[這篇文章最後由cscr在 2006/06/18 08:06am 第 2 次編輯]
This is another self-explaining and thought-provoking example that all easy-to-pick-up data obtained from the web resources cannot be regared as true without the least authenticating endeavors.
In the cited webpage it seems that the photos denoting Channa striata & Channa asiatica actually all represent the former species - the exotic snakehead C. striata.
After browsing that website, I find that it is performed by (the teachers of - I guess ) an elementary school to serving to be teaching materials for their students. Although we should not expect such work to be as precise and accurate as an academic one - an overcritical request, yet there is no reason to be optimistic in the future of conservation if such erroneous konwledge is widely accepted and propagated as a general belief.
It is true that the records of the collection of the two snakehead (C. maculata & C. asiatica) can be traced back to an paper published more than 100 years ago(Jordan and Evermann 1902), and they were traditionally deemed to be indigenous to Taiwan since then. But contrary to what is taken for granted as that view, some official work does advocate that they are not autochthonous species in Taiwan, please refer to this link:
http://fisc.er.usgs.gov/Snakehead_circ_1251/
Whetther they are indigenous or not, the phenomenon that the populations of C. asiatica & C. maculata in Taiwan are both pervasively and deterioratingly replaced by their introduced congeners (C. striata & C. micropeltes) is a genuinely ongoing tragedy !
頂端 
加到"我的最愛"
主題管理：
總固頂 
取消總固頂 
Message
查看
搜尋
通訊錄
複製
引用
回覆
2006/06/18 00:25am 
IP: 已設定保密