Jump to content

EP / Bass ? Why not just Australian perch?


James  Clain

Recommended Posts

Alrighty fellow raiders, I have been away from fishing for a while as a result of end of year 12 work and covid restrictions. At the start of the Sydney restrictions I was able to fish for bass and during that time period I came accross this idea of Bass verses EP!

Why are these things different species!!!?????????

Haha I know some of you will agree and some are going to disagree but here is why I am confused and pretty sold on the idea that the idea that they are truely different species is ridiculous. 

Bass are more commonly found further upstream yet breed in the brackish during early winter.

Ep are found throughout the year in those brackish waters however have also been caught very far upstream. (coincidence?)

Bass and Ep are known to breed amongst each other and produce hybrid species. 

Normally the offspring of two different species are infertile however with these things they aren't and remain totally fertile. (coincidence?) here is proof they aren't infertile https://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/content/research/areas/aquatic-ecosystems/outputs/2011/2143#:~:text=Australian bass and estuary perch,that support important recreational fisheries.&text=Back-crossing (breeding of hybrids,that hybrids are not sterile.

 

So the question arises. Are the features that are said to classify the difference between EP and Bass actually reliable? 

Not really - you only have to look up "is this a Bass or EP" to find people arguing over whether a fish is a Bass or EP. 

 

So please let me know your thoughts. don't get mad at me because im happy to be convinced scientific or otherwise that these things can be reliably determined to be different and how that can be done. These are only my recent thoughts about why they are more similar than two different species should be. Remember a poodle and a great dane are the same species. Thanks.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They actually look very different when you put them next to each other

I'm pretty sure EP's generally spawn in lower sections of the estuary than bass, they're more prone to moving arounthey certainly occur way up in the fresh, I've got pictures from way upriver that I'm pretty sure are EP's

I have caught atleast 1 presumed hybrid, my theory is some of the random fish that don't migrate for spawning decide to get in on the action of the other species, same way yellowfin and black bream hybridise when they have completely different spawning habits

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because they are different fish, it's kind of like saying all Bream are the same, or all Mullet are the same, they belong to the same family, but there is different "models" within that family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know anything relevant to your question about Bass and EPs James but can definitely support the answers put forward by noelm. Murray Cod and Trout Cod (Blue nosed Cod) are different fish from the same species (Maccullochella).

There is very strong support for the existence of the hybrid of their inter breeding. I have caught many of them... I suspect the same situation exists with Bass and EPs. Good topic.

ps Good luck with your HSC exams. bn

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, dirvin21 said:

They actually look very different when you put them next to each other

I'm pretty sure EP's generally spawn in lower sections of the estuary than bass, they're more prone to moving arounthey certainly occur way up in the fresh, I've got pictures from way upriver that I'm pretty sure are EP's

I have caught atleast 1 presumed hybrid, my theory is some of the random fish that don't migrate for spawning decide to get in on the action of the other species, same way yellowfin and black bream hybridise when they have completely different spawning habits

At Penrith I believe the rate of hybrid species is extremely high. Everyone including myself often catch some really strange looking bass. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, the concept of species is outdated and was never really supportable anyway. Scientists use it as a convenience while all the time knowing that it doesn’t really hold water.

Taxonomy (the science of classifying plants/animals and describing their relationships) is based on the view that there are hard and fast boundaries between groups of animals but it doesn’t work at the species level and is even worse at the genus level.

The suggestion that good species cannot interbreed and produce fertile offspring was never realistic. Even mules can be fertile (although rarely). With plants, even different genera can cross and produce fertile offspring.

Older attempts at classification were based on anatomical features. Nowadays DNA analysis is available although it doesn’t really fix the problem, just moves the deck chairs around.

There have been attempts over the years to find better methods of classification such as form-species and the cladistic approach.

so, to answer your question, they are considered different species because the scientists (actually probably just one or two) who have studied them (usually by just laying out preserved museum specimens and looking them over) considered they have sufficient anatomical differences (or less likely, suffiently different DNA), and those differences are sufficiently consistent, to divide them into two different species (while realising that the whole concept of species is flawed but acknowledging that there was no other approach available). Once their findings are published, it remains the scientific orthodoxy until someone chooses to do the work and challenge it (which no one is rushing to do because it isnt very appealing work and not the best way to spend your scientific career).

BTW: according to the modern cladistic approach to taxonomy, humans are fish. Gives you something to think about.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James, there’s an excellent article here

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318816871_A_Review_of_Fish_Taxonomy_Conventions_and_Species_Identification_Techniques

which explains the current state of fish taxonomy, what features are considered reliable when distinguishing fish, and how researchers go about declaring new fish species or changing existing classifications. It’s worth a read.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...