laker67 Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 The test would be to see whether these triploid trout can breed and produce fertile offspring. If they can, they are a new species. If they can't, they fall somewhere between a species and a hybrid in definition. I'm sure there is some biological definition for such an organism - but I can't think of any off the top of my head. According to what I have read on triploids, they are unable to reproduce and don't even go through the motions. They invest all of their time eating and growing large. No wasted energy for spawing like other diploid fish.
Fly_Guy Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 In that case, I'd be up for putting 300 or so in Taney - as long as they are tagged somehow. Think about largemouth bass though. You have people who put enormous effort to catch a record LM. If you bred a genetically 'superior' bass with the sole goal to produce huge fish, wouldn't it negate the effort of all the fishermen who have persued since Perry? (and now perhaps Kurita) Here's the next question - put a few in Taneycomo? Yay or Nay?
BredMan Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 My question is the physical appearance of this rainbow other than the size. Is there anything in the appearance of this 'genetically altered' rainbow that differentiates it from a standard rainbow beyond the enormous size they can achieve? Anyone know? I may not have read into this deep enough if it was discussed.
zander Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 From what we can see with our eyes only, then there is not anything (other than size) that would give this away as being a triploid rainbow trout.
ozark trout fisher Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 From what we can see with our eyes only, then there is not anything (other than size) that would give this away as being a triploid rainbow trout. But then again there is little appearance difference between a steelhead and a rainbow..... And we give them separate world records. Still, I think the world record should stand as is, no asterick either. Fishing and DNA testing just don't seem to go together in my opinion... A rainbow is a rainbow.
laker67 Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 But then again there is little appearance difference between a steelhead and a rainbow..... And we give them separate world records. Just to keep the record straight, there is not a separate record class for "steelhead".
ozark trout fisher Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Just to keep the record straight, there is not a separate record class for "steelhead". My bad. I thought there was, but I guess not.
ozark trout fisher Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 Just to keep the record straight, there is not a separate record class for "steelhead". [/quo
Murdoc Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I think we should call them "Bonds Brown Trout" and "Barry Rainbow Trout"!!! They will still make the record books but no one will like them!!!! I'm suprised that the heads of these fish aren't bigger!!! HA!!!!!! Smiles are free http://rdpflyrods.com/
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now