Hello Sarah,

Forgive me, I also assumed that the person asking for identifications
was a scientist of some sort.

But having said that, the point that people can often identify fish
from photographs does demonstrate that in theory at least, digital
images may be adequate instead of dead specimens. We don't tend to
think about this with small animals like gobies, but for bigger
animals, particularly large mammals, it is standard practise now to
identify them by sight and sometimes even individuals can be
identified by its particular markings.

Of course, the flip side is that large mammal species are relatively
few, and they usually look very different; with small animals like
gobies, you can often have dozens of extremely similar species within
one genus. Our old friend the bumblebee goby is a prime example, and
while Naomi Delventhal was writing part of the brackish water fish
book with me, she commented words to the effect that virtually every
photograph of this fish in the hobby literature was probably
misidentified at species level!

A thought crossed my mind though about your "Hey guys, I caught a
fish..." comment. I wondered if in the life of every person who
becomes an animal expert, there's a phase in their life when they're
cruel to animals. What I mean is this: young children, as they develop
an interest in wildlife, often have little to no feeling for
conservation or welfare. Myself, I used to catch fish from rock pools
and streams, keep them in buckets, take them home, and in some cases
ended up killing them through neglect or misuse. As an aquarist who
writes about how to keep fish better, there were times when I wasn't
experienced and I wasn't keeping fish well at all.

In other words, there's cruelty and then there's cruelty. Animals are
cruel to each other, and the PETA-type approach, while viable if you
live a life far removed from animals, isn't particularly practical if
you're engaged with animal life at some level, whether as a hobby, for
farming, for conservation, or for science. But as others have stressed
eloquently already, the important thing is whether you learn to
minimise cruelty, that you try to move past it in whatever you do, and
that you see your interactions with animals as part of a bigger
picture where respect and understand are at issue.

Cheers, Neale

On 5 Nov 2009, at 00:31, Sarah wrote:

> Thanks Peter, Neale and Dennis for your replies. I do completely
> understand the need for killed specimens in order to advance
> scientific knowledge, especially in terms of conservation efforts -
> I feel it should be limited to the only the number of specimens
> absolutely necessary for identification and species differentiation,
> but I acknowledge that it does have to happen.
>
> However, I interpreted the original message w/ pics of dead fish as
> a curiosity-satisfying "Hey guys, I caught this fish, what is it?"
> kind of post - not as part of a larger project that would result in
> useful, publish-able scientific knowledge. This is why I objected,
> but it was probably a premature assumption on my part that the fish
> had died for no real reason. Apologies to the original poster if I
> assumed wrongly.

Gianluca,

Your message was very interesting. Your decision to switch from using
cold to kill small fishes to using clove oil is mirrored by my own
practises.

Having kept very many fishes, I've inevitably had to deal with fish so
sick or injured they cannot recover. This is an aspect of fishkeeping
often overlooked (and misunderstood) by hobbyists. About a year ago, I
summarised "best practise" for euthanasia according to books and
papers written by vets, as opposed to rumours put around by hobbyists.
You can read the article here:

http://www.wetwebmedia.com/euthanasia.htm

One interesting thing about the use of specimens to identify fishes
(and animals in general) is that taxonomy has very largely moved on.
It seems to me that all the big research projects, and the ones that
get funded, are based on DNA, not counting bones or fin spines.

I have mixed feelings about this. Personally, having worked for a
while in a molecular biology lab, I found this approach extremely
dull. But I can see from the books and papers than genetics provides
far better resolution. You can define species more accurately, and
because the method itself is a bit "cook book" in approach, you only
need experts at the procedure, not the groups of animals being studied.

(In parenthesis, I know respected taxonomists who work in molecular
biology labs doing excellent work, but who also know virtually nothing
about the natural history of the animals being studied.)

People like Richard Fortey and Bill Bryson have written wittily about
the death of old school "experts" in particular groups. It's a very
sad thing for me, because I worked with some of these people when
doing my PhD and post-doc, and I loved the fact there were people who
spent decades studying one small group. They seemed to know everything
about their subjects! But on the other hand, the science has
definitely moved on, and animals and plants are often viewed as
sources of genetic material for study, rather than interesting things
in their own right.

But that, as they say, is a discussion for another day!

Cheers, Neale

Dennis,

Glad I'm not the only one!

I fear science funding encourages this sort of thing. By focusing on
2-3 year projects, and by expecting young scientists to move onto
different labs (cities, countries) each time, the result is selective
pressure against deep *and* broad expertise.

Cheers, Neale

On 5 Nov 2009, at 14:00, Dennis Schneider wrote:

> I've had the same experience with microbiology.  Nowadays the young
> scientists know everything about their genomes, but little about the
> organism.  It's good that better and easier speciation can be done,
> but in the end it is how the organism lives and what it does that is
> really important.

 

Dennis,

Glad I'm not the only one!

I fear science funding encourages this sort of thing. By focusing on
2-3 year projects, and by expecting young scientists to move onto
different labs (cities, countries) each time, the result is selective
pressure against deep *and* broad expertise.

