Laserfiche WebLink
<br />derived from a fast-flowing section of the Colorado River, <br /> <br />entailing circumstances resulting in lesser numbers (see Hubbs et <br /> <br />21., 1974, about a similar situation with the tui chub sub- <br /> <br />species, G. bicolor obesa and G. b. pectinifer). <br /> <br />Almost-fixed differences between "bony tail" and "humpback" chubs <br /> <br />were indicated at the lactate dehydrogenase B locus (LDH-S). <br /> <br />However, sampling was neither systematic nor large scale and <br /> <br />fixed or nearly-fixed differences in LDH-B between different <br /> <br />populations of the same species are not unprecedented (Sites and <br /> <br />Greenbaum, 1953; Sites et al., 1986). <br /> <br />Current data are insuffi- <br /> <br />cient for interpretation of isozyme differences at this gene <br /> <br />locus. <br /> <br />All other loci included the same electromorphs in both "specie;:;", <br /> <br />with some at ostensively different frequencies. <br /> <br />Frequency <br /> <br />differences are taken into account by the cluster analyses; <br /> <br />therefore, it is requisite that there be a statistically meaning- <br /> <br />ful sample that approximates true allelic distributions. The <br /> <br />sample sizes in the current study were too small to consider <br /> <br />qu~ntitative electrophoretic differences between the bony tail <br /> <br />chub and the humpback as statistically meaningful. <br /> <br />T~o explanations for variation among Colorado River chubs are <br /> <br />proposed, with recognition that morphological and other varia- <br /> <br />tions have been cursorily studied so far: <br /> <br />9 <br />