The species summaries provided in the form of profiles include taxonomic, distribution and habitat, distribution maps, conservation, natural history, captive maintenance, images, videos, collection records, and an extensive bibliography of the species included and have been prepared by world-class specialists.
In the past decade, the Internet has fundamentally transformed the relationships between the scientific community and society as a whole, as the boundaries between public and private, professionals and hobbyists fade away; allowing for a wider range of participants to engage with science in unprecedented ways.
[5] Furthermore, while for the most part, the CRC is a popular resource, a number of articles in it have some academic value, and have been cited as primary sources in the scholarly literature.
[10][11][12] Moreover, in the case of the CRC, the site is not edited by a person educated in systematics or with an advanced degree in ichthyology or a related field.
Even so, the site has been criticized for censoring taxonomic information based on its editor's arbitrary, personal, subjective views (e.g. the synonymy of Paraneetroplus and Vieja sensu McMahan et al. 2010 (prior to 2015);[16] the validity of Maylandia Meyer & Foerster 1984 vs its junior synonym Metriaclima Stauffer, J. R., Jr. and K. A. Kellogg 2002;[17] the split of genus Nosferatu De la Maza-Benignos, et al. 2014[18] from Herichthys,;[17][19] or the recent review of the taxonomy and systematics of the herichthyns;[20][21][22]), on the basis of an anticonventional argument that official, in the sense of the Code, nomenclatural acts[23] are not “mandatory” (see editor's comments).