centropyge multifasciatus (Smith and Radcliff, 1911) -- invalid
Centropyge multispinis (Playfair in Playfair and Günther, 1867) -- valid -- spiny angelfish
Centropyge nahackyi Kosaki, 1989 -- valid
Centropyge narcosis Pyle and Randall, 1993 -- valid
Centropyge nigriocella Woods and Schultz in Schultz, Herald, Lachner, Welander and Woods, 1953 -- valid
Centropyge nigriocellus Woods and Schultz in Schultz, Herald, Lachner, Welander and Woods, 1953 -- invalid
Centropyge nox (Bleeker, 1853) -- valid -- dusky angelfish
Centropyge potteri (Jordan and Metz, 1912) -- valid -- Potter's angelfish
Centropyge resplendens Lubbock and Sankey, 1975 -- valid
Centropyge shepardi Randall and Yasuda, 1979 -- valid
Centropyge tibicen (Cuvier in Cuvier and Valenciennes, 1831) -- valid
Centropyge tutuilae Jordan and Jordan, 1922 -- invalid
Centropyge venusta (Yasuda and Tominaga, 1969) -- invalid
Centropyge venustus (Yasuda and Tominaga, 1969) -- valid
Centropyge vrolikii (Bleeker, 1853) -- valid
Centropyge woodheadi Kuiter, 1998 -- invalid
Paracentropyge Burgess, 1991 -- valid

They show Centropyge interruptus as valid. In truth, that should have been changed to Centropyge interrupta. Interruptus is a descriptive adjective and therefore it should have been changed from the Latin masculine "-us" ending to the Latin feminine "-a" ending. They show Centropyge venusta as invalid and Centropyge venustus as valid. It should be the other way around. The correct name should be Centropyge venusta.

The other error is that they have changed Centropyge loriculus to Centropyge loricula. That's incorrect. They should have left it as Centropyge loriculus. Loriculus is not a descriptive adjective, it's substantive, and it should not have been changed from masculine to feminine. (This is clearly spelled out in ICZN, Chap. 7, Art. 34.2 and 34.2.1).

P.S. -- This is interesting. I just ran a search on fishbase to see if their information might be correct on Centropyge venusta. It's not. They're using Centropyge venustus as the scientific name in spite of the fact that they cite Richard Pyle as their main reference and he calls it Centropyge venusta. In fact, a search of fishbase using just the specific names venustus and venusta clearly shows that venusta is correctly used with feminine generic names and venustus is used with masculine generic names, except in this case.

I suspect the problem arises from the possiblity that some of the fish gurus are not familiar with the latin alphabet transliterations of the original Greek names and don't recognize which are feminine, which are masculine and which are neuter. That's probably why they thought Centropyge was masculine for so long.

Another problem is that I doubt that they even bothered to look up the Latinized specific names to verify their correct gender before willy-nilly changing all the -us endings to -a. There are five different declensions for nouns in Latin and the nominative case ending -us for second declension nouns is usually masculine, just as the nominative case ending -a for first declension nouns is usually feminine -- but not always. I won't bother to go into all five declensions and all cases of each declension but suffice it to say that it's more complicated than many fish gurus understand, based on their frequent errors. You can't just look at a Latinized word and assume that because it ends in -a it must be feminine. For example, agricola (farmer), nauta (sailor), pirata (pirate) and poeta (poet) are all masculine. To complicate matters further, not all names that appear to be Latin are original Latin names. Many of them are latinized versions of words from other languages and in these cases you need to know the original gender.

P.P.S. -- One hobby author has even used both the masculine and the feminine forms for the same species in the same book. He has C. loriculus and C. loricula, as well as C. bispinosus and C. bispinosa in the same volume. I won't mention his name because he's usually pretty good about being correct with the most up-to-date information. I guess those just slipped by and weren't caught in proofreading.

Other well known hobby authors are less careful in their identifications. Some of them continue to use invalid names that became invalid decades ago, long before they wrote their book.

[carlc]

Shouldn't venusta and multifasciata be listed under Paracentropyge not Centropyge?

Carl

[Ninong]

Shouldn't venusta and multifasciata be listed under Paracentropyge not Centropyge?

Carl

Nice catch! I completely missed that!

That makes three more errors in the ITIS listing for Centropyge!

Venusta, multifasciata and boylei are all in the genus Paracentropye, not Centropyge as presently shown on ITIS.

P.S. -- Fishbase shows those three as Centropyge but I believe the most widely accepted recent systematic status for those three species if that they are in the genus Paracentropyge. I believe even Dr. Gerald R. Allen has them in Paracentropyge. He's the guy who has been accused by others of screwing up some of the genders when he changed the specific names in the Centropyge genus from masculine to feminine without following the strict ICZN rules.

Richard Pyle is supposedly doing his doctoral thesis on the taxonomy of the pomacanthids. I'm not sure if he finished that or not. That's something I read two years ago. (P.S. -- Looks like he must have finished it because he now has his Ph. D.) I sold all of my hobby books about a year ago when I sold my tank (prior to a move), so I can't look anything up other than online. Scott Michael's Reef Fishes series was up-to-date on Angelfishes, Fairy Wrasses and Dottybacks, except for some typos, but I sold that set. He had all the new taxonomy on the dottybacks that wasn't even published yet when he wrote his book.