newbie

[CM Media]

But in the case of killies, there are like different formats, and its so long that i have to wonder which is the generic name, which is the species name. If i am not wrong, "BHS" is the collection code. But what is the collection code?
Iatfai.

Hi Iatfai,

Following the link here and this should give you a better understanding on the codes tagged on the fish.

[TyroneGenade]

Hello Budak

It's not just killies, but any organism with a wide distribution (and the potential for isolation) will exhibit some variance in phenotypic features.

Not just geographicly isolated populations but even within a single population there should be phenotypic variation on which natural selection can work. For this reason you could fish a 100 Fp. gardneri from the pools at N'Sukka and each would look slightly or even dramaticly different.

The reason why Nothos tend to look so uniform within one pool is simply because they are inbred and have gone through several bottlenecks. This is also why one get such distinct colour varieites such as blue vs black rachovii.

after all, if just a 2% difference in the genome isn't significant, we should be considered the same species as chimps.

It is not that simple. There is quite a bit of bickering among molecular taxonimists about how much difference constitutes a species. Most agree that for any DNA based species you need morphology or chromosomal work to back up any claim for a new species. DNA is very handy for discovering cryptic species but you need more than DNA sequences from a handful of genes to say this isn't really that but should be this.

tt4n

[budak]

Hmm, the selective pressures of small, isolated (even nutrient-deficient) habitats such as rainforest pools, peat swamps... work amazingly to produce a huge number of variation..... so much so that I find the idea of monophylogeny for some species or groups (e.g. wine bettas of SEA) far fetched.

Yes, genes aren't the whole tale. Although molecular biologists, I believe, would beg to differ. It seems as if, for them, phenotypes don't matter much anymore, only the sequences. Some "species" (esp plants) are polyploidic, genes can transfer horizontally.... one could say every species is merely a state of flux prior to the next phylogenetic branch.

[TyroneGenade]

If you are lucky enough to have a chat with Wolfgang Eberl he will tell you all about how the cameronense vary from one stream to the next... Isolation is a fantastic means of turning variation into uniformaty. But one must be careful with colour. Colour is very labile. It is the most easily selected trait and so tends to vary very easily between populations and accross ecological barriers. The Lake Victoria cichlids are a good example. Clear water allowed female selection to go nuts in regards to selecting different colour forms... now that the lake is silting up those barriers are breaking down and what was once a myriad of species is becoming one again because the girls can't tell the differences between the various boys.

As interesting as this is I think we may have wondered off topic... anyone recall what it was?

[timebomb]

But what is the collection code?

Iatfai, here's an article that may help you understand this thing about collection codes. Latin names aren't that difficult actually; just look at mine below

By the way, if you're looking for Killifish eggs, I have a bag of Nothobranchius rachovii eggs to spare. Let me know how you want to collect it.

Loh K L aka Homo sapiens Kandang Kerbau 1954

[bsplenden]

But what is the collection code?

Iatfai, here's an article that may help you understand this thing about collection codes. Latin names aren't that difficult actually; just look at mine below

By the way, if you're looking for Killifish eggs, I have a bag of Nothobranchius rachovii eggs to spare. Let me know how you want to collect it.

Loh K L aka Homo sapiens Kandang Kerbau 1954

Hmm... Thanks everyone! Think i need another day or two before I can finish reading those articles.

timebomb, I have dropped you a PM. As for anyone else who else any killie pairs or trios, do drop me a PM too. Thanks.

[RonWill]

I am rather put off by these scientific names. I wish to keep my fish-keeping hobby simple, and I don't aim to memorize all their latin names, as I have enough of this in school.

IatFai, I hope they teach perseverance in school as well. There are just some things that requires a steeper learning curve than others, but once you're accustomed to the 'long names for a tiny fish', you'll think nothing of it.

Killie-keeping isn't any more difficult to handle than those you claimed to have bred. Possibly, the most significant difference is, you'll probably never receive eggs in peat for another fish... try that with angelfish or goldfish!

The adherence to Latin names is applicable, even if your main interest is Bettas [judging from your nick]. There's no mistaking a Betta splenden from a B. coccina, B. simplex, B. albimarginata or B. macrostoma. If we were to simplify them, why not lump these together with 'Crown Tails' and 'Half Moon', and just call them 'fighting fish'? [well, I think you get the idea :wink: ]

I have not been able to purchase any fish from members here as they seem very particular about me knowing latin

Killie fishes aren't as prolific as some species where broods of hundreds are not unusual. I'm confident that fellow forumers here have extra fishes to trade or sell, but one little hiccup is that buyers aren't looking for what is available. [heck, I literally have to beg people to participate in conserving the Simpsonichthys constanciae]

There's nothing wrong in having aquarium strains (*** ) in your tanks but I would be particular if you append population codes to fishes which looks similar to an image you found on the web. That will surely not go well with those who are serious in maintaining population genes and keeping codes intact/uncorrupted.

