Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

satinfin reach

Started by FishyJackson , Jul 17 2017 09:27 PM

Prev

Please log in to reply

25 replies to this topic

#21 Matt DeLaVega

Forum Staff

Ohio

Posted 08 August 2019 - 01:43 PM

Micro fishing and life listing have brought a lot of very observant individuals into the native fish world. It really is great to see more anglers who just aren't satisfied with "bream" or sucker.

The member formerly known as Skipjack

Back to top

#22 JasonL

NANFA Member

Kentucky

Posted 08 August 2019 - 02:10 PM

So dorsal fin pigmentation and 9 anal fin rays can be seen with N. hudsonius? Or are we calling this some sort of unspecified variant?

Back to top

#23 FishyJackson

NANFA Member

Long Island

Posted 08 August 2019 - 02:50 PM

So dorsal fin pigmentation and 9 anal fin rays can be seen with N. hudsonius? Or are we calling this some sort of unspecified variant?

Perhaps each individual N. hudsonius is an unspecified variant? Makes as much sense as anything else with this species.

Back to top

#24 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 08 August 2019 - 04:14 PM

Falling off scales if not very Cyprinella but is very common for some southern variants of N. hudsonius

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

Back to top

#25 Matt DeLaVega

Forum Staff

Ohio

Posted 08 August 2019 - 06:34 PM

Perhaps each individual N. hudsonius is an unspecified variant? Makes as much sense as anything else with this species.

BTW, when you counted anal rays, did you count the first short spine or not?

The member formerly known as Skipjack

Back to top

#26 FishyJackson

NANFA Member

Long Island

Posted 08 August 2019 - 08:30 PM

BTW, when you counted anal rays, did you count the first short spine or not?

I started with the first long one but I wasn't too confident in that aspect of the ID because it was blurry back half of the fin. More just thought it was plausible there were 9 rays and the dorsal pigment put it over the top.

But twas just a good old fashioned Shortnose Shiner.