An article has been published by the BBC claiming that a new "cave fish" has been discovered in Europe - Southern Germany.
It's here;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39446505
However, while in Poachers I saw that fish (not that exact one) but one identical.
I was with Doug, Ade and Jodie on the 23rd March 2017.
I stopped everyone so they could look at it. It was in the first low duck at the back of the cave and sat on top of the silt. The others could not get around me to see it without the silt being disturbed but they will recall the precise description I gave which matches the photograph of the one apparently newly discovered in Germany.
I think that's one for us.
:)
Ian
Bagsy calling it "Fishy McFishface"
I can confirm that Ian was very excited about a fish that he could see, which he said looked a bit like a catfish of some kind, wish I had seen it myself.
Mind you, the first cave fish in Europe seems a bit of an exageration, what about the white trout in Ogof Draenen, I have seem them.
I,ve seen loads if fish in caves they are called fookin big eels I have even had one swim up my boiler suit
even though it scared the shit out of me it put a smile on linda,s face to see it wriggle so what the hell
mick
I think what the BBC were getting at (read the link at the outset)is that this particular fish has evolved in caves (rather than simply being found there) and, as such, is "new".
They are reporting that the first one is in Germany.
However, I am convinced that the one we saw in Poachers is identical.
.... Which means we discovered it first !
:)
Ian
Need to go back for another look and to try to catch it alive.
[quote="Ant89" post=30786]Need to go back for another look and to try to catch it alive.[/quote]
why have you got a bag of chips :whistle: :whistle:
[quote="Ant89" post=30786]Need to go back for another look and to try to catch it alive.[/quote]
Where there is one there is likely to be more?
Any fish that are brought in from the surface would not be "new" and would be identifiable as non-indigenous.
The fish we found cannot have come from the surface and neither can it have been flushed down to the levels below (it could not get back up).
It is significantly likely it is still there and is part of a teem .... Because it could not exist there otherwise.
And, it does exist there.
QED
:)
Ian
its been flushed in from the river alyn , div :evil: :evil:
i think most fish that are born in complete darkness deform to some point eg look at the fish in the oceans
at depths of 4 miles + a lot of these each year are new species what would a human child born in a cave and never saw daylight at 50 would his eyes be blacked out would his noise have changed shape to sniff out food
would he have hair and every time he has children and they have children something must change in a complete
dark world over time you would not look like us today
[quote="mike leahy" post=30789]its been flushed in from the river alyn , div :evil: :evil:[/quote]
If you bothered to read the BBC article you would realise that is impossible.
.... I accept your apology.
:P
Ian
fuck the bbc. what do they know, especially about the river alyn which has a direct feed into poachers . and yes i will accept your apology
oh and there bloody german (they bombed our chippy you know)
[quote="Ian" post=30788][quote="Ant89" post=30786]Need to go back for another look and to try to catch it alive.[/quote]
Where there is one there is likely to be more? quite possibly. Would be interesting to find out if there is a population in there.
Any fish that are brought in from the surface would not be "new" and would be identifiable as non-indigenous. it's likely that some fish do occasionally get washed in or had been washed in at some point.
The fish we found cannot have come from the surface and neither can it have been flushed down to the levels below (it could not get back up).
It is significantly likely it is still there and is part of a teem .... Because it could not exist there otherwise.
And, it does exist there.
QED
:)
Ian[/quote]
Some direct replies in bold above.
Finding one or more would be useful for determining species. In all likelihood these are a fish you will find on the surface but isolated by a few generations. Perhaps a new subspecies?
Question is though. Why do you discover all the new species
I think, in a case like this, you need the guidance of an "expert".
We have one.
The BBC (if you ever bother to read the report) explains WHY the species (or perhaps as Ant says, "sub-species") is indigenous to caves and cannot have come from the river above.
Furthermore, it is quite impossible for the fish (in the BBC article) to have originated from anywhere except from inside a cave system.
I am totally convinced I saw the same fish. I described it as such to those with me at the time. (Doug has already confirmed) The only possible doubt is that I saw no colour in the one in Poachers. However, it is a bottom feeder by nature and was sat on silt. I had my lamp aimed directly at it and I doubt that any pink tinge would have been visible in the circumstances.
