Those are some interesting responses. Those sals are very nice thou a lot better then any I've seen in any lfs.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Florida "wild" salvini
- Thread starter mabirchell
- Start date
I live in Fort Lauderdale, so if you would like to know locations for these fish just let me know!
I believe that if you catch a fish from a wild habitat (native or not, man made or not, doesn't matter. As long as the fish's existence isn't being directly encouraged by man, such as by feeding or alteration to the body of water) with a sustained breeding population, then it should be referred to as f0 only with collection location information. Therefore, it would be the buyers responsibility to buy from a seller advertising the filial numbers with collection data.
F0, f1, f2, none of it matters without collection data telling the buyer where the fish came from!
Here is my Oscar that I caught from the Everglades. I brought her to the ACA in Indianapolis 2012 just to show off, but she wound up winning second place in her class. Thanks Mo for the awesome picture of her at the show! Based on my logic, IF I wanted to sell her ( I don't, lol) I would advertise: "f0 astronotus ocellatus 'Krome' adult female for sale," the word 'krome' implying that she was caught off of krome avenue in Miami.
Please correct me if my logic is flawed!
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
In the end, the purpose of a naming convention is to clearly and accurately describe the animal in question.
In the fish hobby, the use of the filial system has developed a different meaning than in the rest of the scientific community with F0 or "wild" as short-hand referring to fish caught in the wild (in their native habitats).
The purpose of collection locations in quotes is meant to further describe the collection location, as some local populations of fish differ from others. Ideally, these descriptions should make it easier to identify the collection location of fish (and not just be trade names).
To me at least it doesn't make sense to use the short-hand F0 to describe a wild, feral population of introduced fish.... It just causes confusion. And a more accurate description is just as easy.
If it were me selling a wild oscar I caught in Florida, I'd call it: Astronotus ocellatus - wild caught female from Miami, Florida feral population
You know exactly what the fish is!
Matt
In the fish hobby, the use of the filial system has developed a different meaning than in the rest of the scientific community with F0 or "wild" as short-hand referring to fish caught in the wild (in their native habitats).
The purpose of collection locations in quotes is meant to further describe the collection location, as some local populations of fish differ from others. Ideally, these descriptions should make it easier to identify the collection location of fish (and not just be trade names).
To me at least it doesn't make sense to use the short-hand F0 to describe a wild, feral population of introduced fish.... It just causes confusion. And a more accurate description is just as easy.
If it were me selling a wild oscar I caught in Florida, I'd call it: Astronotus ocellatus - wild caught female from Miami, Florida feral population
You know exactly what the fish is!
Matt
That is a very healthy & good looking Oscar. It is almost surly a wild ocellatus but it sure looks alot like an astronotus orbicularis. A stunning fish at any rate.
Matt how would you feel about calling it Astronotus cf. ocellatus (florida) to shorten the discription? Would that work in your opinion?
Matt how would you feel about calling it Astronotus cf. ocellatus (florida) to shorten the discription? Would that work in your opinion?
How about Astronotus sp. - wild caught female from Miami, Florida feral population 
cf. generally refers to a wild population that differs from the scientific type description but hasn't been evaluated by scientists to properly classify it. It's not as if there are enough cichlid scientists in the world (or funding) to do all of the work that we'd like to see done!
The reason that this feral population is slightly different than the type "oscar" is that it could be a mix of captive "fancy" oscars that were let loose, wild-type ones that have been there since the '50s and various species and locales of Astronotus. In other words, no natural speciation but a man-made mush of unknown composition. Or it could be that the population of oscars in the Florida canals live in different conditions than in their native lands and have evolved characteristics to compete favorably in them. Who knows...
Matt
cf. generally refers to a wild population that differs from the scientific type description but hasn't been evaluated by scientists to properly classify it. It's not as if there are enough cichlid scientists in the world (or funding) to do all of the work that we'd like to see done!
The reason that this feral population is slightly different than the type "oscar" is that it could be a mix of captive "fancy" oscars that were let loose, wild-type ones that have been there since the '50s and various species and locales of Astronotus. In other words, no natural speciation but a man-made mush of unknown composition. Or it could be that the population of oscars in the Florida canals live in different conditions than in their native lands and have evolved characteristics to compete favorably in them. Who knows...
Matt
That's why I thought the cf. designation would be appropreate in this instance. I'm pretty sure, for the reasons you stated they differ from "classic" type discription for the species. I can also see where your thinking is and the envoronmental factors definatly have an infulance on the adaptive evolution of the Floridian Oscars as opposed to the fish that occure throughout their natural range. Unlike the Salvini which is a single species, Astronotus contains two sp. ocellatus & Crassipinus. I think orbicularis is a race within the ocellatus sp. and not a seperate species (correct me if I'm wrong here) so the chance of hybridization of the two is certanitly not an impossibilty in this instance. So I guess we are esscentally in agreement that a local designation is very important especially if one was to attempt to breed and sell fish. We may only differ slightly on what and how the local designation might be applied. Thanks for sharing you thoughts, it is IMO and interesting conversation.
i absolutely have to agree with Matt on this. Feral is not wild, as in wild from the Amazon. The Krome idenification is not "serious", in my opinion.
The oscar is stunning! What is the problem of labelling it from where it came? That is, imho, the only way to go.
I coild care less if it came from north korea. Main thing is i like it.i lije it alot!
I read somewhere that the Florida wildlife department brought in wild caught oscars and peacock bass for sport fishing reasons. So there is wild blood running in the oscars in Florida. Makes me wanna get an Oscar now too lol. To bad I've already got one.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
