tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3749343122757958445.post7310662337965533820..comments2023-10-10T10:59:04.841-04:00Comments on The Fisheries Blog: The Adipose Fin: Old Mysteries with New AnswersThe Fisheries Bloghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01179506775713371443noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3749343122757958445.post-31237326587104936932013-06-09T02:35:40.751-04:002013-06-09T02:35:40.751-04:00Characins also have a adipose fin. Again many of t...Characins also have a adipose fin. Again many of them (including the mighty Hydrocynus and Salminus ) inhabit sometimes turbulent water. Interesting hypothesis, love your blog!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3749343122757958445.post-81752254144014250802013-05-29T13:26:36.600-04:002013-05-29T13:26:36.600-04:00Thanks, Dave. Those poor fish! I guess optimistica...Thanks, Dave. Those poor fish! I guess optimistically we can call the recent work "progress" from previous butchering methods, even if we are still snipping a small fin. The Fisheries Bloghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01179506775713371443noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3749343122757958445.post-84725400772024554852013-05-29T12:22:55.270-04:002013-05-29T12:22:55.270-04:00Cool post Steve, thanks. Here's an interesting...Cool post Steve, thanks. Here's an interesting excerpt from a 1940s study report I recently came across where fins were removed as marks... can you imagine doing this today -- all lower fins removed?!<br />"The dwarf suckers used in this study at no time exhibited any unusual behavior as regards their equilibrium. In fact those minus all five lower fins appeared to maintain their poise equally as well as individuals having the full complement of fins. Since only one fin was removed each year, except in cases where partial regeneration occurred, it is possible that the fish learned to compensate for the loss in each instance. Perhaps if more than one, or all, of the lower fins had been removed at the same time the effect would have been vastly different. It is believed that the loss of even five fins did not create a serious handicap; otherwise the number of returns would not have been so great. Physically handicapped fishes, of course, are more vulnerable to capture by predators, than normal individuals; therefore it is believed that losses of marked fish would increase in direct proportion to the number of removed fins. Actually this was the case, but there was no means of determining whether or not the marked fish suffered proportionately higher losses than unmarked fish. Perhaps the losses of marked fish were entirely normal. The fact remains, however, that 36.3 percent of all the fish marked during the five-year study period managed to obtain all the necessities of life and, in addition, return on one or more occasions to participate in spawning activities. A considerable number accomplished this feat for five successive years and still appeared to be equally as healthy as unmarked individuals.<br />...<br />The loss of fins from outward appearances neither discouraged the suckers from completing the spawning nor prevented them from surmounting the various obstructions and swift currents to reach their objective. Male dwarf suckers demonstrated that their fins are non-essential in making contact with females during the sex act. In fact those with several missing fins accomplished the act without any noticeable lack of efficiency."Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07875843872048901958noreply@blogger.com