SAA Study
Group September 2002 Census Report and Recommendations for Species Maintenance
Tyrone
Genade, tgenade@sun.ac.za
November 1, 2002
�What follows is the break down of the census
conducted this year August to September 2002. Before I go further, this census
is on going.� To get an accurate picture
we would like to get up dates as we progress so that we can more accurately
track changes and monitor trends.�
Please send us your fish lists on a regular basis!� Every list counts!
Vital Statistics
48 of the
then 134 members submitted lists.� This
gives us a 35% sampling pool.� As such
the information below can only be regarded as a rough indicator of what is
really going on within the SAA. We must also remember that there are probably
five times as many people out there keeping SAAs than who are members of this
organization.
This census does pin point a few trends.� We must accept that many of the fish listed are perhaps three
times more numerous than stated, or perhaps three times less numerous than they
appear.
An alphabetical list of species is given in Table 1.
Species and Strains
Some words
about the top five:
We have 71
species and 152 strains listed in the census.�
This gives us roughly 2 strains per species on average.� The most widely kept species are:
Austrolebias nigripinnis is maintained by 20 of
the 48 people who submitted lists and is represented by 15 strains and accounts
for 30 of the 390 data points[1]
. As a species it is secure but the large number of strains maintained suggests
that some will be lost over the course of the years.� As this is an easy species and is often a beginner fish there is
no doubt that this species will continue to do well in the hobby.
|
Genus & Species |
Number of populatios per
species |
Number of strains per
species |
Number of people per
species |
|
Aphyolebias peruensis� |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Aphyolebias rubrocaudatus� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrofundulus limnaeus� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrolebias adloffi� |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Austrolebias affinis� |
6 |
3 |
7 |
|
Austrolebias alexandrii� |
11 |
4 |
10 |
|
�Austrolebias bellottii�
|
8 |
5 |
7 |
|
Austrolebias cinereus� |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Austrolebias gymnoventris� |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Austrolebias nigripinnis� |
30 |
15 |
18 |
|
Austrolebias sp.� CXCL001 Benado Medina� |
2 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrolebias sp.� CXCL008 Cerro Largo� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrolebias sp.� CXCL009�
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrolebias vazferrarai� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Austrolebias viarius� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Campellolebias brucei� |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
Cynolebias albipunctatus� |
2 |
1 |
2 |
|
Cynolebias perforatus� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Cynopoecilius melanotaenia� |
1 |
1 |
4 |
|
Gnatholebias hoignei� |
4 |
3 |
8 |
|
Gnatholebias zonatus� |
9 |
3 |
8 |
|
Leptolebias aureoguttatus� |
8 |
2 |
2 |
|
Leptolebias fluminensis� |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
Leptolebias minimus� |
1 |
1 |
3 |
|
Maratecoara formosa� |
3 |
1 |
8 |
|
Maratecoara lacortei� |
8 |
1 |
1 |
|
Megalebias cheradophilus� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Moema sp.�
Peru� |
1 |
1 |
11 |
|
Nematolebias whitei� |
13 |
5 |
5 |
|
Papilliolebias bitteri� |
5 |
2 |
5 |
|
Pituna compacta� |
5 |
1 |
2 |
|
Plesiolebias sp.� Xingu, Altamira� |
2 |
1 |
13 |
|
Pterolebias longipinnis� |
15 |
6 |
4 |
|
Pterolebias phasianus� |
4 |
2 |
1 |
|
Pterolebias sp.� aff.�
longipinnis �Majaro�� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Rachovia brevis� |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
Rachovia maculipinnis� |
1 |
2 |
1 |
|
Rachovia pyropunctata� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Renova oscarii� |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys adornatus� |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
Simpsonichthys alternatus� |
10 |
1 |
10 |
|
Simpsonichthys auratus� |
2 |
3 |
2 |
|
Simpsonichthys boitonei� |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys bokermanni� |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys chacoensis� |
4 |
1 |
5 |
|
Simpsonichthys constanciae� |
11 |
1 |
11 |
|
Simpsonichthys costai� |
3 |
5 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys flavicaudatus� |
8 |
3 |
8 |
|
Simpsonichthys fulminantis� |
14 |
3 |
14 |
|
Simpsonichthys ghisolffi� |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
Simpsonichthys hellneri� |
9 |
2 |
9 |
|
Simpsonichthys magnificus� |
21 |
3 |
19 |
|
Simpsonichthys marginatus� |
7 |
1 |
7 |
|
Simpsonichthys myersi� |
7 |
2 |
7 |
|
Simpsonichthys notatus� |
4 |
2 |
4 |
|
Simpsonichthys ocellatus� |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
Simpsonichthys perpendicularis� |
13 |
2 |
13 |
|
Simpsonichthys picturatus� |
16 |
5 |
16 |
|
Simpsonichthys rosaceus� |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys rufus� |
6 |
1 |
6 |
|
Simpsonichthys similis� |
3 |
2 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys sp. BA-2-02� |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
Simpsonichthys sp. South Bahia CI 99� |
3 |
1 |
3 |
|
Simpsonichthys sp. Urucuia� |
4 |
1 |
4 |
|
Simpsonichthys stellatus� |
10 |
1 |
9 |
|
Simpsonichthys trilineatus� |
11 |
3 |
11 |
|
Simpsonichthys zonatus� |
10 |
2 |
10 |
|
Spectrolebias semiocellatus� |
6 |
4 |
6 |
|
Terranatos dolichopterus� |
16 |
2 |
15 |
|
Trigonectes balzani� |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
Trigonectes sp. Araguaia River
Brasil� |
2 |
1 |
2 |
Table 1:� Summary of Data from August-September 2002
Census
Simpsonichthys
magnificus�� is represented by three
strains and 21 data points.� It is
maintained by 18 people.� What is
interesting about this species is that is it relatively difficult species
needing high temperatures for incubation.�
That it is so popular says a lot about it.
