Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~ <br /> <br />complicated taxonomic history (reviewed in ~inckley, 1973), but <br /> <br />most researchers accept the validity of three biological species <br /> <br />(Joseph et a1., 1977; Smith et a1., 1979; Wydoski et al., 1980). <br /> <br />Environmental changes due to man are considered responsible for <br /> <br />much of the variability, p3rticularly the existence of inter- <br /> <br />grades or intermediate types (Holden, 1968; Holden and Stalnaker, <br /> <br />1970, 1975). <br /> <br />Explanations for the diversity of morphologies <br /> <br />include developmental responses to wide within-species habitat <br /> <br />tolerances (Miller, 1946) and interspecific hybridization (Minck- <br /> <br />ley, 1973; Tyus et al., 1932). <br /> <br />Observed variation may have an <br /> <br />origin that precedes any human influence. <br /> <br />Baird and Girard <br /> <br />(1853a,b), in the first studies on Colorado River Gila 133 years <br /> <br />ago, may have confused or misclassified specimens because of it <br /> <br />(see Plates I-III in Appendix 1). <br /> <br />Understanding the dynamics of chub populations on the basis of <br /> <br />morphology alone may be difficult due to the uncertainties of <br /> <br />morphological limits among and between species (Feder, 1979). <br /> <br />qelatedness within the chub complex as well as the genetic and <br /> <br />geographic components of variability might be better understood <br /> <br />with protein electrophoresis. <br /> <br />This methodology has been used to <br /> <br />address such questions in fishes (Utter et al., 1973; Allendorf <br /> <br /> <br />et al., 1977), including those involving morphological inter- <br /> <br /> <br />grades (e.g., Menzel, 1977; ~Jiseman et a1., 1978; Buth and <br />''layden, 1981). <br /> <br />2 <br />