No one, that I know of. When I said "captive diabolis offspring" I was referring
to refugia population. Sorry for the confusion.
>When were they reproduced and raised to the point of developing pelvic fins?
I don't know. I read this in an AKA publication, which cited a paper by Baugh
and Deacon on refugia effects on Devils Hole pupfish from Zoo Biology. I haven't
seen this paper; it's on my "to copy" list the next time I make it to the Univ
of MD library. Do you have it?
BTW, the AKA ref. said "rudimentary pelvic fins," if that makes any difference.
> The behavioral and genetic differences of the wild and 3 refugia
> populations (Hoover dam, school springs and point of rocks) are
> being worked out.
I would be very interested in reading this. Is a publication pending?
>refugia fish have yet to develop pelvic fins but they do behave
>more like their C. navadensis mionectes cousins because the large
>males hold territories in the refugia where as in the hole there
>are never large males and all spawners are random pairs scattering
>eggs here and there.
I didn't know that! Thanks for sharing. All the more reason to be extremely
careful with captive (refugia) stock. And all the more reason why an aquarium
population -- assuming it reproduced in captivity -- might cease to be true
diabolis over time.
/"Unless stated otherwise, comments made on this list do not necessarily
/ reflect the beliefs or goals of the North American Native Fishes
/ This is the discussion list of the North American Native Fishes Association
/ nanfa_at_aquaria.net. To subscribe, unsubscribe, or get help, send the word
/ subscribe, unsubscribe, or help in the body (not subject) of an email to
/ nanfa-request_at_aquaria.net. For a digest version, send the command to
/ nanfa-digest-request_at_aquaria.net instead.
/ For more information about NANFA, visit our web page, http://www.nanfa.org