Crossing breeding gardneri and australe? Albino Gardneri

[gary35111]

I have been following the messages between Mr Loh and Drew regarding breeding and raising australe and the very much interesting topic of cross-breeding and hybrid.

The message by Mr Al Baldwin make me even more curious on hybrid. I searched a little on the internet and came across this really unique albino Gardneri. I never know that there are albino killies, I thought that only happens in guppy.

Actually, the picture look more like an orange australe to me, the only different is that instead of having orange skin and red spots , it has white skin and red spots, and yeah, red eyes.

Mr Loh in one of his message to Drew, said "If you use your male Chocolate to mate with the females of the orange, I don't know what the offsprings will look like but I bet they will be very colourful. It would be like when a Chinese marry a Malay. The offspring can either be fair or dark but he or she isn't a hybrid because both the parents belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. " ....or do you mean asian?

Before I go on, let me make crytal-clear that I have no intention to make any offensive or racist remarks. So please, do not read my message narrow-mindedly. I am just trying to draw an anology, albeit a bad one with human and killies. I am also sorry if my message unintentionally caused knee-jerked reaction to some readers.

I have studied and read a little on anthropology (My education requires me to). Human beings are 99.9% the same but certain spieces of Homo Sapiens (like caucasian or aryan) are different compare to oriental or asian in terms of bone structure - the former has bigger bone composition. The difference is only purely physical on a general basis not intellectual.

When it comes to an Eurasian marriage, one cannot scientifically and logically says that it is a marriage of "two different spieces". The couple is both technically a homo sapien. That is what baffles me when it comes to this fishy-killies-ethical cross breeding hybrid issues. Killies are killie - fish of the spieces, killie. And if nature allow two different "spieces" of killies to be able to mate and reproduce (Australe and Garneri) if put together, can one really 'naturally' call them killies of "different spieces"? To me, they are more like 'long-lost cousin' after the "flood".

Whether this killies or that killies belong to this or that spieces, to me, are but all just scientific terms or definition devised by those so-called scientist researching on them to better classify them and convenience themselves in their future research. Of course, the difference in appearance of killies also plays a very powerful role in reenforcing and making us believe that they are "different".

It is ,arguably, a good couse by many killies lovers to ensure that the "pure" strain of killies are not corrupted for it will be a shame to see some of these "natural" killies' genuine and original personality and colour be lost due to massive, unconscientious, irresponsible and reckless cross-breeding. However, personally, I don't see any harm experimenting moderately on breeding new and more colourful killes (if the law of nature allows) for the conscientious killies-lovers, hobbyist or just any responsible person.

Let's all not be hypocritcal, can one really say that the orange, gold or spotless is not a form of 'hybrid'? As Mr Loh had pointed out, these are creation by the commercial croonies chemically to enhance their attractiveness, hence market value. To me, this is a much worst and unethical form of "hybrid" of unnatural scientific colour enhancement with natural killies' colour. Would not killies' NATURAL enhanced colour, be it a production of "hybird" killes, be better off "ethically" than UNNATURAL scientific colour enhancement one?

Hmm...so, if we cross this albino gardneri with any normal australe (orange, gold or chocolate), wouldn't that be like when a Caucasian (light-coloured eyed homo sapiens) marrying an asian (dark-coloured eyed homo sapiens)?

Just a thought.

Here's the web-site with the picture
http://www.petfish.net/algar.htm

Regards

Gary

[RonWill]

Gary,
No offence taken here, whether in regards to ethnic or otherwise, but caution should be taken, in large doses, when experimenting, in that the resulting 'Aquarium strain' should be for personal pleasure and not distribution, be it intentional or unknowingly.

Many, myself included, have gone through great lengths and resource$$, to ensure that what's being distributed, are what we received and subsequently maintained (including some lines already maintained for more than 2 years).

It would do me injustice should any of your 'offsprings' be paired to mine as I would have lost a recourse in the event something happens to my breeders. This line would, through such actions, see to their termination. Hence, it wouldn't be surprising when no one entertain the call for buying females when the males are from questionable sources.

That said, I have terminated at least three lines of australes and two lines of gardneri, not due to hybridization but from accidental population corruption.

While some term me 'obsessed', it is a necessary evil, if we are to establish ourselves as a serious and reliable source to purchase eggs/fishes from. This trust does not extend just to local hobbyists but international ones as well. Screw this up and you'll find it more difficult to acquire new lines from overseas true-blue breeders (Why should they allow buyers to undermine their effort?). That is probably the main reason why most serious killie-keepers resort to imported eggs and fishes, or from those who care enough.

Personally, I do not endorse those experiments but I'd rather not chastise those who are responsible and informed enough, to appreciate their 'creation' within their own tanks. Fishes are innocent but thoughtless breeders aren't.

Interesting can of worms you've just opened but I bet my killies would love these wrigglers

[CM Media]

I searched a little on the internet and came across this really unique albino Gardneri. I never know that there are albino killies, I thought that only happens in guppy.

Hi Gary,

Albino is not due to corss-breeding of 2 different species! It can occur in any creature on earth. Have you ever come across albino in human? All albino will have red eyes for sure. In fact, it's not that the eyes are red, it's just that the colour pigment is missing and the red colour is actually the blood vessels.

How do albino occur in nature?

Size, colour and sex etc. are all determine by the genes on the 23 pairs of chromosomes in human. A gene is define as the DNA that controls the hereditary characteristic passed down by parents. What I mean here is that the colour pigment is actually make up of 2 genes. In order for albino to occur, the 2 gene that determine the colour pigment must be in recessive form.

Example 1:
Parents with 2 X dominant genes will give you 0% albino offsprings.

Example 2
If 1 parent has a recessive gene. The chance of having an albino albino offspring is also zero.

So you need both parents to have a recessive gene each in order to have albino offspring. The percentage is 50%

But if both parents are albino, they'll give 100% albino offsprings. There is 0% that any offspring will bare the normal pigment.

Hope I do not confuse anyone. I've almost given back 70% of what I learnt during my school days.

My proud albino Nothobranchius rachovii

[whuntley]

Sermon Mode <ON>

Back when I first bred killifish, almost a half-century ago, biology considered any two individuals who could create viable fertile offspring were, by definition, of the same species.

If they produced "mules" like a horse and donkey, the sterile offspring proved they were different species. Well, a horse and a donkey have totally different numbers of chromosomes, and that is what actually causes the sterility.

More closely-related animals, like cows and bison, were found to produce fertile offspring (sometimes) despite being classed before as separate species.

Finally, biologists changed the definition of species to base it on relative reproductive isolation, and the concept of sterile offspring was chucked out completely. DNA and other modern study methods have proved that change was probably the right way to go.

Different species can hybridize to produce fertile offspring, but fertility may be a bit low and drop with each following generation. Eventually, they may become impossible to reproduce and are lost from the hobby. I see signs of exactly that happening with a recent popular ARN import.

This happened many times in the '60s, '70's and early '80s as one beautiful species after the other was being lost to the hobby. Species preservation groups, like the Killifish Conservation Committee (KCC) of the AKA were organized to keep at least some of the prettier and easier fish going in the hobby.

AKA decided that one way to stop the bleeding was to encourage folks to identify their fish by either a collection location, a collector's code, or both. They asked that folks not risk hybrids by breeding stock from different locations. Old, fertile strains were "grandfathered" by assuming they were not hybrids and called "aquarium strain." Those were fish that hobbyisits could feel free to select for long fins, or warped bodies, or whatever, but they often bring far less money at auction and are shunned by most experienced hobbyists.

