According to our statement in the previous editions of this list (1996-2002), we provide here an update to the year 2004, including, as always, some references omitted before. This bibliography is edited electronically, considering that this method assured a wider distribution, at least in the opinion sent us by some researchers. The increase, progressive in general, in the number of publications, is evident. It has been analysed by Gómez & Ferriz [2002 (2004)], using mainly the present series of compilations. A reading of this list shows a change, with a noticeable increase in the number of papers on molecular aspects and genetics, and also in conservations subjects. This, in our opinion, show real recent changes in approximations and technologies. We thankfully acknowledge to many authors for sending information about their works. | ProBiota | División Zoología Vertebrados, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata | ProBiota: Programa para el estudio y uso sustentable de la biota austral

Espanol: En la presente lista bibliográfica fueron recopiladas las referencias sobre los peces continentales de la Argentina, del período comprendido entre mediados del siglo XVIII y fines del año 2005. Incluye las listas bibliográficas publicadas durante los años 1981 a 2004, y las citas no mencionadas en ellas. Se incluyeron el ISSN o ISBN según correspondiera, la abreviatura oficial y el lugar de origen de las publicaciones. En algunos casos, los ISSN, las abreviaturas de los nombres de las publicaciones o su procedencia, mencionados en los catálogos, no coinciden con los de la home page de la publicación.Una bibliografía puede ser muy rica y aún estar incompleta. Requiere de sus lectores algún interés histórico, y aún un interés profundo por su tema. Ante una bibliografía, muchos investigadores preferirían no encontrar algunas referencias, y de hecho, muchas son oportunamente olvidadas. Por no saber como hacerlo, o por menosprecio, estas listas raramente son citadas en los trabajos, aunque sobre algunos temas en particular, sería realmente difícil formarse una idea si las bibliografías no existieran.Aún desde el comienzo es complicado precisar un criterio de inclusiones. Por ejemplo, gran parte de la ictiofauna Argentina se encuentra también en Brasil. ¿Justifica esto incluir informes perdidos sobre artes de pesca en una cuenca distante? ¿Deben los clásicos, que todo el mundo conoce y el que se inicia encontrará sin dificultad, ser incluidos? Aún a un grupo que se dedicara full time a este trabajo, le sería difícil verificar la precisión de las citas antiguas, en las que fechas y autoría cambian según la investigación histórica. En una bibliografía más o menos general, la perfección atenta contra la publicación. Sin embargo, pensamos que es conveniente hacerlas.Una mirada a este volumen, muestra la enorme cantidad de desarrollos en muchos temas, y la regla que uno de nosotros ha mencionado desde hace tiempo: siempre hay más publicado sobre un tema de lo que uno cree. La sospecha de que con sólo mirar lo que está hecho, muchos subsidios podrían utilizarse para algo más útil que algunas evaluaciones repetidas de recursos o biodiversidad, es un poco pesimista y no haremos perder trabajos insistiendo en eso. Cada generación elige sus metas, su propia base epistemológica, sus trabajos preferidos y los que desecha.Aún en trabajos perdidos o de mala calidad, es posible encontrar datos valiosos. Ningún proyecto, por mejor diseñado que esté, podrá mostrar en el presente los organismos que vivían en el pasado en un lugar en el que las condiciones han cambiado, o lo hará en términos de otra disciplina. En los temas aplicados la información del pasado puede ser importantísima. Aún en una disciplina tan conservadora como la nomenclatura, los cambios pueden ser exasperantes; no pueden serlo menos en las que intrínsecamente, como la ecología, es lo que estudian.Para dar una idea más precisa del desarrollo de la ictiología en la Argentina, esta lista podría ir acompañada de una apreciación crítica. Entendemos que una tarea así exige un trabajo diferente, de cierta magnitud y con no pocos elementos históricos. Aunque tiene deficiencias, la ictiología argentina constituyeuna acumulación de conocimientos de considerable calidad y pertinencia para la historia natural de América del Sur. Dejamos a los lectores que cada uno haga la suya. English: For the present list, references on freshwater fishes of Argentina were compiled from the period between middle XVIII Century and the end of the year 2005. It includes previous lists published during 1981 to 2004, and references not mentioned therein. The ISSN o ISBN numbers were included, as well as the official abbreviations and the place of origin of the periodicals. In some cases, these data as quoted in catalogs, do not agree with those in the home page of the publication. A bibliography may be very rich and anyway never complete. It requires from its readers some historic interest