Terranatos
dolichopterus�� is a
big surprise in the top 5. Its need for high temperatures and picky eating
habits aside this fish has a lot going for it so maybe it isn�t as much as a
surprise.� It is represented by 4
strains spread between 16 people.� The
�no-name-brand� strain is the most popular.
Simpsonichthys
picturatus�� is also maintained by 16
people and is represented by two strains. The ease of this species combined
with vivid colour make it surprising why it isn�t more popular.� Then again it is relatively new to the
hobby.
Pterolebias
longipinnis�� comes in at number 5. This
fish is represented by 6 strains and is maintained by 13 people but comprises
15 data points or populations which puts it ahead of Simpsonichthys
fulminantis with 14 populations.�
Its title as fifth most popular SAA is sure to change or at least its
name is.� New evidence suggests that the
strains from the Paraguay area are actually Pterolebias bokermanni. The
question now is who has which species.
Who are the
worst off?
The picture
is bleak for many species.� Some are
just difficult to maintain while others are not productive enough to facilitate
trade or the eggs are too sensitive for shipping.
Species such as Simpsontichthys flammeus and Micromoema
xiphoraphora have disappeared totally for unknown reasons.
Of special concern are the �big� species such as Megalebias
cheradophilus, Cynolebias albipunctatus and Cynolebias perforatus.
This fish don�t have a lot going for them as far as colour but are certainly no
less important to us.� They are also
often difficult to breed and feeding is often a challenge.
While Leptolebias aureoguttatus didn�t feature on last year�s
census it is now quite a popular fish.�
It is however a very difficult fish and so should be watched carefully
and measures instigated now to maintain them.�
Leptolebias �fluminensis� and minimus are of more
concern along with the only Plesiolebias species listed.� These fish are scarce and only getting
scarcer.� Some form of breeding program
needs to be implemented now to save them.�
Importing fresh stock from Brazil may be an option.� In fact, importing stock from Brazil of the
species absent from the list may be a good idea.
Sticking with the �dwarf� species, Cynopoecilius melanotaenia
also needs a hand.� It is also quite
rare.� Given its unique breeding methods
and colour a concerted effort should be made to establish this species in the
hobby on a firmer foundation.
There are four Austolebias species with less then two keepers
based on this census.� These are sp.� CXCL008 Cerro Largo, sp.� CXCL009, vazferrarai and viarius.
The first two are new to us and so may just have trouble getting
established.� The latter two are quite
old in the hobby and their decline is disappointing.� While viarius is still in demand I suspect that its
listing may be an artifact of the survey.�
The needs of vazferrarai may be more sincere in regards to
needing help to get established. Simpsonichthys sp.� BA-2-02 is also a new addition and may well
also just be getting started.� I don�t
know anything about this fish and ask that more information be made
available.� If this fish is as
attractive as some of the other new imports I have no doubt it will get
established without any help.
Moema sp.� Peru is in great demand
and I doubt it will remain at the bottom of �most kept� list of fish.� I�m sure once Dan Katz has got them breeding
reliably and is able to distribute them they will make a rapid climb up the
list.� Rachovia maculipinnis and pyropunctata
are also highly desirable and will also become more popular and wide kept as
time goes by without much help from the SAA. Austrofundulus limnaeus is
quite widely kept in the USA and is in no real threat.� Its numbers must be monitored though to
ensure it does not run into trouble.
