Montipora Undata care

[jmaneyapanda]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12702616#post12702616 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by tacocat
*Hi-jack time*
No worries, and I understand where you come from. My BA is in ecology, and I specialized in aquatic ecology and ichthyology, of course that was a long time ago, an things have changed.

You are correct in fish identification from the physical measurements of holotypes, but it still leads to some confusion. There are subspecies of fish:

A case in point are the golden trout complex and cutthroat complex here in California. The golden trout was divided into at least two subspecies Volcano Creek golden (Oncorhynchus aguabonita) and the Little Kern golden (O aguabonita whitei).

I went to do some spellchecking and it turns out O. aguabonita is now a subspecies of rainbow trout O. mykiss (no doubt because of DNA analysis). So now our state fish is formally O. mykiss aguabonita. What becomes of the Little Kern golden? These fish differ very little in their DNA, but looks world's apart.

The cutthroats are the coastal cutthroats (Oncorhynchus clarki), the Lahontan cutthorat (O. clarki henshawi), and the very interesting Paiute cutthroat (O. clarki seleniris). The Paiute differs from the Lahontan in that it has almost no spots.

The biological classifications add confusion when the government tries to implement protection plans for these fishes, plus these fish are extremely prone to hybridzation with rainbows.

The rainbow trout family is fun to study, probably because I'm an avid flyfisherman. To add more confusion to the fire, the genus name was changed rather recently from Salmo to Oncorhynchus.

Yes, you are correct. I wqs speaking of the marine ornamnetals we keep. As far as I know (and have discussed with Dr. Pyle at Bishop), there is no genetic mapping of any ornamnetal marines, so toss that DNA stuff out the window for these guys. The most they do is analyze the "content"- ie- loook at mitocondrian DNA to establish past relationships, but they cannot currently find a fish, lookm at the DNBA, and say "it is this species" for marine ornamentals.

With your examples of trout and freshwater game fish, these subspecies are often created,mor generated from loclaized isolated populations, correct? I agree with you, that 99 times out of 100, the science has jumped the gun, and some overzealous politician see this "Subspecies conservation" as a politic agenda, rather than true science.

But nonethelss, how it relates to our conversation on the topic of this thread...imagine if any Tom, Dick, or Harry could just assign a name, and then thats what it would be called. That trout is really "jo-jo's super bubbl;e gum rainbow", and thats what you were to call it rather than (whatever the scientific is). That is where I find huge fault.

 

[tacocat]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=12702834#post12702834 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Yes, you are correct. I wqs speaking of the marine ornamnetals we keep. As far as I know (and have discussed with Dr. Pyle at Bishop), there is no genetic mapping of any ornamnetal marines, so toss that DNA stuff out the window for these guys. The most they do is analyze the "content"- ie- loook at mitocondrian DNA to establish past relationships, but they cannot currently find a fish, lookm at the DNBA, and say "it is this species" for marine ornamentals.

With your examples of trout and freshwater game fish, these subspecies are often created,mor generated from loclaized isolated populations, correct? I agree with you, that 99 times out of 100, the science has jumped the gun, and some overzealous politician see this "Subspecies conservation" as a politic agenda, rather than true science.

But nonethelss, how it relates to our conversation on the topic of this thread...imagine if any Tom, Dick, or Harry could just assign a name, and then thats what it would be called. That trout is really "jo-jo's super bubbl;e gum rainbow", and thats what you were to call it rather than (whatever the scientific is). That is where I find huge fault.

No, but there ought to be. I've always wondered if Centropyge nox was a subspecies of the coral beauty, and IMO, the various copperband butterfly variants are actually subspecies resulting from geographic isolation.

Troof - sucks doesn't it?

I don't agree with that. I don't think a classical education qualifies one to be an authority anymore than an experienced fieldperson. The first scientists were priests like Mendel. In fact fisherman recognize far more trout subspecies than science does.

 

[ckaquatics]

jmaneyapanda that one is sweet!!!

 

[JAustin]

mine, 12" under 400w 20k ushio mh.

 

[MobyMD]

Nice Undata JAustin! I just picked one up at the DFW Coral Farmers Market and I hope it will turn out like yours one day. Thanks for sharing.

Moby