Edited by Rainbowrunner, 10 September 2013 - 02:18 PM.
Elassoma gilberti or evergladei (split from a longer topic)
Started by
Guest_EricaLyons_*
, Sep 09 2013 07:08 PM
43 replies to this topic
#21
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 02:04 PM
Ok, i'm looking into this. Lets see If it's even possible for E. evergladei to consistently have 7 anal fin rays instead of the usual 5.
#22
Guest_Dustin_*
Guest_Dustin_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:26 PM
Where does it say that okefenokee have 8 anal rays? In the original description, the predominant number is 7, same as gilberti.
Erica, is it possible to take some clearer photos of the anal rays? I really want Rainbowrunner to be correct. I assume he sold the fish to you. The overall coloration and snout(in my experience) look like evergladei, but the proof is in the pudding. I have caught a lot of okefenokee over the years and never seen even juveniles with the golden flecks, but I certainly have not seen them all. The golden flecked evergladei are not terribly common either so I suppose there could be some out there. The theory that the gold turns to blue as the fish ages is interesting. I'm not sure what the evolutionary advantage of this would be. I wish you would keep the fish for a couple of months just to document this if it happens.
Erica, is it possible to take some clearer photos of the anal rays? I really want Rainbowrunner to be correct. I assume he sold the fish to you. The overall coloration and snout(in my experience) look like evergladei, but the proof is in the pudding. I have caught a lot of okefenokee over the years and never seen even juveniles with the golden flecks, but I certainly have not seen them all. The golden flecked evergladei are not terribly common either so I suppose there could be some out there. The theory that the gold turns to blue as the fish ages is interesting. I'm not sure what the evolutionary advantage of this would be. I wish you would keep the fish for a couple of months just to document this if it happens.
#23
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:33 PM
Where does it say that okefenokee have 8 anal rays? In the original description, the predominant number is 7, same as gilberti.
Erica, is it possible to take some clearer photos of the anal rays? I really want Rainbowrunner to be correct. I assume he sold the fish to you. The overall coloration and snout(in my experience) look like evergladei, but the proof is in the pudding. I have caught a lot of okefenokee over the years and never seen even juveniles with the golden flecks, but I certainly have not seen them all. The golden flecked evergladei are not terribly common either so I suppose there could be some out there. The theory that the gold turns to blue as the fish ages is interesting. I'm not sure what the evolutionary advantage of this would be. I wish you would keep the fish for a couple of months just to document this if it happens.
Attached Files
-
ScreenHunter_35 Sep. 10 092.JPG 45.49KB
0 downloads
#24
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 04:42 PM
After much digging, IT IS possible for FREAK populations of E. evergladei to possess 7 anal fin rays !! So I admit the possibility of defeat (*sobs*)
Attached Files
-
ScreenHunter_35 Sep. 10 17.28.jpg 34.4KB
4 downloads
#25
Guest_Joshaeus_*
Guest_Joshaeus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:16 PM
Instead of giving away the evrgladei, couldn't you simply keep them in another tank?
#26
Guest_Dustin_*
Guest_Dustin_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 05:22 PM
I am certainly in no position to question Dr. Snelson but Dr. Boehlke's original description shows that okees usually have 7 anal fin rays. I may well be misinterpreting it though. I wonder if maybe the okees that Dr. Snelson examined came from a different population.
I believe 'orlandicus' may have eventually become okefenokee and the article you are referencing may be pre-evergladei. Again, I may be mistaken.
I believe 'orlandicus' may have eventually become okefenokee and the article you are referencing may be pre-evergladei. Again, I may be mistaken.
#27
Guest_gerald_*
Guest_gerald_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 09:55 PM
Those look like evergladei to me too. Just as nice as gilberti, same dance, males are maybe a little more tolerant of each other than in other Elassoma species, so multiple males can be in color in a smaller space than gilberti. BTW Snelson was also the guy who wrote the Cape Fear shiner description!
#28
Guest_EricaLyons_*
Guest_EricaLyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 10 September 2013 - 10:51 PM
Yeah, he's really coolThose look like evergladei to me too. Just as nice as gilberti, same dance, males are maybe a little more tolerant of each other than in other Elassoma species, so multiple males can be in color in a smaller space than gilberti. BTW Snelson was also the guy who wrote the Cape Fear shiner description!
