LOGIN

RSS Facebook Twitter YouTube
GLOSSARY       

SEARCHGLOSSARY

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

PROFILESEARCH

Mass-produced Fish

Home Forums Fresh and Brackish Water Fishes Mass-produced Fish

This topic contains 23 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  dunc 9 years, 7 months ago.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #299551

    Matt
    Keymaster

    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!

    #306692

    dunc
    Keymaster

    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”].
    or..
    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.

    #306694

    Matt
    Keymaster

    I know what you´re saying and considered that before posting mate. The reason I think there needs to be two is that I don´t believe the domestic forms of the fish I´m talking about can really be considered the same species.

    #306695

    Sofia
    Member

    I reckon they should be interlinked like Dunc said. ANd it’s a very good idea Matt

    #306696

    dunc
    Keymaster

    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

    #306698

    David Marshall
    Participant

    Hey Matt

    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.

    Regards David

    #306700

    Matt
    Keymaster

    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!! /laugh.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:lol:” 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” /> 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 /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! /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!!

    #306701

    mickthefish
    Participant

    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.

    mick

    #306702

    ulster exile
    Member

    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

    #306703

    dunc
    Keymaster

    Wellll it was off topic but I kinda did have a point, somewhere /laugh.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:lol:” 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

    #306705

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Great input folks, ta very much! /tongue.gif” style=”vertical-align:middle” emoid=”:p” border=”0″ alt=”tongue.gif” />

    #306710

    Eyrie
    Participant

    Hint taken

    #306711

    Matt
    Keymaster

    Mmmm I hear ya Mark. This is exactly why I posted this up as I wasn´t sure. I don´t know if anyone has done a DNA test on domestic angels by the way but I wouldn´t be surprised to see differences in the DNA sequences to the wild fish. Hmmmm…

    #306713

    dunc
    Keymaster

    That’d be fascinating

    #306722

    David Marshall
    Participant

    Hey

    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?

    Regards David

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.