> As I understand it, this example was used to illustrate a harmful
>disease not present and not wanted in Australia, however I also am led
>to believe it only affects trout so I don't see the relevance. >
That is only true until it is found in another species. While it will
only kill rainbow trout it is found in other trouts such as browns, they
carry it, but don't show any mortality due to it. Diseases, especially
viruses (which are often very species specific) are renowned for jumping
the species gap. Look at mad cow disease. I'm the first to admit that
situations of this kind are uncommon. But, I can't define how slight
the risk is as I have no knowledge in this field. That is for a
vetinarian to determine.
Diseases are amazing things, look at the redfin virus (Perca
fluviatilis). The virus is only known from Australia and it appears to
primarily affect redfin which are introduced. Extremely high doses have
killed certain native fish but the work has not been undertaken to the
best of my knowledge to determine if this disease has had any impacts on the
native fauna. No one knows where the virus came from except that it is
probably a more recent thing otherwise it would have been detected
earlier as it's effects are pretty obvious.
> Well it does as I see it, because it is a part of the fauna I am
>interested in. I suppose I could say I was interested in oktediensis as
>it is probably endangered (maybe even extinct?) within the Oktedi
>river.
Can we please try and finally kill this garbage about oktediensis.
Oktediensis primarily occur in tributaries to the Ok Tedi River. They
were never abundant in the mainstem as it constituted somewhat different
habitat which was dominated by rubrostriata. Ok Tedi rubros are
probably under greater threat. Only the mainstem has been dominated by
pollution from the mine. Please read page 132 of Jerry's new book. And
I'm trying just to pick on Barry on this one, we've all heard it many
times from various sources.
Tootles
Peter Unmack