Now then we all know that many of the fish we see in the hobby are produced via something of a "production line" in various countries. In my opinion many of these can no longer be considered the same fish that swims in natural waters. Betta splendens and Pterophyllum scalare are two classic examples that instantly spring to mind, with wild fish requiring totally different care and even being a different shape to these "domesticated" fish that we get in the hobby.
My point in all this is that in our species database I intend to start writing two profiles for species where this is the case. Not for all obviously as I just haven´t got the time and I think that with a lot of danios, rasboras, tetras etc. we can get away with a few sentences on the subject in the one profile, plus many of these aren´t too far removed from the wild fish. However I certainly think it would be relevant to cover the ones in which virtually all the information is different. For example with Pterophyllum scalare there would be Pterophyllum scalare and Pterophyllum "scalare" (domestic form) profiles. When I eventually get around to doing a FAQ for the knowledge base, users would be informed of this in a simple way so that it´s easy for them to find the fish they want. Plus by reading both profiles they´ll find the information they need anyway.
I´d appreciate others´input and opinions on this plan as it´s not something I´ve seen done anywhere else, and on the issue of mass-bred fish in general. Cheers! /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
Mmm IMO there are two options:
Two separate profiles, with links to the other [i.e. in the main text - "click here to view the profile of the captive-bred Angel"].
One profile, with two separate sections in the main text, indicating the differences between the wild and captive-breds.
Either way, you're totally right, it needs to be done.
March 6, 2008
It's like the electric blue JDs.. apparently they are less aggressive than the standard JD and they look completely different. I would imagine the water parameters are slightly different too as they come from different areas to the standard JD.
Why aren't the two variants different species?
Excuse my ignorance and feel free to enlighten me, I have no idea how taxonomy works /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" />
June 1, 2008
I feel that what you are thinking of doing is a good idea but you will have to stick with a basic format because, due to the number of hybrids coming into the hobby, you could, very seriously, end-up with a whole page of species/variant links.
As an example we will take Synodontis petricola which is currently available in Northern England as follows:-
Beautiful natural form.
Petricola in the hobby which could be the newly described specie lucipinnis.
Petricola x njassae cross.
Petricola x nigrita cross. When this fish matures the spotting on the body changes dramatically and it is mistaken for granulosus.
Petricola 'species' grey. Another cross of unknown parentage.
If I know of these Petricola types then fellow SF members may quickly be able to add others. The same situation may be true with Apistogramma, Rainbows etc. as so many 'fake' fish species are about.
As far as I know they also have a smaller max size than the regular fish as well Dunc. I did a quick search and it seems current thought suggests that the "blue" gene causing the colour is found in wild fish but no blue dempseys have yet been found in the wild. It would appear that the blue gene is a mutation and these brightly coloured, less competitive (in terms of aggression, size, physical strength etc.) buggers get preyed on/outcompeted early on in life and fail to survive. As with albinos, there´s likely to be a handful of blue adults swimming about somewhere but from what I was reading no-one has found them yet!
Furthermore the blue gene can be recessive in "normal" JDs which obviously have more chance of growing to adulthood. Some of these then breed, ensuring the survival of the gene by passing it onto some of their offspring. People seem to believe that two of these fish with the recessive blue gene were spawned by total chance and the resultant blue fry obviously made said aquarist go "wow that would make a cracking aquarium fish" and so the fish started appearing in the hobby.
The blue JDs are apparently a bit weak genetically, prone to parasites etc. but this is accepted by most in the know to be down to inbreeding in the early days when price would have been at a premium I suppose. Loads of people still believe them to be hybrids or selectively-bred but at least two DNA tests have been done that have shown them to be naturally-occuring. This last bit of info is still being challenged by a lot of people, so hopefully there´ll be some exhaustive (ie. expensive, hence why it hasn´t been done yet) testing done at some point which will settle the matter once and for all. Interesting eh??
And totally off-topic!! /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> More opinions needed on this mass-bred fish stuff please ladies and gents!!
And if one more person apologises for "ignorance" or "maybe being stupid" on this damn forum I will actually get quite angry, and you won´t like me when I´m angry!! /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> That´s about 6 occasions in the last 24 hours! There´s always something to learn in the hobby in my opinion. This board and website was set up to share information and ideas and is for people with all levels of experience. There´ll be none of the crap that goes on on some other sites with people disappearing up their own arses or shouting at each other, but we will strive to present information as accurately as we possibly can so if anyone gets offended by a spelling mistake in a species name being corrected or something I´m sorry but I won´t stop doing it. /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> We started out because we wanted to be a bit different and I reckon we´re doing alright so far. I mean, I feel like a bloody beginner when I talk to people like Mick, Pete, Paul, Haji, David etc. and that´s after 20 years of keeping fish! Simple fact is, those lot are old buggers and have far more experience in everything in life /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" /> It just so happens we share the same passions as them (in terms of fishkeeping at least /ph34r.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":ph34r:" border="0" alt="ph34r.gif" /> ) and personally I feel lucky that they´re willing to share their knowledge with friendliness and good humour rather than thinking they "know-it-all" and going off to massage their weak egos/congratulate themselves like certain people I know! /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> /rolleyes.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":rolleyes:" border="0" alt="rolleyes.gif" />
Ok! Rant over....aaaaa that felt goo-ood. I´m off for tea as I´ve been trapped in this cyber cafe with the heat for the last four hours!! /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />
Edit: Good point David, although with that stuff maybe building a pictorial key in the main species profile for the species involved in the hybrids would be a good idea? I´m thinking more of the really common ones. You´ve definitely given us food for thought there though hmmmm....