One exception is that good, reliable strains of easy fish are maintained by we with more experience, so we have stock for beginners that will get them going on the right track. I have some GUE eggs I plan to hatch, this week. They are a very pretty aquarium strain and were the first species of killifish I ever had, back about 1958! I also have an aquarium strain of FIL that I enjoy. Many of us were really disappointed when we lost the lovely FIL Lagos CI-91 that made it for about 4-6 generations. Despite the best efforts of at least a half-dozen experienced breeders, they died off. Bet you can't find one in the hobby, now.

Nothing is so discouraging to a new hobbyist as to be given fish from a commercial import from Lagos that he cannot hope to keep going for more than one or two generations. Nearly all commercial shipments from Nigeria have been coming in with utterly fake "locations" and females of related but wrong species mixed in so the exporter doesn't have to compete with breeders in the destination countries. It might just be carelessness, but the consistency with which it has happened tends to make that excuse pretty weak.

Fish brought back by responsible collectors have become the backbone of the hobby. They tend to be easy to breed by the second or third generation, and almost never have the "creeping infertility" of a CI (Commercial Import) from Monrovia or Lagos.

No one is discouraged from experimentally trying hybrids, and their results should be made available to the hobby as information. I just don't want my aquarium strains of FIL and GUE to be mixed with them because of the potential fertility problem. That's why we ask anyone doing hybrids to keep them out of circulation for the general good of the hobby. I think it makes pretty good sense. YMMV.

Sermon Mode <OFF>

BTW, before doing any experimental breeding, the breeder should have a clear idea of the difference between a family a class, a genus, a species, and a strain (as well as sub-genus and sub-species). I wasn't sure if Gary was 100% aboard on those particular words. I'd like it if one of our more biologically literate would give us a short description of how those divisions came about taxonomically, and why they are important.

Wright

[TyroneGenade]

If I recall correctly Scheel sucessfully crossed australe and gardneri. The resulting fish were infertile.

tt4n

[gary35111]

Mr Au S L said,"

Hi Gary,

Albino is not due to corss-breeding of 2 different species! It can occur in any creature on earth. Have you ever come across albino in human? All albino will have red eyes for sure. In fact, it's not that the eyes are red, it's just that the colour pigment is missing and the red colour is actually the blood vessels.

"

I don't think I ever stated that albino is due to cross-breeding of 2 different species in my message. I just expressed my that there can be albino in killies. Up till then, I have never seen or read on one before Perhaps I am still very ignorant when it comes to killiy fishy.

[stormhawk]

Hello Gary,

Albinism as a trait has been recorded in more than one population of the gardneri. Out of the 3 or 4 subspecies under gardneri, at least two of them have been known to produce albino offspring or at least two different phenotypes in a single generation.

Albinism has also been recorded for some South American killifish, namely Simp. (Nem.) whitei and Austrolebias nigripinnis. Also as Au has illustrated in his pictures, even East African species such as the Nothobranchius are capable of producing such offspring.

While this trait is not often seen, it is regarded more as a recessive trait. My knowledge of genetics is rather rudimentary but it is good enough for me to know when to mix and when not to mix.

Cross-breeding, if done to save a species from extinction, may be necessary indeed but not if it is done on a personal whim just to create a "hybrid" of sorts. Take the "luohan" or flowerhorn cichlid for example. Created from a cross between 3 or more species in the "Cichlasoma" or whatever genus they are now, they are a testament to the stupidity of man to create something "new".

In these hobby we have two kinds of hobbyist. One that sees no wrong in crossing known lines since they're all of the same species, and one that ensures that coded lines are kept intact as they are.

I belong to the second group and will give a reason as to why I am in it.

These fish or should I say, populations of a species, exist because of hundreds, maybe thousands of years of isolation have caused several traits to be different from their cousins in another location a short distance away.

Take for example the species Simpsonichthys hellneri.

A friend of mine recently mentioned to me that among the four or more populations of this species, they are differentiated by means of intensity of the blue scales on their flanks and also the richness of their colour.

