Re: payaminonis???

[Mike & Diane Wise <apistowise@fgn.net>]

Bill,

You make some good points, especially about A. sp.
X (I, II, III etc.). I really don't know what the
best system will be, other than get them all
scientifically described (very unlikely). I think
one of the advantages that killie keepers have is
that most of their fish are collected by serious
hobbyists who are willing to provide collection
localities. Most cichlids, including apistos, are
supplied by commercial collectors who, rightly,
want to keep locations secret to protect sources
of revenues. Without precise locations we have
problems.

Mike Wise

William Vannerson wrote:

>  >>>So what do we do? Should we list them all as
> 1 species, 3 or 4 different populations of a
> single species, or 3 different 'cf' forms that
> may or may not be different species? <<< Until
> they are better understood and sucessfully bred
> over generations, it would be prudent to keep
> them separate. Perhaps the killie syntax is not
> ideal, but the killie hobbyists have learned
> from their mistakes.  Diligent husbandry is
> required to keep the strains genetically viable
> at times.  Cross breeding two locations of the
> same species may result with sterile offspring
> after a few generations.  Or the fish become
> increasingly more difficult to breed or markings
> fade. The taxonomy will change over time,
> regardless of what you or I think.  There was a
> recent commehnt on the killie list how many
> experienced breeders tend to refer to specific
> fish by the location code rather than the
> genus/species name.  That' because the location
> code has remained constantthrought the years
> while the genus may have gone through several
> changes over the years. >>>Maybe for the time
> being we should just list them by who collected
> them. Thus we have A. cf. payaminonis (Staeck)
> for offspring from Staeck's stock, like David
> Soares' & A. cf. payaminonis (Melgar) for Mike's
> fish, etc<<< Then do we go to A. cf. payaminonis
> (Melgar II) for another import from Julio of a
> nearly identicle, but different fish but from
> another secret location?  And whatever syntax
> the hobbyist evolve towards, responsible
> collectors and exporters will likely adhere to
> the conventions.  But many will
> not. Fortunately, the apisto market is
> relatively small, so the hobbyists are in a
> fairly strong position to set the naming
> conventions in the hobby, just like the killie
> folk have done.  There will always be
> contaminents, but if the hobbyists insist on
> porper identification and are willing to pay a
> premium for it, then it ill make good business
> sense for them to try to accomodate and adhere
> to the naming convention. Now I know that's not
> likely to be the norm.  But the alternative is
> to nd up buing hybred dwarfs, perhaps even as
> obtuse as the parrot fish (to each their own
> tastes).  Perhaps the ASG should consider
> setting a standard naming convention for the
> hobby that keeps similar, perhaps identical
> apistos separate until it's difinatively decided
> thay are in fact one species or two (or
> three). Food for thought. Bill Vannerson
> McHenry, IL
> http://vannerson.home.att.net/

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the apistogramma mailing list,
apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or
unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com.
apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto





-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is the apistogramma mailing list, apisto@listbox.com.
For instructions on how to subscribe or unsubscribe or get help,
email apisto-request@listbox.com. apisto-digest@listbox.com also available.
Web archives at http://lists.thekrib.com/apisto
Trading at http://blox.dropship.org/mailman/listinfo/apisto_trader