I do understand the need to use the latin scientific names so as to prevent hybridisation between killies. But isn't it sufficient just to know what i am keeping? Or can anyone care to explain to me?

I'm no ichthyologist and won't be able to into DNA or morphological differences, but will quote an advantage, in that you'll be able to earn the trust of those you trade eggs with. Both parties will know how the fry will look when it reaches adulthood, without surprises.

Personally, I think it's just good practice to get off on the right footing and if you need further clarification, just ask.

[bsplenden]

I am rather put off by these scientific names. I wish to keep my fish-keeping hobby simple, and I don't aim to memorize all their latin names, as I have enough of this in school.

IatFai, I hope they teach perseverance in school as well. There are just some things that requires a steeper learning curve than others, but once you're accustomed to the 'long names for a tiny fish', you'll think nothing of it.

Killie-keeping isn't any more difficult to handle than those you claimed to have bred. Possibly, the most significant difference is, you'll probably never receive eggs in peat for another fish... try that with angelfish or goldfish!

The adherence to Latin names is applicable, even if your main interest is Bettas [judging from your nick]. There's no mistaking a Betta splenden from a B. coccina, B. simplex, B. albimarginata or B. macrostoma. If we were to simplify them, why not lump these together with 'Crown Tails' and 'Half Moon', and just call them 'fighting fish'? [well, I think you get the idea :wink: ]

I have not been able to purchase any fish from members here as they seem very particular about me knowing latin

Killie fishes aren't as prolific as some species where broods of hundreds are not unusual. I'm confident that fellow forumers here have extra fishes to trade or sell, but one little hiccup is that buyers aren't looking for what is available. [heck, I literally have to beg people to participate in conserving the Simpsonichthys constanciae]

There's nothing wrong in having aquarium strains (*** ) in your tanks but I would be particular if you append population codes to fishes which looks similar to an image you found on the web. That will surely not go well with those who are serious in maintaining population genes and keeping codes intact/uncorrupted.

I do understand the need to use the latin scientific names so as to prevent hybridisation between killies. But isn't it sufficient just to know what i am keeping? Or can anyone care to explain to me?

I'm no ichthyologist and won't be able to into DNA or morphological differences, but will quote an advantage, in that you'll be able to earn the trust of those you trade eggs with. Both parties will know how the fry will look when it reaches adulthood, without surprises.

Personally, I think it's just good practice to get off on the right footing and if you need further clarification, just ask.

Hi,

Thanks for the explanation once again. I think I am beginning to get the hang of it after so much efforts from the friendly and knowledgeable members here. I think I was just pretty screwed by the exams which I just had and finished, and hence the frustration. I am usually very patient and sit down for hours when it comes to fishes, if not I won't be in this hobby for about 7 yearrs. My sister says I should put some of the effort into my books... But well...

Back to the topic. Am I right to say Aphyosemion australe is actually a very large group of fishes with different colours? Do different colours of this fish differ genetically? I must get this right because i am especially interested in this group of killies.

And I am still having some difficulty with collection codes... hehe... Maybe I will be better with the codes after finishing the links. Hope that will be the case. Thanks.

[RonWill]

Am I right to say Aphyosemion australe is actually a very large group of fishes with different colours? Do different colours of this fish differ genetically? I must get this right because i am especially interested in this group of killies

... then you should look at Tim Addis's A. australe page, where the population/collection codes are on the left... Cap (Cape) Lopez, Mayumba, Port Gentil BSWG 97/24, Cap Estérias EBT 96 / 27, etc. AUS are just one species from a larger genera of killies.

IatFai, these are the known locations from where the australes (AUS) were collected originally and there are color/marking differences between populations. If differences occur within the same brood, then it is said to be 'variable'.

Aquarium strains can be quite pretty too and there's 'Chocolate', 'Gold', 'Spotless Orange' and 'Orange Red' to spice up the planted tank. These are just as hardy but bear in mind that some females are very difficult to differentiate, from one population to another.

