Re: Species Conseravation

["Darren J. Hanson" <djhanson@calweb.com>]

> Of course there are blues in a system of lakes in western Quebec
> where some fishermen I know go on a regular basis.  But the
> icthyological "experts" in both NY and Quebec seem to have trouble
> believing that some of the blues may have fallen over Niagara Falls,
> and established breeding colonies in Lake Ontario, which further
> migrated down the St Lawrence and up the Kippewa River.

It's not that they have trouble believing that it could happen, in fact, I'm
sure that the icthyologists believe that that is EXACTLY what did happen.
However, they recognize that the two varieties were effectively isolated
by the falls which established separate gene pools and the possibility for
genetic divergence. 

To pick an example closer to home, it's not enough to save "Fp. gardneri"
because there is more than one sub-species. Not is it enough to save
"Fp. gardneri nigeranum" because there is more than one type locality. In
order to save the fish in a manner to allow their reintroduction to the wild,
we must save "Fp. gardneri nigeranum N'suka". Unfortunately, there
generally isn't type location information available for most cichlids and
without that information, scientists will (rightfully) assume that the fry
produced are "mutts" with lineage from multiple type localities and refuse
to allow their reintroduction to the wild at ANY location.

In other words, if all we save are "Apisto. steindachneri", we'll save
them for the hobby. But if we want to be able to reintroduce them to,
say, the Rio Negro, we better be prepared to show that all of their
parents came from there.

- -- dj