I can affirm that, what I saw, matches EXACTLY (the above accepted) the fish in the article.
If that is true, the entire species MUST be present in Poachers and cannot have come from above or below (save for Ant's sub-species statement).
The expert is Ant and I am satisfied he knows exactly what he is talking about.
All things being equal, it will be possible to go back and find "them" (there MUST be a host of them) and prove it beyond doubt.
Given the importance the BBC have attached, I would say it is monumental.
The last time I discovered a new life form (well documented and photographed) it was sent to various universities and "lost". This is defo one we are chalking up to UCET.
Ian
Well why aren't you in their with a camera :ohmy:
[quote="mike leahy" post=30803]Well why aren't you in their with a camera :ohmy:[/quote]
in camera is a latin phrase which translates as "behind closed doors" or "in private"
Surely you are not advocating I go solo caving in private?
:whistle:
Ian
OK so we can't claim that we have discovered the 1st naturalised cave fish in europe as we found this in 2017 not 2015. but we can claim the most northern, subject to confirmation.
[quote="Ian" post=30804][quote="mike leahy" post=30803]Well why aren't you in their with a camera :ohmy:[/quote]
in camera is a latin phrase which translates as "behind closed doors" or "in private"
Surely you are not advocating I go solo caving in private?
:whistle:
Ian[/quote]
You have friends don't ya :S
Ant,
I can't find a reference to it being found in 2015 - the article is dated 4th April 2017?
Mike,
There are many definitions of the word "friend".
:dry:
Ian
[quote="Ian" post=30811]
There are many definitions of the word "friend".
[/quote]
I'll be your friend mate :kiss: I may be able to do a weekday trot there next week with camera if you fancy it? Work is quiet and I'm bored out of my brain :blink:
Awwwwww Fanks .....
Talk about it on Saturday :kiss: :kiss: :kiss:
Ian
"The cave fish were first observed and photographed in August 2015" http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30219-1
Twats.
Well, the UK is a separate land mass to Germany so we are still having it.
B)
Ian
I've seen fish a couple of times in the side pool on route to boss chamber over the last 10 years. They were pale coloured and about 5"-6" in length. Never managed to grab one. I had assumed they were something like blind trout, probably in-wash rather than breeding underground. Quite rare to see them - maybe 1 in 20 trips. Three of us are at poachers tonight so I will keep a lookout :-)
Dave
Dave,
Click the BBC link in the first post of the thread - there is a picture of it - see if it matches what you have seen.
If it does, then we have corroboration.
:)
Ian
No, I think the ones I have seen are almost twice the length and white rather than pink,
so I don't think it is the same :-(
That said I have caught glimpses of other things in the flowing water which could have been smaller fish, but didn't get a good look before the silt obscured them. I think there are quite a few caves which have fish populations in them (e.g. Ibbeth Peril) but they don't depend on the cave for their life cycle.
Dave
It's from Flintshire!!
Everything from Flintshire has 12 generations of inbreeding through it?
You won't see the fish if you go in plodding around everywhere. They'll just bugger off and hide. If you want any chance of a pic then stealth is required!
Went back to Poacher's today with Sweetie and found 7 fish. None were the same as the original one we saw.
However, we did a short video of the ones we found;
(The youtube link thing doesn't work so you will need to copy and paste this by removing the chevrons);
>>>https://youtu.be/NYOKhzcheeo<<<
:)
Ian
Ok, I give up ... I cannot type a link in anyway (not even as text).
go to youtube
then add /henllan
It should show up as the latest uploaded video
Try the local fishing forums , I'd like to bet nobody has ever seen or caught a catfish in the river Alyn ! ?¿
?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYOKhzcheeo
Tried the link again - remove the "?" at the beginning ....
Ian
[quote="Sweetie" post=30812][quote="Ian" post=30811]
There are many definitions of the word "friend".
[/quote]
I'll be your friend mate :kiss: I may be able to do a weekday trot there next week with camera if you fancy it? Work is quiet and I'm bored out of my brain :blink:[/quote]
Well the CCC April Newsletter is seriously lacking articles - If your that bored! :evil:
Dave
lol ... Ok, I will see what I can do ....
;)
Ian
If you would like to research the fish in question ....
It is known as the Common Gobie
Which is native to the British isles
Found in fresh and salt water....