Cheers, Neale

On 5 Nov 2009, at 14:00, Dennis Schneider wrote:

> I've had the same experience with microbiology. Nowadays the young
> scientists know everything about their genomes, but little about the
> organism. It's good that better and easier speciation can be done,
> but in the end it is how the organism lives and what it does that is
> really important.

 

these ones are gobies - a Parachaeturichthys polynema (black spot on tail fin) and two pics of an Oxyurichthys, possibly O. ophthalnema, can't tell from photo.
This is why us morphological taxonomists need actual dead bodies of specimens deposited in museum collections of the future - so there is an accurate record of what was living and when. Photos and fin clips don't always tell us what the fish is.
Helen
 
<')////==<
 
Dr Helen K. Larson
Curator Emeritus, Fishes
Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
PO Box 4646
Darwin, NT 0801
Australia

Email: helen.larson@...

---

From: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com [gobygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of balkrishna gore [bmgore2000@...]
Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:48 PM
To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [gobygroup] Identification of goby [3 Attachments]

 
[Attachment(s) from balkrishna gore included below]

Hi members,
I have collected some gobies from west coast of India (Mumbai) Kindly help me for correct identification.

 



Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India homepage. Try now!

Oh, God.

I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the previous)
topic!?

Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!?  As all of us know, killing should
be the last but also would be the necessary protocol in fish identification,
especially when we meet an unknown species.  Keeping a specimen in museum for
academic/ taxonomic purposes is also a must!

I think there is no point to argue any more.

Tony Nip

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com, Gianluca Polgar <polgar@...> wrote:
>
> Helen,
>
> True: fin clips per se cannot always tell us what species is the fish.
> Specifically, they can't tell whether the fin
> clip is of a species which was only morphologically described.
> To compare morphology and genetic markers we
> often need both, even if the fast grow of genetic
> databases will possibly make this need gradually less critical.
>
> Nonetheless, in a first approximation (there
> still are problems), fin clips can tell us
> whether a sample of 100 specimens contains one or
> more species, both allowing us to make hypotheses
> on the reliability of morphological descriptions,
> and to sacrifice a much smaller sample as a
> reference collection for future studies.
> I don't need to kill 300 specimens in a study
> site to show that only one species is present in
> a putatively morphologically homogeneous sample:
> it is sufficient to make a genetic analysis of
> 300 tissue samples (with a good outgroup) and
> keep a few deposited specimens as a morphological reference.
>
> I think we should keep trying and find procedures
> to get morphological data without sacrificing animals.
> I mean, this is a routine procedure for many living organisms, man included...
>
> If the specimen is properly prepared (e.g. when
> it's anesthetized), high quality digital images
> (X-rays included), can convey a great deal of
> morphological information, some of which are
> often unavailable in museum specimens (e.g.
> colouration patterns, some morphometric
> measures). Furthermore, many traditional
> characters that are used by morphological
> taxonomy and are not visible in photos can be of
> little use in some groups (e.g. scale counts in
> Boleophthalmus spp., pers. obs.), and in any case
> can be even more efficiently measured on
> anesthetized individuals. Of course, you can
> measure only what you are observing. That is,
> what you are looking for. If you want to make
> another measurement to dissipate a doubt or
> because a second idea takes the place of the
> former one (which in my case is almost the rule),
> and you don't have a preserved sample, you simply
> cannot do it. If you work with live specimens all
> replicates must be made during the first
> measurement session. Alternatively, another
> sample must be collected... if you can afford it.
>
> On the other hand, while I obviously agree that
> there are many measurements that can be made only
> on dead specimens (e.g. anatomical ones),
> certainly this is not the case of all scientific
> studies. And certainly I am not talking of type
> specimens, whose usefulness is apparent.
>
> In my opinion, time and money are the biggest
> problems for a scientist to spare animals'
> lives... it's much easier and cheaper to kill the
> guy and do the work later, if and when the
> opportunity comes, than design complex and
> expensive protocols. Just think that you usually
> have a very limited time to finish all
> measurements after capture, and that each survey
> would imply double costs and time just for the
> release of the examined specimens.
>
> Yet one point remains. Museums are repositories
> of the past and for the future. Here modern
> information can be obtained from specimens that
> were analysed when modern tools and equipments
> were simply not available. Such specimens are in
> some cases of rare or extinct species, and are
> the only remains we have to know something about
> them and compare them with the present.. this
> point cannot be underestimated, and this is a
> vital function that museums still have today,
> while species continue to go extinct at
> impressively increasing rates (which are in most
> cases substantially unrelated both to museum
> collections, and to taxonomical research).
>
>
> Gianluca
>
>
>
>
>
> At 19.59 05/11/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >these ones are gobies - a Parachaeturichthys
> >polynema (black spot on tail fin) and two pics
> >of an Oxyurichthys, possibly O. ophthalnema, can't tell from photo.
> >This is why us morphological taxonomists need
> >actual dead bodies of specimens deposited in
> >museum collections of the future - so there is
> >an accurate record of what was living and when.
> >Photos and fin clips don't always tell us what the fish is.
> >Helen
> >
> ><')////==<
> >
> >Dr Helen K. Larson
> >Curator Emeritus, Fishes
> >Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
> >PO Box 4646
> >Darwin, NT 0801
> >Australia
> >
> >Email: <mailto:helen.larson@...>helen.larson@...
> >
> >----------
> >From: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
> >[gobygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of balkrishna gore [bmgore2000@...]
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:48 PM
> >To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [gobygroup] Identification of goby [3 Attachments]
> >
> >
> >[Attachment(s) from balkrishna gore included below]
> >
> >Hi members,
> >I have collected some gobies from west coast of
> >India (Mumbai) Kindly help me for correct identification.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India
> >homepage.
> ><http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_metro_3/*http://in.yahoo.com/trynew>Try now!
> >
> >
>

