New Species

[Dwight Hottle]

https://myfwc.com/fishing/freshwater/black-bass/florida-bass/?utm_content=&utm_medium=email&utm_name=&utm_source=govdelivery&utm_term=campaign&fbclid=IwZXh0bgNhZW0CMTAAAR2yMxD_w2fSlMAsLvZNS3NHrTfDtKSELJljNVTBwmQRduWVlNdFvRHMp-Y_aem_QVMjy5LY2_PnOu_nyTHcsw

[Jar11591]

Saw this! So the Florida bass is no longer associated with largemouth except for sharing the micropterus genus. That should also mean a new record for largemouth bass should be established. 
And correct me if I’m wrong, but that should also mean there is now no recognized subspecies of largemouth.  What previously was the northern strain is now simply the largemouth. 

[Dwight Hottle]

Yes this has the potential to really change a lot of previous parameters. Including records. 

[AlabamaSpothunter]

The IGFA has made an absolute joke of the records.    Ken Duke is hopefully going to address this in an upcoming Bass After Dark show.  

 

The fact they made the Perry/Kurita fish the NLMB WR thereby making it impossible for northern anglers to ever catch a record of their own is criminal.   

 

If the angler can't tell the sub species apart visually, then there doesn't need to be a separate category.   

 

Hopefully the IGFA listens and changes them, again absolutely pants on head stupid. 

 

 

[WRB]

There isn’t anyway to validate the Perry LMB record let alone what species the fish was? 
On the other hand we know the Kurita bass weighed 22.312 lbs and was a Florida strain LMB. Lots of pictures and formal examination to validate the Kurita FLMB.

Same issue applies to Alabama Spotted bass the Dulleck 11l lbs 4 oz is the current validated world record.

Tom

[AlabamaSpothunter]

To my knowledge the Kurita fish never had genetic testing done, and that's the reason the IGFA won't list it as the FLMB WR, rather a recently caught 15lb fish by Kyle Hall on OH Ivie was listed as the new record.    

 

Perry's fish fwiw came out of an oxbow that perfectly matches up with the historical range of the FLMB strain. 

 

Nobody covers this stuff better than Ken Duke.   His Bass After Dark, and The Big Bass Podcast are amazing sources of information.  

[Team9nine]

This ^^

 

The  Kurita fish has never been genetically tested and proven to be, or have, Florida bass genes that I'm aware. Biwa was originally stocked with 'northern strain' bass, but later had Florida bass introduced, as I understand it. It is likely that the Kurita fish is either a hybrid, or possibly a pure Florida depending upon original FL stocking date(s), but the IGFA will not alter the records until proven otherwise. The fish mount is still around, so it is possible we'll see it tested at some point if they could recover some DNA samples from that mount. That is not the case with the Perry fish, which is long gone according to all accounts. This whole saga still has a good ways to play out, and I expect some changes to the current "records" somewhere along the line.

[Bazoo]

This is awesome as far as I'm concerned, thank you for sharing! What this means for me (after they differentiate the records) as a lowly person who lives in a place that doesn't have Florida LMB, is that it's possible I could catch a world record LMB in my regional waters.

[Woody B]

I believe "they" have taken the whole Florida strain vs Northern strain thing too far.  We're dealing with "Largemouth Bass".  It's not like we're comparing a Buzzard to a Turkey.   Buzzards and Turkeys are 2 different species.  "Florida" strain, and "Northern" strain are "sub species".   I personally believe "sub species" is a made up thing someone made up to make themselves feel important.   

 

We are all "**** sapiens".    There isn't any "sub species" (and shouldn't be) because we originally came from different areas.  

[Jar11591]

@Woody B what this is establishing is that Florida strain and northern strain are no longer a thing, because the Florida strain is now recognized as a separate species and not a largemouth at all. Meaning taxonomically, the Florida bass is as different from a northern strain as it is a smallmouth bass.
 

btw, some consider the Denisovans to be a (obviously extinct) subspecies of H. sapiens. 

[AlabamaSpothunter]

1 hour ago, Bazoo said:

This is awesome as far as I'm concerned, thank you for sharing! What this means for me (after they differentiate the records) as a lowly person who lives in a place that doesn't have Florida LMB, is that it's possible I could catch a world record LMB in my regional waters.

Sadly for this to be the case you'd need to catch a 22.8lb fish because the IGFA decided to make the Perry/Kurita fish the NLMB world record. 

 

The recent NY state record LM caught on Cayuga is the fish that should be the new NLMB world record at 12lb+.   