By the way I have absolutely no idea what is up with anal fin rays. This is a picture of my previous population of Elassoma gilberti. I brought this up on pages 37 and 38 of this topic, beginning in post 940 ( http://forum.nanfa.o...4177#entry94177 ) how I couldn't help but count nine. http://gallery.nanfa...gmy sunfish.jpg
This is a picture on the Elassoma evergladei page on fishbase that is © Dr. Jörg Vierke. I think I'm allowed to link you to the fishbase page, that's not violating the copyright. Here's the link: http://www.fishbase....63&win=uploaded
I count seven, as I agree I count seven on the fish in my tank right now.
Yeah, I have no idea how anal fin rays work. Like I said I'm no expert in identification. I definitely don't know what the official way is to count anal fin rays.
#29
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:29 AM
When you do, post the link here. Not everyone here is proficient at nanfagation.
#30
Guest_EricaLyons_*
Guest_EricaLyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 08:53 AM
lol. Here's the link: http://forum.nanfa.o...lberti-round-2/When you do, post the link here. Not everyone here is proficient at nanfagation.
#31
Guest_fritz_*
Guest_fritz_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:11 AM
OK here's my 2 cents. Photos 395 and 525 are evergladei based on the snout, caudal peduncle depth, overall body shape and coloration. Is it possible that both it and gilberti were in the shipment?
Anal fin counts can be highly variable. Boehlke's count of (6)7 for okefenokee and (4)5 for evergladei were from a total of 8 specimens collected at the type locality. Snelson et al counted rays on 124 gilberti and 70 okefenokee. A difference of 1 ray is insignificant given the "wide" range both have (6-9 and 7-9). NC evergladei typically have 5 anal rays.
Coloration in evergladei can differ widely across its range.
That's why it's only 2 cents. I was not definitive.
Anal fin counts can be highly variable. Boehlke's count of (6)7 for okefenokee and (4)5 for evergladei were from a total of 8 specimens collected at the type locality. Snelson et al counted rays on 124 gilberti and 70 okefenokee. A difference of 1 ray is insignificant given the "wide" range both have (6-9 and 7-9). NC evergladei typically have 5 anal rays.
Coloration in evergladei can differ widely across its range.
That's why it's only 2 cents. I was not definitive.
#32
Guest_gerald_*
Guest_gerald_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:39 AM
Take more pics after their colors have darkened a bit. And of course look for the blue marginal bands on the fins that only okee/gilb males have. If the fin iridescence is mainly in the basal half of the fins, and not along the margin, that points to evergladei.
#33
Guest_gerald_*
Guest_gerald_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 09:42 AM
Hey Matt & other moderators -- Aren't we ID-ing wild-caught fish in an aquarium here?
#34
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
Guest_Doug_Dame_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:20 AM
Hey Matt & other moderators -- Aren't we ID-ing wild-caught fish in an aquarium here?
I wish I'd said that.
But in this case I think we're trying to confirm/refute a previously made ID on fish purchased from an internet business.
(My understanding of Florida law is that wild-caught fish become "aquaculture" essentially as soon as they're housed at the aquaculture facility, and are no longer considered wild-caught. That doesn't necessarily apply to how we want to interpret such nuances on the NANFA Forums, of course. Disclaimer: I don't sell fish precisely because I don't want to have to deal with any administrivia-nuisances, so I have never needed to become especially familiar with these kinds of regulations. )
#35
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 11 September 2013 - 10:39 AM
Yes Gerald, we technically are. But I think we have utilized the "purchased fish" loophole in the past to confirm feeder stow aways. And I feel comfortable that this identification is not encouraging any inappropriate collection behavior.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#36
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:33 PM
(My understanding of Florida law is that wild-caught fish become "aquaculture" essentially as soon as they're housed at the aquaculture facility, and are no longer considered wild-caught.
That interpretation reminds me of the wet-foot/dry-foot policy. Maybe in the eyes of the law, but in the eyes of science a wild caught specimen is a wild caught specimen regardless of current accommodations. Just like a cuban on american soil is still a cuban.
