Fish on cover of Peterson's Guide

They are more common than one would think. Both Natural and aquacultured. I have to say also though I have really only seen a handful myself, most of these being Pumpkinseed x bluegill or redear x bluegill. despite having a lot of Green suns around where I'm at, I have seen very few that even qualify for a second look as a hybrid.

Hybrid shiners are the things we see a lot of around here. I have seen some really strange hybrids in this regard.

Greens aren't common where I live, or in the state in general. Natureserve does not even list them in my watershed though I know they are here. The only other lepomis in my watershed are pumpkinseed and bluegill, both very common but again...never seen a hybrid. Not even in small farm ponds, though I'm sure if I actually looked for one I might.

Do you have any pictures of the hybrid shiners?

I'm glad the older version of the book tells you that. There is no such description in the 1991 edition, at least not that I can find. A glaring omission, IMHO.
I have wondered why there are so many paintings in the various books, instead of photographs. Thanks for the explanation!

I second guessed myself on that the cover photo had credits on the inside of the book somewhere. Well guess what I thought for sure I read them but now I cannot find it either. I will look somemore but I could swear that I saw credit and type of species somewhere in that old editon I have.

I have a pretty old one in a box somewhere, i will look and see if they credit that photo and list species

Do you have any pictures of the hybrid shiners?

A couple from my freak's gallery, but not from Michigan:

SRBD x Striped shiner: http://nomy.org/nanf...inidae/hybrids/

White x Hogsucker: http://nomy.org/nanf...hybrid.jpg.html

I just looked at the preserved specimen of the sucker today moving it from formalin to alcohol finally. Weird. Cavender said it was a white sucker because of the increasing scale size. It's the most deformed white sucker I've ever seen. Not to mention it maintains characteristics like the speckled things in the dorsal fin and a concave inter-orbit grove (that the right word for the line between the eyes? )

I've got a SRBD x redfin shiner here too that Skipjack Matt gave me, but I've yet to photograph it. I've also been wanting to get up into Michigan along the edge of the stoneroller distribution to see if they're getting their stuff mixed up with the Luxilus or Semotilus. That's probably a lot of what Brooklamprey is referring to.

Todd

I've got a SRBD x redfin shiner here too that Skipjack Matt gave me, but I've yet to photograph it. I've also been wanting to get up into Michigan along the edge of the stoneroller distribution to see if they're getting their stuff mixed up with the Luxilus or Semotilus. That's probably a lot of what Brooklamprey is referring to.

Todd

I'm still a skeptic on this whole hybrid question (as some of you may have noticed...). How are you sure that you have a Q x Z hybrid cyprinid unless you observed the interspecific spawning it in your tanks? There's always going to be a range of variation within a species from both genetic and environmental influences (yeah, I'll invoke epigenetics). A small percentage of individuals will always have the wrong lateral line scale count, or 2 too few anal rays, or some other meristic violation. I know that various centrarchid forms have been "created" and released in various places, it seems that Ohio is ground-zero for that in North America from what's posted on this board. But are we really dealing with hybrid minnow swarms in a wide range of streams? Maybe I've lead a sheltered life and that's really the case, inquiring minds want to know.

I know that various centrarchid forms have been "created" and released in various places, it seems that Ohio is ground-zero for that in North America from what's posted on this board.

Remember that we are living on an "edge" here in Ohio and Michigan. We've had our slate run completely clean, and invasions from the south, west and north, let alone, that we have modified this area 100% from how we found it. If you look in the literature, you'll see plenty of evidence of female selected hybridization in Lepomis along gradients where one sympatric species population is lower than another. I just post a couple citations in Matt's "Those who dispute hybrids" thread.

I also saw an interesting article on a study done in Georgia where you've had stable landscape, where while rare, hybridization among Lepomis is still present, as systems, climate, etc are ever changing.

Perhaps what needs to change is the absolute vernacular. What is a species? What is a hybrid? If we go down that road, without statistics, you wouldn't be able to determine one or the other, which is what I think is the nuance that fuels this discussion.

Which comes back to another question.... Can you prove a hypothesis?

It's this entanglement between "conversation" and "science" that proves to be a pain in the ---.

Todd

The hybrid types we tend to find up here in the North part of the Detroit river are primarily Luxilus X Nocomis and Luxilus X Notropis . There are not "swarms" of them.. but they do show up with enough frequency to consider not rare.

I have not actually photographed or preserved any of these fish as they are more or less a passing curiosity and not really a focus of my work.. This year I do hope to document them as part of the Belle Isle fish survey work I will be conducting.

Well I'm not saying it's a pure bluegill, I'm saying it's a hybrid.

The fish is a green sunfish. Why all the belaboring this?

Dave McNeely

The fish is a green sunfish. Why all the belaboring this?

