<>snip.snip.
<>The only problem I see with that is Chris Drew will
<>probably bug the heck ot of everyone who has a fish he does not.
<This is one of the reasons why some people don't want to get involved! (No
<reflection of Chris)
<However, such a list need not state names, it would only reflect the number
<of populations being maintained. Only the colating person would know what
<fish individual members had?
<A rating system from 0 to 10 could be used to indicate the number of
<populations being maintained. e.g. rating 0=nil, rating 1 could = less than
<5, rating 2 could = less than 10 etc,etc. or something along similiar lines.
<such a list doesn't require everyone to take part, just as long as we cover
<a resonably number of members. Alturnatively we could just list the number
<of populations rather than rate them.
<I'm not sure wether we need a lot of information of exact species numbers,
<Males, Females etc, but just as long as the person has the possiblility of
<spawning them if required. The reason I say this is because these numbers
<would change quite frequently, particularly if you start including fry.
<It seems that the RSG & IRG have already started such a history and now its
<only up to ANGFA to complete the trilogy ;-) Whos going to be the first!
Adrian, this rating is an excellent idea! IRg will surely participate and we
would know worldwide what species is threatened in aquaria and where
we have to point our attention to. I also agree with Adrian that the
real number is not important, if males or females, but the total rating.
One may have hundreds, but the conservation is only sure if more than
ten breeders have the species.
Harro
harro.hieronimus at t-online.de