 

Oh, God.

I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the previous) topic!?

Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know, killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species. Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is also a must!

I think there is no point to argue any more.

Tony Nip

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com , Gianluca Polgar <polgar@...> wrote:
>
> Helen,
>
> True: fin clips per se cannot always tell us what species is the fish.
> Specifically, they can't tell whether the fin
> clip is of a species which was only morphologically described.
> To compare morphology and genetic markers we
> often need both, even if the fast grow of genetic
> databases will possibly make this need gradually less critical.
>
> Nonetheless, in a first approximation (there
> still are problems), fin clips can tell us
> whether a sample of 100 specimens contains one or
> more species, both allowing us to make hypotheses
> on the reliability of morphological descriptions,
> and to sacrifice a much smaller sample as a
> reference collection for future studies.
> I don't need to kill 300 specimens in a study
> site to show that only one species is present in
> a putatively morphologically homogeneous sample:
> it is sufficient to make a genetic analysis of
> 300 tissue samples (with a good outgroup) and
> keep a few deposited specimens as a morphological reference.
>
> I think we should keep trying and find procedures
> to get morphological data without sacrificing animals.
> I mean, this is a routine procedure for many living organisms, man included...
>
> If the specimen is properly prepared (e.g. when
> it's anesthetized), high quality digital images
> (X-rays included), can convey a great deal of
> morphological information, some of which are
> often unavailable in museum specimens (e.g.
> colouration patterns, some morphometric
> measures). Furthermore, many traditional
> characters that are used by morphological
> taxonomy and are not visible in photos can be of
> little use in some groups (e.g. scale counts in
> Boleophthalmus spp., pers. obs.), and in any case
> can be even more efficiently measured on
> anesthetized individuals. Of course, you can
> measure only what you are observing. That is,
> what you are looking for. If you want to make
> another measurement to dissipate a doubt or
> because a second idea takes the place of the
> former one (which in my case is almost the rule),
> and you don't have a preserved sample, you simply
> cannot do it. If you work with live specimens all
> replicates must be made during the first
> measurement session. Alternatively, another
> sample must be collected... if you can afford it.
>
> On the other hand, while I obviously agree that
> there are many measurements that can be made only
> on dead specimens (e.g. anatomical ones),
> certainly this is not the case of all scientific
> studies. And certainly I am not talking of type
> specimens, whose usefulness is apparent.
>
> In my opinion, time and money are the biggest
> problems for a scientist to spare animals'
> lives... it's much easier and cheaper to kill the
> guy and do the work later, if and when the
> opportunity comes, than design complex and
> expensive protocols. Just think that you usually
> have a very limited time to finish all
> measurements after capture, and that each survey
> would imply double costs and time just for the
> release of the examined specimens.
>
> Yet one point remains. Museums are repositories
> of the past and for the future. Here modern
> information can be obtained from specimens that
> were analysed when modern tools and equipments
> were simply not available. Such specimens are in
> some cases of rare or extinct species, and are
> the only remains we have to know something about
> them and compare them with the present.. this
> point cannot be underestimated, and this is a
> vital function that museums still have today,
> while species continue to go extinct at
> impressively increasing rates (which are in most
> cases substantially unrelated both to museum
> collections, and to taxonomical research).
>
>
> Gianluca
>
>
>
>
>
> At 19.59 05/11/2009, you wrote:
> >
> >
> >these ones are gobies - a Parachaeturichthys
> >polynema (black spot on tail fin) and two pics
> >of an Oxyurichthys, possibly O. ophthalnema, can't tell from photo.
> >This is why us morphological taxonomists need
> >actual dead bodies of specimens deposited in
> >museum collections of the future - so there is
> >an accurate record of what was living and when.
> >Photos and fin clips don't always tell us what the fish is.
> >Helen
> >
> ><')////==<
> >
> >Dr Helen K. Larson
> >Curator Emeritus, Fishes
> >Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory
> >PO Box 4646
> >Darwin, NT 0801
> >Australia
> >
> >Email: < mailto:helen.larson@...>helen.larson@...
> >
> >----------
> >From: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
> >[ gobygroup@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of balkrishna gore [bmgore2000@...]
> >Sent: Wednesday, November 04, 2009 4:48 PM
> >To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
> >Subject: [gobygroup] Identification of goby [3 Attachments]
> >
> >
> >[Attachment(s) from balkrishna gore included below]
> >
> >Hi members,
> >I have collected some gobies from west coast of
> >India (Mumbai) Kindly help me for correct identification.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Add whatever you love to the Yahoo! India
> >homepage.
> >< http://in.rd.yahoo.com/tagline_metro_3/*http://in.yahoo.com/trynew >Try now!
> >
> >
>

Hello Tony,

I couldn't disagree more strongly.

