By Donna M. Recktenwalt
It’s a common question among killikeepers, especially those fairly new to the hobby. “Why must I be so careful to keep all that information–locations and collection codes and such–for the fish I keep and breed?”
“There are sound reasons, both from the scientific and the hobbyist points of view, for maintaining this unique identity,” states Brian Watters. The purpose of such attached names and codes is not to confuse the hobbyist, but rather to provide a pedigree. Since numerous populations of a species may be collected from the same area, both the locality and the alpha-numeric codes are important. These various populations may, or may not, be capable of interbreeding. “Different populations should not, under any circumstances, be cross-bred,” says Brian, since this would destroy their scientific value and might result in actual (and often infertile) hybrids. “The idea of crossing populations to ‘introduce new blood’ … may do more harm than good.”
Just to complicate the issue, sometimes the same population of a species is collected from the exact same location by different collectors at different times, thus carrying the same location name, but different codes. Only when the breeder is absolutely certain of the accuracy of these designations should such fish be interbred.
The AKA Code of Ethics includes the following (specifically referring to the Fish and Egg Listings of the Business Newsletter, but equally applicable to breeders in general), “All nomenclature should be correct, location codes should be included if known.” A fish that carries accurate location/collection codes has a known pedigree; fishes that do not must (by default) be assumed to be “aquarium strain.” Since “aquarium strain” fish come from unknown backgrounds, they may or may not be capable of producing viable eggs and fry, or may be subject to gradual deterioration of the strain over several generations.
The problem of correct usage of fish names has been worsening. Misspellings of species and location names is becoming more common, and we are seeing more incomplete location data and incorrect collection codes. As responsible hobbyists, we owe it to the fish we keep to ensure that the information on our fish is correct, especially if we are showing or distributing our fish.
“Most hobbyists quite reasonably use the name that appeared on the bag or label when they first acquired the fish,” adds Brian. However, the inadvertent errors that are appearing in the hobby (through smearing, poor handwriting, illegible labels, etc.) may mean that the hobbyist should question their accuracy in order to assure that previous errors aren’t perpetuated.
How to do this?
If possible, go to the source of the fish and ask.
Then reach for Roger Langton’s Wild Collections of Killifish 1950-1995, which provides details of fish species names, location names and codes for most of the collections through 1995. For Nothobranchius, refer to Status of Nothobrancius species/populations in the hobby-past and present, accessible at the AKA web site (http://www.aka.org). Another good source of information is the KillieTalk e-mail List. A number of knowledgeable people regularly post information and answer questions there, including many experienced hobbyists.
Other available useful data sources (although they may not include current or complete location or collection codes) include:
Killi-Data 1996, by Jean Huber.
Killifish Master Index, by Ken Lazara.
A World of Killies, by Ruud Wildekamp.
A Hobbyist’s Guide to South American Annual Killifish, by Robert Brousseau.
Pearl Killifishes–The Cynolebiatinae, by Wilson Costa.
– GCKA Newsletter, May 1999