|
|
| This may be a stupid question but, I was wondering if a fish's markings (barred/semi-barred/spots/clear) relate in any way to it's genetic strain? Anyone have an idea?
Thanks.
B | |
| | |
Posts: 2753
Location: Mauston, Wisconsin | Finally, an inteligent question in the research section. Kinda tired of the Louie Spray debate- WGAS!
IMHO, I believe the variations are indicative of genetic diversity. The most obvious is the spot versus barred. I know that there are some lakes that have a variety of colorations, perhaps genetic blending, i.e., the same stuff we see every day with the human race. The probability for these lakes to contain this diversity of colorations is probably driven by stocking of non-native subspecies.
To all the fisheries biologist's- Has there ever been a scientific study of the muskie coloration patern's versus subspecies genetic's? How many subspecies are there (verified)? What are the base color patterns?
The most beautiful muskie I've ever encountered was a 24" tiger muskie in Wallum Lake (Rhode Island/Massachusets) in 1999, very bright dark emerald green (almost metalic) with very sharp distinct markings. Didn't have a camera with me, as it was a totally unexpected encounter.
Have fun!
Al
Edited by ESOX Maniac 2/12/2006 8:16 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Yes...technically the different markings do indicate different subspecies of musky. I guess that would imply that there are some (though subtle) genetic differences then as well. Have a look at Becker's "Fishes of Wisconsin." Go here:
http://www.seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/becker.html
...and download the free DjVu application. Then you can view the Becker text. Check out pages 405-406 of the textbook; the subspecies are detailed there quite nicely.
Esox masquinongy masquinongy (spotted)
Esox masquinongy immaculatus (clear/barred)
Esox masquinongy ohioensis (barred/blotches)
TB
Edited by tcbetka 2/12/2006 6:27 PM
| |
| | |
Posts: 43
Location: S. Wisconsin | Betka, you MADman!
And here i was thinking you were a newcomer to muskie fishing, as you had previously stated...!
Did you notice how you NEVER see a photo of a good ol' fashioned Wisconsin Mud Muskie over 54 inches...?
Oh, wait...Except for Dr. Henry Millers, Louis Spray's, and Cal Johnson's...weird, huh?
Scott. | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Scott,
Hmmm...weird now that you mention it.
BTW--I have been fishing ski's for 30+ years--don't know when I said I was a newcomer. A newcomer to this forum maybe, but not to musky fishing. And my undergrad degree is in aquatic biology with an emphasis on fish.
But it's been all downhill since then...
TB | |
| | |
Posts: 743
| i thought i read that there is only ONE Esox, Masquinongy. below (the added 3rd name) , has been disproved w/ science, i think. i should research before i post..but i wont.
Esox masquinongy masquinongy (spotted)
Esox masquinongy immaculatus (clear/barred)
Esox masquinongy ohioensis (barred/blotches
the 3rd name in the above species does not signify a genetic difference. it may help only to label, then identify differently marked fish. a strain of fish, can be created, through using the same broodstock to create babies (or it happens naturally in lakes)...and or milking the same fish to make babies, then using those babies to milk when they are mature...you can create a strain...but i believe there is no genetic difference from the differently marked muskies.
I believe a strain of fish can and does carry certain markings..ie the spots vs barrs, but they are not a different classification of the species. the SAME GENUS SPECIES.
I think water color, feet of visibility, weeds, cover, (the muskies' world) helps to dictate thier markings as well...not just who there mommas and daddies are...
tomcat | |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Well, the most recent reference (2004) I can find is here:
http://nas.er.usgs.gov/queries/FactSheet.asp?speciesID=679
...and it seems to still indicate the same three subspecies of E. masquinongy that I listed above. I also found multiple references still reporting that specific markings depend upon which of the "three genetic subspecies" the fish belongs to. So if there was a change in the taxonomic classification system, I apparently haven't heard about it. Notice that this reference still cites Becker (1983) as the authority on the matter. That is the same text I referenced in my first post above; the one on the WI Sea Grant site.
Now if you check out the definition of a subspecies here and look at the last paragraph, you can see that subspecies are considered to be genetically different:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspecies
"Subspecies: a taxonomic subdivision of a species; a group of the organisms, which differ from other members of their species by genetically-encoded morphological and physiological characteristics, and by behavior."
I believe there is in fact a genetic difference between the three subspecies of musky. And while these three *used* to be considered seperate species, this is no longer the case--I think if nothing else simply because the three can (theoretically) interbreed and produce fertile offspring. Contrast this with the Tiger Muskellunge (Esox masquinongy X Esox lucius), which is a cross of two different species resulting in infertile offspring.
I guess we need to clarify this issue with someone like John Farrell, Kevin Kapuscinski or Dave Neuswanger; guys that are involved in this stuff on a daily basis...
TB
Edited by tcbetka 2/14/2006 8:47 AM
| |
| | |
Location: Green Bay, WI | Tomcat,
After posting my last response I spoke with Dave Neuswanger of the WiDNR about this issue. He basically told me that while those three subspecies are still considered valid, no one really uses them--unless you are talking to a taxonomy purist. To paraphrase him, there are many different strains of musky because various strains have intermingled for so long that it's very difficult to pigeon hole a musky into one of three subspecies. So while there are subtle genetic differences between fish, most of the difference is in appearance and behavior.
So maybe what you heard is correct, practically speaking. Although the three subspecies' names have not been rescinded, apparently no one in the musky world uses them much anymore.
TB | |
| |
|
Do markings correlate to genetics?