Now would I be doing the species a favour if I intentionally cross the different populations? Maybe I will, maybe I won't but I rather not create an "aquarium strain" when they are already "distinct" in their own right.

As for aquarium bred strains like the australes, we did have a discussion regarding this species which I will not reproduce here. If they were distributed as Orange, Chocolate or whatever it is now, then keep it as such. When you cross them either intentionally or accidentally, then keep them just as australe with no connotations of their supposed parentage.

While its true in the wild there is only the "chocolate" form of the australe, even among this "chocolate" form we see slight variations among the known populations in the hobby.

The collectors did not spend thousands of dollars and countless hours in the bug-infested forests to collect and distribute these species in the hobby. Those hobbyists who spent time perfecting a colour type by means of selective breeding, as seen in the australes and some other species are also counted in this group of dedicated hobbyists. By crossing these lines intentionally we are deliberately SPITTING on their efforts.

I emphasise my point because I am sick and tired of listening to two camps argue about this point.

People tend to think along simpler lines like "hey, if its the same species why not?". Yes why not? The question may ask. But the answer lies within ourselves. If there is a choice to keep the codes and populations intact then by all means do so. It all boils down to whether we are diligent enough to keep the lines as such or whether we're just plain lazy to do so.

Please pardon this rather long and sermonising post because I am very very disaffected by the actions of some people in the hobby.

On a personal note to you Gary, ignorance can be cured by means of reading up more. Good luck on your search for more information.

[timebomb]

If you go back far enough, we all share the same ancestor. Be you a fish, a worm, a blade of grass, a vinegar eel, a whale or a human, we all originated from a common life form. Through natural selection over a span of a few billion years, life on earth has diverged into countless species. We seem to think that natural selection is perfectly alright but artificial selection is no good. So we frown on those who cross their Killies but we don't seem to mind when hobbyists selectively breed albinoes. In nature, albinoes rarely exist because they suffer from a survival disadvantage. When you're all white, you stand out in a crowd and if you're a prey, you're most likely to be the one who gets picked off by a predator. In certain societies, albinoes are considered sacred. The White Elephant and the White Tiger are a few examples.

Where would the Golfish hobby be if people hadn't selectively bred the mutants? Be it a Ranchu, a Rhyukin, a Star Gazer, a Bubble Eye, a Pearlscale, they all were selectively bred from a fish that looks like a Carp. Is it wrong to enjoy something beautiful? Is it wrong for some aquatic plant farms to come up with cultivars like the Echinodorus Oriental and Microsorium pteropus "Windelov"?

I've said this once before and I say it again. If you believe cross-breeding is undesirable and keeping fish with population codes distinct is important, so be it. But don't be critical of others who don't share the same beliefs. Do not discourage hobbyists from buying Killies from the fish shops just because the fish do not come with a population code or identity. Newcomers to the hobby will see us as a bunch of snobs if we push this too far and fish shop owners will resent us for interfering in their business.

To the layman, it's all very confusing when on the one hand, we speak of keeping species pure but on the other, there are already many varieties of Aphyosemion australes around. The fact that some selectively breed Albino Killies also serves to confuse everyone further. Don't forget that for many hobbyists, all they want is to keep beautiful fish. We sound so imposing sometimes we're turning people away from the hobby. Educate but do not be critical.

When I first started, I was terribly delighted to get any Killie, even if it wasn't one that came with a collection code. If memory serves, that was true for every Singaporean Killifish hobbyist here. When we were new to the hobby, collection codes and all weren't important because Killies were so hard to come by we were happy to get any. But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too.

