Jump to content


Help with this minnow


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#21 Guest_Brooklamprey_*

Guest_Brooklamprey_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 February 2007 - 11:49 PM

I can definately eliminate Pearl dace they are much more cigar shaped. I'm quite sure its not Pimephales of any kind and especially not notatus. I've caught and kept many of these in many areas. That picture from the UMMZ is not a Pimephales either.


I can assure you the UMMZ fish is a Pimephales notatus there is no question about this...the fish is a juvenile female. There is absolutely no question on the identity of that fish. It actually is not even open for discussion as it is as described.

You can do the meritistic analysis yourself from that photo and it will firmly be P. notatus...

If you wish ask... Histrix to pull the fishes information and provide data on it as she can do so. I also would have no issue with asking to have the fish pulled and taking detailed measurements with photos myself and providing them.

Edit: I'M TOTALLY WRONG
I admit when I'm wrong and for all reading this please note I was totally wrong on this...Apparently a Spotfin shiner was mixed in the lot containing the collection of Bluntnosed and was mistakenly photographed as one....I normally take these collections as very accurate but in this case it was very much not accurate at all....Egg on face and I eat my above strongly worded post..

#22 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 12:59 AM

I can assure you the UMMZ fish is a Pimephales notatus there is no question about this...the fish is a juvenile female. There is absolutely no question on the identity of that fish. It actually is not even open for discussion as it is as described.

You can do the meritistic analysis yourself from that photo and it will firmly be P. notatus...

If you wish ask... Histrix to pull the fishes information and provide data on it as she can do so. I also would have no issue with asking to have the fish pulled and taking detailed measurements with photos myself and providing them.

It really looks more like Hybognathus regius to me. Meristics very similar. From the photo hard to count lateral line scales for me even with photo expanded. I'm not much on meristics admitedly for most fish I'm interested in its not neccessary if really in question I just grow em up. It would be interesting to me if we might do what you've suggested. Definately would be a good learning experience for me. Also do they have any other specimens including Hybognathus regius and H hankinsoni?

#23 Guest_smbass_*

Guest_smbass_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 03:30 AM

I don't want to step on anyones toes but that fish from the UMMZ collection has been ID incorectly somewhere along the way. The mouth doesn't even look like it is in the right place for it to be a P. notatus, just off glancing at it it looks more like a Cyprinella maybe spiloptera, I could see it being a young female of that species but definitely not a bluntnose minnow. I have looked at plenty of preserved fish too so I understand quite well that pigments and colors are often lost when they are preserved.

#24 Guest_smbass_*

Guest_smbass_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 03:41 AM

If we continue with what I started doing narrowing down the list on the original fish we are only left with 2 fish as far as I'm concerned...

Semotilus margarita Pearl dace 6.5
Couesius plumbeus Lake Chub to 9"
Scales are too big on these two acording to todd and I would agree...

Notropis bifrenatus Bridle Shiner 2.75
Notropis heterodon Blackchin Shiner 2.75
these two are too small...

Notropis heterolepis Blacknose Shiner 3.75
This guy is rather long and thin and this minnow looks rather stocky...

So these are left and I'm not entirely sure I would rule out the blacknose either...
Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow not in petersons
Hybognathus hankinsoni Brassy Minnow 3.75

#25 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 07:53 AM

I don't want to step on anyones toes but that fish from the UMMZ collection has been ID incorectly...


On first glance, I would agree, it doesn't look much like notatus. But name another Genus that has a half first dorsal ray ;)

Zoom in.

So these are left and I'm not entirely sure I would rule out the blacknose either...
Hybognathus regius Eastern Silvery Minnow not in petersons
Hybognathus hankinsoni Brassy Minnow 3.75


I really think it's a Hybog, and after seeing the picture that Mike posted the link to, I totally agree with him that it's hankinsoni. I don't know how I overlooked that drawing when I was looking at this :)

I think Uland hit it right on the head... If you were in the Midwest, you'd first think juvenile Luxilus. My mental key when I'm in big Midwestern rivers is "Luxilus, now look at the mouth". I was also looking at Mat's picture and then comparing against my live nuchalis specimen.

The size of scales, the definition on the margins, the squatty robust features of the body. I don't think there's much to eliminate at this point :)

Todd

#26 Guest_daveneely_*

Guest_daveneely_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 11:02 AM

The fish looks more like Semotilus corporalis to me (the original underwater photo; the UMMZ fish is a whole different matter, and it ain't Pimephales!). How did fallfish left off of the short list under consideration?
It doesn't have the right body shape for brassy minnow, and the well-defined (someone commented that they look Cyprinella-ish) largish scales and deepish body scream fallfish.

Cheers,
Dave

#27 Guest_keepnatives_*

Guest_keepnatives_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 11:26 AM

The fish looks more like Semotilus corporalis to me. How did this get left off of the short list under consideration?
It doesn't have the right body shape for brassy minnow, and the well-defined (someone commented that they look Cyprinella-ish) largish scales and deepish body scream fallfish.

Cheers,
Dave

That seems like a possibility but the eye looks too large. Then again that could be the angle. A nice side view would be helpful.

#28 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 09:01 PM

I want to change my earlier vote for this fish's ID to Hybognathus hankinsoni after looking at other pics and descriptions of the brassy minnow. The habitat is also right, a Laurentian lake. It's a species I've never encountered, I'm certainly way too far south. That FarmerTodd boy was right again.

