Extinction (was Re: Fp. robertsoni)

[Wright Huntley <jwwiii at pacbell_net>]

Edd.Kray at rf_doe.gov wrote:

> In numerous posts, I continue to hear reasonings and conclusions that a
> species has become extinct because the pond in which it was discovered...or
> at one time collected,  has been destroyed. 


snip...


> A viable species must have a distribution larger than that pond next to the
> road. We need to look a little harder and be prepared to walk a few  ( or a
> hundred) km into the bush before we proclaim the species to be extinct.
> 
> Do the many professional biologists contributing to this list disagree?


I'm not a professional biologist, but we must remember that *they* are the 
folks putting dambusia into delicate habitats, introducing *Tilapia* species 
as food/game fish in Gabon, etc. I'm gradually learning to apply a mild BS 
filter to many of the things they say.

We typically, in the hobby, do not declare a "species" extinct in the wild. 
We declare a "collection location" as extinct (usually only after several 
visits by those who know the location), and what we define as core "species" 
are actually often collections. The binomial naming convention for species 
was found sadly lacking for creatures that were easily isolated and had 
enough genetic variability to quickly diverge from their neighbors just over 
the ridge in the next watershed.

The "lumpers" among taxonomists made this situation even more difficult, but 
we, as hobbyists have rebelled at the proliferation of genra and species 
under the "splitters." It has exploded beyond our ability to keep up. Wait 
until the Rivs get restudied! :-)

Our only rational recourse, to avoid the breeding problems of the 70s and 
80s, has been to regard each collection location as a unique species until 
proven otherwise. A few hybridizing experiments apparently give ample 
evidence that this is the only course that makes sense. We do not have the 
resources and trained folks to do all the hybridizing, through several 
generations, that the hobby would need to be adequately informed.

My own choice has been to take a very conservative course, until we know 
more. That means rigidly keeping different locations of the same species 
separate and identified carefully by location or code when distributed.

If my *Fp. gardneri* N'sukka male dies, I do not try to breed the remaining 
female to a *Fp. gardneri nigerianus*, even though the "binomial" names 
would say they are the same species. Ken keeps the latter name as a valid 
KMI sub-species until the whole complex gets restudied, but we have ample 
evidence that *nigerianus* really is a separate species and not a 
sub-species of *gardneri*. They just happen to look alike. Crossing them and 
distributing the offspring could damage the hobby. We avoid doing that.

The lack of standardization in location IDs and collection codes makes it a 
PITA to try to treat each as a separate species. Nevertheless, I think it is 
wise to do so, as much as possible, to avoid the fertility reduction and 
other problems that were so common before we started doing it.

Sermon Mode <OFF>

Flame Shield <UP>

Wright

-- 
Wright Huntley -- 650 843-1240 -- 866 Clara Dr. Palo Alto CA 94303

Ask of politicians the ends for which laws were originally designed, and 
they will answer that laws were designed as a protection for the poor and 
weak (...) but surely no pretence can be so ridiculous(...). -- Edmund 
Burke, A Vindication of Natural Society, 1756


---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm