Jump to content


Photo

ny fish


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 09 July 2018 - 10:24 PM

Drove to Buffalo from LI saturday morning and made a bunch of stops along the way, then drove back sunday afternoon around 1, so time wasnt plentiful.  Not much went well.  It was a mistake to go to so many stops, wasted way too much time before getting to buffalo area, majority of those spots were a real waste.  Ended up running out of time when I was finally in a great spot sunday, and we foolishly let the worms get overheated and die when I really needed a fresh worm at the end.  We lost my fishing bag sunday morning leaving a spot, had basically all of my gear in there, twas a real crushing blown.    

 

out of the 8 below ID questions for the board

 

 

1) Location: Park Creek (Susquehanna River trib): Creek Chub on left, and 2 Fallfish on right? 

Attached File  20180707_092458_Moment-1.jpg   66.22KB   1 downloads

 

 

2) Location: Flint Creek (Oswego River drainage): small Fallfish, and an adult Fallfish?  

Attached File  20180707_141959_Moment-1.jpg   155.32KB   1 downloads

Attached File  20180707_143439_Moment(2)-1.jpg   107.93KB   2 downloads

 

 

3) Black Creek: Spottail? Sand Shiner maybe?

Attached File  20180707_173912_Moment-1.jpg   39.84KB   1 downloads

Attached File  20180707_173945_Moment-1.jpg   43.37KB   1 downloads

 

 

4) Black Creek:  There's potentially 6 or 7 Darter species in this area so figured I had a new Darter here, but reality hit that night that they are probably just simple Tessellated Darters.  Any chance it's Johnny Darter? Unfortunately the pics are not good.  I caught 2 of these and they were extremely small, but super aggressive.  I literally had like 50 chances to hook one, they kept going at the bait until hooked.   

Attached File  20180707_174221_Moment-1.jpg   21.91KB   1 downloads

Attached File  20180707_174221_Moment(2)-1.jpg   28.46KB   1 downloads

 

 

5) Cazenovia Creek: Was hoping it was a Striped Shiner, but is this just a regular old run of the mill Common Shiner?

Attached File  20180708_120931_Moment-1.jpg   52.74KB   1 downloads

 

 

6) Cazenovia Creek: Sand Shiner? 

Attached File  20180708_131427_Moment-1.jpg   65.55KB   1 downloads

 

 

7) Both of these River Chubs??  

Attached File  20180708_120113_Moment(2)-1.jpg   72.74KB   1 downloads

 Attached File  20180708_122217_Moment-1.jpg   90.58KB   0 downloads

 

 

 

 

Bluntnose with no Blue Horn spots on snout.  Bluntnose didnt even cross my mind on the first fish below until later that night, when I realized there is basically nothing else this could be but a Bluntnoser. 

Attached File  20180707_170035_Moment-1.jpg   82.95KB   1 downloads

 

This pic below is a Bluntnose I later caught in Buffalo area, in the form that I'd thought they always looked like.

Attached File  20180708_121812_Moment-1.jpg   97.12KB   1 downloads

 

 

 

Invasives 

 

Lower Niagara River spot: Round Gobies- Just thought this was interesting.  Every description I've read for these creatures states they have the distinctive blak spot on dorsal, but I caught a few like the one on the right with no distinctive spot on dorsal.  I didnt realize just how insane the Round Goby invasion is.  This is terrible for the fish community.  Every worm that hits the bottom near shore gets instantly hit by these things.  There are millions of them it seems.

Attached File  20180708_064537_Moment-1.jpg   102.8KB   1 downloads

Attached File  20180708_072221_Moment-1.jpg   69.46KB   0 downloads

 

 

Lake Erie spot: Got another invasive fish: Rudd-  I thought it was a school of some kind of Redhorse suckers or something like that, there were about 15 of them at this spot.  

Attached File  20180708_101742_Moment.jpg   192.13KB   1 downloads



#2 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 10 July 2018 - 05:51 AM

Epic day, even if it had more downs than ups. Just keep in mind the old travel maxim that oftentimes the worse the trip, the better the stories and memories! (Doesn't replace your creel, though, huh?) Can't much help you with many of them, but I am pretty certain #4 are Round Gobies.
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#3 gerald

gerald
  • Global Moderator
  • Wake Forest, North Carolina

Posted 10 July 2018 - 07:53 AM

1)  yes creek chub (dorsal spot); other two could be either creek chub or fallfish - too blurry to be sure. 

