@Kakapo I respect your wishes to use your own outdated taxonomy, but when it comes to others that request an ID I suggest we all use the currently accepted taxonomy that is supported by ITIS, Fishbase, WORMS & the IUCN Red List. You are free to use any name you want for your own projects, but others deserve the right to get the factual, scientifically proven, data.
I don't use my own outdated taxonomy. I used the accepted taxonomy. I don't ask you to use it, I respect your using of wrong taxonomies as in this case, so you must respect that I use the correct one.
@Kakapo What is the accepted taxonomy according to you? Every professional source mentioned above does not recognize your taxonomy as correct. So what is it that you recognize as the correct one?
Here you have 38 citations of this binomial in science. I cannot see any reason for accepting a so ridiculous false invention as is "Ellochelon" when it can be of course included in Liza.
@Kakapo Your list only includes references that predate the studies leading to the change from Liza back to Ellichelon, all authorities since those 2012 studies have followed this new evidence, something your own position lacks as you only resort to terms like "ridiculous false inventions". You are entitled to your own opinions but your near-complete denial of all science that makes changes to your "correct" taxonomy, which seems stuck in the 20th century, is not only wrong, but also very insulting to all the hard-working scientists that try to get a better understanding of biosystematics, phylogeny and evolution. Your insistence on ignoring current authorities and science is only confusing others, so please keep those outdated names to yourself and use the generally accepted ones to others....
