Chief Grey Bear

You are correct. I didn't proof read as I should have. My apostrophe typing finger appears have gotten a little excited and jumped the gun. Please give my sincerest apologies to the Queen.

Good. Because we have never held yours against you.

I retract this statement. It was not proper or fair. Though I am fairly certain ego makes an appearance, I am positive it is not as prevalent as I stated. I also want to state that Andy is correct about the status of the Neosho. It is not "officially" recognized as a seperate or sub species. I knew that but don't exactly agree with it. The above quote is part of an article I wrote a while back. That is basically how I feel about the status of the Neosho. But it does appear as if progress is being made on the relatively unknown jewel of the Ozarks.

Obvioulsy yore a yank. Its "Ya'll" not "youal"

Obvioulsy yore a yank. Its "Ya'll" not "youal"

I like the way this was stated.

Excellent point. And we have seen just that in what has been posted here. We have two seperate opinions or interpretations(not mine or Andy's) of the same research conclusion. It seems, as told someone else today, its 25% genetics and 75% ego.

Um... if you listen, one of the very first things she states is that she is referencing previous studies to lay the ground work for her presentation. Which by the way was at the Black Bass Symposium 2013.

BTW Thanks for the email. It will be late before I get to look at as I am deep in the bowels of Oklahoma right now

I knew you would split that hair

What? It is blatantly obvious they have.

So just how much genetically distinction must there be to be considered for sub species level? If Stark himself is stating that non native smallmouth should not be stocked into the waters of the Neosho then I would assume that is about enough distinction.

So just how much genetically distinction must there be to be considered for sub species level? If Stark himself is stating that non native smallmouth should not be stocked into the waters of the Neosho then I would assume that is about enough distinction.

Agreed, but now Mr. Biology has resorted to name calling! We are all now just stumps in his back yard!!

Al Agnew, on 16 Dec 2013 - 6:08 PM, said: That would certainly explain and support findings of the 3rd clade. It doesn't seem to be supported by the genetic findings of the fish in question. It would also seem that if they were indiscriminately stocking bass, the spot would be more wide spead in the Ozarks.

http://129.15.97.19/bbcc/BBCC_Brewer/BBCC_Brewer.html Well worth a listen

I think you got confused. In regards to the Wichita Spot, I thought you were refering to the book by AJ. Which is really just a guide made to sound somewhat scientific. I was not calling your posting of Starks work as non scientific. I still question the smallmouth being in that creek. It would have to have been introduced sometime prior to 1929. Maybe it was. I can't find any info supporting that though. It certainly isn't there now. I lived in that area for a time and never caught one or heard of one being caught. Pretty much the opposite of what one would consider Smallmouth habitat. Back to the Neosho, it appears as if the scientific community still refers to it as the Neosho. And depending on what source you are reading, they all seem to confirm that there are 1 to 2 sub species...Neosho and Ouachita. I can continue to site sources for your review if you like.

Interesting to say the least. It appears he states there is enough diversity to warrent not stocking non native species into said home wates of the Neosho and Ouachita. And he states that the yet to be named third clade is more closely related to the Northern than the Neosho and Ouachita. Which would make perfect sense. But it is exciting to think there is a possible different species in the northern and eastern Ozarks. I also don't quite see where he is leaning towards stripping the Neosho of its status. It in fact seems to be just opposite. The debunking of the Wichita is old news. And the publication I believe you are speaking of is just a guide and not a scientfic paper. But at any rate, where did you read that the Wichita Spot was a cross between a Spot and a Smallmouth? I have never read that and I have never heard anyone say that. Especially since Cache creek is not in the native range of the Smallmouth.

I have to disagree. All the research I have done of reports on stockings of smallmouth I only found of some very early stockings along the Missouri Pacific between St. Louis and Jeff City in the mid 1800's. Much like trout, they were dumped out of railcars stopped on a bridge. I would love to read what you have found though. I'm sure I haven't read everything. As I have stated before, I have talked to many old timers that were born and grew up in the Ozarks in the early part of the last century about this very subject. Not one of them ever heard, even from their parents of anyone ever relocating bass of any kind. There were were many stockings of trout but not bass. At least it doesn't seem in this area of the Ozarks. And it really wouldn't make any sense to do so. All of the streams were full of bass and there wouldn't be a need to relocate them. And in those early days, what bass would have been caught, would have been eaten and not hauled for miles just to put into another stream that already had bass.

With regard to M. dolomieu velox, the Neosho smallmouth bass, Kassler et al. (2002) conclude that the status of the Neosho smallmouth bass remains to be explored, and that further analysis using multiple techniques need to be conducted before a complete understanding of smallmouth bass taxonomy can be achieved. These conclusions reflect Stark and Echelle’s (1998) allozyme research that found evidence of three different lineages of M. dolomieu in the Missouri, Arkansas, and Oklahoma Ouachita uplands. Other than what you quoted, I can't find, yet, any other reporting that states the Neosho has been dismissed as a seperate species.

Actually there was some from OK a couple of years ago that did some studies. I think it was OSU that came over. I haven't heard anything further though. And I think someone did some studies back in the late 80's or ealy 90's.

They were actually to do a DNA study on these fish this year. The funding for this project was diverted to another project though. It is hopeful that the funding will be reinstated in 2014.

I have to back up here just a bit. I got to thinking about this last night but I didn't have the original response to reference because I had deleted it. So I went back to the text I had sent you. You are correct. It does appear that he does indeed identify the fish as a possible Spot in the initial contact. In other contact not so much so. In this contact he does state ....impression is..... and that makes you correct. I had it in my mind that he had said......impression was.....because of other contact we had had and he wasn't adamant that it was a spot. My mistake.

Never mind Andy, I saw it.

Ehhh. Ok, I take back the tooth patch bit.