So what is important then? Is it the functioning of an ecosystem in a manner
that is suitable to human survival. What defines a functioning ecosystem?
Can we substitute one rainbow for another without any impacts on the
safety/survival of humans? Probably. Therefore it doesn't matter what
rainbows we have in Australia. If a few get out and start to breed or
hybridise we will most likely end up with something functional enough to
meet the ecosystem requirements.
Taken a step further gambusia may be important ecosystem components in
polluted suburban streams? I think I've lost my mind.
And don't mention spreading gametes - I have enough kids:-)
-----Original Message-----
From: peter.unmack at ASU.Edu <peter.unmack at ASU.Edu>
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
Date: Monday, 2 February 1998 10:01
Subject: [RML] Re: Hybrid ethics-was marci--now just philosophical garbage
>On Mon, 2 Feb 1998, Rob Wager wrote:
>
>Let's leave out hybrids and selected sports for the moment and talk about
>maintaining species in captivity as "wild" types.
>
>> Yet I will not be convinced by anybody that the F1 to Fx generations of
true
>> species bred in aquarium (or farm - no particularly farm) situations are
>> true representatives of that species.
>
>That statement presumes there is a definition of what a true
>representative of that species is. Would you like to try and define
>that? Not likely. :-) Based on your comments it is a suite
>of characteristics, genetic, behavioural, morphological, biologicial etc
>etc. I think we could agree that defining genetic and morphological
>wouldn't be too difficult. The rest are much more difficult. And also,
>by constraining a species to a set type we have just defined evolution as
>being a negative thing. Species are not fixed static entities, they are
>potentially constantly changing. So, how do you define a dynamic
>entity? :-)
>
>> Their behaviour appears to change.
>> They forget how to forage for wild foods. Perhaps they forget what
defines
>> an ideal natural breeding location, and even an appropriate spawning
season.
>
>Are behaviours fixed? Can they be unlearned and relearned? Does it matter
>if aquarium stocks have different behaviour? What are we trying to do
>here, save species or put them in people's aquariums for their
>enjoyment?
>
>There is no doubt that behaviours change when an organisms environment
>changes. If they didn't then most organisms would be screwed. While many
>behaviours have a genetic component to them, most are strongly influenced
>by their environment. Look at that paper by Calum Brown on rainbowfish
>behaviour, it is different in each environment. It's all the same species
>though, with the same common ancestor, they have just learned how to
>survive under different circumstances same as they do in aquaria. Does
>that mean that aquarium fish lose forever their potential to have wild
>behaviours again (whatever we can't define them to be)? Has anyone tried
>raising fish from captive specimens under wild circumstances and comparing
>their behaviour? Not really. Bruce, what do your fish inside do when you
>walk into the fishroom? They all come up to the glass looking for food.
>What do the fish outside in your pool do (that you don't feed) when you
>walk up to them? Run and hide I'll bet. Behaviour is incredibly flexible
>(just consider people) and is strongly influcenced early in life. While I
>think we are wise to be concerned as to the effects of captivity, we worry
>too much about it.
>
>I should also point out that in conservation programs among birds and
>mammals few have been successfully raised so that they could survive under
>natural conditions. However, I think fish are much easier to work with as
>they can be raised without human attention under the right circumstances
>and in much greater numbers. Also, think of all the introduced species
>that were captively raised and then relesed into the wild? Obviously
>their behaviours changed to meet the change in environment.
>
>> What I am implying is that aquarium bred fish are potentially as untrue
>> examples of the "real thing" as are hybrids.
>
>I think the differences we percieve between wild type and captive are
>less significant than we make out. We make out that if the red colour in
>the tail of fish changed to yellow that everything is doomed. Big deal I
>say. The long term evolutionary significance of this is not likely to be
>significant. There is always a possibility it could be, but it my
>opinion this is not that likely.
>
>> Having said that I am also a realist. I believe that humans are destined
to
>> manage the entire biosphere in order to survive. Although it is unlikely
I
>> will ever have the resources to prove it, I believe that human activities
>> have already modified the behaviour of red-finned blue-eyes in their
natural
>> environment.
>
>So what? What are the implications of this statement? What does it
>really mean if we have modified them in some way? This species and it's
>ancestors have been swimming around for millions of years. They have
>probably been modified in many ways with climate change, habitat change,
>new species invading their drainage etc etc. Should we just toss them
>away as being unworthy for conservation now? I would agree that it's nice
>to keep them as wild as possible, but I think it is mostly so that humans
>can be pleased with themselves having done a good job managing that
>species rather than the long term evolutionary implications. We like to
>keep things "wild". I don't think the fish realise this or care too much
>about it. As long as they spread their gametes and bring along another
>generation and don't die a miserable death they are probably satisfied.
>
>That should be enough philosophical crap to last you for a long time
>Rob. :-) Of course, nothing is real, it's all just a perception..... of
>which we all have a different one.
>
>Tootles
>
>Peter Unmack
>