[Killietalk] Re: Sanctioned naming conventions? Proposal?

["Kenneth Combs" <KCombs at mergerx_net>]

I'm afraid the original msg was too long. A important part got cut off.
Thanks for reading and sifting through the remaining lengthy post: 
Tyrone was thoughtful enough to do so, and responded:

>It is exactly this type of mentality that is driving old stand bys like
Simp. constancea, >Pach. playfairi, a myriad of gardneri and striatum
strains from the hobby to name just a >few......
>They are the best beginners fish and by no means should they be
disadvantaged in >comparason to new imports simply because they do not
have a location code.

It's not a "mentality", it's an idea that suggest a Paradigm shift away
from heavy dependence on Linnaeus...I luv the Latin also, but I'm
suggesting academic emphasis has it's pitfalls in a trade dependent
"Hobbyist Venue", esp. if the less academic amongst us has access to
genetically sensitive fish ("sensitive" from a conservation aspect). In
that vein, a sanctioning body isn't all that "hair brained" IMO, nor is
de facto enforcement by market forces (using "trade friendly" names with
a "pedigree" attribute attached)... personally because of the above
issues, I give fish away, but that's me... 

Tyrone continued:
>Location names and codes have been corrupted many times in the past and
continue to be
>corrupted. Some are corrupted beyond rescue by poor handwriting passed
down several
>keepers or plain accidental fish/label mix-ups. We have had disasters
in the past but we >recover quite well.

I disagree (as a longtime respectful reader of all your
post)....Especially since there is some emphasis on "responsibility" and
"conservation", again this is a hobbyist venue,not a scientific one. We
cannot in fact "recover" if the genetics of a extirpated fish gets
"questionable". I don't have a firm answer, just pointing out the flaws
when science and hobby collide under the guise of conservation...My
proposal has flaws, so I was kind of looking for ideas to build upon...

>The disasters happen and the disasters are largely fixed because the
current system works >well within the current framework we keep killies
in....

Thing is, you can't actually undue genetic mix ups, I was only
suggesting a "registry" as a alternate impetus to mitigate disasters (if
we insist on mixing "conservation" into a informal hobby). Nor can we
say for certain if the current informal "system" works per se, so I'm
just suggesting a ways to support it. I could be wrong. 
If everyone insist on the status quo, then I'm suggesting we at least
re-adjust our mentality with regard to the "conservation" and
responsibility aspects of this hobby. IMO, conservation gets sorted when
money & hobby is involved...
I see many AKA members list their pairs all at $7, I support that idea,
however I never see the N&R go for such prices (under the guise to
recover cost for obtaining N&R fish). If all the fish regardless of
"pedigree" are the same price, I can agree with Tyrone's point...If not,
perhaps we need a new "driver" to actually increase stratification price
wise amongst all potentially traded fish OR have all fish be the same
price regardless of origin. 
I was thinking that a force that drives prices similar to what we see in
sanctioned/registered dogs and cats could be the "driver"...Granted
endangered fish "isn't" a dog or cat. Question is: Can "price" provide
incentive to maintain genetic integrity? Perhaps the breeder AKA #
should be attached to sales...I don't know, but a rethinking of how we
name fish (those not intended to be pickled) could help...
Pardon another long  post, it's a sorted complex matter..economy of
words escapes me..
Ken
Ken_combs at sbcglobal.net





To join the AKA see http://www.aka.org/pages/join.html
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/