RE: Further thoughts on SMP -- from Dave's response sort of a refutation

["Griffiths, Richard" <rgriffit@visa.com>]

>>If collections are done along a
>>stretch of a river for the same species, there is some genetic drift as
>>isolated pockets do develop--that's what happens in the hobby as well.
>
>Theoretically all populations go through drift to some extent since none of
>them are infinite. However, the amount of drift seen in our aquariums does
>not compare by any stretch of the imagination, for most species, to that
>seen in wild populations.
With commercial fish, I would disagree. Since they start with unknown
and unrelated stock, the drift is phenomenal, and that translates to the
aquarium for the hobbyist. Aquarists probably have more control since
they may start with 'better' stock.

In the wild, if a collection of more than one pair is collected and
offspring distributed, then you have  a closed loop. Multiple pairs
distributed originally will provide the diversity people feel is
necessary to maintain 'vigor' in their fish (that becomes a strain if
undiluted from outside influences through 12 or so generations). So
after that point in time, there would be some, depending upon breeding
selections and criteria, visible 'genetic drift'.
>
>> And by that nature, anything we work with, is
>>highly likely to be from a single pair (especially of a rare fish).
>>Can't get away from that unless we collect multiple specimens on our
>>own.
And fortunately, many aquarists are out there collecting stuff from the
wild and distributing fish to other aquarists. Which hopefully, does
provide an impetus for a localized SMP.  Right now, most of the
collecting is in the Americas, the lakes of Africa, and upon occasion,
the Orient.

>Sure we can. All we have to do is make sure that every few years we
>introduce some unrelated male or female to our breeding stock. This is
>another reason why it is important to have a SMP.
See the paragraph above. If there is only one pair to start off with,
all subsequent generations available to it will be related directly to
that pair, or any other pair creation developed. There are cases (6 or 7
that I can think of) where only a pair was somehow imported as a
contaminant, never any more, or a pair of an extinct species was
propagated (goodeids, mainly) and there are not any more wild ones
left--so everything that is available in those fish are all related;
perhaps cousins 3 times removed and a 1st cousin, but they are all
related.  It's like the joke, if a couple moves into my state from (put
favorite state) here and get divorced, are they still brother and
sister? Well, if it's cousins, etc., from a closed loop from the initial
breeding, yep, they would be at least cousins, Fxxx, whatever's.

But differentiating hobby strains (the plastic fish, including things
like convict cichlids, or anything produced by fish farmers), wild forms
(collected data available, and no new introductions, BECAUSE YOU CAN
NEVER BE CERTAIN THAT THE INTRODUCTION IS FROM THE EXACT SPOT) (caps for
emphasis, not yelling). People forget to note where their fish come
from, and downstream, when wanting to introduce the 'species' to a new
partner from someone, people may supply the 'wrong' one, thereby either
introducing a different type of problem. 

With the many messages relating to 'what is this fish' on the Apisto
mailing, something like id'ing a fish causes a whole lot of problems,
not easily solved by the average Aquarist. Some of the truly dedicated
breeders might be able to do the job, but again, it is a time consuming,
personal commitment, and needed task.

>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>