> The point I am driving at is just because many fish are able to
> hybridize and we observe it in our aquariums, they never do in the wild
> when the fish are found in proximities of one another. This is based on
> what I know about Lake Tanganyika fish and other cichlids. So I would
> argue the fear of hybridization does seem a little unfounded. I would
So, do you think that if we could build a second Tanganyika and dump all
the fish randomly into the lake at once that we would get an exact
replica? I doubt it, I also doubt that you could replicate the Lake
exactly, which is why generalising from one environment isn't good logic
as different environments produce different results.
> say the greatest danger would be the introduction of species not native to
> that body of water as they may out compete the naturally occuring fish.
A good point that seems to have been missed by some.
A further thought for some of you, in the western USA some sucker species
(family Catostomidae) have been moved from system to system (ie Rio
Grande + Mississippi to Colorado River). There are usually two sympatric
species most places suckers occur in the Colorado. With the addition of
further sucker species hybridization is occuring between the new
introductions and the native fauna. Is that a good enough example to
convince people to be worried about rainbows or least be asking some
serious questions? Pupfish are another classic example that I have
already mentioned.
Hooroo
Peter Unmack