2)  yes fallfish

3)  i dont think its spottail or sand; maybe bluntnose?

4)  agree with matt:  gobies

5)  could be common or a striped with stripes faded

6)  ???

7)  yes Nocomis; is river the only one in that area?


Gerald Pottern
-----------------------
Hangin' on the Neuse
"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages" - M.Sandel


#4 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 10 July 2018 - 08:30 AM

wow agree now they're Round Gobies.  That is nuts.   Explains why they were insanely aggressive.  This was pretty far from Lake Erie/Ontario, didnt expect they would be that far east.  This is absolutely terrible for the ecosystem, the Darters and such are screwed.  

 

Gerald- For #3, the fish I caught right before that fish was the Bluntnose without the Blue spots on snout.  But that could be explained due to the blue spots having to do with mating.  But the fish in #3 has no spot on the dorsal fin.  I dont see anything on the internet saying Bluntnose sometimes lack that spot.  

 

For #7, the only other Nocomis potentially there is Hornyhead Chub



#5 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 10 July 2018 - 10:17 AM

The Fishy Wonder himself may have actually came through with an ID here boys....

 

#6) Sand Shiner for the win?

 

Found the below from this link: https://dnr.wi.gov/t...singMinnows.pdf

 

dark pigment spots abv & blw l.l. pores yielding a “railroad track” appearance

 

 

I see railroad track



#6 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 10 July 2018 - 10:22 AM

actually I see railroad track markings for #3 also...



#7 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 10 July 2018 - 10:40 AM

wait hold up, amended prediction for #3 before I get back to work: Mimic Shiner.  The markings are not as railroad trackish as #6.  This fish was in the bucket overnight and I documented it again in the morning and the markings had faded.  Can post a pic of that later if necessary

 

So #3 Mimic, #6 Sand.  Hopefully a knowledgeable Nanfa ID Warrior can confirm these with around 85% confidence.  



#8 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 11 July 2018 - 02:16 PM

aiht it's a new day.  Just tried to come in with a fresh new take on these 3 outstanding ID's.  Need to turn the page on this trip and move on lol.  Freshy Jackson would like to apologize for once again needing ID's of basic looking minnows.  Had the trip not gone so poorly and fish like Drum, Suckers, Darters, etc were caught...I wouldve spared the forum of this and just let it go with these.    

 

 

3) I dont know why I thought this was Mimic yesterday.  It is not Mimic.  However, I really don't know what it is or if it's same species as #6.  

 

5) I see now that I should have taken a  pic of the top of the head to see if the scales were all bunched up or not.  From that pic, a little bit of the top of the head is visible and there appears to be evidence of the scales bunching up a little bit, but I'm not sure if that's true bunching up or not.  Hopefully someone can tell by looking at that.  

 

6) This is either Sand Shiner or Bigeye Chub.  I can't see it being anything else but one of those.  Just not sure if I'm actually looking at railroad track markings or not lol

 

 

Leaning Common Shiner for #5 and Sand Shiner for #6.  #3 is a puzzle but seems solvable.   So yea I dont know dudes, hopefully someone can clear these up at some point this week



#9 gerald

gerald
  • Global Moderator
  • Wake Forest, North Carolina

Posted 11 July 2018 - 05:15 PM

I keep going back to bluntnose for #3.  yes it doesn't have much pigment in the dorsal fin, but it does have some, and the head-body shape and slope of the dorsal fin looks right.   Could #6 perhaps be a young common shiner?  (I've never seen sand shiner, so my opinion may be worthless on that one).


Gerald Pottern
-----------------------
Hangin' on the Neuse
"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages" - M.Sandel


#10 JasonL

JasonL
  • NANFA Member
  • Kentucky

Posted 12 July 2018 - 12:09 AM

FWIW (not much) on #3 bluntnose was the first thing I thought of before reading the other comments. At least here in KY they usually have some pigment near the base of the dorsal fin but I've caught some specimens where it is very subtle if present at all. Not sure it is an absolute requirement per se if everything else matches up.

#11 mattknepley

mattknepley
  • NANFA Member
  • Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 12 July 2018 - 05:57 AM

Make no apologies on the "ordinary looking minnows", Fishy. They get the best of us (whom I am most certainly not...) They're kind of akin to sparrows for birders; some of 'em are fairly easy to tell, but a lot of 'em are always gonna by LBJs. (little brown jobs; the birder term for generic-looking sparrowesque birds...)
Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#12 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 12 July 2018 - 07:36 AM

thanks Gerald/Jason for helping clear this up.  Not the ID's I wanted to hear, especially with #6.  Ouch.  