#29 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 09:05 PM

I think its likely a Brassy minnow Hybognathus hankinsoni very similar to H. regius

http://fish.dnr.corn...minnow_pic.html


I think you've nailed it!

#30 Guest_daveneely_*

Guest_daveneely_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 February 2007 - 09:24 PM

I'm still not convinced it's a brassy minnow. I'm counting about 46-47 LL scales, which would be out of the range of brassy minnow (36-41; Scott & Crossman 1973)... Anyone get a different estimate?

Of course, without actually having a voucher specimen in hand...

cheers,
Dave

#31 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 08:43 AM

I'm still not convinced it's a brassy minnow.


Let's not get too far with that Farmertodd Boy being right :) I'm always going to default to Dave's judgement and questioning of evidence. I have seen a lot of fish and have eyes for characteristics, but I have NOT had the training nor the experience he's had. I will similarly default with others like Brian and Matt. My work is in ecology, and have no formal training in systematics.

With that said... I had a moment, and got zee fish bible out this morning instead of trying to piece this together on the Internet.

I think Dave is right. It screams fallfish.

When I said Semotilus was right out, I was only thinking of pearl dace. I didn't notice fallfish in the list.

Dave, do you know if they're going to do an update to the Atlas? Or will the new and improved Peterson suffice to fill that gap?

Todd

#32 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 09:32 AM

Let's not get too far with that Farmertodd Boy being right :) I'm always going to default to Dave's judgement and questioning of evidence. I have seen a lot of fish and have eyes for characteristics, but I have NOT had the training nor the experience he's had. I will similarly default with others like Brian and Matt. My work is in ecology, and have no formal training in systematics.

With that said... I had a moment, and got zee fish bible out this morning instead of trying to piece this together on the Internet.

I think Dave is right. It screams fallfish.

When I said Semotilus was right out, I was only thinking of pearl dace. I didn't notice fallfish in the list.

Dave, do you know if they're going to do an update to the Atlas? Or will the new and improved Peterson suffice to fill that gap?

Todd


Speaking of ecology, aren't fallfish primarily or exclusively found in high gradient streams? Mat said he took the picture in a lake, which at face value would seem to lower the chance of this fish being a fallfish. Just sayin'...

#33 Guest_smbass_*

Guest_smbass_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 10:49 AM

I still havn't ruled out the blacknose shiner in my thinking what would the scale count be for that species, does this guy fit? Or could someone give me a reason directly ruling out that species? I may know species in Ohio that I have worked with very well but when you get out of my state (blacknose are extripated hence I have never seen one) if it's not a sunfish, especialy with cyprinids and darters I would definately bow out of thinking my answer is correct.

Also a lake would fit habitat wise for a blacknose shiner.

#34 Guest_drewish_*

Guest_drewish_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 11:28 AM

Speaking of ecology, aren't fallfish primarily or exclusively found in high gradient streams? Mat said he took the picture in a lake, which at face value would seem to lower the chance of this fish being a fallfish. Just sayin'...


We catch fallfish in all sorts of water here in VA. From high gradient streams to lowland rivers, but never in a lake (that I recall).

#35 Guest_Mat_*

Guest_Mat_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 12:20 PM

I've looked into Scott and Crossman (1973) and it's written that ''In Quebec, fallfish are frequently found in lakes but they are more common in rivers and streams in Ontario''.

#36 Guest_daveneely_*

Guest_daveneely_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 01:44 PM

The maps in the new Peterson's are going to be better than the previous version, but still small and not particularly detailed. I haven't heard of any attempt to re-do the Atlas, but with all of the web-based mapping capability out there and under development I'd suspect that something will happen eventually. It's still one of the most useful books out there, even with all of the name changes, new species, etc.

Ha! Formal training doesn't do much, it's all about learning the organisms, and folks that do good ecology are out spending time with the critters...

In the mid-Atlantic states, fallfish occur in everything from low-gradient smallish streams to big rivers. I'd suggest that they actually seem to avoid high-gradient systems. I've seen them in lakes in Maine and Ontario, and suspect that their absence from lakes in the southern part of their range is more a function of the paucity of natural lakes in the area.

Cheers,
Dave

#37 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guest_Skipjack_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 February 2007 - 05:30 PM

I count 47 LL scales also, too many for Luxilus, Hybognathus, and most Notropis. Really only leaving Semotilus as an option. My vote is also for fallfish, though I have never seen one, but I felt that this fish reminded me more of a creek chub than anything else.

#38 Guest_farmertodd_*

Guest_farmertodd_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 February 2007 - 05:13 PM

Formal training doesn't do much, it's all about learning the organisms, and folks that do good ecology are out spending time with the critters...


However, my "lack of" might account for why I didn't automatically do a lateral scale count that was very available, and instead just started surfing the web and looking at pictures in books :) I'm still learning too.

But you do make a great point... You don't need a formal education to be good at this stuff. In fact, I think my raw learning of systems has decreased, since I'm inside too much, and at times, listening to dogma. Not to mention, listening to people who have NO idea about what goes on outside, and are quite successful ecologists! "Vacation Science" I call it.

On the other hand, I'm far more informed about other system aspects, and I'm learning to communicate it properly to different audiences... And that's why I'm here with financial sacrifices, working with the advisor I'm working with.

So don't EVER let some stuffy academic treat folks like they own something the others can't. If they're actively trying to... they're probably intimidated!

Todd




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users