Re: Bob L

["Roland Moore" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Back in my college days I studied some aspects aquatic biology, since the
University itself was world famous for that offering. However salamanders,
amphipods, copepods, ferry shrimp, water molds, wild rice and such
represented the majority of targets. The wonderful game fish portion of
osteichthyes escaped my study. I never suspected peacock bass were cichlids.

>Its just an example of parrallel evolution where two >different species
evolved to fill the same or similar >niches.

I never put much stock in the concept of a species or sexual selection's
role in evolution, especially after I took a grad course on the subject.
Unless you're a museum curator trying to parse out a collection based on the
archetype, holotype, or syntype you're holding, that notion of nature can be
misleading in the extreme, in my opinion. The concept of a species is an
artificial construct, it has no real existence on its own. It merely is a
term used to describe a genotype and phenotype that remains more or less
constant over a typical human lifespan. Life forms are in fact far more
complicated. The number of organisms making a living on and inside a body,
human or animal, may easily exceed the number of cells of the unwilling
host, yet in all boils down to a single species and single genome based on
some "scientific" description? What about these other organisms and their
influence on the epigenome? I'll be glad when a more mature perspective
about all this is finally the consensus, although that won't be in my
lifetime I'm sure; since evolutionist have hunkered down in a defensive
posture against creationists. Creationism typically involves the
supernatural, a topic one is simply unable to study scientifically.
Unfortunately all this has left each side with an abundance of specious
arguments and far too many Kool-Aid drinkers. Each side now seems to have
its own orthodoxy and resists any attempt at gaining more understanding..




"Bob La Londe" <nospam@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:471e1262$0$820$88260bb3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> "Just Looking" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:471ce8ee$0$26418$4c368faf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> > Are these bass as good to eat as regular Florida Bass? Sometimes some
> large
> > wild caught fish aren't as good to eat as the smaller ones.  At 22 lbs.
> are
> > those good to eat also?
>
> LOL.  I have not heard of anybody (modern anglers) eating peacock bass,
but
> I suppose they would be fine. People have lived in the south american rain
> forest and river drainages for thousands of year after all.  Mostly these
> are caught by vacation anglers for the experience of landing loads of good
> fun fish.  As to relating to largemouth...  Neither are actually in the
bass
> family.  Largemouth, smallmouth and spotted bass are more closely related
to
> sunfish as they are in the perch family.  Peacock bass are more closely
> related to oscars and tilapia as they are cichlids.  Its just an example
of
> parrallel evolution where two different species evolved to fill the same
or
> similar niches.
>
> P.S.  Yes, in many species smaller fish have better flavor than larger
fish.
> Channel catfish and largemouth bass come to mind.  I mostly C&R these days
> so for me its more about the thrill of the catch than anything else.
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>