Fish Taxonomy Conference Erupts Over Whether Controversial Specimen Is a New Species or Just a Weird Trout

The annual meeting of the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists collapsed into what the society's president described as 'spirited discourse' on Wednesday after a panel on salmonid taxonomy reignited a three-year dispute over whether a specimen collected from a tributary of the Columbia River represents a new species or is simply an unusual rainbow trout. The specimen, designated OSU-ICH-2023-4471, displays several features that Dr. Frank Meristic of Oregon State University considers diagnostic of a new species: an elevated lateral line scale count of 142 (typical Oncorhynchus mykiss range is 100-150), a subtly different pharyngeal tooth pattern, and what Dr. Meristic describes as 'a general quality of being different.' 'It is clearly distinct,' Dr. Meristic told the assembled ichthyologists. 'The pharyngeal bone alone justifies a new species designation. Look at the cusp morphology. Tell me that is Oncorhynchus mykiss.' Dr. Patricia Cline of the University of Washington looked at the cusp morphology and told him it was Oncorhynchus mykiss. 'It is a trout with a weird bone,' Dr. Cline said. 'Individual variation within salmonid populations is enormous. You cannot erect a new species on the basis of one bone from one fish that looks slightly different from the picture in the field guide.' The debate has split the salmonid research community into two camps that attendees have informally named 'Team New Species' and 'Team Weird Trout.' Alliances have formed along institutional lines, with West Coast researchers generally supporting the new species hypothesis and East Coast researchers expressing skepticism. 'This is how it always goes,' said Dr. Cline. 'Someone finds a fish that looks a little different, and suddenly there is a new species. Meanwhile, actual speciation events go unnoticed because they happen in fish that look exactly the same.' The specimen remains in a jar at Oregon State, where it has been examined by approximately forty researchers, each of whom has a firm opinion about its pharyngeal bone.