Pterolebias sp.�
aff.� longipinnis �Majaro�
may be the real longipinnis and as such effort should be made for its
continued maintenance.� If it is a new
species then great!� Aphyolebias
rubrocaudatus is not widely kept.� I
don�t know if it is a new addition to the hobby or an old fish in decline or
even whether it has a constant following.�
This fish must be monitored and if possible be put in an species
maintenance program now before it disappears.
Species Maintenance:� logistics and duties
We cannot
maintain all the species and populations for all time.� Our resources are limited and under great
pressure as we are torn between our fish and family duties.
Any dreams we have of breeding the fish and reintroducing them into
the wild as just that:� dreams.� Those species that are endangered in the
wild are endangered because of habitat destruction.� We cannot recreate a swamp or marsh nor can we untar a parking
lot and recreate the pond under it.� So
what can we do?
We can do out best to preserve what we have.
I would like to propose two items:�
a new format for the Species Maintenance Program; and New and Rare
Species Distribution Program.
Species
Maintenance Program
The genus
based system does not work.� A few
people are left with all the work and inevitable grow despondent and leave or
just simply slump into complacency.�
Species maintenance must be fueled out of personal motivation and love
of the species in question.� I am
asking that interested people or peoples volunteer to help preserve our fish! �A page will be set up on the webpage
(http://www.thearkfoundation.org/SAA) where by volunteers will be able to sign
up.� All species maintenance will be
managed by the Species Maintenance Coordinator who will make decisions on what
species are more in need and delegate each volunteer to the person in charge of
what ever species are in the program.�
While it would be nice if everyone could get their first choice we would
probably all sign up for the Austolebias nigripinnis SMP...Volunteers
will be assigned within their interests and within their abilities so that as
many needy species as possible are maintained and not just what is the flavour
of the week.
A Species of Special Concern division will also be set up to deal
with species whose numbers are dangerously low or who are not all that
desirable.
Right now species of special concern are:�
Cynolebias perforatus
Cynolebias albipunctatus
Cynopoecilius melanotaenia
Leptolebias minimus
Leptolebias fluminensis
Megalebias cheradophilus
Simpsonichthys flammeus
Simpsonichthys igneus
Species in need of maintenance efforts are:�
Aphyolebias peruensis
Aphyolebias rubrocaudatus
Austrofundulus limnaeus
Austrolebias adloffi
Austrolebias affinis
Austrolebias bellottii
Austrolebias cinereus
Austrolebias gymnoventris
Austrolebias vazferrarai
Austrolebias viarius
Campellolebias brucei
Leptolebias aureoguttatus
Maratecoara formosa
Maratecoara lacortei
Papilliolebias bitteri
Pituna compacta
Pterolebias phasianus
Rachovia brevis
Renova oscarii
Simpsonichthys adornatus
Simpsonichthys auratus
Simpsonichthys boitonei
Simpsonichthys bokermanni
Simpsonichthys chacoensis
Simpsonichthys costai
Simpsonichthys flavicaudatus
Simpsonichthys ghisolffi
Simpsonichthys hellneri
Simpsonichthys marginatus
Simpsonichthys myersi
Simpsonichthys notatus
Simpsonichthys ocellatus
Simpsonichthys rosaceus
Simpsonichthys rufus
Simpsonichthys similis
Simpsonichthys sp.�
South Bahia CI 99
Simpsonichthys sp.�
Urucuia
Spectrolebias semiocellatus
Trigonectes balzani
All the above species have fewer than ten populations within the SAA
based on this census.� I view ten
populations as the cut off point where we can begin to feel confident about the
future of the fish in question.� I
accept that the census may not be very accurate in respect to the actual
numbers of populations in the hobby.�
Fish like Maratecoara lacortei are very popular and are no doubt
present in the hobby in more than ten hobbyist tanks.
As well as maintenance programs, channels of communication need also
be established whereby critical information can be distributed to the
volunteers.� A facility for this already
exists on the website, what is needed is the information.
I would like to stress that our main concern are species and
not populations.� While the loss of a
population may be sad unless it is unique then it isn�t a major loss.� What we want to do is make sure that one day
there will be Gnatholebias zonatus in the hobby for our
descendants.� What strain it is
irrelevant.
New and Rare
Species Distribution Program
Some system
must be created wherein new species in the hobby can be distributed in a manner
ensuring their survival.� This system
can also be used to bring fish into the hobby.
Fish currently in need of some help getting established are:�
Austrolebias sp.�
CXCL001 Benado Medina
Austrolebias sp.�
CXCL008 Cerro Largo
Austrolebias sp.�
CXCL009
Gnatholebias hoignei
Gnatholebias zonatus
Moema sp.� Peru
Plesiolebias sp.�
Xingu, Altamira
Pterolebias sp.�
aff.� longipinnis
"Majaro"
Rachovia maculipinnis
Rachovia pyropunctata
Simpsonichthys sp.�
BA-2-02
Trigonectes sp.�
Araguaia River, Brasil
Some one is
need to head this task.
