>Sorry Cary,
>
>I think your system is far too complicated to be even be accepted
>in the rainbowfish societies and for more not in the shops.
>We should first try to have our species we just keep totally
>divided into origin and if this is accepted generally, we can do
>the next step.
I really don't care what the shops do. I see more crosses than pure
bows in shops. Some shops don't even know how to keep fish alive for
long. If we wait for the lowest common denominator to get a clue, we
might as well not even bother taxonomic names because the shops don't
use them anyhow.
>Although some killi people have their system this is not
>accepted in the sale. Why not? It's too complicated. I think
>about 25% of the killi breeders do that enumeration and
>labeling of stocks, the others don't do so - as they partially
>don't have the information, didn't get it, lost or forgot it.
I don't think its really all that complicated, its more a case of
people not caring. I we can get 25% of the people passing on there
bows to use this system, we would be that much farther ahead.
>I think we must start to get our stocks into a list were all
>species are listed with their origin, i.e. the river or the lake
>they come from. If we have that and if it's accepted, we can
>do the next step.
This is not a replacement for keeping the collection location with the
fish. The code would be listed after taxonomic name and collection
location.
If we had a system years ago and had 25% participation we'ld have alot
of data at present. And maybe answers to many questions we still have.
Do I think we'll get 100% participation? Absolutely not.
But I still feel anything we can get is for the better.
Cary Hostrawser
Minnesota Aquarium Society
http://www.mn-aquarium.org/
Rainbowfish Study Group of North America
http://home.earthlink.net/~sbuckel/index.html