Don't be pushy. Don't ask them to return their fish to the shops or to destroy them. We have no right to tell anyone what fish they should or should not keep. Over time, the newbies will understand and they will start asking for collection or population codes. I'm not certain but such codes came about because the collectors weren't sure if the fish were of the same species. A guy collects what he thinks is a Fundulopanchax gardneri from a certain stream. He travels a few hundred miles or even maybe just a few metres and finds a similar-looking fish in another stream. The fish looks similar but the finnages are slightly different or the colours aren't the same. He isn't sure if it's a different species so to be safe, he attaches a collection code to the name. It may take years or forever before anyone comes up with concrete evidence that a F. gardneri N'sukka is the same or a different species from a F.gardneri Baissa. The idea of attaching a collection code to the name is a noble one but over the years, the perception has degenerated into one where a Killie without a collection code is deemed to be less valuable. Frankly, I don't buy that.

Loh K L

[stormhawk]

As I have mentioned earlier this is more of a personal preference. My post was not to "push" anyone but rather more of an illustration of my own frustration.

On a personal note I have never been critical of pet shop killies and have bought some myself, as evident in my purchase of a group of Epiplatys togolensis a few months back. So perhaps they were wild, but they are still uncoded fish, as is with some of my other fish.

Value is in the eye of the beholder and people, not just us, tend to attach a higher price to the coded fish. Take the rest of the world for example. Perhaps you may not buy that but many others do.

But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too.

Had we been snobs then I'd be one of those that got snubbed. Wherein lies the snob in all of us? I bet at least everyone has one or two uncoded fish swimming around. I have uncoded fish of some SAAs and still they are beautiful. In as much as I feel the need for codes sometimes the beauty of the species blurs out that aspect. That I would agree. But if there is a choice between a coded and an uncoded, I'd go for the coded fish only because genetically it has retained its traits from years of geographical isolation.

While people may feel its OK to cross-breed just as long as they're the same species, each population has a slight variation to their phenotype and perhaps other traits. A difference in karyotype will also render the following generation infertile as evidenced in the species Aphyosemion escherichi.

Don't be pushy. Don't ask them to return their fish to the shops or to destroy them. We have no right to tell anyone what fish they should or should not keep.

We have never asked anyone to return their fish to the shops or destroy them. We have only sought to educate people about the fallacy of buying such fish when the females are evidently mixed. Wherein lies the good in buying such fish when almost always they will end up hybridising the fish deliberately or accidentally. Though sometimes these words may sound harsh but it is for their own good that we tell them so. It is ultimately up to these people to do what they feel is best.

Personal feelings aside, it is true that nobody can tell someone else what to keep and what not to keep. But when we keep quiet and let the beginners buy the wrongly matched pairs unknowingly, then we are doing a great disservice to these people and to the hobby.

[timebomb]

Value is in the eye of the beholder and people, not just us, tend to attach a higher price to the coded fish. Take the rest of the world for example. Perhaps you may not buy that but many others do.

My exact sentiments, Jianyang. I'm sure you know how much those so called "stupid" hobbyists paid for their Luohans

By the way, my post wasn't directed at you so there's no need to defend yourself

Loh K L

[stormhawk]

Edited this post regarding the explanation of a killie's family tree. Check the new sticky.

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

[whuntley]

Fabulous Jianyang. Even I understood most of it and I'm just a dumb "injuneer."

My earlier post as to how the collection "fetish" came about wasn't to discourage any hobbyist from keeping fish he/she likes. It was an attempt to educate and to show that we all have some non-coded fish that we keep and like. That is, it was an attempt to explain to a newbie why we react the way we do and not an effort to tell them how to keep what fish.

I hope no one took it the wrong way.

Wright

[stormhawk]

LOL Wright. You're not a Injuneer but the Chief Bloviator.

That said, I've decided to move the posting and set it as a sticky.

[timebomb]

That said, I've decided to move the posting and set it as a sticky.

Good thinking, Jianyang. The post was well-written and easy to understand. It deserves to be a sticky.

My earlier post as to how the collection "fetish" came about wasn't to discourage any hobbyist from keeping fish he/she likes.
I hope no one took it the wrong way.