For one thing, this mailing list often seems nothing more than a
succession of photos from collectors who want experts to identify
their fish for them. This recent discussion has added some much-needed
variety.

Secondly, discussions between scientists and the public about this
topic are critical. In liberal democracies scientists are obliged to
explain to the public why they make certain ethical decisions. Last
week I was covering precisely this topic with regard to animal
experimentation in my History of Science class at Pepperdine
University. Scientists have no right to do things the public find
distasteful, especially where animal welfare is concerned. By
explaining why scientists do this sort of thing, the public become
educated and are more likely to be supportive.

The worst thing scientists can do in a liberal democracy is to shut
themselves off from the public. Some scientists think publishing in
journals is all they need to do. It most certainly is not! Mailing
lists like this Yahoo Group allow, in a small way, for the public and
scientists to interact. That's a fantastically constructive and
helpful thing for both sides.

If you don't want to participate in science communication, that's your
choice. But for science in general, nothing is more important. Without
the public supporting science through their taxes, science with no
immediate commercial value simply wouldn't get done. I'd hazard a
guess that most research on gobies is paid for by the taxpayer and not
by drug companies!

Cheers, Neale

On 6 Nov 2009, at 01:40, tony_nip wrote:

> Oh, God.
>
> I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the
> previous) topic!?
>
> Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know,
> killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol
> in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species.
> Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is
> also a must!
>
> I think there is no point to argue any more.
>
> Tony Nip

Hi, Monks and Polgar,

Thanks for your explanation.

I think the point I don't really know is that this forum would contain a large
amount of (or some) non-fish scientists/ laymen (That's why at the very first
beginning I think there is no point to argue among "scientists" on the issue).

I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction between
"scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them (scientists would also
learn something through this kind of interaction).

I also agree with Polgar that unnecessary killing should not be done.  Indeed,
as I said, killing should only be conducted when we really need a voucher
specimen to be kept in museum (or something like that).

Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing us to have
such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with general public from all
around the world, no matter from the east or from the west.

Regards,

Tony Nip

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com, Neale Monks <nmonks@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Tony,
>
> I couldn't disagree more strongly.
>
> For one thing, this mailing list often seems nothing more than a
> succession of photos from collectors who want experts to identify
> their fish for them. This recent discussion has added some much-needed
> variety.
>
> Secondly, discussions between scientists and the public about this
> topic are critical. In liberal democracies scientists are obliged to
> explain to the public why they make certain ethical decisions. Last
> week I was covering precisely this topic with regard to animal
> experimentation in my History of Science class at Pepperdine
> University. Scientists have no right to do things the public find
> distasteful, especially where animal welfare is concerned. By
> explaining why scientists do this sort of thing, the public become
> educated and are more likely to be supportive.
>
> The worst thing scientists can do in a liberal democracy is to shut
> themselves off from the public. Some scientists think publishing in
> journals is all they need to do. It most certainly is not! Mailing
> lists like this Yahoo Group allow, in a small way, for the public and
> scientists to interact. That's a fantastically constructive and
> helpful thing for both sides.
>
> If you don't want to participate in science communication, that's your
> choice. But for science in general, nothing is more important. Without
> the public supporting science through their taxes, science with no
> immediate commercial value simply wouldn't get done. I'd hazard a
> guess that most research on gobies is paid for by the taxpayer and not
> by drug companies!
>
> Cheers, Neale
>
> On 6 Nov 2009, at 01:40, tony_nip wrote:
>
> > Oh, God.
> >
> > I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the
> > previous) topic!?
> >
> > Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know,
> > killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol
> > in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species.
> > Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is
> > also a must!
> >
> > I think there is no point to argue any more.
> >
> > Tony Nip
>

Hi, Sarah,

I am also glad that you begin to understand the ethics behind, and give us a
chance to communicate on this topic.

To be honest, in our team, killing would only be the last protocol in fish
identification/ fish survey (and we seldom do).  What we usually (now nearly
always) do is using underwater digital camera (UDC) to make records instead of
electrofishing/ fishing using chemicals (i.e. rotenone)/ gill-netting (as I
know, these are still regarded to be "standard sampling methods" in many
so-called developed countries, and are still frequently being used (you can read
more scientific papers and you can see)).  Of course, UDC would only be useful
when the water is not turbid and in some cases, gill-netting would still be
employed.  Nevertheless, our government has already banded electrofishing and
chemical-fishing.

