Good idea.



On the left is chrysocephalus, on the right is cornutus.

If I remember correctly, both were from the Sandusky drainage, might have even been the same tributary. Brian, if you're watching, was the common shiner from Honey Creek? That was Brian Z's photo. I'm 95% sure the striped shiner was from a ditch that was about 2 rm upstream from the mainstem of Honey Creek at Melmore.

You can see how much less distinctive chrysocephalus is in the Great Lakes drainages compared to the Ohio River basin, but I think this shows the difference.

Again, I didn't really see it in life until I had both species in the same tank, so that may be the most helpful. But hopefully this gets the ball rolling

Todd

That fish is actually from the other side of the state, in a trib of the Tuscarawas drainage. It was from a small stream that does have a lot of groundwater feed and has some forest but a lot of open farm fields too.

Well what do you think?

Looks like L. chrysocephalus to me.

Blake

Edited by blakemarkwell, 24 March 2009 - 10:49 PM.

In Todd's photos, I'm noticing a black region immediately posterior to the gill flap in the chrysocephalus. Is that indicative of the species?

Brian

Some of the larger male Stonerollers were looking pretty good and we seined quite a few plump females. I hope to see many more in the coming weeks.

Uland I would have to say I like the gray better on all of them so far... It just seems to bring out the best of both outlining the fins well and a more natural look to the colors of the fish.

That's even more amusing that Brian's common shiner is from the Ohio drainages. What makes this even more fun, I found out that the striped shiner is from the River Raisin in Michigan

That's a great photo because you don't have all the color in the way. Perhaps a nape shot from the dorsal view would help to clear it up even more.

Look at the compression on these scales, red vs green.



You don't see that on striped shiner.

So I looked into this a little more now that I'm with all my books. The big fat confusion seems to be related to Gilbert 1961 Copeia:181-92. He lumped all this as subspecies (including albeous) , however Lee et al. 1980 Atlas of NA Fishes even recognized the Gulf drainages as subspecies isolepis, which I'm glad we haven't had that enter this discussion lol.

The type for chrysocephalus is from Danville, KY and the type for cornutus is from the Walkill River, NY. There is perhaps more descriptive work necessary here, but for the time, you have to go with the currently accepted published hypothesis for the species.

Ergo, the description is the strongly "striped shiner" as the picture I gave from the Green River. Thus, on the rapid eyeball assessment, if you have compressed scales, you have a cornutus.

My argument is based on field observations where both occur, without hybridization, without intergradation, etc. It's time to break this cycle of misidentification.

Todd

In Todd's photos, I'm noticing a black region immediately posterior to the gill flap in the chrysocephalus. Is that indicative of the species?

Brian

Brian, both species get that when in color.

That's even more amusing that Brian's common shiner is from the Ohio drainages. What makes this even more fun, I found out that the striped shiner is from the River Raisin in Michigan

That's a great photo because you don't have all the color in the way. Perhaps a nape shot from the dorsal view would help to clear it up even more.

Look at the compression on these scales, red vs green.



You don't see that on striped shiner.

So I looked into this a little more now that I'm with all my books. The big fat confusion seems to be related to Gilbert 1961 Copeia:181-92. He lumped all this as subspecies (including albeous) , however Lee et al. 1980 Atlas of NA Fishes even recognized the Gulf drainages as subspecies isolepis, which I'm glad we haven't had that enter this discussion lol.

The type for chrysocephalus is from Danville, KY and the type for cornutus is from the Walkill River, NY. There is perhaps more descriptive work necessary here, but for the time, you have to go with the currently accepted published hypothesis for the species.

Ergo, the description is the strongly "striped shiner" as the picture I gave from the Green River. Thus, on the rapid eyeball assessment, if you have compressed scales, you have a cornutus.

My argument is based on field observations where both occur, without hybridization, without intergradation, etc. It's time to break this cycle of misidentification.

Todd

I really believe this is worthy of a new topic and I will start compiling data (photos and locations) so we can shake the fishes from the trees. Are you doing any unofficial or otherwise work on this Todd? Where do I send specimens?

I really believe this is worthy of a new topic and I will start compiling data (photos and locations) so we can shake the fishes from the trees. Are you doing any unofficial or otherwise work on this Todd? Where do I send specimens?

I think that's a great idea, and I'll try and round up the Gilbert article and other references. I think JSTOR goes back that far. What would be even more fun is to get specimens from the types localities. Are any of you guys in NY near the Walkill? I don't even know where that is at.

Todd

I It actually annoys me when looking through a state fishes book and I see a variety of backgrounds.
Blake

Well, Blake, unfortunately the new SC fish book will probably annoy you if you get one. I photo fish either with a gray or white background. But depending on ambient light or strobes used, the resultant background in the photo can range from white to bluish. When I tried to standardize them to one color, problems cropped with the transparent fins taking on an unusual tint. Also some of the photos used were from old days when I used by SLR and photo'd on a blue background.

Edited by fritz, 25 March 2009 - 03:29 PM.

Haha, Fritz, with pictures that good I think I will survive. I understand the use and advantage with using multiple colored backgrounds, in fact I do prefer some fish on a gray, blue, or black, I just can't bring myself to do it! Your photos are spectacular Fritz and I am sure the book is even better, you should start up a NANFA gallery, I would love to pan through all your images.

Blake

For the record, I prefer the grey background. However, I noticed you used the same specimen for the grey to black comparisons, but you did not actually use the same exposure for both so I am uncertain whether or not the difference is in the photo or the background.

