Bleak in the waveney? Photo id please

[Mark Crame]

Hi guys, never thought we had bleak in the Waveney but have had a few of these, all small, and assumed they were hybrids until seeing a photo just now of one...can you please confirm or deny? Thanks!

 

 

[Latimeria]

Top one is a Dace, you can tell Bleak by the distinctive jawline, the particular sheen they have and the fact that there'd be a few dislodged scales on your hand (they have what are termed "deciduous" scales, bit like a herring or other Clupeid).

One at the bottom is a bit odd, looks quite "dacey" but there's more Roach about it than anything else.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Latimeria

[Vagabond]

^{Here are a couple of bleak for comparison}

 

[Latimeria]

The lower of the two is really bugging me to be honest, I can only assume that it is a really washed-out roach (not counting scales right now, just finished work and going to try to go fishing).

[Vagabond]

The lower of the two is really bugging me to be honest

They both look like dace to me. Deeply forked tails and a LL count of 48 or more. But I see what you mean - the iris is quite reddish in the lower pic.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Vagabond

[Phone]

Experts,

 

Do you have any shad in the UK?

 

Phone

[Vagabond]

Do you have any shad in the UK?

Yes, two anadromous species - neither are anything like the fish under discussion.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Vagabond

[Latimeria]

They both look like dace to me. Deeply forked tails and a LL count of 48 or more. But I see what you mean - the iris is quite reddish in the lower pic.

 

If you look at the lateral lines on the two fish, even allowing for some distortion from photo angle, they differ noticeably. I think (without measuring, it's just an "impression" thing) that the head proportions are different, however that could be down to the fish not being the same size, and you have got the suggestion of colour in the iris in the lower fish. What really interests me though is the appearance of the opercula. On the upper fish the operculum has the greatest length just below the pupil of the eye, on the lower it is at its longest below the whole eye. There's a different overall shape when you compare the two fish, with no sign of damage or injury to suggest that either is malformed, and the subopercle is much broader on the lower fish. Even allowing for some intraspecific variation, these add up to leave me still slightly puzzled. At first glance I did think "couple of spratty Dace", but then the more I looked the less I was sure.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Latimeria

[JOHN.H]

Well they are definitely not bleak, I used to fish the Waveney at Ellingham nearly 30 years ago . On the main accesible pool you could climb down ,sit on a small concrete "plinth" trot along the campsheathing and catch chub, lots of dace ,roach the odd perch ,gudgeon and the inevitable eels.Must admit the second picture is a bit inconclusive ( and nothing to do with picture quality)but I think the first is a small dace .

[Vagabond]

the appearance of the opercula

True

I have rotated and cropped the two pics, and it is obvious they are nowhere near mirror images.

 

 

The lateral line count of the lower fish I make 47 or 48, (although in one or two places it is difficult to be sure) which is just above that of roach, so do you think it may be a dace x roach hybrid? . I suppose it is possible, but it is not a combination I have come across, nor read about.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Vagabond