Don't worry about it, Wright. We wouldn't have made you Chief Bloviator if we didn't think you were someone special. I'll elaborate a bit more about why I think some of us seem pushy but that will come as a new topic. It will take a while for me to compose my thoughts but it's gonna be another can of worms, that's for sure .

Loh K L

[hwchoy]

stormhawkii, I would respectfully request that you mention that the generic and specific epithets be customarily written in italics.

[stormhawk]

Point noted will edit accordingly. Thanks.

[RonWill]

Where would the Golfish hobby be if people hadn't selectively bred the mutants?

Each of these goldfish variants were bred and appreciated for different characteristics and with exception of the Rhyukin and Star Gazer, I've bred the ones you mentioned including the Black Moor and Oranda, but never once did I contemplate cross-breeding a Ranchu and Bubble Eye

If you believe cross-breeding is undesirable and keeping fish with population codes distinct is important, so be it. But don't be critical of others who don't share the same beliefs

Kwek Leong, the culture of this forum is akin to that of killie-keeping. We discourage, with a firm hand, SMS-styled postings and we should strive for that same mindset with crossings between different valid species. What a hobbyist do within his tanks cannot be governed but to circulate the resultant hybridized fishes is IMHO, one step backwards.

Do not discourage hobbyists from buying Killies from the fish shops just because the fish do not come with a population code or identity

That is not the main issue. I maintain and enjoy uncoded killies as well and if you can recall, we did split a bag of 50 Ps. annulatus, not because they had population codes but because we like them. FWIW, the ANN still rank high amongst my favourites. To be critical of others with store-bought killies would be hypocritical.

Newcomers to the hobby will see us as a bunch of snobs if we push this too far...

Strange that you should mention this but recently some newcomer snubbed that the killies I'm maintaining were the 'common ones' and then nonchalantly ignored my explanation that killifishes are becoming more readily available because of a growing awareness and that some local hobbyists are breeding them.

There ought to be some pride, or at least some satisfaction, in being able to breed, raise and make killies available for distribution but when a newbie hobbyist (to fish keeping and husbandry) expects to buy 'rare killies' off the rack, I wonder who's 'snobbing' who.

...and fish shop owners will resent us for interfering in their business

I don't see that likely to happen. The suppliers to LFS might get ticked off but not LFS operators, who are 'lost' with no clear directions what the next thrend will be after the Lor Han/Flowerhorn craze. Our persistence in promoting the killie hobby has in fact lead to more killies in LFSs' tanks. (I think they should thank us instead of resentment)

When I first started, I was terribly delighted to get any Killie, even if it wasn't one that came with a collection code. If memory serves, that was true for every Singaporean Killifish hobbyist here. When we were new to the hobby, collection codes and all weren't important because Killies were so hard to come by we were happy to get any

Prior to your first pair of killifishes, all I had were Fp. GAR 'Baissa', N'sukka and a few lots of uncoded fishes but I enjoyed them just the same. Your first pair of Simp magnificus wasn't coded either but we felt they were magnificent, didn't we?

But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too

So what makes it any different now? For one, we didn't have many choices and second, there wasn't a local forum we could turn to.

I'm not against uncoded killies but feel sympathetic towards those who think it's cool to come up with 'something different'.

I'm not certain but such codes came about because the collectors weren't sure if the fish were of the same species

From our end, we can but try to maintain them as they are.

Folks, I won't be anal about the issue but time will tell if our collaborative efforts and persistence are on the right track.

[timebomb]

I would say we have come a long way, Ronnie. When I first started I thought I was alone. By chance, we found each other. If you were female, I think I would have fallen in love with you .

I see your points and understand your lines of argument. Actually, we're on the same side. I don't like the idea of anyone creating hybrids too but I feel it's only human to experiment. My point is we shouldn't be too harsh on such hobbyists.

