12-03-2019, 05:58 PM
Despite the fact that the historical June suckers are no longer because of hybridization, the fish being preserved in Utah Lake are still genetically different because of their isolation within Utah Lake. These fish still do NOT exist anywhere else. To me, that is worthy of protecting.
"June suckers were first collected and described by Jordan (1878). The nomenclatural history is complex and has caused considerable confusion over the systematics of Utah Lake suckers. Jordan (1878) described three species ofsuckers in Utah Lake: the June sucker, webug sucker (Catostomusfecundus), and Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens). Information presented by Miller and Smith (1981) however, suggest that only two species, the June sucker and Utah sucker,
inhabited Utah Lake. In theirreview ofthe genus Chasmistes, they concluded that June sucker specimens collected in the 1880’s were different from those currently occurring in Utah Lake. They suggested that during the 1932-35 drought, when sucker populations in Utah Lake were stressed, June and Utah suckers hybridized. As sucker populations increased in abundance, new genes that were incorporated into the Utah Lake sucker populations resulted in hybrid characteristics becoming dominant in the June sucker. Miller and Smith (1981). therefore, assigned C. liorus liorus to specimens collected in the late 1800’s and C. liorus r~ictus to specimens collected after 1939. Their work remains uncorroborated. However, in a draft report, Evans (in prep.) suggeststhat the current assemblage ofsuckers in Utah Lake is a result of repeated hybridization induced by environmental bottlenecks (e.g. droughts). He also reports that the June sucker genome in Utah Lake is genetically distinct from any other suckers found throughout the Bonneville Basin. Since it has maintained its distinctiveness from othersuckers, the Service listed the endangered June sucker as C. liorus (51 FR 10857)."
https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.399...ef+s05.pdf
[signature]
"June suckers were first collected and described by Jordan (1878). The nomenclatural history is complex and has caused considerable confusion over the systematics of Utah Lake suckers. Jordan (1878) described three species ofsuckers in Utah Lake: the June sucker, webug sucker (Catostomusfecundus), and Utah sucker (Catostomus ardens). Information presented by Miller and Smith (1981) however, suggest that only two species, the June sucker and Utah sucker,
inhabited Utah Lake. In theirreview ofthe genus Chasmistes, they concluded that June sucker specimens collected in the 1880’s were different from those currently occurring in Utah Lake. They suggested that during the 1932-35 drought, when sucker populations in Utah Lake were stressed, June and Utah suckers hybridized. As sucker populations increased in abundance, new genes that were incorporated into the Utah Lake sucker populations resulted in hybrid characteristics becoming dominant in the June sucker. Miller and Smith (1981). therefore, assigned C. liorus liorus to specimens collected in the late 1800’s and C. liorus r~ictus to specimens collected after 1939. Their work remains uncorroborated. However, in a draft report, Evans (in prep.) suggeststhat the current assemblage ofsuckers in Utah Lake is a result of repeated hybridization induced by environmental bottlenecks (e.g. droughts). He also reports that the June sucker genome in Utah Lake is genetically distinct from any other suckers found throughout the Bonneville Basin. Since it has maintained its distinctiveness from othersuckers, the Service listed the endangered June sucker as C. liorus (51 FR 10857)."
https://www.fwspubs.org/doi/suppl/10.399...ef+s05.pdf
[signature]