June 24, 2008
David i don't think there's any need to mention hybrids, only as a mass pic show and a bit of info .
i get what your doing and totally agree with you Matt, after having angel cultivars for years i decided to try my hand with wildies and boy what a difference it was like all the world wars massed together in my tanks and they also took far more time to get to breed.
you go do it bud.
March 29, 2008
As somebody who has only been in this hobby for 2.5-ish years, I have to say that I'm completely ignorant on this, sorry. (Only joking Matt /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" /> )
When I started keeping fish, I didn't realise that betta splendens as seen in the shops and most forums is totally different to the wild form. Complete eye-opener on that one and many others. I was surprised to find out recently that the c. shultzei "black" is not a naturally occuring variant of the c. shultzei.
So my instincts tell me that this is a great idea you've had, because I would like to know where the fish have come from.
Wellll it was off topic but I kinda did have a point, somewhere /biggrin.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":D" border="0" alt="biggrin.gif" /> I was trying to evaluate whether it's "correct" to label them as two different species when whatever features [DNA?] would suggest that they're actually the same.. bleh I can't explain myself very well there, maybe you have a clue what I'm on about (at least one of us will /laugh.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid="" border="0" alt="laugh.gif" />).
I'm 110%, as I'm sure everyone else on here is, that there needs to be two separate pieces of information for the wild and the captive-bred variants, but I'm not sure if it's "correct" (again the usage of ironic quotation marks, as I don't know what other word to use) to have separate species profiles for them. Not saying I'm for or against it, just putting my thoughts out.
One other thing to think of is the knowledge base.. with the existing knowledge base, if someone typed Pterophyllum scalare, only the wild species would be returned. However that isn't the case on the new KB, and besides, if you're linking them both to each other in the main text of the profile, it isn't really much of an issue anyway.
I'm happy either way - constructive thread /thumbs_up.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":thumbsup:" border="0" alt="thumbs_up.gif" />
Great input folks, ta very much! /smile.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":)" border="0" alt="smile.gif" /> Let´s wait and see if the other regulars have anything to say before making a decision then. Does that count as a hint? /tongue.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tongue.gif" />
Hint taken /wink.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink.gif" />
I think that having a single profile would be better, as most users won't know whether they have wild fish or fish that have been tank bred for generations. I'd base the profile on the more common of the two, and cover the other within the same profile. That also avoids a lot of duplication on those areas where care is the same.
June 1, 2008
From information received I am told that the 'guinea pig' species for large scale fish DNA testing are to be some of the South American killifish species and Betta splendens. It could be that Betta splendens will prove to be the best known hybrid in the aquarium hobby. Whatever the rights and wrongs of hybrid fish would it not be sad to see Betta splendens loose a scientific classification?
David, would the wild fish not still count as being valid in that situation? Or is the wild type now suspected to be a hybrid? I know that domestic fish have been dumped into various natural waters in Thailand and are hybridising with the wilds...really sad state of affairs. /sad.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":(" border="0" alt="sad.gif" />
February 8, 2008
interesting thrad. i think we should have some links to the long standing bred and butter fish. as you say Matt, these are so long removed from the wild state, they could be totally re-classified at some future date.
they do indeed add domesticated bettas to the wild to increase the gene pool and add more aggression/stamina to the fish in the wild, this is to aid in the fighting bettas. hence the problems of identification. are the betta splendens caught true wilds or have the gene pool been marked with domesticated fish and those now being caught Ferrel rather than wild.
a quote from an article in PFK October 2003 by Dave Armitage.
quote 'the problem with all bettas near conurbations is that 'female pla-kats', the domesticated strain used for fighting, are often introduced into water courses to increase supply of wild-caught fish. this means it is never certain whether the fish are ferel or truly wild'' unquote
June 1, 2008
Hey Matt and Keith
Yes it is the wild fish which are believed to be a hybrid. Hopefully someone will correct me, but not my 'mate' Mick as he does not like Bettas, if I am wrong but, as with the Leopard danio (Brachydanio fankei) for example, there are no difinitive wild locations and nothing, in scientific terms, that suggests these fish ever had a wild range other than the 'feral' one given to them by man.
June 24, 2008
NOW David where have i said i don't like Bettas, i don't like keeping them but seeing most of the species i think alot are beautiful fish but not for me or my tanks.
the most recent Betta iv'e seen are rubra and watching them breed was great and the colour changes in the pair was brilliant.
as far as the DNA tests if they do find that the Brochis is a distant cross only part of the genus name will be changed slightly, Bill Drake the Killi man is sick of the reclassiffication of a good number of the Killi's as the keep changing the names even after DNA tested, so it's proving not to be that fool proof eh.
June 1, 2008
Most Users Ever Online: 246
Currently Browsing this Page:
Devices in use: Desktop (1)
Mark Duffill: 1012
Guest Posters: 0
Newest Members: strawcan, LiSmi, JoshLangston, seabunny, jedlevin
Administrators: dunc: 1323, Matt: 8239