> That's what we feel but obviously the "scientists" know better - without
> evidence of course.
Yes, but also, evidence based upon annecodotal evidence is not very good
either. :-)
> BTW there are some places in PNG too where more than one species of PNG
> rainbowfish co-exist and I am willing to bet that there will be virtually
> no evidence of crossbreeding in the wild there too, even though we are
> talking about those very dangerous and aggressive PNG Melanotaenids :-)
We have literally bashed this one to deaf in the past, I guess my take
home message hasn't gotten through. You cannot generalise that because
rainbowfish coexist in the wild, that when you through another species in
the same thing will continue. Species that evolve in co-existance have
things that prevent interbreeding, otherwise they wouldn't exist. But,
when you through a new species in ontop of this you cannot be sure what
will happen. One may go extinct, they may coexist, or they may
hybridise. There is already good evidence of hybrids between rainbows in
the wild, look at eachemenis and splendida. Another population of
australis appears to have some exquisita in it. From time to time they
do interbreed under natural conditions with the end result being that
sometimes both species don't remain seperate, you get a single hybrid
population. There is more work continuing on this hybridisation and we
should have a much clearer picture of eachemensis and splendida in a few
years. I think this is an important thing to recognise Bruce, if you are
still not convinced that hybridisation can occur please let me know and I
will explain it some more. There are some other good examples elsewhere
in suckers (Catostomidae) where coexisting species have gotten on just fine
until a third was introduced. Guess what? They hybridised like crazy.
> You and I having this little Tete-a-tete on email is educating someone -
Which is part of the reason why I waste my time doing it. :-)
> and like conservation, it starts in one's own backyard. ANGFA has an
> ongoing commitment to aquatic conservation but it is hopefully not a
> blinkered one and doesn't stop us from destroying our raison d'etre i,e,
> keeping fish, especialy those from our own country and those of our nearest
> neighbour.
I agree completely. At this point in time I wouldn't like to see any
changes to regulations regarding keeping Australian native fish provided
some stringent educational guidelines were present. We know too little
about our native fish and at least those aquarists who DOCUMENT their
observations are doing everyone a great service. Those who are not
DOCUMENTING their observations aren't really helping near enough.
> I assume you are ignoring those Victorian icons of icthyological excellence
> such as carp, trout, tench, redfin etc etc for reasons of being less
I was trying to stick to aquarium fish rather than angling species.
> It seems a little tough to even think of PNG rainbowfish in
> the same breath.
I am not trying to limit this discussion to rainbowfish. I am trying to
talk about aquarium fish in general. I'm sure you can picture a convict
cichlid or tilapia in the same light as carp or trout.
> Once it is an experiment it is no longer natural Peter ;-)
So what do you do Bruce? Just sit here and continue to argue with
nothing to base any of it on? I think you could easily set up some large
scale ponds that would easily mimic billabong type habitats. Of course,
that is if you had the space and money. :-)
> No one has because it hasn't happened and is most unlikely to happen in the
How do we know it hasn't happened? Remember the massive floods around
Rockhampton a few years back? I know of one story where a backyard
commercial rainbowfish breeder lost all his fish due to floodwaters. Is
that not an introduction? I'm sure no one has looked in his local creek.
There are some trifasciata like fish living somewhere near Cairns too.
Where did they come from? Ask Budgie, Rick Datodi's son caught them
there. That's a long way south of their native range. Who knows what
it'll prove to be. My point is that we haven't done much looking.
> And I guess you and I are closer to agreeing on many of these issues at the
> moment than ever before - but i'm not sure whether it is a triumph for
> education, reason or exhaustion ;-)
Probably all three. :-) The biggest problem we have is that there are so
many angles to this, and it's easy to be on two different ones at the same
time and thus misinterpret things. :-) At least we are hopefully getting
somewhere. Has anyone else been bothering to read this other than Bruce,
Rhonda, and I? Everyone else seems very quiet about the issue. Whether
you agree or think any one of us is full of shit it is nice to get at
least something!
Tootles
Peter Unmack