>The paper can be obtained (purchased) from the AKA via their web site (http://www.aka.com).
>
>I have a couple of other leads, including a suggestion that the Europeans (read Germans) do the job far better and that we would be best served by adopting a system similar to theirs (particularly in identifying the localities we collect from).
>
>Scheel's book uses this method (e.g. stream 20km NNW of AnyTown) 149 17 25E 35 15 09S
I think the main point is identification. If the ANGFA sheets are
filled out and copies are stored at a central site, then we just need
to identify which collection is which. It would be nice to have all
the info in the name, but it could also get cumbersome. If its too
complex, I think we would have a hard time keeping the identifier with
the fishes name. I also think the initials part encourages the
collector to use the identifier for vanities sake. Also year of
collection could be important if some watersheds are merged by a
temporary flood or other translocation of species.
The exact location is important, but I think it would also be good to
encourage turning in of collection data sheets with as much
information as possible.
I guess this is what I see as an attraction to the killie folks
method. I'm not sure if they actually require a collection sheet be
turned in, but I think its something that should be requested if not
required.
Cary Hostrawser
Minnesota Aquarium Society
http://www.mn-aquarium.org/
Rainbowfish Study Group of North America
http://home.earthlink.net/~sbuckel/index.html