Comprehensive species list?

.

FishBase is good, but their programming is ridiculously bad and it's impossible to get any bulk data in or out of their system without blowing up the program.  ITIS is better, but it includes unrecognized species and a bunch of flotsam.  I'm just beginning to do in-depth analysis of their full dataset, and they tend to accept every crackpot designation dreamed up.  All of the robot-based aggregators are useless pieces of crap you shouldn't pay attention to - and there are a lot of them. 

The basic problem, as I see it, is the basic conflict between the constantly evolving scientific definition of "species" in the laboratory and the practical recognition of species by anglers and field biologists.  As far as I'm concerned, there's no absolute authority with regard to fish species.  I'd love for somebody to come up with a good authoritative website with the ability to differentiate the species they list.  I'm thinking about doing paired-species pages with this site, to illustrate the differences.  John Lyons' Wisconsin Fish ID database could serve as a crude model for this.  But recent species designations are DNA-only, so we might need to diverge from this at some point.  I expect within the next 10 years to be forced to abandon the "species" determined by DNA sequencing and creating a new term "Field-Recognizable Species" - unless somebody develops a handheld DNA sequencer for the iPhone.

I think a complete list of all fish would be a very useful tool, but you'd inevitably have to accept a large degree of subjectivity and error in classification, especially at finer taxonomic levels, given the many unknowns and controversies that have plagued the field of fish systematics (but which, positively, have led to the employment of some ichthyologists!). However, if a web-based comprehensive fish list was generated it would have the potential to continuously improve as new research emerges and hopefully get us closer to consensus on fish systematics.

Personally I think a collapsible hierarchical list would be most useful. The first page would be a list of the 40-some orders of fish. Then, you could click to expand an individual order, then family, genus and species (divisions, infraorders, subspecies, etc. could easily be incorporated). You could also flexibly include clickable icons that link to wikipedia style pages with details and photos about specific species (or any other taxonomic unit as available).

But that would be a major, major headache to assemble...

.

But the same stretch of DNA could code for a protein that has no effect on phenotype at all.  And gene sequencing does not eliminate that DNA!  Just because two populations have been breeding independently does not make them different species in my opinion; it just makes them different populations. 

.

I have come across loads of cyprinid hybrids (i.e. roach x rudd, roach x bronze bream, rudd x bronze bream, etc) and even  fish which showed characteristics of roach, bronze bream and silver bream, if this fish was a hybrid x pure stain then that would prove that they could reproduce. another common hybrid over here is the carp x crucian carp which is sterile (I assume the two species are not closely related enough.). 

there is a variety of crucian carp (carassius carassius humilis) that lives in different habitats to carassius carassius  and never grows above 4" compared to 6 pounds for carassius carassius. this could be seen a seperate species or a stunted subspecies/variety, depending on how you would classify a species.

do you guys ever see redhorse hybridization? that could explain why some specimens are so hard to ID positively.

.

This is all very very tricky.

For starters discussing Human genetics in terms of race is not easy to do. Are races subspecies? I don’t think so personally and genetics would also add that there are very few races that are not composed of mixes from other races. There really is no "true" human to use as a an example. In fact there are some more recent studies that have discovered Neanderthal DNA in modern humans. (although this is disputed by some and studies are still going on)  Neanderthals are a distinct humanoid species and the DNA transfer went from Neanderthal to Human meaning no human DNA is found in Neanderthal specimens. This suggests a degree of hybridization. some even speculate this is where some of the odd Caucasian  traits (pale skin and large sinus cavities) came from.
Who knows? The other reason its not discussed or even studied often is the horrible events involving race that occurred in the not to distant past. 

The real question is what makes a species? 
here are a few reasons I am skeptical in the genetics only aspect of race is this. 

1. How many "species" have been genetically mapped? It seams that as species are mapped the more species that are discovered. This bothers me. I don’t have the actual numbers, but Ill use this as an example. Say we know of 1000 "species" of those we only map one species in two locations. of that 1 species we learn they are actually genetically distinct. So now we split the species into its own species. Its interesting, but until we map the other 1000 we really cant be sure what’s going on exactly. I will be willing to bet that of that 1000 we will find at least 500 species that are actually comprised of more then one species each. 
I am not saying they arent genetically distinct, they clearly are, but is that what makes a true species. 

2. What is a species? Its a man made term and a man made concept. On paper is makes sense. But here is another example. Try color coding everything in the room you are in now. every object gets put into a category based on its color. 
easy! Blue, Green, Yellow, Red, Orange......wait is this more orange or yellow? Ill go with yellow....but wait this one is really close the one before and its more orange....now that I think of it the one before should go into the orange too......................................................................................What seemed like an easy task now is a maddening task of hundreds of categories that can change the instant you find another item where the color isn’t quite right.
This is a man made concept, and that’s fine.  That’s the essence of science. The problem is where do you draw a line?
Is Pluto a moon, rock or a planet? Even scientists cant agree. Chances are Pluto doesn’t care one way or another. 
Humans are funny monkeys sometimes.

