[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Location Codes

Hi Tom,

         I remember all the U-"number" fish very well. I used to breed N. U-5 
and N. U-7. Unless my memory is faulty, those fish were collected much 
earlier than 1975 as the tank raised generations were being introduced by 
1975. I do not remember any collection/population labels on these with the 
exception of N. U-4. I had U-3 and U-7 in 1973 or at the latest 1974, unless 
my memory fails. There was a difference in the use of the "U" labels though. 
N. U-1 became kirki and the U-1 was gone. N. U-2 became furzeri and the U-2 
was gone. N. U-3, U-4 (Villa Macado? Notho), and U-7 all were defined as 
orthonotus at about the time they disappeared from the hobby. U-5 was defined 
as Ahl/Roloff's old N. kuhntae. Again, the use of a "U" label disappeared as 
unnecessary. The "U's" were a way of labeling an undesribed fish that was 
already in the hobby but had not been described or sufficiently ID'd yet. 
There had been problems with hobbyists ending up as the describers of fish 
when ichthyologists let the name out before the paper describing the fish was 
published -- i.e. C. "ladigesi" (Foersch), S. antenori (Tulipano), etc. The 
purpose of the "U's" (and the use of the "U" for "U"ndescribed fish was first 
introduced for what finally became Apisto. caucatoides back in the 1930's -- 
see Innes.)
     As far as breeding a better nigripinnis by crossing populations that 
show various traits and then selecting for a combination of those traits, 
well, I do not know if it would make a good fish but common sense tells me it 
might be a whole lot better than breeding one location to itself year after 
year after year -- don't those ponds ever flood and mix? Why is it that 
killie hobbyists -- the most scientific of all fish hobbyists -- resist using 
a knowledge of genetics to bring out a fish's natural traits to the max? I 
have always felt my experience with fancy livebearers over the years was a 
great aid in breeding killies. I applied the lessons I learned on livebearers 
to killies and it seemed to help. Fish that teach you to cull, cross, feed 
well, change water, provide space, watch for all stages of sexual 
development, separate the sexes, pay attention to finnage development, know 
the genetic history of the line, maintain multiple related lines for hybrid 
vigor out-crosses and so on can only be considered as a help in breeding 
killies. I know people use to see wild stock as something to be desired to 
cross into aquarium strains. Now that seems like a big "No-No."
      As I said, where pop/location codes are necessary initially or until 
the ichthyologists say so, or to maintain some system for the defining of 
color morphs -- GREAT! The more the merrier. Where they are nothing more than 
a useless and ultimately destructive tag they should be forgotten and ignored 
--GREAT, loose them!. Everything has a good and a bad side. Everything. One 
cannot just look at the good side of what one likes and the bad side of what 
one doesn't like. That is a sure fire way to always miss the reality and 
potential of a situation.

Robert E.
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Follow-Ups: