> I'm all for this idea of rainbow keepers using the similar method to
> denote our rainbows. I noticed one argument that in the fish trade
> we're lucky enough to get them to use the collection location alone.
> They killie folks have this same problem but it has not stopped them
> from developing and maintaining a standard to track their fish.
So what, exactly, is it that's keeping us from developing, and then
implementing, such a system? It appears to me that *true* killie keepers
insist on using this nomenclature for their stocks, correct? And they
won't breed from or pass along stocks that aren't properly identified?
True "Bowheads" do the same thing, at least to some degree, now. Maybe we
should just make a system for rainbowfish identification a part of
"proper" bow-keeping and begin using, and insisting upon using, this
system in the various and sundry groups that are scattered about the four
corners. We may not be able to change the usage in the fish-keeping
population as a whole, but the serious rainbowfish collectors and breeders
predominantly belong to at least one of the major organizations already.
If these groups push usage of this system, then it will eventually catch
on and become common among the folks who should be using it the most.
Of course, first we need to come up with and agree upon a system... :-)
Is this list a proper forum to hash out such a plan? Any suggestions? Any
takers? A *commonly* agreed upon classification/nomenclatural system would
go a long way, IMHO, in the battle against all these common names we all
get so frustrated with.
Or am I just being too much of an optimist? ;-)
Julie Z. <><