and indeed a deep interest on his (her) subject. Browsing a bibliography, many researchers would prefer not to find some references, and in fact, sometimes they forget some of them. Not imagining how to do it, or because people do not concede importance to them, bibliographic lists are rarely quoted in papers, though some subjects would be rather difficult to understand if list of publications would not exist. Even from the beginning, it is difficult to precise a criterion of inclusions. For example, many Argentine fishes occur also in Brazil. Does this justify the inclusion of grey reports on a distant basin? Should classic works, that everybody knows and are easily found, be included? Is near impossible, even for a group dedicated full time to this work, to verify the precision of old citations, whose dates and authorship change according to authorities and historical research. In a more or less general bibliography, completeness is against publication. Nevertheless, we think that is convenient to prepare these lists. A look at this volume shows the enormous developments in many subjects, and the rule that one of us mentioned long ago: there are always more papers on any subject than one suspects. Looking at what has already been done raises the suspicion that many grants could be used for something more useful than repeated evaluations of biodiversity or resources. This is a bit pessimistic, and we do not want to erase working opportunities. Each generation chooses its targets, its own epistemological base, its preferred papers and those that rejects. Even in lost or bad quality papers, the possibility of finding valuable information exists. No project, whatever the appropriateness of its design, could show at present which organisms lived in the past in a place where environmental conditions have changed, or it will do it in terms of another discipline. In applied subjects, information from the past can be very important. Even in a conservative discipline as nomenclature, changes can be exasperating. They are not lesser in those like ecology, where change itself is studied. To provide a more precise idea of the development of ichthyology in Argentina, this list could be accompanied by a critical appreciation. We understood that such an aim requires a different work, with no few historical elements and of certain magnitude. In spite of some deficiencies, Argentine ichthyology, resulting from collaboration of both local and foreign people, constitutes a bulk of knowledge of considerable quality and pertinence for the natural history of South America. We leave each reader to make his (or her) own evaluation. (Texto en Espanol. PDF tiene cien setenta paginas.) | ProBiota, División Zoología Vertebrados (DZV), Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo (FCNyM), Universidad Nacional de la Plata (UNLP) | ProBiota: Programa para el estudio y uso sustentable de la biota austral

Between 1981 and 1995, we published five bibliographic lists (López et al., 1981, 1982,1987, 1989 y 1995) that included the publications referred to Argentine freshwater fishes and related general information published since Ringuelet et al. (1967). We included Uruguayan papers until 1989, when it became apparent that our access to those materials was not complete. Other bibliographic collections were published on several subjects (López et al., 1991, 1993, y Ferriz et al., 1998). In the foreword to the 1995 list, López stated that it was difficult to assess the actual usefulness of the lists, since they were seldom quoted in research papers. This consideration, along with the wide success of electronic databases, caused us to discontinue the series, since its only goal had been to increase the knowledge and access to local research papers and foreign publications of interest to local researchers. Regrettably, our experience indicates that access to scientific literature is still, if not difficult, somewhat arbitrary. Apart from that, the continuous work on diverse research lines at División Zoología Vertebrados of Museo de La Plata leads to the accumulation of a multiplicity of information which may be sorted out for the use of others without much difficulty. At present, electronically-supported databases appear as the simplest way to do this. The future will show if this method is more efficient than the preceding one. In this issue we have included papers published between 1996 and 2002; and it is our purpose to update the list on a yearly basis. Papers included cover Argentine fish fauna and some related subjects of more general interest. Naturally, it is hardly surprising that some involuntary omissions will occur when addressing this subject. Any corrections and/or additions will be incorporated in following versions; and all information is most welcome. | ProBiota | División Zoología Vertebrados, Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata | ProBiota, Programa para el estudio y uso sustentable de la biota austral