Elassoma gilberti or evergladei (split from a longer topic)

You are correct that there are no species of Elassoma, in Florida, that are protected. That's not to say that no species of Elassoma is protected because alabamae is a candidate for federal protection and it would certainly be unethical to remove these from the streams where they are found. This is not pertinent to this discussion though.

Just to be clear, there is no opinion here that Erica did anything wrong. The assumption is that she purchased fish from a licensed vendor and received fish which were not what she had expected. These species are difficult to distinguish, especially at a small size so it is understandable. There are certainly more identifying characteristics separating these fish than anal rays though so hopefully the original collector will read some of the comments of the experts that have posted here so that they may be able to more readily separate the two species in the future.

The streamside ID requirement is used when people go collecting and catch something that they are unfamiliar with and unsure of. If they can get to genus and then establish that there are no protected species found in their area in that genus then there are no issues. If they catch a silvery minnow and there are 2 protected or rare silvery minnows in the area, then they need to take a stream side photo and release the fish. We are looking for common sense to be used.

Totally valid point RR - you did your pre-collection homework and determined that there are no similar-looking protected fish that might occur in your collection area. If everybody did that, and explained why their unknown fish was definitely NOT a protected species, then NANFA moderators and board members would not be so twitchy about this issue of home-aquarium ID.

I created a new thread in the ID Assistance forum and would like to move posts # 1058 to this one (# 1066?) into that new thread. I'm brand new as a moderator and havent figured that out yet. Michael, Matt, Josh - can you help?

http://forum.nanfa.o...quaria-why-not/

Gerald, I will wait on Michael's and or Dustin's input here. I believe things have been explained rather well here. I am not sure what to do or if movement of the posts is needed. I also tend to agree that if people explained their situation as RR has done, then it could be taken more on a case by case basis. Sadly this usually does not happen, and it usually happens with overenthusiastic newer forum members. So we are forced to use the blanket of "no off stream ID's"

There's nothing wrong with moving the posts anyway. This bit of discussion has been fairly interesting and I think is worth preserving, but it's also rather tangential to the original topic and may not be of general interest. At the same time it would be easier to find for the few who are really interested in it if it weren't buried on page 53 of a topic on captive breeding. I say move to its own post.

I also vote that this be allowed. Nowhere near the line. Legally purchased from a licensed vendor is quite the opposite of wild caught. If the vendor took them from the wild, it's actually all the more important that they be properly identified by the end buyer. Even if (especially if) a protected species were involved, that's the minimum responsibility of the person receiving them I think. If you order something online, and receive something else that is endangered, several additional actions seem to be required, and a definitive ID is certainly one of them.