RE: [RML] P. tenellus

Peter Unmack (peter.lists at)
Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:48:52 -0600 (CST)

On Thu, 13 Jan 2005, Matthew Stanton wrote:

> A few years ago when Ron Bowman published his 12 morphs of the Spotted
> Blue-eye article and poster in FoS, I tried putting a picture of
> Pseudomugil paskai up against the poster and the variation within just
> these 12 morphs was enough (to my eye) to encompass P. paskai. (And
> there are many more morphs out there).

Maybe that just indicates that P. paskai is actually gertrudae? I have
only looked at one of each and they were identical for sequence data.
Need to look at a few more fish and pops to be able to really say
anything, but clearly they are very closely related at the very least. It
is quite interesting that the variation in P. gertrudae doesn't follow any
geographic pattern as best I can tell (and from discussions with others,
maybe Bruce Hansen and Dave Wilson can add their 2 cents). And they can
very widely in fin size, spotting and colour from quite proximate
localities.

> Research done by Effie Howe shows that Blue-eye eggs and presumably
> sperm have significantly different surface structures. This may be the
> reason for no hybridisation between species. There are probably
> differences between different localities of the same species which may
> also prevent breeding. More research needs to be done but I suspect the
> "splitters" could have a field day with some of our Blue-eye species.

The other thing about blue eyes is that most of the species are very
divergent genetically. In fact most "closely related" blue eyes are
almost as, or more divergent than nearly all rainbowfish species combined
for the same gene. Of course there may be some current within species
diversity that is not as divergent (eg, signifer should be split up, but
how and where isn't clear).

> Speaking of which, Peter and Dave, was the Daly P. tenellus/signifer
> issue ever resolved?

Yes and no depending upon your opinion. We did figure out that both
species occur there, but the signifer types are not very common and Dave
hasn't been able to catch any (although one might be, I need to double
check it). While I don't think there is anyway my samples could have
gotten mixed up (I've never retained any signifer), it sure would be nice
if Dave can find some more from there one day, but they may be very rare,
if they are even still there. The tenellus Dave brought back from there
are very pretty though. See

http://peter.unmack.net/junk/p_tenellus.jpg
http://peter.unmack.net/junk/p.daly.jpg

Cheers
Peter Unmack