BTW, fish keeping is supposed to be therapeutic, not stressful. Learn and enjoy the hobby at your own pace. [a candle that burns slowly, burns all night :wink: ]

[TyroneGenade]

There is NO meaningful difference between gold, chocolate and wild type australe in my opinion other than colour and fin patterning. Colour is controled by only 1 gene with 2 alleles. Patterning (spotless, spotted, barring/stripes in the fins) seems to be controled by 1 or 2 genes that are epistaticly expressed (expressed by the fish as it damn well pleases). For the latter trait you can get complete and imcomplete penetrance. Some fish are totally devoid of spots, some have some of the spots at some of the places and some have the full complement of spots and stipes (see the article by Dirk Bellstedt at http://tgenade.freeshell.org/saks). Crossing out the various AUS strains leads to more vigourous fish IMHO. Just don't then call them pure breeding chocolate AUS unless you have done the selection. Also, you couldn't call them A. australe BSWG 97-24...

However, there is a big difference between Fp. gardneri N'Sukka and
Fp. gardneri Akure... These are distantly related population that could well be different species. In fact some people consider the latter to be Fp. nigeranus. The same thing for Fp. filamentosus. Long ago Scheel pointed out that different populations of these fish while looked nearly identical had very different chromosome morphologies (shapes) that could render them inpossible of producing fertile offspring in crossings. The inability of a speices to mate and produce fertile offspring is considerred by some to be THE basis on which to seperate species.

tt4n

[bsplenden]

Then what do we call Aquarium Strains?

Thanks for the additional link on the Aplyosemion australe.

Iatfai.

[stormhawk]

Iat Fai,

Aquarium strains are just that. If we have aquarium strain killies we call them by their scientific name.

For example Aphyosemion australe, without any additional tags, locations or collection codes.

By the way, it's Aphyosemion not Aplyosemion. :wink:

[bsplenden]

Iat Fai,

Aquarium strains are just that. If we have aquarium strain killies we call them by their scientific name.

For example Aphyosemion australe, without any additional tags, locations or collection codes.

By the way, it's Aphyosemion not Aplyosemion. :wink:

Does it mean that all killies with their collection codes will be F0 generation? What about the F1 generation? Are they considered aquarium strains since they are bred in the aquarium?

Yes, Aphyosemion. Sorry, typo there.

[stormhawk]

In theory, there are no "F0" fish. If there ever was a term as F0 that would effectively mean the fish are DEAD. The first fish will always be termed as "Wild".

Wild - Original pair collected from a wild biotope or type locality for that species. This varies from species to species with some being found in more than 1 locality.

F1 - means First Fillial Generation. These are the progeny or offspring from a single pair or multiple pairs that arrived from a single bag of eggs or collected from the wild.

F2 - means Second Fillial Generation. These are the progeny of offspring of the F1 fish.

F3, F4 so on and so forth are all the offspring of each successive generation. Competent breeders usually introduce fresh "blood" or genetic material by means of using unrelated fish taken from other breeders from other countries to be bred into the line. They usually do this after the F3 generation. Beyond this generation, certain problems will and can appear, like fry deformities or adult infertility. By selectively spawning the better specimens from each generation and outcrossing every now and then the breeders do not experience the problem of inbreeding and genetic deterioration.

Some breeders practise this method of fish husbandry so that they know when or how to capture some traits like a certain colour form. This is done with show guppies to breed for traits like a "cobra tail", fan tail, pin tail so on and so forth.

As such, several and MOST breeders do not practise this generation system because it can get rather muddled up or very confusing after some time.

Although most killies are bred in aquariums, they are not considered "aquarium strain" if the location and collection codes are kept intact for each species and population. Those that become "aquarium strain" are the killies that happen to have been the result of crosses between different populations of the same species. Basically a "hybrid" of the different populations. Occasionally, the term "aquarium strain" has also been used to denote fish that did not come with a location/collection code. It has also been used to describe fish that were commercially imported or exported from some countries that have been mass producing these species.

In short, the term "aquarium strain" refers to ALL killies that do not come with a location or collection code. A general term to lump them all together.

[bsplenden]

OK.... Now I understand what is meant by "Aquarium Strains".

And up comes a new problem, with the scientific name again.

Fundulopanchax gardneri "N'Sukka"

What is the "N'Sukka" ? I notice that this can be replaced with other words, though i can't remember what...

[stormhawk]

The N'Sukka here refers to the location where the original fish of this population was collected. It should be town somewhere in Nigeria or Cameroon.

Location codes cannot be replaced by other words. There will be some odd spelling of the location name with some people calling it Nsukka or N'sukka. I prefer to use the second form.

There are many other locations and some will have rather alien names in African languages or South American or even Spanish or Italian and even Turkish or Iranian locations. It would be wise to stick with the codes that came with the fish or eggs that one buys.

