Identification

[Chief Grey Bear]

CHIEF------There are some. Send a note to MDC I bet they gat a DNA profile for everything in the state. Finding out would be an expensive proposition even for them. I do know that there are DNA profiles on just about everything including plants.

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.

[Chief Grey Bear]

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.

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.

[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).

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.

[Gavin]

I don't need CSI & DNA to ID a darn fish, LOL! Its pretty easy to I.D. a smallie/spot hybrid after you've caught a bunch of them...Be glad if you cant....it means your stream still is still predominately a smallmouth stream. Not a spotted bass stream.

[Al Agnew]

Chief, they had shut down the generator, and yes, I was not right up next to their boat but close enough to see the fish and ID it.

I'm just as fascinated as you are with the Neoshos and the possibilities of different races or subspecies of smallmouth in the Ozarks. We've hashed that out before, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are three different (races?) subspecies, based on those connections I've talked about before...Arkansas River tributaries with one variety (Neoshos), White River tribs (including all the south-flowing streams in the rest of the Missouri Ozarks) with another, and Mississippi/Missouri River tribs with true northern smallies. Also, the slight possibility that the Missouri River tribs (Gasconade and Osage river systems) did not have ANY native smallmouth. Of course, we all know that smallies were stocked indiscriminately over most of the Ozarks in the early days, so the genetics are probably very mixed. Some would question that, even if there was a Neosho subspecies originally, whether there are any pure Neoshos anymore.

[Old plug]

Is it really all that important ?????? Go out and enjoy yourself and if you feel it is this or that you can just say that is what it looked like. But without some tested proof such as DNA you would never know for sure. I have grown Hosta plants for many years. I am not a Hosta collector with only around 100 species. I know though in the world of Hosta plants you can see two plants look the same and they are two different species. If i have something like that i am not going to worry about it I am just going to enjoy them. Same applies to the fish.

,

[Al Agnew]

Well, it's like this...some people are anglers, and then there are those like us who are fish geeks. We find all this stuff endlessly fascinating. So let us have our discussions and even friendly arguments about it.

[Greasy B]

Even after all these years I still hold up every fish I catch and admire the wonder of such a beautiful creature coming from the mysterious underwater world. I don't know enough to be a geek but I do find the subject terribly interesting.

[Guest]

deleted

 

 

[Chief Grey Bear]

Chief, they had shut down the generator, and yes, I was not right up next to their boat but close enough to see the fish and ID it.

I'm just as fascinated as you are with the Neoshos and the possibilities of different races or subspecies of smallmouth in the Ozarks. We've hashed that out before, but it wouldn't surprise me that there are three different (races?) subspecies, based on those connections I've talked about before...Arkansas River tributaries with one variety (Neoshos), White River tribs (including all the south-flowing streams in the rest of the Missouri Ozarks) with another, and Mississippi/Missouri River tribs with true northern smallies. Also, the slight possibility that the Missouri River tribs (Gasconade and Osage river systems) did not have ANY native smallmouth. Of course, we all know that smallies were stocked indiscriminately over most of the Ozarks in the early days, so the genetics are probably very mixed. Some would question that, even if there was a Neosho subspecies originally, whether there are any pure Neoshos anymore.

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.