Re[3]: Hybrid ethics-was Re: [RML] Melanotaenia marcii

andrew.boyd at dfat.gov.au
Mon, 2 Feb 1998 8:53:05 +1000


Harro, it follows, along these lines, that any fish of unknown
provenance should be treated as a hybrid and not included in serious
breeding programs? That it is not enough to breed M. splendida
splendida or M. trifasciata?

Regards, Andrew

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: RE: Re: Hybrid ethics-was Re: [RML] Melanotaenia marcii
Author: PC:Harro.Hieronimus at t-online.de at INTERNET-MAIL
Date: 2/2/98 12:24 AM

(snip)

Sorry Julie, but there you're wrong. It doesn't depend on what you cross,
everything is a hybrid. Who did tell you that M. splendida rubrostriata
and M. splendida australis are subspecies? A scientist? Well, we'll surely
find a scientist saying it aren't subspecies but a single, multivariable species
and we find scientists, who say these are true species. Personally I do not
think that subspecies are helpful nomencaltural terms. And if you cross a
M. trifasciata Goyder River and one from the Coen River, you may have a
M. trifasciata left - until the next scientist comes and separates these into
own species! So every cross of fishes which can be distinguished in any
characteristics is a hybrid and has to be named as such one.

Harro