>Recent field surveys and genetic analysis show that Melanotaenia
>eachamensis is not restricted to Lake Eacham on the Atherton Tableland
>in northern Australia. A new study is documenting the morphometrics of
>this amd other rainbowfishes from the area.I agree that
>ANGFA members have played a valuable role in keeping records of
>laboratory populations and their origins.
I have read a bit on those studies and have been intrigued by the
results. But as the varieties mentioned may be the same species, some
people yet doubt the results, they are not the same strain. Their
appearance is different from the Lake Eacham strain and they also are
very difficult to distinguish from Melanotaenia splendida from the
same waters. In fact the same testing had to be used to identify if
the local splendida were closer related to eachamensis or splendida.
It was also noted that numerous crosses between the 2 species exist in
the plain. A recent conference recommended that the eachamensis
project continue until such time as the lake can be rehabilitated and
the original strain reintroduced. With many of the Melanotaeniidae,
what is published one year is often changed a couple of years later.
If the lake can ever be rehabilitated, it would be a shame to
reintroduce a fish that may later be found to a different species and
not the original species and strain that once inhabitied those waters.
I'm not sure if I'm reading opinions correctly, but it seems to me
that many of the list repondents don't feel there is a place for any
fish to be reintroduced once it is removed from its native waters. If
this is so, I'd like to hear the reasoning behind this opinion.
Cary Hostrawser