Closing
Thoughts
We have an ethical duty
to conserve our world and that which is in it.�
It is not right to repeatedly go out and recapture species because they
were lost due to apathy.� We must work
to maintain what we have so that nature can go on undisturbed.
But how are
we disturbing nature by taking a few fish?�
Genetics is funny.� The removal
of just a few alleles[2]� can cause the population genetics to shift
and evolution to take place not based on natural selection.� Evolution will take place regardless but we
are not qualified yet to direct it. Also, by our random sampling we could
remove new alleles not yet established in the population that may be critical
to that species� survival.� This may
seem rather melodramatic but we do not yet fully understand our impact on the
environment.� As many of our favourite
fish exist as small populations the effects of genetic drift are even greater.
Another
problem is disease introduction.� By
going from pond to pond aquatic diseases can be spread that may infect pools
that were previously clean of the pathogen.�
Fish and animals not evolved to cope with this pathogen could quickly
succumb to the disease much like the Maya and Aztec to the small pox brought in
by the Conquistadors.� Habitat
destruction is another concern.� How
many reeds and bushes must give way so you can reach the pond?
Pedigrees
Staying with the
genetics we must avoid inbreeding at all costs. Inbreeding causes unlike
alleles to be lost as well as like alleles to accumulate in a population.� More often than not due to poor selection
processes the unhealthy alleles increase disproportionately to the good
alleles.� It can be argued that many of
our favourite killifish (such as Aphyosemion australe) were established
in the hobby from very few fish that were line bred for many generations but
those breeders of yesteryear were very selective and always chose the best fish
in both form and biology.� Even with all
their efforts my hybrid strains of australe are far more productive than
the line bred pure strains in circulation.
Those
involved in Species Maintenance Programs must keep a studbook to record
the progression of strains over time.�
This pedigree must be made freely available to all so that when out
crosses are made (which I suggest be made no less than every third generation)
the most distantly related stock be used and the cross be recorded.
I will ask
Dave about perhaps putting something together on the website where these
pedigrees can be stored and made available for breeders.
The natural habitat and
extinction of species
Rapid human population
growth coupled with rampant urbanization is claiming more habitat and more
species every year.� It is a tragic
irony that humanity gathers around the same resource as what our precious fish
need:� water.� People set up towns along rivers, pave over the swamps and fill
in the wetlands for development.� In the
process the precious species are lost.�
Within the next decade or two many of the fish around Rio de Janeiro
will be gone.� This will include such
fish as Nematolebias whitei and Simpsonichthys constanciae never
mind the few Leptolebias species.�
Much of the grass lands (Pantanal) will be turned into cattle ranches
creating mass habitat changes which will claim more species.� Which species will be next?
I feel it is
important that we not only strive to preserve the species we have in captivity
but also preserve their habitats not just for the fish but every other living
organism.
I would like
to see a charity form that can raise money to procure sensitive habitats and
safe guard them from development.� I do
not know how to proceed with this but I ask your help, suggestions and support
in this idea.
It is important
that we work together with other Killifish Societies around the world as well
as forge contacts with zoos and other formal conservation organizations (except
Green Peace who are a bunch of raving idiots with more money than common
sense). It is also important that we establish ties with the people at ground
zero:� those involved in SAA research in
Brazil, Uraguay, Paraguay, Argentina etc...
What else is needed?
Besides more species
information and accurate census information what would also help would be
information in regard to the difficulty of maintenance.� Some fish are rare because they are new,
other because they of lack of demand while some are rare because they are
difficult to keep.� What is needed is to
score the various species and strains from 1 to 5 based on difficulty.� In this way an accurate picture can be
attained as to what is really going on with that species as well as save time
in maintenance.� Right now any volunteer
could get any fish regardless of difficulty.�
As such an inexperienced keeper may get a very difficult fish.� Given the lack of information the odds are
that population would be lost.� So much
time and resources could be spared if new before hand.
Accurate
naming is also important.� Right now the
same strain of fish may be circulating under several different names.� This complicates the census and species
maintenance initiates.
Please we
need more accurate information!
Reports
Over the
last two years several Species Maintenance Programs were setup within the SAA.
I have not received any report backs regarding these and other initiatives and
would greatly appreciate to hear back on these issues.
Acknowledgements
A great
thanks to Maikel Meijer who gathered all the data and organized.� Also, many thanks to all who
contributed.� Further contributions can
be sent to Maikel Meijer, maikel.esther@12move.nl.
Kind regards
Tyrone
Genade
tgenade@sun.ac.za
SAA Chairman