 

The only thing all these changes did in terms of positives, is that it helps separate the upland Black Bass sub species further, and thereby hopefully increasing awareness about the need to protect them and keep bucket biology from killing them off.  

[Bazoo]

12 minutes ago, AlabamaSpothunter said:

Sadly for this to be the case you'd need to catch a 22.8lb fish because the IGFA decided to make the Perry/Kurita fish the NLMB world record. 

 

The recent NY state record LM caught on Cayuga is the fish that should be the new NLMB world record at 12lb+.   

 

The only thing all these changes did in terms of positives, is that it helps separate the upland Black Bass sub species further, and thereby hopefully increasing awareness about the need to protect them and keep bucket biology from killing them off.  

I'm thinking ahead, perhaps hopefully, that they will eventually separate the LMB and the FLMB, and do away with the 22lb record for the LMB.

 

I don't know which state has the largest non Florida LMB, but we have 14-9.5 here for LMB record.

[Team9nine]

1 hour ago, Bazoo said:

I don't know which state has the largest non Florida LMB, but we have 14-9.5 here for LMB record.

MA has what is likely the largest northern strain at 15-8, but no one knows where that fish resides, so testing might not be possible. I believe the next largest is Indiana’s 14-12, and it was recent enough that the angler is still with us, as is the fish mount along with some of the biologists that certified it. It is a clean and uncontested catch, and I’ve contacted Ken Duke arguing the case for certifying it as the official largemouth bass record (nigricans). The Perry and Kurita fish should go into the record books as a newly (yet to be) recognized “hybrid” category all-tackle WR, IMO.

[Bazoo]

1 hour ago, Team9nine said:

MA has what is likely the largest northern strain at 15-8, but no one knows where that fish resides, so testing might not be possible. I believe the next largest is Indiana’s 14-12, and it was recent enough that the angler is still with us, as is the fish mount along with some of the biologists that certified it. It is a clean and uncontested catch, and I’ve contacted Ken Duke arguing the case for certifying it as the official largemouth bass record (nigricans). The Perry and Kurita fish should go into the record books as a newly (yet to be) recognized “hybrid” category all-tackle WR, IMO.

I absolutely agree.

[WRB]

The new IGFA doesn’t have a genetic test required for either FLMB or Alabama Spotted bass record applications… strange but true.

The correct term for FLMB and NLMB is intergrade F1.

You can field identify pure FLMB and F1’s by counting the lateral line pore scales ; over 69* it’s a Florida strain LMB.

I don’t recall if legally caught legacy bass qualify for new records?

It’s about time the 2 new categories for FLMB and Alabama (Southern) Spotted bass are separate species because they are and have been fir well over 50 years.

Tom

*McClane’s Standard Fishing Encyclopedia pages 128-133, page 131 detail NLMB vs FLMB.

 Copy 1965

[Team9nine]

17 minutes ago, WRB said:

The new IGFA doesn’t have a genetic test required for either FLMB or Alabama Spotted bass record applications… strange but true.

The correct term for FLMB and NLMB is intergrade F1.

You can field identify pure FLMB and F1’s by counting the lateral line pore scales ; over 59 it’s a Florida strain LMB.

I don’t recall if legally caught legacy bass qualify for new records?

It’s about time the 2 new categories for FLMB and Alabama (Southern) Spotted bass are separate species because they are and have been fit well over 50 years.

Tom

 

 

Going forward, all "All-tackle" world records in either bass class (FL or LMB) have to be genetically proven as "pure" in order to be the record. They won't allow a fish on just a scale count due to variability if I heard correctly. There is currently no "hybrid" category (F1, Fx, etc.), and hybrids won't be allowed in either category if breaking an all-tackle record. I believe the threshold is 90% pure or greater, maybe even closer to 94/95%. But they are not requiring genetic testing for line class records as I recall. I don't remember if the same parameters were being used for Alabama bass and spotted bass. You can watch the BAD podcast discussions for all the particulars in that regard. I've watched it a couple times, but a lot to digest and remember - lol.

[king fisher]

Anybody who got a higher grade than me in Biology feel free to correct me.  I was always under the assumption, that the main requirement in the classification of a species was the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring.  A miniature poodle could breed with a wolf, and have decedents that could reproduce.  Therefore a wolf and a poodle are both the same species with the common name of dogs.  Where as a fox  and a wolf can't breed and produce viable offspring therefore they are sperate species.

 

A donkey and a horse are not the same species even though they can reproduce because the mules that are born are sterile and cannot reproduce with either of their parents, or other mules.