(My understanding of Florida law is that wild-caught fish become "aquaculture" essentially as soon as they're housed at the aquaculture facility, and are no longer considered wild-caught. That doesn't necessarily apply to how we want to interpret such nuances on the NANFA Forums, of course. Disclaimer: I don't sell fish precisely because I don't want to have to deal with any administrivia-nuisances, so I have never needed to become especially familiar with these kinds of regulations. )
The Florida resident fish dealers license allows the sale of aquacultured OR wild caught fish, provided of course the fish are not restricted from possession or were not collected in violation of the Lacey act. This original thread titled simply "Elassoma gilberti" by Erica Lyons seems an ideal forum for discussing the identification of an Elassoma specie suspected to be E. gilberti. The fact that the fish may have been purchased from an internet business or Mickey Mouse for that matter would seem to be irrelevant. As does the wild-caught/aquacultured nature of said fish.
#37
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 01:45 PM
Yes Gerald, we technically are. But I think we have utilized the "purchased fish" loophole in the past to confirm feeder stow aways. And I feel comfortable that this identification is not encouraging any inappropriate collection behavior.
Agreed. The information in this post seems very on-topic to me. This was just a freak occurrence where a fish that normally has 5 anal rays had 7 and caused it to be misidentified. IMO Inappropriate collecting activity should be shouldered more by the irresponsible/ignorant collectors themselves and LESS by nanfa members whom excercize freedom of speech.
It's a shame, it feels like one wrong post will cause people in droves to go collect hundreds of P. welaka and take them home to feed their oscar. I find it absurd that we have to censor ourselves, what about the degradation of our freshwater ecosystem on statewide scales (as in Alabama) where whole ecosystems are siltated by clay sediment for hundreds of miles killing EVERYTHING in route. And we're worried about a few fools accidentally collecting a dozen or so threatened species?? Give me a break.
#38
Guest_Dustin_*
Guest_Dustin_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:29 PM
While I agree with your overall sentiment, we still have to behave ourselves and act in a responsible and ethical manner. The reason we typically ask for streamside photos of fish submitted for identification is that there is always a chance that someone could inadvertantly remove a threatened or endangered species. While the removal of a few fish is not likely, in most circumstances, to affect the health of a species in the least, it is still illegal and unethical and goes against NANFA's mission statement. We are here to educate the general public and enjoy the fellowship of likeminded people in regards to our natives beauties. There have been way too many examples in various groups over the years where one bad apple has ruined the bunch even when the act in question was trivial. We make every effort to not let that happen here, especially when it involves people that should know better.
#39
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:42 PM
Well Rainbowrunner, the rule is in place to encourage and remind people of the importance and the legal responsibility that we all have to not remove any thing from the wild unless we are sure of what it is. In this case, it is clear that Erica did not do that.
In most other cars there could be some confusion or doubt so a simple version of the identification policy is in place here for the forum. Our responsibility to obey the law and encourage our membership to also do so is the primary concern here.
Edit: sorry I appear to have responded late here. Dustin has already summed it up nicely.
In most other cars there could be some confusion or doubt so a simple version of the identification policy is in place here for the forum. Our responsibility to obey the law and encourage our membership to also do so is the primary concern here.
Edit: sorry I appear to have responded late here. Dustin has already summed it up nicely.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#40
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
Guest_Rainbowrunner_*
-
- Guests
Posted 11 September 2013 - 02:54 PM
Well Rainbowrunner, the rule is in place to encourage and remind people of the importance and the legal responsibility that we all have to not remove any thing from the wild unless we are sure of what it is. In this case, it is clear that Erica did not do that.
I agree, i believe erica has zero culpibility in this matter. Nor does the person whom collected the fish in the first place, since no Elassoma species are considered endangered or threatened in FL.
So, frankly, I don't see where ANY legal or ethical boundary was crossed or even approached. If there was a protected species of Elassoma that COULD have possibly been collected due to an incorrect ID, that's another story, but the bottom line is a threatened or endangered fish was never at risk of being collected. Period.
No irresponsible act had occurred. Simply put, a non-protected fish was mistaken for another non-protected fish. And reasonably so, if you had read the difficulty of the idetification process of said fish which required numerous photos, 5 opinions and an opinion from a PHD holding specialist in the field of this particular genus, so I think an amatuer collector would be completely lost altogether. But the knowledge that no species of elassoma are protected would have been an exonerating factor. And proving what someone does or does not know can be difficult, but not in this case.
If the actual GENUS was in question, that would be different, but it never was, so it's a non-issue.
Edited by Rainbowrunner, 11 September 2013 - 03:06 PM.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
