In my experience most of the Mogurndas will grow over 6" given favourable conditions, that's why those from the upper Burdekin are relative dwarves ( of course not as cute as my lovely little "nulliporas").
<<This is actually one of Australia's more endangered species. It once
occurred throughout most of the Murray-Darling system (except southern
headwater areas). Today it is only found in a few headwater streams in
northern NSW and southern Qld>>
<< While I'm on it, another quite
endangered fish that no one talks about is Ambassis agassizi in the M-D
system. Again, it once ranged throughout most of the system and today is
only common in the mid Condamine River in Qld. Again, because it is
associated with the coastal A. agassizi it's perilous status inland is
ignored. I personally doubt that it is really the same species>>,
I'm sure a lot of us on the list will be releived to find you doubt Gerry Allen too. We are indeed in august company :-)
<< Qlders could easily collect a few from a couple of streams if they
ever bothered to over over that big fish collector barrier called the
Great Dividing Range. :-) >>
You are indeed in fine form today Peter! In my younger, braver days I did make the great journey ( and several times since)
and was rewarded with a variety of nice fish. I recommend 2 areas to anyone interested - the Condamine streamlets around Warwick and also around Lake Broadwater near Dalby.
<<On a different note, Bruce, what do you know about the "blue" Midgley's
carp gudgeons >>c
I have never seen a "blue" Midgley's Carp Gudgeon in my life. Most have been an attractive smoky brown colour with light bands in the fins. They make excellent aquarium fish and live for several years. I always assumed that the photo in the "blue bible" (
Merrick & Schmida's) was one of those shots that Gunther would like to take again.
While we are on the subject of gudgeon identification I personally would be grateful if Walter could tell us what is happening to the descriptions of Midgley's, Lake's, Dwarf Flatheads etc.
When I first joined ANGFA I was told they were all in the process of being described and would soon have the proper scientific names that we all are supposed to ues whenever possible to avoid confusion. Especially when we are talking to the scientists. Pe
rsonally I admire all the scientists for their dedication and expertise but I beleive they have let us down here, If the "expert" doing the work has lost interest in the project or has other more pressing projects surely it could be passed on to some othe
r avenue for attention. We all agree that every species is worthy in it's own right. It's prety hard to argue for a species ( when talking conservation etc) when you have to admit that the scientists think it is of so little importance that for 15 years
or so they haven't even bothered to give it a "real" name. IMO Philypnodon sp.A or B etc is NOT a real name.
Having gotten that off my chest I feel a lot better. I don't mean to offend anybody by directing criticism personally ( except to you Peter :-) :-)) but we amateur collectors and enthusiasts do see every little different fish as special. It seems incong
ruous that some of the scientists are keen to analyse existing species with electrophoresis, DNA etc etc and try to split them into a myriad of species that can only be differentiated in the field by a distribution map of the watershed while others are se
emingly "bent" the other way.
I guess it is "all part of the rich tapestry".
Bruce Hansen ANGFA