3. In general I am a realist, some call me a pessimist. 
I have close ties to the scientific community and I understand how this stuff works politically. To survive and study the science you love you need funding. to get funding you need to be published. And its very easy to publish papers on new species discovered. And that is getting easier and easier these days. 

Now I am not saying two animals that are different internally are not distinct species. They are clearly, the issue is where do we draw the line at “Internal” (Organs, Skeletal structure, Musculature……DNA) ?????

American eel are a distinct species from European eel although externally they cant be individually identified. You need to check the vertebra count to be positive, but when you draw the line at genetics alone I get skeptical.  

And as I have said before when it comes to the old species lists, you have to pull the plug at some point. Otherwise it can seem like every odd genetic difference is reason to check off another species on the list. My dad has run into this with the birding community. Its funny it seems like this discussion only happens in Fish and Birds the two groups where some of us crazy monkeys love making long lists of our catches and spots.

I have been doing what my dad suggested about birds for many years. If you find a population of a species that seems odd and distinct. Record it.  Don’t worry so much about what the “Community” says so much. Their views will change every other year. This Is why I personally record species Like the Northern Sunfish, Hand painted Bream and the Florida Bluegill. They are different enough for me to take note. And since the cataloging is a personal goal and a very human one, its yours to do with as you please.
When it comes to my Lifelist on roughfish, I follow the rules set in place by the site.

 And going back to the original discussion I would LOVE a full list of all the known species of fish, it would be epic!
 

I'll try to keep this short.  I teach a class on the History of race and even wrote an article about it for a journal.  The big distinction for historians is between race and skin color.  Race is culturally created.  During the late 1800s, for example, "whites" in Louisiana legally classified Italian immigrants as Negroes.  Over time, Italians became recognized as racially "white" as courts and legislatures deemed fit.  During the time of slavery in the U.S., a child whose father was "white" and mother was "black" was classified racially as "black" regardless of skin color.  So, "race" has little to do with heredity or biology, it is culturally negotiated and created.  It's boundaries are nebulous and ever-changing.  Those of us who think that we are white, should compare our skin tone to a sheet of paper.  Not the same. Really more yellow than white.

In terms of biology, I'm not an expert, but my reading in the History of Science indicates that people are correct when they say that "species"  and "genus" designations are human creations.  They are largely a product of evolutionary theory, which established, some would say, arbitrary criteria for separating animals.  Why do we value breastfeeding or egg laying as important distinguishing factors between "mammals" and "reptiles"?  What about garter snakes who breed live young and don't lay eggs?  What is a platypus, exactly?  Classification is pretty much educated guesswork and is as much an artform as it is a technically accurate procedure, if you ask me. 

How someone else "lists" or "categorizes" a fish is interesting, but not authoritative for me, unless I'm trying to win a contest, which I'm usually too lazy and relaxed to seriously attempt.  With this bunch of expert anglers around, I'd probably never come close to winning even if I seriously tried anyway :-) 

Lets see if I can pull this off on a forum. I sugest that I can make a logical argument for a useful ecological species concept. 

Before you can define what a species is you need to determine if it is real.

#1. "What is a species? Its a man made term and a man made concept." - Jknuth 

Josh, I respectfully disagree. We know that as much as sunfish love to hybradize they still prefer their own "species". If animals can recognize their "species" then the concept is not manmade. 

#2. Since a species is a real thing, what is important to us and the animals about the definition. How is the definition going to be used?

For animals the purpose of recognizing types is to gurantee reproductive potential (for evidence you only to look at all elaborate mating displays/ colors). This is obviously an important point for the use of DNA/ genotype. 

To a scientist a species is a defined range of physical, behavioral (ecological) and genetic characters (phenotype). As anglers we use the physical to describe and identifiy different species. And we recognize the importance of behavior how how it  is controled by "species". Phyisical and behavioral traits combined define a species ecology (it lives here, eats this much of that, and is eaten by those). To the outside observers it is the ecology of a species that is truly important. If a defined species combines types with different ecology it becomes less useful - the more different the ecology the less useful the definition.

#3. How should we incorporate phenotype and genotype when defining a species? 

Since the concept of species arises from the animals (as shown by their mate selection) I think they should get a say in the definiton. And, since we want the definition to be useful it must incorporate phenotype.

For your approval I submit my definition of species:

A species is a group of organisms with shared life history, ecology, and physical characters that mates preferentially with other members of the gene pool. 

