Law paper arguing for legalization of Asian Aro

[thiswasgone]

I'm not talking about aus-indo crosses, I'm talking about the fact that reds, golds, greens, and the other one would've gotten their own species, splitting them from s. formosus (sp. nov would've been s. aureus, s. legendrei, and s. macrocephalus). Seeing as people regularly breed these together in captivity, if all the wild colors were officially elevated to different species, then their crossed offspring would then be considered hybrids, and not covered under any conservation laws.

I am aware of the 2003 attempted revision and the first sentence of my post briefly addresses that point. To go more indepth we require a separate thread as this is not the main subject of the original topic. However, IMO the reclassification did not go through simply because there was no monetary incentive to get others to agree. In fact there was quite the opposite as it was a high value commedity and keeping it's classification simplified to a singular species (scleropages formosus) allowed it's native countries to control:

1) the destruction of the native habitat & conservation of native populations
2) tax collection of a multi-million dollar industry

Post 2003, around 2010 IIRC AFAIK, it's been proven that the reclassification was unnecessary as the different color genes, more specifically the haplotype, were found within different scleropages formosus that would've have been different species had the 2003 reclassification gone through. There are critques that could be made since, as you said, if these were technically different species but already hybridized then the recent findings would in fact support the 2003 reclassification. However, that is a "chicken and egg" argument and the reality is there is no chance of a reclassification unless there are new unique genetic traits identified between the different color morphs. This testing would have to be done purely on wild specimen but it wouldn't matter; the environmental degredation of native habitat will make CITES never lower the classification from Appendix I. Even if a reclassification did occur this would mean for a brief 1-2 week period you may have "legal" asian arowana but CITES would quickly reclassify it's listing to match the new species and the US would still uphold it's current standing similar to when scleropages inscriptus was identified. Would you risk several thousand dollars on a chance of not having your animal taken in by customs or getting a visit from the feds? Hence why an Australian x Asian hybrid would be the only real hybrid chance at owning an asian arowana if it is possible.

 

[Hybridfish7]

I am aware of the 2003 attempted revision and the first sentence of my post briefly addresses that point. To go more indepth we require a separate thread as this is not the main subject of the original topic. However, IMO the reclassification did not go through simply because there was no monetary incentive to get others to agree. In fact there was quite the opposite as it was a high value commedity and keeping it's classification simplified to a singular species (scleropages formosus) allowed it's native countries to control:

1) the destruction of the native habitat & conservation of native populations
2) tax collection of a multi-million dollar industry

Post 2003, around 2010 IIRC AFAIK, it's been proven that the reclassification was unnecessary as the different color genes, more specifically the haplotype, were found within different scleropages formosus that would've have been different species had the 2003 reclassification gone through. There are critques that could be made since, as you said, if these were technically different species but already hybridized then the recent findings would in fact support the 2003 reclassification. However, that is a "chicken and egg" argument and the reality is there is no chance of a reclassification unless there are new unique genetic traits identified between the different color morphs. This testing would have to be done purely on wild specimen but it wouldn't matter; the environmental degredation of native habitat will make CITES never lower the classification from Appendix I. Even if a reclassification did occur this would mean for a brief 1-2 week period you may have "legal" asian arowana but CITES would quickly reclassify it's listing to match the new species and the US would still uphold it's current standing similar to when scleropages inscriptus was identified. Would you risk several thousand dollars on a chance of not having your animal taken in by customs or getting a visit from the feds? Hence why an Australian x Asian hybrid would be the only real hybrid chance at owning an asian arowana if it is possible.

I still don't think you understand what I was saying

 

[Midwater]

Tasmanian and Bengal tigers are two completely different species with their LUCA diverging somewhere several hundred MYA with their closest relationship being that both animals are within the Mammalia class aka both are classified as mammals. These two cases are about as related as the example you are attempting to use.

Please do not assume and answer with ignorance when a user is sincerely answering another user's post.

Gosh, well I have been told off there, haven't I?

I do have a question though: Seeing as Asian aros have five rows of scales and Australian have seven, would a hybrid then have six rows?

 

[thiswasgone]

Gosh, well I have been told off there, haven't I?

I do have a question though: Seeing as Asian aros have five rows of scales and Australian have seven, would a hybrid then have six rows?

It's unknown at this moment as DNA mapping would have to be done to determine what genes are recessive and dominate. However, based on the Osteoglossidae family order we have two existing subfamilies: Arapaiminae (Aripima & Heterotis) & Osteoglossinae (Osteoglossum & Scleropages) so we should be able to make an educated guess.

Within the Arapaiminae subfamily the fish here evolved many small scales but they also evolved unique feeding habits to their environments. The Aripima genus developed into large freshwater monsters that actively hunt fish as it matures whereas the African Arowana (Heterotis niloticus the only one of it's genus so far) is effectively a filter feeder. Since both genus have wildly different diets it's hard to tell if scale shape and size give either an advantage but we can compare the Aripima genus to the Osteoglossum genus.

All known, supposed, Aripima species grow to similar sizes and shapes and have a similar diet to their Osteoglossum cousins especially when young. Similarly, their native range are almost identical. However, since both are in the family order of Osteoglossidae if scale size and shape played a significant factor in survival we should have seen very identical lifeforms develop. This would indicate that something about their mature forms should be the answer. IMO the answer lies in the fact that Osteoglossum, while they are opportunistic carnivores, mainly survive on arthropod. This is in direct contrast to aripima who actively hunt down fish especially as they reach their mature size. Using this assumption we can then move onto the other side of the Osteoglossinae family tree which is the Scleropages genus.

Similar to the Silver and Black arowana, both Asian arowana species live in large jungle rainforest where large arthropods are readily avaliable. They also both develop 5 major lateral scale rows and have more color haplotypes avaliable compared to their Australian relatives. This would indicate that the genes of the Osteoglossinae genus heavily favor 5 lateral scale rows in addition to having more color on the scales. This would also make sense as Australia is not a tropical area and as a result the rivers are overall filled with smaller and less arthropods. Thus, similar to the Aripima genus, the Australian arowana evolved to be more of a piscivore.

Ergo, IMO, a hybrid would likely "regress" towards the Asian Arowana's body type if such a hybridization is possible.

 

[thiswasgone]

I still don't think you understand what I was saying

It is clear that the previous two replies, especially the 2nd, directly adresses the points you are making. The second reply even goes so far as to briefly explain why the 2003 study was incorrect and why a speceis revision was unnecessary. Additionally, it also addresses what would happen even if the species were reclassified. If you don't want to accept my replies as valid then I can't help you understand any further.

 

[Hybridfish7]

It is clear that the previous two replies, especially the 2nd, directly adresses the points you are making. The second reply even goes so far as to briefly explain why the 2003 study was incorrect and why a speceis revision was unnecessary. Additionally, it also addresses what would happen even if the species were reclassified. If you don't want to accept my replies as valid then I can't help you understand any further.

No I know what you're saying you're just giving a valid response to the wrong statement
Consider the following, you work at the grocery store and I ask you where the canned tomatoes are. You tell me tomatoes are fruit. This is true, but it doesn't exactly match up with the original query
If you do not understand this, you prove my point

 

[Chicxulub]

Excellent discussion between well informed folks, please play nice with each other.

 

[Midwater]

Ergo

Excellent discussion between well informed folks, please play nice with each other.

Oh, I will try to curb my sarcasm.