 

My question is would not the same rules of classification apply to bass?  Large mouth and Florida bass not only can cross breed, but in certain areas have done so for hundreds of years.  I know that small mouth and largemouth can interbreed, but it is rare, and I'm not sure if they produce viable offspring.  With viable offspring as the main requirement to be classified as a species, than I would assume Northern Largemouth and Florida largemouth are sub species of the same species.

 

 

I got a C in my biology class in college, and it has been many year ago that I took the class, so anyone with more knowledge on the subject feel free to correct any of my assumptions.

 

[WRB]

Hybrid is the product of to species, Intergrade the product if subspecies.

Black Bass can produce both Hybrids that don’t procreate and Intergrades that can procreate, spawn together and produce fry. NLM bass can spawn with FLMB = F1 intergrade. Smallmouth bass spawn with LMB = Meanmouth bass a hydrid.

This is a problem depleting the pure strains as Black bass are introduced in regions outside their normal range worldwide.

Tom

[Jar11591]

@king fisher you may be mistaking species with genus. Wolves and dogs are not the same species, but they share the canis genus. Just like all black bass  share the micropterus genus. Largemouth, smallmouth, spotted, shoal, redeye, and now the Florida bass which was previously listed as a subspecies of largemouth are all seperate species under the same genus. Some if not all can produce non-sterile hybrid offspring, ie. the meanmouth. 

[MIbassyaker]

22 hours ago, king fisher said:

Anybody who got a higher grade than me in Biology feel free to correct me.  I was always under the assumption, that the main requirement in the classification of a species was the ability to interbreed and produce viable offspring.  A miniature poodle could breed with a wolf, and have decedents that could reproduce.  Therefore a wolf and a poodle are both the same species with the common name of dogs.  Where as a fox  and a wolf can't breed and produce viable offspring therefore they are sperate species.

 

A donkey and a horse are not the same species even though they can reproduce because the mules that are born are sterile and cannot reproduce with either of their parents, or other mules.

 

My question is would not the same rules of classification apply to bass?  Large mouth and Florida bass not only can cross breed, but in certain areas have done so for hundreds of years.  I know that small mouth and largemouth can interbreed, but it is rare, and I'm not sure if they produce viable offspring.  With viable offspring as the main requirement to be classified as a species, than I would assume Northern Largemouth and Florida largemouth are sub species of the same species.

 

 

I got a C in my biology class in college, and it has been many year ago that I took the class, so anyone with more knowledge on the subject feel free to correct any of my assumptions.

 

 

In fact, there is no single definition of species that captures every distinction.  Ability to interbreed is a good rule of thumb, and one of several factors that is often considered because it works pretty well most of the time.  But it isn't completely consistent.

 

Consider for instance Ring Species:  Several populations with ranges forming a geographic "chain", that can interbreed where there ranges overlap, but the populations at the ends of the chain cannot. 

 

A famous example occurs in Gulls of the Larus genus, in which there is a chain of populations forming a "ring" around the Arctic. Interbreeding is possible where each range meets, except at the ends of the chain where you end up with two species which do not interbreed with each other-- the Herring Gull and and Black-backed Gull.  Genetic studies have recently cast some doubt on whether the Larus gulls are true ring species....but that's only because the genetic data show their relatedness is even less clean cut than we used to think, rather than more

 

Genetic definitions are widely considered nowadays to be better in defining species, and that's the one used in the research behind this bass species change.  But still, it comes down to at bit of a judgment call -- look for specific genetic markers found in different populations of bass, and figure out where there is more vs less gene flow  between them, and identify which groups have likely diverged from which other groups, and when.

 

The ultimate problem here is that concepts like "species" and "subspecies" are human categories we  impose on the natural world in order to make sense of it.  Unfortunately, nature does not always obey the neat, cleanly-divided categories we prefer.  

[mcipinkie]

Who cares?

 

Just go fishing and try to catch something.

[gim]

22 hours ago, Jar11591 said:

Just like all black bass  share the micropterus genus. Largemouth, smallmouth, spotted, shoal, redeye, and now the Florida bass which was previously listed as a subspecies of largemouth are all seperate species under the same genus.

I noticed you conveniently left out rock bass. Good man. 

[Jar11591]

@gimruis it likes to play it self off as a bass, but it’s no micropterus. Rock bass are Ambloplites, and they share that genus with a couple of somewhat rare centrarchids. They all compete to be the weakest fighting fish, a title known as the rock bass cup. 

[Ski]

Anyone know when this became official?