By this definition the genetic differences in bonefish may allow biologists to search for and discover differences in life history and ecology. But at the same time a reliance on DNA may be dangersou. DNA is used as an excuse to not recognize divergent ecologically distinct char, cisco, and whitefish populations. 

For anyone remotely interested in speciation I highly recomend this paper. 

.

I guess to clarify what I meant in saying its man made. The definitions are the man made aspect. and the definitions change so frequently (Most recently with genetics).  
Species are very real, but the line between them may not be as clear as we thought making definitions difficult.  

I agree with you on the mating aspect. I believe that is a very important part that is being left out in the "new" definition of species. 
The prefered mating habit can be argued against in Geographically seperated species (Alabama bass - Coastal bass - Spotted bass) Each genetically distinct and their paths dont cross so breeding cant occur and each visably identical However I believe if all are placed together crossing occurs. (Personally i would consider them all spotteds or subs of spotteds)
Then you have Florida Bluegill that prefer their own subspecies when placed in a pond with northern bluegill. 

 

I don't even know if this question is relevant to the discussion, since it deals with very short timeframes (decades or centuries) compared to the time it takes for groups to really diverge and become different in all the ways that have been mentioned as part of what species means, but here goes:

What about when we totally screw with the ecology of the fish in question, such as by transplanting them?

For example, oversimplified trout species X.

The ones in region A spawn in the spring.
The ones in region B spawn in the fall.

Both are stocked thousands of miles away from either of their original regions in region C  and continue to try to spawn at the times their ancestors did back home. The only thing stopping the two from mating with each other, since they're otherwise the same fish, is timing.

Is this a case of not recognizing each other for mating, or just not meeting each other when in the mood?

I'm sure there are much more complex examples where our actions have completely changed the ecology of "species" by changing their prey and predators, spawning times, temperature preferences, etc.

The definitions are the man made aspect.

Species are very real, but the line between them may not be as clear as we thought making definitions difficult.

Just for fun I feel the need to flip it around on you.  The fish don't seem to worry about how to define a "species" even though they evaluate who is (and who is not) a member of their species all the time. Logically if the concept is real then the characters that describe the concept are also very real.

i.e. If we agree that forests are real, then we both agree that trees are real too.

To put it another way, the definition exists and we are trying to find it through trial and error.

As far as closely related, but isolated, species: if they have been isolated long enough to be genetically distinct (and also separate species) they should also have post fertilization genetic isolation. Crossing may occur, but with decreased "fitness" of eggs and fry. Those species may look identical (even to the the fish) and they may spawn freely with each other (in an artificial situation) - so in those cases the genetics should be distinct enough to negatively impact the offspring. The whitefish which are barely separated have enough genetic differences to impact hybrids.

"To put it another way, the definition exists and we are trying to find it through trial and error."
Agreed 100%

I think we agree, but i am doing a poor job of explaining myself. 
There is a definition, a line between one species and another. And there is the method we use to define one from the other. The method is made by us and is ever changing and refined. 
 

As with everything in science we may discover the method we practiced may be totally inaccurate and we may be forced to throw it aside and try again, or adapt it. Trial and error. 







 

@MNbowfinangler - There is something like that out there already, but the site's ambition is even bigger - it's a family tree of all the species in the world and is called the Tree of Life Web Project and is financed by the NSF, the U of AZ and private donations. It is far from complete, however, and some parts are better elucidated than others. It is a very cool site though, and you can have fun following the evolutionary hierarchy up and down the tree. Sadly, fish are not as well-represented yet as they should be.

The main page is at:

http://tolweb.org/tree/phylogeny.html

An example: the ray-finned fishes at

http://tolweb.org/Actinopterygii/14923

Goal of the Tree of Life:

http://tolweb.org/tree/home.pages/goals.html

And speaking of the question; what is a species, an interesting article by Carl Zimmer for the Scientific American at

http://carlzimmer.com/articles/2008.php?subaction=showfull&id=1212035493&archive=&start_from=&ucat=11&

Maashkinoozhe

(Dave)

Again, I'm no expert.  Tyler made a GREAT point about species defining their boundaries for themselves via mate selection.  Because they define who they are through sexual reproduction, species boundaries are real, not humanmade.  I'd like to throw a little wrinkle into that logic.

What about "species" that reproduce asexually?  Some invertebraes (starfish, sponges) and even some vertebraes (a few reptiles and insects) do not choose a mate for reproduction.  How do we know that they are a separate species?  I think I can guess the response to this one, but I wanted to throw it out there anyhow.  Fascinating discussion.

.

I agree with Ken that defining bacteria species is problematic but I think bacteria are a fundamentally different case than fish. Individual ish aren't actively swapping DNA the way bacteria can and do.

Yes, there are gray areas, but thankfully there are enough species that can be solidly distinguished from each other to pursue for the intent and purpose of the angling lifelist.

.