>It's a pity few groups seem to be as organised as killi folks are. This is
>certainly a monumental effort. Many dedicated livebearer folks perform a
>similar role in keeping many rarer and threatened species.
I wonder if this is because killies -- for the most part -- are easier to maintain,
and require less space, than, say, North American stream-dwelling cyprinids or darters.
Keeping a 2-gallon tank with moss and a sponge filter is easier and less expensive
than a large stream tank that requires lots of oxygen, low temperatures, and near
perfect water quality.
And, of course, annual killie eggs can be shipped long distances, making it even
easier to distribute a fish to aquarists worldwide, and maintain separate breeding
stocks.
Don't get me wrong -- I'm not decrying the skills of killie aquarists. I'm just saying
the captive requirements of some killies (and some livebearers, for that matter),
make them more suitable for home breeding purposes. And, hence, there is a larger
network of aquarists keeping them, and hence again, a more formally organized effort
at threatened species propagation.
I've always found that fishes that come from lentic, swamp-like habitats are usually
easier to keep and breed than lotic fishes. What's more, tropical fishes are often easier
to spawn than temperate fishes; the latter often require gradually changing temperatures
and daylengths to simulate the change of seasons.
I'm sure there are many exceptions to the above; I'm speaking in generalizations only.
I'm simply trying to establish a reason why the endangered species propagation
efforts of home aquarists who keep temperate, stream-dwelling fishes might never be as
successful and as well-organized as keepers of killies and livebearers.
I hope that changes, of course. :-)
Chris Scharpf
Baltimore