• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Fish List (1 Viewer)

Arbu

Well-known member
Does anyone here keep a fish list, like a bird list? So far as I know there's no equivalent to ebird that you can use. I guess you have to be a scuba diver for the list to be of any length, but I'd be interested if people have any thoughts.
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
Does anyone here keep a fish list, like a bird list? So far as I know there's no equivalent to ebird that you can use. I guess you have to be a scuba diver for the list to be of any length, but I'd be interested if people have any thoughts.

For everything living, there is always http://inaturalist.org - good to keep records and get IDs and since a few days now also again good for maintaining a list (it's no longer buggy as hell).

I personally don't intend to watch fish in any capacity due to my deep hatred of water :)
 

Arbu

Well-known member
For everything living, there is always http://inaturalist.org - good to keep records and get IDs and since a few days now also again good for maintaining a list (it's no longer buggy as hell).

I personally don't intend to watch fish in any capacity due to my deep hatred of water :)

I do use that. But don't you have to have a photo for every sighting?
 

dantheman

Bah humbug
There are people on here who certainly know their fish. Was it only last year that someone managed to see/photograph all the freshwater fish species in the UK? (not on here). I guess it's hard to record fish without indulging in the questionable(?) practice of actually fishing ...
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
I do use that. But don't you have to have a photo for every sighting?

Only if you want to get others to give you ID and/or want to have your observation included in the "research grade" dataset. For your own purposes, you can store "casual" observations without documentation.
 

Arbu

Well-known member
There are people on here who certainly know their fish. Was it only last year that someone managed to see/photograph all the freshwater fish species in the UK? (not on here). I guess it's hard to record fish without indulging in the questionable(?) practice of actually fishing ...

Well there's scuba diving of course, for marine species at least. The Collins Pocket Guide to Reef Fishes lists about 2,000 species. It's very hard to remember everything you see on a dive well enough to identify it, so you'd just have to take loads of photos. But that could take a bit of the enjoyment out of a dive because it's pleasant to just observe. Anyway I don't know of any divers who seek out particular species the way that birders do.
 

Arbu

Well-known member
Only if you want to get others to give you ID and/or want to have your observation included in the "research grade" dataset. For your own purposes, you can store "casual" observations without documentation.

OK thanks. Could be worthwhile.
 

dantheman

Bah humbug
Well there's scuba diving of course, for marine species at least. The Collins Pocket Guide to Reef Fishes lists about 2,000 species. It's very hard to remember everything you see on a dive well enough to identify it, so you'd just have to take loads of photos. But that could take a bit of the enjoyment out of a dive because it's pleasant to just observe. Anyway I don't know of any divers who seek out particular species the way that birders do.

Making an assumption there - didn't read your first post properly. Plenty of divers are into wildlife so they must keep records of what they've seen ...
 

Ficedula

velico ergo sum
I keep a fish list, just as I keep an everything else list. In the last 3 years I have been putting a bit more effort into trying to get to 100 UK species. Its very difficult, probably easier to get 500 birds. Few fish are twitchable and even if they were info is difficult to get. I'm too old to learn to scuba dive, so I am restricted to rock-pooling, angling and just spotting from river bank etc.

So far I have managed 73 which breaks down as 43 angled, 12 field observation, 11 netted and 4 only seen when caught by others.

Only managed two new ones this year, Goldsinny and Dover Sole.

The fish list I am working from has 302 species, that's all freshwater and inshore sea fish. Deepwater fish would significantly increase the GB list, but unless you are on a trawler these are not gettable.

There are about 60 species I have not seen that I could reasonably expect to see/catch given enough time effort.

On a world basis I have seen 404 species, completely pathetic given that the number of fish globally well exceeds the world bird diversity.

At present, FishBase covers >33,000 fish species, so more than three time bird diversity! And with a much greater proportion still to be described.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
There's also the problem of definitions - what do you count as a 'fish'? Worth remembering that e.g. salmon is more closely related to birds, and to whales, than it is to sharks . . . :eek!: o:D
 

jurek

Well-known member
I used to bird with a friend who is also an angler, and he showed me that it is possible to watch fish from the shore. Basically you need to know a microhabitat which a given species likes, and look for some pale background to see them.

I am not really keeping the fish list, but just casually paying attention. I saw several huge Pikes, including spawning in spring. It is a bit difficult to write about them, because one fears that somebody would catch them immediately :). Also a huge swarm of Rudd. And Tench which noisily feed on the surface in the morning. In mountain rivers, trout are often visible.

About online recording systems: ebird and ornitho have no fish. Basically this makes them useless as your private record-keeping place, because they also lack other interesting non-bird groups.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
I used to bird with a friend who is also an angler, and he showed me that it is possible to watch fish from the shore. Basically you need to know a microhabitat which a given species likes, and look for some pale background to see them.

I am not really keeping the fish list, but just casually paying attention. I saw several huge Pikes, including spawning in spring. It is a bit difficult to write about them, because one fears that somebody would catch them immediately :). Also a huge swarm of Rudd. And Tench which noisily feed on the surface in the morning. In mountain rivers, trout are often visible.

About online recording systems: ebird and ornitho have no fish. Basically this makes them useless as your private record-keeping place, because they also lack other interesting non-bird groups.
A pair of polarising glasses also helps, as it cuts out the reflection so you can see into the water better.
 

Arbu

Well-known member
About online recording systems: ebird and ornitho have no fish. Basically this makes them useless as your private record-keeping place, because they also lack other interesting non-bird groups.

I like to have a list which shows what I haven't seen as well as what I have. So I have an excel spreadsheet which lists all the birds and I work off that. I'm not sure that you can do that with ebird or ornitho.
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
There's also the problem of definitions - what do you count as a 'fish'? Worth remembering that e.g. salmon is more closely related to birds, and to whales, than it is to sharks . . . :eek!: o:D

Thats's actually pretty easy: everything in vertebrata that's not in tetrapoda is a fish. You just need to not be scared by the tree shape of the new systematics and not fall for the feeling that you want to cut it in a specific direction or size :)
 

opisska

Jan Ebr
Poland
Also, you don't strictly need to observe all fish under water :)
 

Attachments

  • 124770730_281226913249257_837160298637790171_n.jpg
    124770730_281226913249257_837160298637790171_n.jpg
    180.6 KB · Views: 14

Users who are viewing this thread

Top