BigBendFishing.Net

Poodles and Wolf Hounds are NOT sub-species of dogs. They are both Canis Familiaris. Would you argue that there is no genetic difference between the two?

I don,t think your simile with domestic dogs and speckled trout is very relevant.

However,I would say that the conditions that would permit a poodle to thrive in Apalachicola, are the same conditions it would require to thrive in St Joe.

If a wolfhound in Carrabelle, weighed less than an equivalent wolfhound in Mexico Beach.
I would suggest that the quality of food and enviroment that the wolfhound in Mexico Beach enjoyed, was superior to that the wolfhound in Carrabelle endured.

I don,t believe that a speckled trout in one place, doesn,t grow as big as a speckled trout in another place, for no reason.
That applies to any fish, that is not in contained in an impoundment.

Cranfield, I won't argue the point anymore. I would; however, suggest that you take a refresher course in biology.

Time to break out the punette square

In population genetics, the various alleles at all the gene loci in all individuals make up the gene pool of the population. It is customary to describe the gene pool of a population in terms of gene frequencies.

loci = A locality; a place
population, all the members of a species within a community, All communities taken together make up a biosphere. One of the most interesting discovories about communities is that they are high;y dynamic. The number of species. kinds of species. and size of populations within most communities is constantly changing due to disturbances and climatic variablility. I need another beer

In a nut shell evolution based on the ecosystem defines the habitants....having the necessary nutrients will supplement the size of the specimen, but not guarantee a 30 inch fish....if the fish is genetically structured to be 19 inches it will be 19 inches unless it is subjected to a gene mutation......

Genotype, phenotype and various other stuff I am plagiarizing out of my college biology book apply

I think adaptive radiation is a good definition

I'm done Where's LightChop when I need him

Discussing the makeup of populations and reading your old college biology book on friday evening.... it is obvious the lad did not go fishing today!

Littoral,
Could you share the research paper you have mentioned? I have a keen interest in sport fish marine biology, in general, and specifically to those species in the area from Mexico Beach to Keaton Beach. I started a thread once, concerning the turtle grass and the occurrence of shreds of that grass that are a nuisance when fishing the flats and what could be the cause of this loose grass – natural, or otherwise. A few interesting comments surfaced from numerous posts and EJ provided some input about the two basic shrimping activities in the area, which should be considered in any concern for relating the loose grass to shrimping activities. WV, gave the reaction of a long time shrimper to the loose grass problem, which was that it was a real pain for shrimpers, too, and clogged their nets. Most responses were what people thought was the explanation of the loose grass, and no scientific research surfaced, and the thread died without any definite conclusions. I started out saying I had a theory, but when interest faded, I never mentioned it, because after a while, I began to think it was a waste, without any investigative or scientific effort.
I admit, I am interested in the specifics of the distribution and causal explanations of gator trout, now that several people have fielded their theories and defended them when challenged. I got something from almost everyone’s ideas. There are obviously many factors that can impact on size in any location. Without any scientific studies, only conjecture can offer possible explanations – not to discount an educated guess. As locked-in as I am, on scientific method to discover natural phenomena, like variation in species, I have always valued intuitive insight to be helpful, in the absence of scientific proof.
One of the features I used to like a lot in FS, was their life-cycle adventures of sport fish, that were told in a character portrayal of a fictitious fish, from birth to death and things that were encountered along the journey. I haven’t read FS in years, and don’t know if they still have those articles any more. I would hope they would solicit marine biologists to write accounts of the research investigations that have been concluded and even ask readers to submit topics to have scientists address.
I personally fish the big fish and usually have to give-in to others I fish with, who want the constant action of the smaller trout that are about as hyper-active as 99% of trout fishermen. Sure they like to catch big fish, but their techniques are almost completely, small, school-oriented, fast swimming, highly pelagic, trout. Catching a big fish for them is mostly an accident. My intuition tells me that concentrating on small trout, and hammering this younger group, with lots of hook-ups and lots of poorly released fish, results in diminishing the numbers of trout that will ever get to gator size. Then there is the loose grass thing and what likely causes it and its possible impact on the very small juvenile trout and about every other fish species (almost all) that spends time in the grass flats, long before they become minimum size to be hooked or harvested.

I didn,t think we were arguing, I thought it was a discussion.
I don,t waste breath arguing, but I do like a discussion.

