I may be totally out of line here, but I think that there comes a point
where we have to leave the taxonomy/speciation stuff to the scientists - all
we can really do as hobbyists (well, speaking from my POV as a hobbyist) is
maintain the different populations seperately - we tend to place a high
loading on a species that only occurs in the one place, such as M. pygmaea,
(well, aside from the fact that they are nice little fish that are buggers
to breed) and maybe less on one type/locality of M.trifasciata.... Remember
the M.eachamensis, that we are now told isn't as endangered as a species as
we once thought?
I think that *as long as* the fish is correctly identified in the first
place, the subsequent name changes/DNA findings can be agonised over after
they've become official. If we keep them alive, then we can sort the name
out later.
Regards, Andrew
><> <>< ><> Andrew Boyd - andrew at pcug.org.au - Frex at FurryMUCK!
<>< <>< : http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew
><> <>< IRC #rainbowfish: http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew/rainbow.htm
<>< : ><> Rainbowfish Mailing List: http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew/rml.htm
: <>< Sthn. Hemisphere Killifish List: http://www.killi.net/aunzza/
Happiness is merely the remission of pain... (from A Gentleman)