Regards,

Tony

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com, Sarah <kadbury5@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tony,
> ?
> In regard to your original post, I'm unsure as to whether you've actually been
reading all the messages, as there has actually been very little true "arguing"
but lots of welcome reflection and information on the issues surrounding the
killing of specimens.
> ?
> And about this being a discussion among scientists only - certainly not the
case, as in terms of zoology, I'm?just a tropical fish hobbyist who happens to
really like gobies (I am doing an MSc in Consciousness & Transpersonal
Psychology, but sadly?there's no?fish-study involved in that type of
'science'!).?It's been very interesting for me to read about the perspective
of?scientists who actually do fieldwork and thus have to / have had to?make
decisions about specimen collection. I've been glad?to see this kind?discussion
get going on a message board that, as Neal (I think) said, is usually just used
for fish identification.
> ?
> I have also been very happy to see that some of the scientists who have chimed
in?seem to have given significant thought to these complex ethical issues and
don't go into the field killing indiscriminately, but rather with a reverence
for life as well as science.
> ?
> Also, Gianluca, if I read one of your messages correctly, you have devised a
method of temporarily anaesthetizing small fish using clove oil? Or did you mean
that when necessary you killed them this way?
> ?
> -Sarah
> ?
> ?
> ?
>
>
> --- On Fri, 11/6/09, tony_nip <tony_nip@...> wrote:
>
>
> From: tony_nip <tony_nip@...>
> Subject: [gobygroup] Re: to kill or not to kill
> To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 4:10 AM
>
>
> ?
>
>
>
> Hi, Monks and Polgar,
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
>
> I think the point I don't really know is that this forum would contain a large
amount of (or some) non-fish scientists/ laymen (That's why at the very first
beginning I think there is no point to argue among "scientists" on the issue).
>
> I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction between
"scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them (scientists would also
learn something through this kind of interaction) .
>
> I also agree with Polgar that unnecessary killing should not be done. Indeed,
as I said, killing should only be conducted when we really need a voucher
specimen to be kept in museum (or something like that).
>
> Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing us to have
such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with general public from all
around the world, no matter from the east or from the west.
>
> Regards,
>
> Tony Nip
>
> --- In gobygroup@yahoogrou ps.com, Neale Monks <nmonks@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Tony,
> >
> > I couldn't disagree more strongly.
> >
> > For one thing, this mailing list often seems nothing more than a
> > succession of photos from collectors who want experts to identify
> > their fish for them. This recent discussion has added some much-needed
> > variety.
> >
> > Secondly, discussions between scientists and the public about this
> > topic are critical. In liberal democracies scientists are obliged to
> > explain to the public why they make certain ethical decisions. Last
> > week I was covering precisely this topic with regard to animal
> > experimentation in my History of Science class at Pepperdine
> > University. Scientists have no right to do things the public find
> > distasteful, especially where animal welfare is concerned. By
> > explaining why scientists do this sort of thing, the public become
> > educated and are more likely to be supportive.
> >
> > The worst thing scientists can do in a liberal democracy is to shut
> > themselves off from the public. Some scientists think publishing in
> > journals is all they need to do. It most certainly is not! Mailing
> > lists like this Yahoo Group allow, in a small way, for the public and
> > scientists to interact. That's a fantastically constructive and
> > helpful thing for both sides.
> >
> > If you don't want to participate in science communication, that's your
> > choice. But for science in general, nothing is more important. Without
> > the public supporting science through their taxes, science with no
> > immediate commercial value simply wouldn't get done. I'd hazard a
> > guess that most research on gobies is paid for by the taxpayer and not
> > by drug companies!
> >
> > Cheers, Neale
> >
> > On 6 Nov 2009, at 01:40, tony_nip wrote:
> >
> > > Oh, God.
> > >
> > > I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the
> > > previous) topic!?
> > >
> > > Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know,
> > > killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol
> > > in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species.
> > > Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is
> > > also a must!
> > >
> > > I think there is no point to argue any more.
> > >
> > > Tony Nip
> >
>

 

Hi Sarah,
 
Here are some articles on using Clover Oil and other chemicals for anaesthetising fish.
 
http://www.spc.int/coastfish/news/LRF/9/LRF9-05-Clove.htm
http://www.norecopa.no/norecopa/vedlegg/Guidelines-for-anaesthesia-and-analgesia-of-fish.pdf
I am also a fish hobbyist and have kept large catfishes (Red tail catfish, giraffe catfish and Oxydoras niger), lungfishes and bichirs. Catching them and moving them between hobbyist auariums over long distance can be problematic and often we would use anaesthetic agents to sedate them. With such large fish there is some error of margin in dosage but I would expect it would be quite easy to make a mistake and kill smaller fishes.
 
Regards
 
How

--- On Fri, 6/11/09, Sarah <kadbury5@...> wrote:

From: Sarah <kadbury5@...>

Subject: Re: [gobygroup] Re: to kill or not to kill

To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com

Date: Friday, 6 November, 2009, 13:00

 

Hi Tony,

 

In regard to your original post, I'm unsure as to whether you've actually been reading all the messages, as there has actually been very little true "arguing" but lots of welcome reflection and information on the issues surrounding the killing of specimens.