Dave McNeely

To answer your question Dave, many of us here are still learning to identify fish, this type of discussion is important to our education. We would all hope that others like yourself, professionals, will help us to become more efficient at fish identification.
Please expound on why you believe this to be 100% green, and enlighten the rest of us. Otherwise your post seems rather condescending.

To answer your question Dave, many of us here are still learning to identify fish, this type of discussion is important to our education. We would all hope that others like yourself, professionals, will help us to become more efficient at fish identification.
Please expound on why you believe this to be 100% green, and enlighten the rest of us. Otherwise your post seems rather condescending.

I agree, I don't see how that post was in anyway useful. If you believe it to be a pure green please tell us why because I'm not seeing it

I want to put my two cents in here as well. I believe the camera angle is to blame here. The angle in this photo is so bad I honestly don't have a photo to compare since I'd delete such an angle right away. We also have no clue how this photo was produced.

I'll admit I found it was an odd selection of a green sunfish for an ID book but I'd call this green. The head/body shape and mouth are all wrong if you don't take into account the possibility of glass/angle distorting the image. I also know all here HAVE taken distortion into consideration but factors we may not be aware of are more likely to exist on the photograph side of the equation than a hybrid fish used on the cover of a widely distributed ID book.

IMHO the hybrid stuff is a bit out of control here. I must give the benefit of the doubt to odds and odds alone on this one and the fact this fish just plain old looks like a green sunfish at a poor camera angle.

 peterson_guide_freshwater_fish.jpg   63.41KB   0 downloads

I'd say you're right, Uland. Your juxtaposition of the cover photo and another, cleaner photo is good too because the similarity of caudal peduncles on the two fish is obvious; i.e., both photos show the typical elongation of greens compared to bluegills.

Sorry, but I cannot honestly look at the two photos and not notice that the mouth on the fish from petersons is close to half the size of the other fish. The photo may be distorting it somewhat, but look at the difference.

Sorry, but I cannot honestly look at the two photos and not notice that the mouth on the fish from petersons is close to half the size of the other fish. The photo may be distorting it somewhat, but look at the difference.

Same, the mouth is much smaller on the Peterson fish. I know it could be camera angle but I don't think that's it.

I should have added that I guess the fish in the photo is an old large fish. We know monster specimens look quite unlike the average adult fish. In the two links you'll see these fish are rather large and resemble a greengill in the fact that they have a body shape and mouth size a little uncharacteristic of a usual adult (non monster) sunfish.

http://az.water.usgs...nfishcrop.jpeg
http://www.watershed.....20FWS JAH.JPG

I'm am 100% convinced that the fish on the cover is a hybrid and I think these three new pictures only point it out even better. Look closely at all three of the pictures just posted, the mouth of those fish all extend directly below the eye of the fish and the cover picture does not. Also even the two very large ones do not have as steep of a forhead as the fish on the cover. Also every green sunfish I have seen has blue/green thin vermiculations on the cheek and the three new pics posted do and the cover picture does not.

It sure looks like green all the way too me except possibly the mouth. But the quality of the photo may well be clouding the actual size of the mouth. Look at the area from the edge of the mouth to the dark spot somewhat below the eye it is blurry enough to cover the further extension of the jaw. The whole fish is covered with blurred splotches so I think this is a possible explanation of the mouth appearing to be too small.

It does seem too easy to assume hyrid considering the variabilty often found in a species.

I appreciate Dave's experience in IDing fish and certainly would benefit from the professionals out there educating us eyeballers. The times I've really paid attention to meristic analysis seems to lead to very sound and clear identification in most cases. My experience as a student frequently wore at my teachers patience. I probably have not changed all that much
Mike

I still say these fish have quite similar mouth sizes.

I really wish I could add this link into below photo and compare.

 aagreen_petersons.jpg   63.79KB   0 downloads

Well, I came across two photos I snapped within a minute of one another. The subject is the same fish (Grass pickerel).
 magicpickerel.JPG   49.75KB   0 downloads

I'm glad the older version of the book tells you that. There is no such description in the 1991 edition, at least not that I can find. A glaring omission, IMHO.
I have wondered why there are so many paintings in the various books, instead of photographs. Thanks for the explanation!

Just to add a bit since you commented, and I like sharing info. When using digital these days photoshop has color palets on the right of the work space. Those color pallets allow you to choose colors that will be used on the net or they allow you to use colors that are "in gamut" meaning that a four color press will recognize the colors you chose in photoshop. So in gamut is the word, and when they paint like I said Peterson did when he was alive they choose colors that are "in gamut" meaning colors a four or five color press can reprocuce with some degree of accuracy. Much better accuracy than a photo now or when film was used. Now all you Graphic Artist feel free to correct me all you want. But I believe that is the order of things in this digital age.