Chalk, I appreciate the biology refresher, Ken was right, just what I needed.

The definition you cite, supposes that the trout in these areas are totally localised.
Don,t they "migrate" to other areas ?
If so, then doesn,t the gene pool receive influences from other regions ?

Our coastal fish move out into deeper water during parts of the year, either to breed, find more aceptable water temperatures,or locate different food sources.
During this time, it is accepted that there is a lot of mixing of the different area groups.

This is why I clarified that my opinion didn,t apply to fish in an impoundment (where mixing doesn,t happen).

Smilies to prove, I,m not arguing.

Though not cited from the jounals of a science journal...I was watching ESPN a few years ago and a snook biologists said the snook in south Tampa bay generally don't migrate to the north side and mingle with the north bay snook and vice versa. But when you have leroy the ambitious snook who feels the need to explore new grounds and find some new honey hole, he will do so...and why did he do this? His personality is dictated by his DNA. This would explain a little long haired Chalk catching a Snook in the Econfina river in 1982, dragging a weaver greedy gut behind the boat. Leroy had made his way all the way up to the Econfina and defied the normal range of a Snook.

As far as localized, think along the lines of humans...I'm sure there's some folks you know who have never left their shire and look at yourself world renowned traveler. The ones who have never, left have found all the things necessary to survive in their local area and then you have also have survived but expanded your geographical location.

Anyone want to talk about tits

They are the same species. It's just like one family my have a history of having tall robust members going back for generations. If they continue to mate with tall robust women they'll continue the line of big people. Maybe some areas wasn't large fish depleted long enough to start a line of large trout. The DNR always pick the biggest and strongest fish to breed for fingerlings release, in hopes they'll produce the same in the offsprings. They do remain the same species though don't they?

It is probematic for the casual observer to properly assess the influence of genetics on tits. There are many environmental factors in play, ranging from the scientific marvel of the "Wonder Bra" to the dubious benefits of the surgeons knife.

It is quite rewarding research nonetheless.

After many years of research on that subject Ken. I have came to the same conclusion. Only a will provide the true answer.

CSM,
With the adage, I’m no expert, although I am often a lightening rod at times (never been hit by lightening, but have often received loads of droppings, on occasion), I shall very politely, offer a few items to think about, without intent to be argumentative with anyone. These are:
1. Isn’t species a matter of definition by bio-scientists, and often, at times a hotly debated matter?
2. Within any species, isn’t there a rather large variation of traits that usually have dominant and recessive characteristics which started the science of genetics when a monk began to mess around with peas and began to take notes with the controlled results he got in pollinating peas with various traits?
3. Doesn’t modern DNA research reveal that within any species and sub-species, like great ape, say, gorilla or chimpanzee and human, that they share about 90+% of the same DNA?
4. Isn’t there a constant evolutionary change, mostly slow, and on occasion (mutation) fast, in all scientifically recognized species?
5. Aren’t the 3 major areas of large sized trout, South Texas (the record, as I recall, is in the 10-15 pound class), Banana River and Mosquito Lagoon area around Cape Kennedy, and St. Joe Bay (I am probably not all that accurate with the later, which could be challenged by middle to Northern Texas, Louisiana, Keaton Beach and even Aucilla River).
6. Where does the sand trout and the weak fish of the middle Atlantic coast fit into the species spectrum for trout?

#s 1-4: I would agree with.
# 5: I would agree with South Texas and the Mosquito Lagoon area being well known for their large trout. The St. Joe bay and Aucilla not so much.
# 6 : I have no idea or opinion.

I believe that lightchop is entirely accurate in an earlier post where he stated that people don't catch more big trout, simply because they do not fish for them. It is my understanding that big trout prefer to feed on very large bait. I think a 7-10 pound trout would eat a 12" mullet.

I also agree with LC on the parts I know anything about. Like Ken, I don't know the answer to #6. They are all in the Trout family but differ greatly in most aspects. The idea about big fish feeding on big baits has been proven time after time. Not with just trout or salt water species but fresh as well. Folks use a 1 pound or bigger red fin shinner to catch trophy bass in South Florida. Many years ago, we fished Lake Jackson with large 9" plastic worms at night for the big boys that used to live there. Again, big bait, big bite normally. BTW, the 7Lb trout caught a Keaton last weekend was caught on a 7" hardbait.