 

And about this being a discussion among scientists only - certainly not the case, as in terms of zoology, I'm just a tropical fish hobbyist who happens to really like gobies (I am doing an MSc in Consciousness & Transpersonal Psychology, but sadly there's no fish-study involved in that type of 'science'!). It's been very interesting for me to read about the perspective of scientists who actually do fieldwork and thus have to / have had to make decisions about specimen collection. I've been glad to see this kind discussion get going on a message board that, as Neal (I think) said, is usually just used for fish identification.

 

I have also been very happy to see that some of the scientists who have chimed in seem to have given significant thought to these complex ethical issues and don't go into the field killing indiscriminately, but rather with a reverence for life as well as science.

 

Also, Gianluca, if I read one of your messages correctly, you have devised a method of temporarily anaesthetizing small fish using clove oil? Or did you mean that when necessary you killed them this way?

 

-Sarah

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 11/6/09, tony_nip <tony_nip@yahoo. com> wrote:

From: tony_nip <tony_nip@yahoo. com>

Subject: [gobygroup] Re: to kill or not to kill

To: gobygroup@yahoogrou ps.com

Date: Friday, November 6, 2009, 4:10 AM

 

Hi, Monks and Polgar,

Thanks for your explanation.

I think the point I don't really know is that this forum would contain a large amount of (or some) non-fish scientists/ laymen (That's why at the very first beginning I think there is no point to argue among "scientists" on the issue).

I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction between "scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them (scientists would also learn something through this kind of interaction) .

I also agree with Polgar that unnecessary killing should not be done. Indeed, as I said, killing should only be conducted when we really need a voucher specimen to be kept in museum (or something like that).

Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing us to have such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with general public from all around the world, no matter from the east or from the west.

Regards,

Tony Nip

--- In gobygroup@yahoogrou ps.com, Neale Monks <nmonks@...> wrote:

>

> Hello Tony,

>

> I couldn't disagree more strongly.

>

> For one thing, this mailing list often seems nothing more than a

> succession of photos from collectors who want experts to identify

> their fish for them. This recent discussion has added some much-needed

> variety.

>

> Secondly, discussions between scientists and the public about this

> topic are critical. In liberal democracies scientists are obliged to

> explain to the public why they make certain ethical decisions. Last

> week I was covering precisely this topic with regard to animal

> experimentation in my History of Science class at Pepperdine

> University. Scientists have no right to do things the public find

> distasteful, especially where animal welfare is concerned. By

> explaining why scientists do this sort of thing, the public become

> educated and are more likely to be supportive.

>

> The worst thing scientists can do in a liberal democracy is to shut

> themselves off from the public. Some scientists think publishing in

> journals is all they need to do. It most certainly is not! Mailing

> lists like this Yahoo Group allow, in a small way, for the public and

> scientists to interact. That's a fantastically constructive and

> helpful thing for both sides.

>

> If you don't want to participate in science communication, that's your

> choice. But for science in general, nothing is more important. Without

> the public supporting science through their taxes, science with no

> immediate commercial value simply wouldn't get done. I'd hazard a

> guess that most research on gobies is paid for by the taxpayer and not

> by drug companies!

>

> Cheers, Neale

>

> On 6 Nov 2009, at 01:40, tony_nip wrote:

>

> > Oh, God.

> >

> > I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the

> > previous) topic!?

> >

> > Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know,

> > killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol

> > in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species.

> > Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is

> > also a must!

> >

> > I think there is no point to argue any more.

> >

> > Tony Nip

>

 

Hi, Monks and Polgar,

Thanks for your explanation.

I think the point I don't really know is that this forum would contain a large amount of (or some) non-fish scientists/ laymen (That's why at the very first beginning I think there is no point to argue among "scientists" on the issue).

I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction between "scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them (scientists would also learn something through this kind of interaction).

I also agree with Polgar that unnecessary killing should not be done. Indeed, as I said, killing should only be conducted when we really need a voucher specimen to be kept in museum (or something like that).

Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing us to have such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with general public from all around the world, no matter from the east or from the west.

