[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: N. rachovii
With some killifish I think that it only takes 7 generations or less. But I
will leave this up to you science guys.
Al Anderson
killiman at indy_net
317 253 2170
317 466 1615 FAX
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Cooper" <bjc3 at cornell_edu>
To: <killietalk at aka_org>
Sent: Thursday, November 16, 2000 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: N. rachovii
> This discussion, which takes place periodically, reminds me that I have
> been meaning to bring to your attention a paper that was published in
> Science a couple of issues ago. In that paper two populations of salmon
> were studied. They were known to have been derived from the same
population
> no more than 13 generations ago (about 50 years). The two populations
> inhabit and breed in different localities, one a beach population and the
> other a river population. The paper clearly showed that these populations
> had developed reproductive isolation within that time frame. Although they
> are still the same species, they have developed morphological and
> behavioral differences that set them apart. The show preference for their
> own population in breeding behavior, although they are able to interbreed.
> Hybrids are disadvantaged in various way.
>
> If you are interested the study, I can dig out the actual reference.
> However, I think this study strongly supports the position most of us take
> that known locality populations should not be interbred in the aquarium.
>
> Barry
>
> At 11:12 AM 11/16/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >Tyrone Genade wrote:
> >
> >
> > >
> > > Almost all the rachovii in the trade come from along the road
> > > between the Biera and its airport. Those that don't are clearly
> > > marked.
> > >
> >
> >As a matter of interest, the old aquarium strain of N. rachovii, as
> >well as the Beira '91 population (note the correct spelling of "Beira")
> >were indeed collected from a locality between Beira and the airport.
> >However, it is my understanding that the Beira '98 population is from a
> >different locality - still in the immediate vicinity of the town but in
> >a different direction. The collector of the '98 population did not
> >provide precise locality data and I have been unable to contact him
> >about that.
> >
> > >
> > > I feel very strongly that strains which represent fish out of large
> > > complexes (eg.: kafuensis, guentheri, neumanii, etc...) where a fair
> > > amount of taxonomy is under way, strains should not be mixed!!!
> > > And the collection codes be retained!!!
> > >
> >
> >I agree, although it should also be noted that N. guentheri actually
> >has a very restricted distribution (on Zanzibar Island) and there would
> >appear to be no obvious differences between the fish of different
> >populations. In spite of that it is still not a good idea to cross
> >populations that have different collection locality designations.
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Brian R. Watters
> >Professor and Head
> >Department of Geology
> >University of Regina
> >Regina, Sask. S4S 0A2, Canada
> >Tel: (306) 585-4663
> >Fax: (306) 585-5433
> >E-mail: Brian.Watters at uregina_ca
> >
> >---------------
> >See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Follow-Ups:
References: