Bull Trout

"Danl" wrote in message ...

...and you are correct! As a matter of fact, no one should be treated as a
high priest. Except maybe Willi.

Willi, HPOTF -- I'll second that.

That's an important distinction. Whenever I hear scientists equated to
"priests" my radar goes off.

Sorry, Danl, I didn't mean to imply any of the things you wrote.
But if you look at rationalism and how it plays out and is
maintained, the parallels to society-controlling orthodox religions
is quite strong.

I realize many people think that the scientific age ushered in
a new era where we threw off old belief systems. I just think we
swapped one for another.

Jon.

On 2004-02-09 18:30:22 -0700, "Wolfgang" said:

Mayr is indeed an interesting character as well as being widely and
highly
regarded as a biologist. However, I don't think that Jon is out of line
in
labeling him as an "elder high priest". He certainly does enjoy
something
like such stature even among people who should (and do) know better.
Otherwise sober, equally qualified, and considerably better known
scientists
frequently wax effusive if not downright rhapsodic in signing his
praises.
Gould, for example.....and since you brought him up.....has said of Mayr
that he is "The world's greatest living biologist and a writer of
extraordinary insight and clarity". To borrow a rhetorical trick from
Mayr
himself, one could go on at some length, but this is hardly the proper
place
for it.

Since you're such an expert in biology, Wolfgang, maybe you could elaborate
on your novel theory that viruses don't even have their own DNA.

-----------------------------------------------------
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

JR wrote:


- There is no "Redsides hatchery" near Maupin. All the redsides in the
lower Deschutes are wild fish. The rainbows produced in the Oak
Springs
Hatchery near Maupin are from brood stock originating in California
(probably the McCloud strain) and are planted in the high Cascades
lakes
and elsewhere, but not in the Deschutes.

I stand corrected. Now that you remind me, I remember that the
hatchery was not for redsides, and the guy did say that the redsides
were reproducing on their own without a hatchery. The
cutthroat/rainbow cross notion is either from him, or from someone else
I was talking to on that trip.

I simply wanted to know if there was some other evidence for this
notion
of a cutt/redband rainbow "cross" somewhere in the large triangular
evidentiary space between 1) legal evidence (not normally of interest
in
questions of evolutionary biology, but hey, who knows?), 2) shootin'
the
**** with some hatchery technician, and 3) the altogether possible but
only marginally germane observation that I'm an asshole.

The most important thing I learned in college was that everybody's an
asshole. The hard part was realizing that everybody includes me. If
you'd straightened me out about the Oak Springs hatchery and worded
your comment a little differently I probably wouldn't have been
compelled to point out that you too are part of "everybody".

BTW, if you're interested, this is an excellent source of background
information:

http://tinyurl.com/2jlmk, especially (for this "discussion" g)
Chapter
3 and the three subspecies overviews.

That's a fine reference, I read the parts about the costal rainbows and
the Deschutes rainbows. I seriously doubt that I talked to anyone who
knew enough to contradict anything in this report. My best guess is
that the landslide I heard them mention was the glaciation mentioned in
the report, and that they mixed some other idea in to get the cutthroat
mixup.

The sort of "evidence" I was looking for concerning cutthroat
introgression into redside genetics, would have been something specific
contradicting (or maybe as an exception to, refinement of) what is
regarded as coastal cutthroats' particularly marked tendency--even
presumably historically--toward "resource partitioning", especially
"habitat-partitioning" to prevent much hybridization in the presence
of other salmonids. (See: http://tinyurl.com/25vdy, the section
"Interactions of Coastal Cutthroat Trout with Other Salmonids").

Another excellent reference. I've read some, and bookmarked these so I
can read the rest later.

Thanks much for your Evidence

Chas
remove fly fish to reply
http://home.comcast.net/~chas.wade/w...ome.html-.html
San Juan Pictures at:
http://home.comcast.net/~chasepike/wsb/index.html

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

"Wolfgang" wrote in message
...
Plants......you forgot about plants. How about an apple trunk grafted
onto
pear rootstock and later augmented with plum and cherry branches?
(It's
doable.....they're all Rosaceae and graft relatively easily.)
Interesting.
Isn't it?
"Relatively easily."
Yep.
"Doable."
Yep.
So you've grafted plum and
cherry branches sucessfully onto an apple trunk, have you?
Nope.


Well I think you are mistaken. Im no expert but I have done some grafting of
apple varieties on a variety of root and stem stocks. Its not easy and Im
fairly adept with tools.

While there are some grafting processes that build trees thru grafting parts
from different fruits (example, pears grafted onto quince roots, peaches
onto Nanking cherry and St. Julien plum rootstocks, apricots onto western
sand cherries) the combo you describe (plum and cherry onto an apple "trunk"
doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, separate and apart from any gene
splicing your alcoholic relatives may have been pioneering. For example, the
physical structure of the cambium in plum and cherry, which is what you are
trying to join in grafting, are just very different from the cambium of the
malus. I just can't see how you would make a graft union.

It is common to produce novelty trees with multiple apple varieties, and
scions from flowering crabs are sometimes grafted directly to triploid
apples to solve pollination problems. I can envision a tree with something
that looks like apples on one branch, another branch covered with Dolgo
crabapples looking very much like cherries, and another branch covered with
a plum-looking apple variety (perhaps an Anokova cherished by
euroimmigrants) and a mischievous Uncle telling a tall tale to a child.

As to your weird comment about oil paint substrates, if you have a
substantive problem with something I once said on that subject why don't you
just say it?

Dave

"rw" wrote in message
. ..


Since you're such an expert in biology, Wolfgang, maybe you could
elaborate
on your novel theory that viruses don't even have their own DNA.

I'm not actually an expert in biology. For one thing, the rubric covers
such a vast array of complex and demanding disciplines that any claim to
expertise in "biology" without disclaimer or qualification is hubris, at
least. Even in my own area of specialty, the vestibular system, my
expertise is limited to technical procedural
matters....immunohistochemistry, microdissection (including LCM), PCR, in
situ hybridization, a bit of SAGE and microarray, microtomy and microscopy
(LM, TEM, and confocal)....stuff like that. I'm a technician. Few people,
even (or especially) among those I work with, would consider me an expert in
biology....or even its much more tractable sub-discipline, virology. Aside
from consulting with a resident about histological problems on his research
project concerning papilloma viruses (just yesterday, oddly enough), I've
never actually worked with or given much attention to viruses. I'm afraid I
can't tell anyone a great deal about them. I bow to your greater experience
and education.

What I CAN tell you is how flattering it is that you pore so carefully over
every word I write and attach such importance to catching me in an
unjustified generalization. You must be very proud.

Meanwhile, although your critique of and counter-argument to my exposition
on Mayr and his treatment of the "species" problem is devastating in its
simplicity and power, it seems to me somewhat lacking in both breadth and
depth. There were a couple of points that I think you didn't quite treat as
fully as you might have, especially considering the ease with which you
could presumably refute them. Care to expand a bit?

Wolfgang
who disavows responsibility for any errors, factual or structural, in any
and all of the above, as he didn't read a single word of it.....so help him,
god.

Chas Wade wrote:

The most important thing I learned in college was that everybody's an
asshole. The hard part was realizing that everybody includes me. If
you'd straightened me out about the Oak Springs hatchery and worded
your comment a little differently I probably wouldn't have been
compelled to point out that you too are part of "everybody".

True. Part of my problem is that I tend to look into ROFF on my work
computer at the end of the workday, and by that time I'm usually ****ed
off about some damn thing or other. That, together with my
long-simmering annoyance over the current management of what could be
a good thing (the ODFW hatchery program), made me all too predisposed
to be ornery for no good reason, I guess.

But then, I figure if everybody worded their comments a little
differently, ROFF would be, if not entirely suffused with sweetness and
light, certainly a lot less lively.

ODFW does do a good job, I think, with the Deschutes hatchery summer
steelhead. The fish are bred at the Round Butte hatchery (which is run
by ODFW but owned by Portland General Electric Co), with brood
stock taken from the Pelton dam fish ladder. It's good to hear that
they find new fresh brood stock each year. I think that didn't used
to be the case. It's an interesting operation, but unlike Oak Springs
you can't just drop in to visit; you need to phone ahead to make
arrangements.

Tight lines,

JR

Wolfgang wrote:

Mayr's prose is....one would like to
say abstruse, but obfuscatory in the extreme seems more appropriate.....but
maybe that's just me.

No, that's both you and Mayr.

JR

"JR" wrote in message
...
Wolfgang wrote:

Mayr's prose is....one would like to
say abstruse, but obfuscatory in the extreme seems more
appropriate.....but
maybe that's just me.

No, that's both you and Mayr.

And (as Ernst knows) it ain't as tough as it looks.

Wolfgang

"David Snedeker" wrote in message
...

Well I think you are mistaken. Im no expert but I have done some
grafting of
apple varieties on a variety of root and stem stocks. Its not easy
and Im
fairly adept with tools.

While there are some grafting processes that build trees thru
grafting parts
from different fruits (example, pears grafted onto quince roots,
peaches
onto Nanking cherry and St. Julien plum rootstocks, apricots onto
western
sand cherries) the combo you describe (plum and cherry onto an apple
"trunk"
doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, separate and apart from
any gene
splicing your alcoholic relatives may have been pioneering. For
example, the
physical structure of the cambium in plum and cherry, which is what
you are
trying to join in grafting, are just very different from the cambium
of the
malus. I just can't see how you would make a graft union.

It is common to produce novelty trees with multiple apple varieties,
and
scions from flowering crabs are sometimes grafted directly to
triploid
apples to solve pollination problems. I can envision a tree with
something
that looks like apples on one branch, another branch covered with
Dolgo
crabapples looking very much like cherries, and another branch
covered with
a plum-looking apple variety (perhaps an Anokova cherished by
euroimmigrants) and a mischievous Uncle telling a tall tale to a
child.

http://www.gardenerschoice.net/produ...3=53&dc=leader
http://www.directgardening.com/detai...556&cc=g&dn=75

As to your weird comment about oil paint substrates, if you have a
substantive problem with something I once said on that subject why
don't you
just say it?

Dave

"JR" wrote in message ...
But then, I figure if everybody worded their comments a little
differently, ROFF would be, if not entirely suffused with sweetness and
light, certainly a lot less lively.

JR

================================================== ===
The problem is that the vicious attacks that regularly fly back and forth in
this newsgroup are almost certainly of zero interest to anybody except the
protagonists. Unfortunately, it is not possible to know from a header what
is contained in a post without actually opening it and reading it; otherwise
I for one, would not waste my time opening many posts to this newsgroup.
The intemperate nature of contributions in recent times may have discouraged
new people from participating. Who wants to be insulted by someone who
doesn't even know them? It happened to me. And as others have noted, the
preponderance of off-topic posts may have caused many who used to post to
give up. I was actually beginning to wonder if OT should be re-defined as
"On Topic" and reserved for posts about flyfishing because sometimes there
seem to be far fewer of them than off-topic posts. This would minimize
wasted time for the (probable) majority not interested in reading about
American politics in a flyfishing forum and who are innocently looking for
talk about fishing. However, judging from recent posts, the worst of it
seems to have passed. Another observation is that the number posters seems
to be shrinking to a smaller and smaller core group- something is happening
and I don't think it is good. Maybe it is just Darwinism in play. I
disagree with your comment about wording, I don't think the discussions
would be any less lively if people were nice to each other because I think
more people would participate and more ideas would come forth.



Beat regards,



Yuji Sakuma