 

Matt- It also doesn't help that the official descriptions of some of these fish aren't even accurate.  I do not believe there is a single mention anywhere that Bluntnose Minnows can sometimes not have the dorsal pigment, or barely visible if it's there at all.  Though I shouldn't be so surprised because I saw no mention that Round Gobies can lack the dorsal pigment as well, and I caught a few with no pigment there.  

 

I actually remember railing against the fish describers a year or 2 ago, on here I think, can't remember which fish it was.  It might be time to take action now, this has gone too far.  



#13 gerald

gerald
  • Global Moderator
  • Wake Forest, North Carolina

Posted 12 July 2018 - 01:21 PM

Many ID keys are based on entirely on preserved specimens, which generally have more consistent pigment (melanin at least; not the other colors) than live fish, which can turn pigment on and off quickly.  When they die (in formalin) the pigment goes back to its "normal" (preserved fish) state.  The best books describe live fish colors and how they differ from preserved ones, but the ID KEYS are still mainly based on preserved ones.


Gerald Pottern
-----------------------
Hangin' on the Neuse
"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages" - M.Sandel


#14 Matt DeLaVega

Matt DeLaVega
  • Board of Directors
  • Ohio

Posted 13 July 2018 - 04:53 AM

My $.02

 

1 creek chub, fallfish?

2 fallfish

3 bluntnose minnow

4 round goby

5 common shiner

6 bluntnose minnow

7 River chub


The member formerly known as Skipjack


#15 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:34 AM

Many ID keys are based on entirely on preserved specimens, which generally have more consistent pigment (melanin at least; not the other colors) than live fish, which can turn pigment on and off quickly.  When they die (in formalin) the pigment goes back to its "normal" (preserved fish) state.  The best books describe live fish colors and how they differ from preserved ones, but the ID KEYS are still mainly based on preserved ones.

 

This is exactly why we need to take action.  Describing preserved fish is cutting corners and just pure laziness



#16 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 13 July 2018 - 09:39 AM

My $.02

 

1 creek chub, fallfish?

2 fallfish

3 bluntnose minnow

4 round goby

5 common shiner

6 bluntnose minnow

7 River chub

 

 

lol figures #6 would be Bluntnose.  Why not at this point.  Who's to say that Fishy Jackson is not in fact a Bluntnose Minnow himself? 



#17 Doug_Dame

Doug_Dame
  • NANFA Member

Posted 13 July 2018 - 06:33 PM

 

This is exactly why we need to take action.  Describing preserved fish is cutting corners and just pure laziness

 

Well, let's be fair ... formal species descriptions are mostly done by professionals who study Fish In Bottles (FIB), for the use of other professionals who study Fish In Bottles. Peterson's is the primary ID tool for the rest of us.

 

There are probably 10 or 20 "species" that are pretty well known and have been around for multiple years, that nobody's written up yet, despite the glamor and fame of being able to name it yourself. (Within the constraints of many naming rules and norms, of course.)

 

I take the fact that the scientists aren't acting like Walmart shoppers on Black Friday to take advantage of these clear opportunities as evidence that the fame & glamor part may be exaggerated. 


Doug Dame

Floridian now back in Florida
 


#18 gerald

gerald
  • Global Moderator
  • Wake Forest, North Carolina

Posted 13 July 2018 - 06:54 PM

Doug is right:  descriptions from preserved specimens is NOT "just pure laziness" FJ -- it is a repeatable standard method used by museums around the world, because it allows fish collected in 2018 to be compared with fish from 1968 and 1828.   Good modern species descriptions do both: a detailed description of preserved specimens (mainly focused on measurable (meristic) features and dark pigments that last for centuries, and a decsription of color in living specimens.


Gerald Pottern
-----------------------
Hangin' on the Neuse
"Taxonomy is the diaper used to organize the mess of evolution into discrete packages" - M.Sandel


#19 FishyJackson

FishyJackson
  • NANFA Member
  • Long Island

Posted 18 July 2018 - 02:08 PM

Point taken guys, Fishy was mostly just bitter about driving hundreds of miles only to catch mostly just different looking, undescribed variations of the same fish that can be caught locally.  






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users