Regards,

Tony Nip

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com , Neale Monks <nmonks@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Tony,
>
> I couldn't disagree more strongly.
>
> For one thing, this mailing list often seems nothing more than a
> succession of photos from collectors who want experts to identify
> their fish for them. This recent discussion has added some much-needed
> variety.
>
> Secondly, discussions between scientists and the public about this
> topic are critical. In liberal democracies scientists are obliged to
> explain to the public why they make certain ethical decisions. Last
> week I was covering precisely this topic with regard to animal
> experimentation in my History of Science class at Pepperdine
> University. Scientists have no right to do things the public find
> distasteful, especially where animal welfare is concerned. By
> explaining why scientists do this sort of thing, the public become
> educated and are more likely to be supportive.
>
> The worst thing scientists can do in a liberal democracy is to shut
> themselves off from the public. Some scientists think publishing in
> journals is all they need to do. It most certainly is not! Mailing
> lists like this Yahoo Group allow, in a small way, for the public and
> scientists to interact. That's a fantastically constructive and
> helpful thing for both sides.
>
> If you don't want to participate in science communication, that's your
> choice. But for science in general, nothing is more important. Without
> the public supporting science through their taxes, science with no
> immediate commercial value simply wouldn't get done. I'd hazard a
> guess that most research on gobies is paid for by the taxpayer and not
> by drug companies!
>
> Cheers, Neale
>
> On 6 Nov 2009, at 01:40, tony_nip wrote:
>
> > Oh, God.
> >
> > I have received more than ten emails (messages) for this (and the
> > previous) topic!?
> >
> > Can we stop arguing to kill or not to kill!? As all of us know,
> > killing should be the last but also would be the necessary protocol
> > in fish identification, especially when we meet an unknown species.
> > Keeping a specimen in museum for academic/ taxonomic purposes is
> > also a must!
> >
> > I think there is no point to argue any more.
> >
> > Tony Nip
>

Hello Tony,

Good to hear there's a consensus here. Makes this sort of discussion
more pleasant.

Forgive me for using the phrase "liberal democracy" in a way that
might have seemed I was trying to contrast values in one place with
values somewhere else. I was really trying to avoid saying, "here in
England..." or "here in the West..." since those sorts of things
wouldn't be appropriate to an international group like this one.

Have a nice weekend, all.

Cheers, Neale

On 6 Nov 2009, at 12:10, tony_nip wrote:

> I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction
> between "scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them
> (scientists would also learn something through this kind of
> interaction).
>
> Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing
> us to have such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with
> general public from all around the world, no matter from the east or
> from the west.

Hi, Gianluca and Neale,

I am also happy to discuss with all you people.  That's why I am still here.

Thanks Gianluca for the new mail list and I will try.

Tony

--- In gobygroup@yahoogroups.com, Neale Monks <nmonks@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Tony,
>
> Good to hear there's a consensus here. Makes this sort of discussion
> more pleasant.
>
> Forgive me for using the phrase "liberal democracy" in a way that
> might have seemed I was trying to contrast values in one place with
> values somewhere else. I was really trying to avoid saying, "here in
> England..." or "here in the West..." since those sorts of things
> wouldn't be appropriate to an international group like this one.
>
> Have a nice weekend, all.
>
> Cheers, Neale
>
> On 6 Nov 2009, at 12:10, tony_nip wrote:
>
> > I totally agree with Monks that there should be more interaction
> > between "scientists" and "the public", so as to educate them
> > (scientists would also learn something through this kind of
> > interaction).
> >
> > Thanks god that we are all living in liberal democracies: allowing
> > us to have such a valuable discussion and to have interaction with
> > general public from all around the world, no matter from the east or
> > from the west.
>

With all this talk about to kill or not to kill I think that folks need to
step back a little bit and consider the broader picture.  Many folks here
are aquarists (I'm a scientist and an aquarist), but in reality the
aquarium hobby kills more fish, in terrible ways that the scientific
community ever could.  Consider fish like gobies, they are not suitable
for the average home aquarium, how many of them in the trade end up dying
terrible long drawn out deaths?  They require specialized care that most
folks are ignorant about, or unable to provide.  Indeed, I often tell
people that to become a good fish keeper you need to kill a lot of fish as
that is the only way that folks typically learn how to take better care of
their fish.  Consider wild harvest of fish for food or the trade.  From
what little I know most food fish do not die in a humane fashion.
Consider angling, how many people catch their fish, dump them in a bucket
where they suffocate to death.

I certainly don't advocate doing away with aquarium keeping, harvest or
angling.  I would advocate that certain things could be done much better.
I also advocate that we need these things too because without people being
able to interact with fish then the justification for their conservation
and appreciation goes away.  But I would also advocate that scientists
should be killing more fish too (in a humane fashion) because our museums
really lack good collections for many species of fish for most of the
world.  Photographing fish is fine, and for some parts of the world with
very well known faunas there is little point in keeping many if any
specimens, but this is by far in the minority of places globally.  But if
scientists are releasing all of their fish as part of their studies, and
the taxonomy changes later, without specimens it is likely impossible to
know what the actual species was that they were studying which devalues
their study in the long term.  There is little point in keeping large
number of specimens of common and well known species, but few species are
well characterized taxonomically, or are that well known.

Cheers
Peter Unmack

Hello Peter,

I agree 100% with what you're saying here.

However, to play devil's advocate for a moment. One issue is that
fishermen are catching fish to eat; scientists are collecting fish for
no practical value.

Let me clarify this. I know fish taxonomy is important. I also know
that science is important. But most people see a difference between
useful science (e.g., finding a cure for cancer) and useless science
(e.g., determining if the genus Brachygobius is monophyletic or
paraphyletic). You can wave your arms and say, "Yes, but understanding
diversity is important, for things like conservation". But really, do
we need to know about how many species of Brachygobius there are to
understand chopping down rainforest and mangrove habitats is a Bad
Thing?

