Identification

[Guest]

deleted

[fishinwrench]

Why'd you crop your Budweiser halter top out of that bottom pic?

[Mitch f]

If obvious there are no degrees in English. It has been stated many times now he did not ID the fish as a Spot. But you boys are sure on hung up on that.

Here's what was stated

"My first impression is it looks like a spotted bass to me... broadly attached dorsal, smaller mouth, ordered rows of spots below the midline, coloration --"

[Goggle-Eye]

Who gives a rats butt! Its a fish for Christ sake. I could care less what your degree is, how often you paint them or how many you have caught! Catch some more and shut up!

[Old plug]

Your all guessing and it does not matter. SUISALUKI with a masters in this stuff you should know their is no positive way to tell without a DNA.

[Mitch f]

Who gives a rats butt! Its a fish for Christ sake. I could care less what your degree is, how often you paint them or how many you have caught! Catch some more and shut up!

Feeling your vibe but it's just a bunch of guys penned up at home and can't fish because it's 15 degrees.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Well, this might make you angry Chief, but I don't know if the neosho is a distinct subspecies.

According to Hubbs and Bailey 1940 it is...but it has since been invalidated by Bailey 1956, GIlbert 1998, Stark and Echelle 1998, and Kassler et al. 2002. According to Cooke and Phillipp 2009 (Centrachid Fishes: Diversity, Biology, and Conservation); genetic analysis indicated that they are not a distinct subspecies and the only differences are morphological (Bailey 1956, GIlbert 1998) and recent genetic testing supported this (Stark and Echelle 1998, Kassler et al. 2002). I lean toward the genetic definition of a species rather than morphological definition of a species.

From Cook and Phillipp 2009

Three centrarchid subspecies have been invalidated as it was demonstrated that they did not differ appreciably from other populations of the nominal species. Acantharchus pomotis mizelli Fowler and Enneacanthus chaetodon elizabethae were both described as subspecies in the 1940s based on six or seven specimens (Bailey 1941; Fowler 1945). In both cases, subsequent analyses that included many more specimens failed to reveal geographic variation consistent with the recognition of the subspecies proposed for each of these species (Sweeney 1972; Cashner et al. 1989). A similar situation exists for the Neosho Smallmouth Bass, Micropterus dolomieu velox Hubbs and Bailey. This subspecies was described based primarily on slight differences in counts of the second dorsal fin rays, pigmentation patterns, and dentition on the tongue (Hubbs and Bailey 1940). The validity of M. d. velox was subsequently dismissed on the basis of slight morphological differences and clinal gradation into the nominal M. dolomieu (Bailey 1956; Gilbert 1998), a conclusion supported by more recent analyses of nuclear gene encoded allozymes and mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence data (Stark and Echelle 1998; Kassler et al. 2002).

Do you have a link to this study? Not saying it ain't true, I have never talked to anyone that knows of any DNA studies done on these fish in recent times. In the last 20 or 30 years would qualify as resent times.

[Chief Grey Bear]

Here's what was stated

"My first impression is it looks like a spotted bass to me... broadly attached dorsal, smaller mouth, ordered rows of spots below the midline, coloration --"

Where is the rest of it Mitch?

[Guest]

deleted

[Goggle-Eyed]

Who gives a rats butt! Its a fish for Christ sake. I could care less what your degree is, how often you paint them or how many you have caught! Catch some more and shut up!

Just want to Clarify this is not me!!! There is now a Goggle Eyed and Goggle Eye....

Joe