Re: Common fish naming

Bruce Hansen (bhansen at ozemail.com.au)
Fri, 8 Nov 1996 07:53:25 +1100

Collecting data sheets have been promulgated by ANGFA since our inception -
in fact there is a model one in one of the earlier BUlletins. The big
problems is getting the collector to take them with him, actually measure
and note the data and bring the info back and pass it on. Ideally our
surveys should also include a host of details but if we are not careful we
haven't got time to collect fish only data ( and them what have we become?
We have become one of them). You know - and we will have them screaming
that we should be supplying info on cross-breeding in the wild, stomach
content analysis, seasonal variation in populations, parasitology surveys,
conservation recommendations and a host of other details before they will
consider allowing us to bring them home and breed them and pass them on to
other hobbyists in case of translocation, cross-breeding, diseases etc etc
;-)

Put in another way - does ANGFA (ACT) insist that EVERY member collects the
data you have mentioned EVERY time each said member dips a net ( or similar
endeavour) into ANY pool, puddle or waterway? If we are going to be serious
about this then that is what we shoulk be doing. Then we could build up a
meaningful body of info on an integrated and seasonal basis with the most
complete info around the areas where we live, this could be a valuable
monitor of change for better or worse and could even possibly avert another
"Eachamensis" situation.

Bruce Hansen
ANGFA

email: bhansen at ozemail.com.au
Don't miss the ANGFA web pages at -
http://www.ozemail.com.au/~fisher/angfa.htm

----------
From: Alan Salmon <asalmon at mat.army.defence.gov.au>
To: 'rainbowfish at pcug.org.au'
Subject: RE: Common fish naming
Date: Wednesday, 6 November 1996 12:09

How about doing what the killie collectors do:

(1) M. trifasciata (2) AMS (3) 96/1 (4) Kangaroo Creek

where:

(1) Species (could be M. sp. for new unnamed)
(2) Initails of the collector
(3) Collection detail - collection 1 of 1996
(4) Location of collection.

Killie ethics also mandates that you do not cross a fish from collect 1/96
with stock derived from collection 7/85.

Perhaps ANGFA (National) can draw up a pro-forma collection sheet that we
request all members complete and forward to ANGFA whenever they collect
fish from the wild.

It could include details such as environmental data - temp/pH etc, physical
condition of source - ie. full of coke cans and tyres (thats TIRES for you
Yanks!) which indicates that Adrian Tappin has collected there previously [
:-) ]. Other species present, quantity of fish sighted, etc.

What say you?

----------
From: Peter Hughes (X)
Sent: 06 November, 1996 11:26 AM
To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
Subject: Re: Common fish naming

On Wed, 6 Nov 1996, Andrew Boyd wrote:

>
> Speaking for myself only I find common names a serious PITA - I offer as
> example an auction I was at a couple of weeks back... the guy didn't use
> scientific names, or if he did then he didn't know the source/locality of
> the fishes he was auctioning. It would have been more bearable if he was
> using common names that were common 'round here! ;)
>
> IMO scientific names AND source/locality where possible are the only way
to
> go. If you can't fit common to scientific, buy a book! ;-)
>

I actually agree with Andrew on this one, I do not want to have a coral
rainbow, on the other hand a boesmani sounds rather nice. Scientific
names are good because they are unique. The current system with
trifasciata's seems to work with the collection location appended to it
as well. Undescribed species represent a bit of a problem, perhaps we
should form a working party to adopt a universal uniform standard on this
one :-).

Seriously a scientific name and a collection site pretty well pins down
any fish and tells you something about it. The recent bit about the
Coward springs and Coward springs railway bore desert gobies makes a
pretty good case for better nomenclature.

Peter Hughes

----------