[Peter Finke]

I forgot to add a critique of the front cover of that AMAZONAS-journal on Parosphromenus. It looks quite nice, but there is a flaw to be recognized: It was designed by a graphic specialist but not assisted by a specialist on Parosphromenus. Although I was asked to organize, select and edit (revise) the articles by the four authors, I was not involved in the selection of the pictures for the front cover nor in it’s design. I would have given the advice if three fish were to be taken it should be three different species.
Which are the three species pictured at the cover?
That one at the bottom is quindecim, clearly to be recognized. That one at the top is to be recognized equally easily by all who really know the species (most don’t), it’s the real deissneri. Everybody who knows our project’s homepage’s starting page will know, too: it’s the same picture as we display there presently. But what is the species in between the two?
Everybody who has knowledge of the latter species will clearly see that it is deissneri, too. The separate markings of the dorsal, the caudal and the anal are unequivocal, even although one does not see the end of the caudal (the filament).
I was impressed by the good graphics, too, and did not recognize that feature at the first glance. Yesterday the author of the photos basic to that graphics, Horst Linke, phoned me and called the fact to my attention. Of course, this displaying three fish of two species is not the optimum solution from a specialist’s point of view; there would have been enough splendid photos of other species to arrange three fish of three different species for such a graphic cover. Admittedly, it’s not a “mistake” or worse, it’s a shortcoming only. I hope what is to be read inside that issue will repair that stupidity. In less than two weeks time it can be judged.