Also, I would like to say that although it's good to be passionate about the hobby, we shouldn't let passion cloud our opinions. When hobbyists experiment with cross-breeding, most do so without any ill-intentions. They're not spitting on us nor the collectors of the fish. In other words, forgive them, for they know not what they do

Do not be discouraged or disaffected when the newbies don't follow what we preach. Our goal is to share what we have learnt and to spread the enjoyment of the hobby. We hope all who love Killies become our friends and not our enemies.

Loh K L

[whuntley]

I see your points and understand your lines of argument. Actually, we're on the same side. I don't like the idea of anyone creating hybrids too but I feel it's only human to experiment. My point is we shouldn't be too harsh on such hobbyists.

Also, I would like to say that although it's good to be passionate about the hobby, we shouldn't let passion cloud our opinions. When hobbyists experiment with cross-breeding, most do so without any ill-intentions. They're not spitting on us nor the collectors of the fish. In other words, forgive them, for they know not what they do

Loh K L

It should be even more.

Good breeders might well devote a tank or two to hybrid production, for the knowledge it brings us. A too-rigid policy would make that kind of exploration impossible. We gained a lot of understanding of hybridization problems from the good works of Col Scheel.

Like him, we should never let fish from those experiments out into the hands of innocent hobbyists, but the results of the crosses should be photographed and fertility described in detail in JAKA or the DKG Journal or similar places.

Personally, I'm not emotionally suited to creating fish I know I'm going to have to destroy. Therefore, I never try. From the standpoint of the good of the hobby, I consider that a weakness that does no one any good. Still, we all have to live with ourselves and recognize our limitations.

I believe we need to be ready to bring new breeders aboard on what has happened historically. Col Scheels book ROTOW is a great starting point. We then need to be cooperative and helpful to those who have the scientific urge for knowledge to pursue hybridization on a sound basis.

In SG, you have been so intent upon just getting some variety of species going well, that anything distracting from that is a serious loss. I can dig that. The time will come when you have serious breeders who have a powerful urge to know new things. Support them and cooperate so they generate useful knowledge without feeding a local frenzy for Luhans or Crown Tail Bettas.

That's my view of the situation as seen from across a whole lot of water.

Wright

PS. I still have a powerful preference for wild-type fish. I do cultivars only as they attract new folks and we need that to get them started.

[timebomb]

Thanks for your input, Wright.

I like to have your opinion on a certain subject which I've been keeping to myself and Esther Lee. A while ago, I found a short-bodied A. australe among a batch of fry that I raised. Other than having a short body, he looks perfectly normal and healthy and the bugger's damn cute .

A year or so ago, Tony Teiceira highlighted on KillieTalk Digest, the appearance of short-bodied Jordanella floridae(commonly known as American Flag Fish) in the fish shops of USA. The response from the mailing list was generally one of condemnation. If I remember correctly, you said something about "can't bear to look" at the picture. Someone even went on to call the breeders whom he believed were from Singapore, scum. Sia Meng and Ronnie defended us then.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a short-bodied fish isn't a hybrid. It could be a mutant. In nature, such fish have little chance of becoming a population of its own as whatever recessive gene that causes the short body to come about will probably be filtered away as the fish mates with other normal fish. The same would be true with albinoes.

Natural selection will invariably throw up mutants like short-bodied fish, albinoes, balloon bodies etc. In nature, either they rarely survive long enough or are sufficient in quantity to propagate a whole new population. But artificial selection (selective breeding) can bring about whole new varieties. In the fish shops, there are already many fish that you won't find in the wild. There are Balloon Rams and Mollies, long-fin Danios and Tetras etc. Every Goldfish that exists today was selectively bred from a Carp.

The short-bodied male is with Esther now and she's collecting eggs. I don't know how the fry will turn out but I'm curious. My question is this:

"Am I doing something unethical?" If your answer is yes, I like to understand why. If your answer is no, then my next question would be: "If I can bring about a whole new population of short-bodied A. australes, is it wrong to distribute the fish around?"

Loh K L