Florida "wild" salvini
- Thread starter mabirchell
- Start date
Ok I understand they are not wild LOL. I was just curious either way I'm excited to get them. I'll post pics when they come in.
Sent from my Desire HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Sent from my Desire HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
They are most certainly wild, just not native. FL Salivini's look awesome imo, they just shouldn't be there.
Interesting question. I know they are found in the canals of Florida. Some with fantastic colors. It's likely that the fish that you are getting may be several generations past whatever tank raised fish that was tossed into the canal. The fact that the fish is not "endemic" to Florida doesn't preclude it from the filial numbers. If that were the case many of the species found in Central America NOT endemic to the area, would also be denied the F0, F1, etc. Feral? I guess. Tank raised for sure...but how does that apply to fish that have been introduced to other fish into the wild in Central and South America. Does the fact that someone transported the fish from one body of water to another make them tank raised as well?
I would consider the original fish released into the canal as feral, as they have reverted to a wild exsistance. The preceeding generations could become an indigenous species to the area if they become established and maintane a viable breeding population which in this case they have. While not considerd endemic to the region, these fish due to their isolation from the original population may become what would be considered a neoendemic species over time (on there way to becoming a seperate species) however that remains open to interpertation. In this case the filial numbers F0, F1 ect I would be considered valid for this population of fish. They may over time be refered to as cf. Cichiasoma Salvini or maybe more appropreatly Cichiasoma Salvini floradensis, as over time this isolated population will diverge from the Cichiasoma Salvini found throughout it native distrabution. It does pose an interesting question.
So the fish NOT endemic to regions of say, Honduras, would also be considered "feral"? I understand the logic. Just not sure who's making the rules. LOL
I agree with you that much of this is going to be open to interpretation. The generation of fish taken from the wild and deemed F0 has in fact, been one of many generations past. The simple fact is that it went from the wild into a tank...therefore F0. How many generations have to pass in the wild before it's no longer considered "feral"?
What about the wholesalers that are raising fish in ponds in CA/SA? Are they considered F0?
I agree with you that much of this is going to be open to interpretation. The generation of fish taken from the wild and deemed F0 has in fact, been one of many generations past. The simple fact is that it went from the wild into a tank...therefore F0. How many generations have to pass in the wild before it's no longer considered "feral"?
What about the wholesalers that are raising fish in ponds in CA/SA? Are they considered F0?
"So the fish NOT endemic to regions of say, Honduras, would also be considered "feral"."
No, they would be depending on the curcumstances indigenous. The definitions are I think a little grey in areas and I think that way on purpose..........lol.
I agree it is a muddy affair. At it's base definition the original fish released and reverted to a wild existance would be feral. The preceding generations that have established a naturally sustainable breeding population could be considered wild there for technicly F0. That's why I said open to interpretation. Clear as mud?
"What about the wholesalers that are raising fish in ponds in CA/SA? Are they considered F0?"
I would consider these fish a domestic population do to the fact they are no more wild than domestic cattle raised on a ranch.
No, they would be depending on the curcumstances indigenous. The definitions are I think a little grey in areas and I think that way on purpose..........lol.
I agree it is a muddy affair. At it's base definition the original fish released and reverted to a wild existance would be feral. The preceding generations that have established a naturally sustainable breeding population could be considered wild there for technicly F0. That's why I said open to interpretation. Clear as mud?
"What about the wholesalers that are raising fish in ponds in CA/SA? Are they considered F0?"
I would consider these fish a domestic population do to the fact they are no more wild than domestic cattle raised on a ranch.
In that case any generation pulled from the canal would be f0.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Yup...as mud.
I sent the question off to Paul Loiselle. Interested to see his interpretation.That's my take on it as well.
I would be interested in what he has to say about it as well. Like we said before it is an interesting question, open to interpertation.
