13 inch, 3 pounder

Comment

Comment by John Cachel on December 7, 2011 at 8:52am

Identified as a bluegill to average fisherman!

Comment by John Cachel on December 7, 2011 at 8:50am

NICE mount 3lbs bluegill! I went Florida many times and I can easily tell different between northern bluegills and coppernose bluegills! I think that northern bluegills can grow big while coppernose can grow big but live short but I just think so! I think that world record bluegill is northern bluegill but picture of mount is not clearly! I remember that Alabama fishery biologist said that world record bluegill live northern Alabama live longer than southern Alabama. SD state record is around 3 and half lbs but old fish.

Comment by Bruce Condello on December 5, 2011 at 3:38pm

Way to do your homework, Tony!!!!  Good show.  I'll do some more research.  I'm learning as well.

Comment by Tony Livingston on December 5, 2011 at 2:21pm

Here's what I THINK I know..... PLEASE, if anyone knows different, speak up....

Lepomis Macrochirus Macrochirus.... The "northern strain" BG. Also referred to as native, regular, common. Abbreviated here to LMM.

Lepomis Macrochirus Purpurescens.... The "coppernose strain" BG. Thought to be native to the Florida panhandle, and the southern Atlantic coast states. Abbreviated here to LMP

Now it gets dicey...

Lepomis Macrochirus Speciosus.... Subspecies native to parts of Texas, the Southeastern US, and Northwestern Mexico. I find studies that claim this is most definitely a sub species of LMM, and other studies that find no difference between the two.. Does anyone know?? Abbreviated here to LMS.

Lepomis Macrochirus Mystacalis... Another supposed "coppernose strain" BG.  Originally thought to be native to the peninsula of Florida. Now, some studies are claiming this coppernose variant to be no different than LMP. Does anyone know for sure?

Obviously, the Bluegill knows no bounds, as proven by some incredible photos of  giant coppernoses  from California, posted here recently. IF, there are two subspecies of coppernoses, which one are they? Beats me.

All of these fish are correctly identified as a Bluegill. Perhaps, in the grand scheme of things, that's what is most important.

 

 

Lepomis

Comment by Tony Livingston on December 5, 2011 at 12:12pm

Does anyone know  the latest on the "purpurescens" vs. "mystacalis" debate? Are there two subspecies of coppernoses, or are they the same fish?

Comment by Tony Livingston on December 5, 2011 at 12:02pm

Would the "purpurescens" suffix, then be the scientific distinction that identifies a coppernose  subspecies within the lepomis macrochirus family tree?

Comment by Bruce Condello on December 5, 2011 at 11:48am

I've also seen the "common" or "northern", or "native" bluegill referred to as Lepomis macrochirus macrochirus, and the "coppernose" referred to as Lepomis macrochirus purpurescens.

Comment by Bruce Condello on December 5, 2011 at 11:43am

 

....and Tony's right.  "Pure bluegill" or other "pure" sunfish species in general are proabably rarer than you'd ever imagine.

 

Comment by Bruce Condello on December 5, 2011 at 11:37am

Comment by Bruce Condellojust nowDelete Comment

Both the northern and southern variants are under the "lepomis macrochirus" umbrella.  They are the same species, and readily interbreed, but the "coppernose" is probably more of a recent (geologically speaking) strain that occurred when "standard" bluegill were left in an isolated system (warm southern waters) over a period of time.  The look of a coppernose is likely a series of mutations which benefitted that particular group of bluegill over time.  Like many mutations, the location on the chromosome of the particular mutation can have effects that are hidden (such as cold intolerance) that don't become evident until you try to move the coppernose back north.

Comment by Tony Livingston on December 5, 2011 at 10:44am

I believe both fish are considered Lepomis Macrochirus... but there are different subspecies within this classification. What can be considered "pure" ,is probably open for debate. I consider pure to be a BG that is not a hybrid, such as the GSF x BG cross, or the RES x BG cross. To me, both a native, northern BG, and a coppernose are considered pure BG, IF they have not crossed with another Lepomis.

There are other subspecies of BG around the country, such as the "hand painted" versions down south. But, I think they all are considered to be Lepomis Macrochirus?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page