Here in Ma, we only have the common shiner. There is no chance of hybrids. It has always frustrated me that virtually every reference for common shiner uses a breeding color specimen. The non-breeding individuals look much different from the fired up breeding fish. If anybody is interested, I can collect and attempt to photograph Ma common shiners at different times of season to create a base line for comparison.

Either way Uland, you have made the standard preserved photo from most field guides obsolete.

Sounds like yall had a good trip. As always, great photos! I figured I would add my 2 cents about the backgrounds also. I have always been a fan of black backgrounds, however, these photos are great. Having a side-by-side comparison is very nice. I must say that (to my eyes) the gray background is superior for natural fish colors, and ease to see the fin rays and margins. I have really enjoyed reading this thread - so much to catch up with on the forum when out of town for a while!

For the record, I prefer the grey background. However, I noticed you used the same specimen for the grey to black comparisons, but you did not actually use the same exposure for both so I am uncertain whether or not the difference is in the photo or the background.

I agree with Mike, I cannot compare because the exposures are different. I overall think the fish (fish alone) on the gray background's just happen to be better photos and it looks like you may of used a flash on the striped shiner picture? However, as I have said before, I think the pictures are great and both backgrounds work very, very well! I have really loved what the "standard" photos on this forum have become for trip reports, keep em' coming!

Blake

For the record, I prefer the grey background. However, I noticed you used the same specimen for the grey to black comparisons, but you did not actually use the same exposure for both so I am uncertain whether or not the difference is in the photo or the background.

Here in Ma, we only have the common shiner. There is no chance of hybrids. It has always frustrated me that virtually every reference for common shiner uses a breeding color specimen. The non-breeding individuals look much different from the fired up breeding fish. If anybody is interested, I can collect and attempt to photograph Ma common shiners at different times of season to create a base line for comparison.

Either way Uland, you have made the standard preserved photo from most field guides obsolete.

Mike,

I think the actual photo quality is better on the grey but this has lots to do with my camera settings I suspect. I find it difficult to get live specimens to stop moving and have my aperture right for the depth of field this lens needs. To get this right will take practice I suspect. The black background is pushing my shutter speed too long for live fish.

I know your frustration about lacking photos of regular fish out of spawning color. This was a large reason for me getting into ID photos in the first place. I also understand wasting time in the field snapping photos of fish that simply are not suitable for publication. This topic is a perfect example of so so photos but neat to see them nonetheless. I think it would be great to have common shiner photos from your region as I had always hoped the forum might be a place to just see subtle variations and spark conversation such as the striped vs. common shier talk here. BTW, I'm not trying to shut down conversation on the Striped vs. Common shiner talk here by mentioning another thread. I actually like the fact that threads meander as conversations do naturally.

I'm truly flattered about your last comment but until I get decent live Sculpin and Madton photos (not to mention certain darters) I'm going to reserve a little room for preserved specimen photos. If I'm ever to complete a list of Illinois fishes, I think I'll have to kill a few. I might try to heavily sedate them first just to see if I can pull it off and revive them. To date, I've not used anything to knock them out but seeing the pros do it immediately made me understand the value in this method.

I agree with Mike, I cannot compare because the exposures are different. I overall think the fish (fish alone) on the gray background's just happen to be better photos and it looks like you may of used a flash on the striped shiner picture? However, as I have said before, I think the pictures are great and both backgrounds work very, very well! I have really loved what the "standard" photos on this forum have become for trip reports, keep em' coming!

Blake, I meant to comment on this earlier. I'm not using flash on any of these photos. I'm already using far too much equipment for my skill level and decided to stay away from them for now. I think I'll slink on back to the grey background to keep this one step at a time. I still will play around with black but I think Mark and I spend as much time taking photos as we did in the water. Fun for me and Mark is a great help but it can't be fun for Mark to sit around helping me with photos. He helps a ton with both ideas and mechanics.

Fritz, thanks for chiming in as well as the great photos. While I'm sorry to hear that you've also had trouble providing uniform background, it's reassuring to know I'm not the only one.

I'm pretty sure this is Notropis stramineus Sand Shiner


Percina maculata Blackside Darter


I squeezed this one a bit too hard. I apologized and let it go.

I find it difficult to get live specimens to stop moving and have my aperture right for the depth of field this lens needs. The black background is pushing my shutter speed too long for live fish.

That's because.....

I'm not using flash on any of these photos.

Build or buy a spreader to deploy two or more flashes as we discussed some time ago. Not only will resolve the depth of field and moving fish issues, with a little practice adjusting the "aim" of the multiple flash units, you can completely eliminate shadows. With the right background, you can probably get away with not cutting and pasting, which I imagine must be very time consuming.

While it's always dangerous to ID Notropis from a picture, those scales look only slightly more tall as they are wide, and I think it's a pretty safe bet to say I agree that's a sand shiner.

Oh, and I saw the picture before I read the caption and got all excited that you found one helluva glochidia attached to that fish! lol

Todd

Edited by farmertodd, 26 March 2009 - 08:04 AM.

Thursday is my short day and my Physics lab got canceled, therefore I decided to sample the local creek (Stephens Creek) of Sangamon River in my girlfriend's backyard to see what shape the Etheostoma spectabile were in. To my surprise they were in excellent color. I did not get any photos that I was truly happy with, but here are two mediocre ones. The last week here has been pretty warm, so mabey that is the reason for the jump start?





Blake