> >I think the most important thing in a species maintainance program is to
> >determine which species to keep and WHY.
My reason for asking this question is we all keep getting on our high
horses for how we really need to get a conservation based long term
captive maintainance strategy for rainbows. What I want to know is which
species do people feel are sufficiently threatened or limited in
distribution that they need a breeding program? Unfortunately, those
species which probably should be given some priority are not because they
are not rainbows and few people will keep them or at least have success
with them. For instance, redfinned blue eyes, Elizabeth Springs and
Edgbaston gobies, Glover's, Myross and Dalhousie hardyheads, Dalhousie
catfish and a couple different Mogurndas. I also think there could be
more habitat orientated work done too such as reestablishing M.
maccullochi populations around Cairns, Mogurnda adspersa and
Ambassis agassizi populations in the Murray-Darling system.
> I thaink we've had this discussion before, Peter, but I think we need to
> look at whether fish are able to be saved by maintenance (i.e. 30 years down
> the track we don't end up with a weedy shadow of the original fish)... but I
Yes, I do think that fish can be viably maintained in captivity as long
as a variety of lines are kept going. Sure, you may have some small
changes from wild fish but so what? What's better, saving 90% of a
fishes genome (genetic diversity) vs none? :-)
Tootles
Peter J Unmack peter.unmack at asu.edu
PO Box 1454
Tempe AZ 85280-1454, USA
---------------------------------------------------------------
DESERT FISHES RULE: To boldly thrive where no other fish can make it!
Check out the Australian desert fishes pages at
http://www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/fish/dfc/
just click on the Australian portion of the map