>I'm intrigued so far with the comments back. Everyone agrees that it ain't
>pure, and everyone but myself agrees that it is a cross (and I am
>admittedly the least experienced in this area for what that is worth). But
>no one yet seems to have the complete, absolute story. I find this
>intriguing.
This fish is a cross and was proudly claimed as such by the breeder.
He also came out with two other crosses which he proudly gave his own
taxonomic names. I would dig out the thread on the topic, but don't
feel like wading through over a year of archives to do it. It was
reported by a very respected member of the rainbow community from
Europe. I'd name him but he can step forward on his own if he wishes.
>I also wonder if everyone has seen the same fish. Again, I'm not the
>expert here, but I have seen and kept good parkinsoni and short of putting
>these fish together for a real good review, I can't see any differences
>that can be linked to crosses. The photo Gary suggested might be a that
>much better an idea, just so that we are sure we are all talking about the
>same thing.
If you think we've been blind to what goes on in this hobby relating
to rainbowfish, then you are sorely mistaken. We have seen this fish
and seen good quality parkinsoni. There is no comparison, the good
parkinsoni wins every time. My only response to your suggestion that
it looks better than a parkinsoni is you've never seen a good
parkinsoni. I have seen the marci in more states than I can count on
two hands. I have yet to see one I consider attractive. When I saw my
first, I had no idea where it had came from. But my first reaction was
who wrecked a parkinsoni.
Now my question to you is, why should we go searching for old files
and jumping through hoops to prove to you this is a cross? You came to
this list to learn from the folks in the know about rainbowfish. You
can accept what we say about this fish, search it out yourself (its in
the archives), or live in ignorance. Its up to you.
later
Cary Hostrawser