Re: Endangered fishes propagation
Peter J. Unmack (peter.unmack at asu.edu)
Mon, 18 Mar 1996 13:01:44 -0700
>On Mon, 18 Mar 1996, cyrus roussilhes wrote:
>
>> There's a very simple way to keep an endangered population from becoming
>> extinct. That is: By doing absolutely nothing! (compared to what aquarists
>> usually do!)
>
>Unfortunately, if we did nothing we would lose many species because their
>habitat is no longer able to support them. In some cases, such as Lake
>Victoria, the cause of species extinction may never be removed no matter
>how much effort was put into it. The only hope for those species is
>translocation (in some cases) or long term captive breeding. Aquarists may
>act as an excellent intermediate or end step in maintaining those species.
>
>> If the population of a species in question was found to live naturally in
>> relatively small pools, swamps or ponds then the "breeder" would create an
>> environment in a similar climate and transfer a number of fish, from
>> various parts of the same pool, swamp, or pond to his newly created pond.
>
>Unfortunately, not everyone has those resources. Unlike Australia, most
>people don't have large (if any) backyard at all. Also, the climate is
>not always suitable. For most people, aquaria are the only way they
>could contribute. It would be wonderful if we could all maintain ponds
>of endangered species.
>
>> But the underlying question is: What aquarist would want to maintain a
>> population without the benefits of studying or changing the fish to become
>> "aquarium fish" and not "wild fish". ie, change the appearance and
>> behaviour.
>
>There are many people around who try and maintain "wild" strains. They
>purposely avoid breeding any unusual varieties.
>
>> I believe that few aquarium-breeding wild fish speices can successfully
>> sustain their original genetics. Not only because of the aquarist, but
>> also because the aquarium resembles nothing like their natural habitat.
>
>It is generally accepted that some loss of genetic material occurs in
>captive breeding programs, although there are strategies designed to
>minimise this. I would argue that any genetic material from a species is
>better than none.
>
>In terms of changes due to captive vs wild habitats, how much of the
>change in captivity is genetic verses behavioural? Also, how much of
>their behaviour is genetic? These are the questions that require further
>research to quantify.
>
>Tootles
>
>Peter
>
>