I hasten to add: this isn't my point of view at all. But it is a
common viewpoint in the public at large.

Cheers, Neale

On 6 Nov 2009, at 15:57, Peter Unmack wrote:

> Indeed, I often tell people that to become a good fish keeper you
> need to kill a lot of fish as that is the only way that folks
> typically learn how to take better care of their fish. Consider wild
> harvest of fish for food or the trade. From what little I know most
> food fish do not die in a humane fashion.  Consider angling, how
> many people catch their fish, dump them in a bucket where they
> suffocate to death.

G'day Neale

> However, to play devil's advocate for a moment. One issue is that
> fishermen are catching fish to eat; scientists are collecting fish for
> no practical value.

I see your point, but I don't fully agree.  Clearly though public
education and appreciation are important points.  Fisherman will often
toss things like suckers (that lack "practical" value) on the bank as they
think they compete with trout, but once you explain to them that suckers
are actually a food resource for trout and that they are potentially
harming their trout by killing suckers they are more likely to change
their ways.

> You can wave your arms and say, "Yes, but understanding
> diversity is important, for things like conservation". But really, do
> we need to know about how many species of Brachygobius there are to
> understand chopping down rainforest and mangrove habitats is a Bad
> Thing?

Sure, but governments don't base decisions on what to do simply based on
the premise that cutting down trees is bad.  If they are going to spend
money on conservation (or tell people that they have to stop cutting down
trees) they want to be sure that they are hitting the most important
places, and hence spending public money as wisely as possible for the
biggest bang for the buck.  You need biodiversity information in order to
make those decisions.  Ecotourism is the same thing, folks want to go
where biodiversity is, they aren't going to pay money to visit a tree
farm.

Cheers
Peter

Hello Helen,

It was I who said that "taxonomy has moved on". And I agree with you,
yes, that's from the perspective of the money.

My PhD and post-doc were in morphological taxonomy. I was working on
heteromorph ammonites -- among the least useful animals to have ever
evolved on this planet -- and all my work was done "by eye". After six
or seven years, I got pretty good at identifying some pretty shabby
bits of fossil! But as much as I enjoyed doing this work, and running
cladistic analyses based on the data I was collecting, it was crystal
clear to me that this was a dead end. There is little/no money (i.e.,
research grants) in morphological work, at least not by itself.

Those young scientists I know working in the field, including one
friend who works on cichlid taxonomy, all work either partly or
entirely with genetics.

I have know serious museum administrators who talk about shipping off
all the specimens to warehouses somewhere, and simply concentrating on
"the big picture data" instead.

I cannot begin to tell you how much I respect the kind of work you do,
and all those other "old school" taxonomists I've met over the years.
There's a level of enthusiasm *for their pet animal group* that seems
to be missing from the younger generation (i.e., my age, and I'm 38).
The younger scientists -- who were much better and more successful
than me -- all realise that it's the funding, not the subject, that
matters.

Yes: you are absolutely right about how people take for granted the
skills of museum workers the world over when it comes to identifying
material. In my own field, it is telling that most of the key ammonite
stuff was written pre-1980, and a lot of it pre-1950. I seriously
doubt that the sort of people who could write a monograph exist today,
at least, not under the age of 50.

Cheers, Neale

PS. For those who have no idea what a heteromorph ammonite is, I have
some of my drawings of them on my web site. There are a few papers
online there, too.

http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/Projects/ammonitereconstr.html
http://homepage.mac.com/nmonks/Writing/ScientificPublications.html

Very cool videos! Thanks for sharing.

A general question: did gobies evolve their sucker-like pelvic fins in
the sea or in freshwater? Does the fossil or genetic record help
answer this at all? I'd be curious to know whether their suckers were
for helping to resist fast flowing streams (as here) or for holding
themselves in place in shallow marine habitats, as is often suggested
in marine biology textbooks.

Cheers, Neale

On 9 Nov 2009, at 15:26, James Pasola wrote:

> I'd like to share a few very interesting videos that have recently
> come up on one of the forums that I frequent. Jim
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DPchub4_tc
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfMBgiXGxg0

I am looking for samples of the Favonigobius genus, anyone know where I can get
some for some phylogenetic/DNA analysis?

Contact Michael Hammer "michael at bold dot net dot au" he is working on
Australian goby genetics and will likely have some samples that he is
potentially willing to share.

Folks at the Australian Museum and the Museum of Victoria may also have
ethanol preserved material too, but you should probably double check any
identifications.

Cheers
Peter Unmack

On Tue, November 17, 2009 1:15 pm, craigchargulaf wrote:
> I am looking for samples of the Favonigobius genus, anyone know where I
can get some for some phylogenetic/DNA analysis?
>
>

Hi,

I have samples of some species to share, email me at dbszj at nus dot edu dot sg

Zeehan

-----Original Message-----
From: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com on behalf of craigchargulaf
Sent: Wed 11/18/2009 4:15 AM
To: gobygroup@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [gobygroup] Samples

I am looking for samples of the Favonigobius genus, anyone know where I can get
some for some phylogenetic/DNA analysis?