I didn't get that impression - maybe we're talking about a different study. it was my impression that they randomly sampled fish in a given area during different season - and found seasonal differences - in which there was very little cryptocaryon found in season x and y (I don't remember) - and 70-80 percent in the other seasons. There were also differences between species that were fairly marked.
The paper I read (The Prevalence of Cryptocaryon irritans in wild marine ornamental fish from Vietnam) showed fish that obviously came from the commercial supply chain - the researchers did NOT catch them on their own. Look at their table 1. They purchased a selection of fish from a supplier - those fish are not all collected the same way in the same locations. My point is; the fish entered the supply chain and that affected the prevalence of CI in their samples.....