[stormhawk]

For example, some tongue twisters like the following:

African

M'balmayo
Ngaoundere
Lisinjiri River
Mbwemkuru River
Ghona Re Zhou
Ceramica
Talangaye
N'kong Mkak
Nzog Bizeng
N'zérékoré
Tchékpoé-Dédékpoé

South America

Barra de São João
Garapuava
Ezeiza
Formoso do Araguaiá
Porto Nacional
Serra Petropolis
Sao Francisco
Maschwitz
Crique Boulanger
Mont de Maheury
Bagne des Annamites

Eurasian

Azraq Oasis
Gölçük Gölü
Salda Gölü
Ein Fashka
Lac Assal
Pontikonissi

North American/Central American

Laguna Chichancanab
Wachapreague Creek
Conasauga River
Corpus Christi
Rio Lagartos

Asian

Hikkaduwa
Sanquelin
Vettikavumgal
Wirakakeya

[TyroneGenade]

To begin with, aquarium strains are those strains of a species maintained in aquariums that have lost their collection designation or have been selectively bred not to resemble the wild fish that constituted the parental stock. A. australe "Gold" is a good example of an aquarium strain. A. australe "BSWG 97/24" would constitute a defined strain that could not be considerred an aquarium strain. Likewise A. australe "Cape Lopez" would not be considerred an aquarium strain.

Another example:
wild strain N. rubripinnis "Mbezi River Tan97/41" is a defined strain of known origin. N. rubripinnis "Albino" while decended from this TAN 97/41 collection is considerred an "aquarium strain".

Any strain allocation that is not discriptive of a location is considerred to represent an Aquarium strain. Do you follow?

Now, about F's.

F0 is a legitmate designation for a wild caught fish. See http://briancoad.com/Dictionary/F.htm. F1 would then desginate the generation decended from the F0 generation. The Term P is used in genetic experiments to designate the parental organisms in a hybridization experiment.

For example. I collect some wild Fp. gardneri from location X. These fish are all F0. I allow them to spawn and get an F1 generation and then a F2 generation. In the F2 generation I see a funny mutant fish with odd colout. I select it for a breeding experiment. It becomes the P fish. I cross it with another fish and they produce the f_1 (small f with a subscript 1). In the f_1 I "loose" the trait as I can't see it. Clearly it is recessive. I spawn the f_1 fish and get a f_2 generation. In the f_2 I see 12.5% of the fish have the trait and now conclude the trait is recessive and carried accross in a Mendelian fashion by probably 2 genes. I also discover in the F4 generation another mutant and breed this into the mutant line. This second fish I now call P_2 and make the P_2 x f_2 to produce a fresh set of f_1 fish... and so we go on.

As a side note, when writing out crossings, the female fish is always written first and the male last so int he above example P_2 is the female and f_2 the male.

I have now well and truly wonderred off topic... if you like I can explain more genetics in the Chill Out Corner.

tt4n

[bsplenden]

To begin with, aquarium strains are those strains of a species maintained in aquariums that have lost their collection designation or have been selectively bred not to resemble the wild fish that constituted the parental stock. A. australe "Gold" is a good example of an aquarium strain. A. australe "BSWG 97/24" would constitute a defined strain that could not be considerred an aquarium strain. Likewise A. australe "Cape Lopez" would not be considerred an aquarium strain.

Another example:
wild strain N. rubripinnis "Mbezi River Tan97/41" is a defined strain of known origin. N. rubripinnis "Albino" while decended from this TAN 97/41 collection is considerred an "aquarium strain".

Any strain allocation that is not discriptive of a location is considerred to represent an Aquarium strain. Do you follow?

Now, about F's.

F0 is a legitmate designation for a wild caught fish. See http://briancoad.com/Dictionary/F.htm. F1 would then desginate the generation decended from the F0 generation. The Term P is used in genetic experiments to designate the parental organisms in a hybridization experiment.

For example. I collect some wild Fp. gardneri from location X. These fish are all F0. I allow them to spawn and get an F1 generation and then a F2 generation. In the F2 generation I see a funny mutant fish with odd colout. I select it for a breeding experiment. It becomes the P fish. I cross it with another fish and they produce the f_1 (small f with a subscript 1). In the f_1 I "loose" the trait as I can't see it. Clearly it is recessive. I spawn the f_1 fish and get a f_2 generation. In the f_2 I see 12.5% of the fish have the trait and now conclude the trait is recessive and carried accross in a Mendelian fashion by probably 2 genes. I also discover in the F4 generation another mutant and breed this into the mutant line. This second fish I now call P_2 and make the P_2 x f_2 to produce a fresh set of f_1 fish... and so we go on.

As a side note, when writing out crossings, the female fish is always written first and the male last so int he above example P_2 is the female and f_2 the male.

I have now well and truly wonderred off topic... if you like I can explain more genetics in the Chill Out Corner.

tt4n

Thanks. I think you can explain more in the Chill Out Corner. I am pretty interested. Has what you mentioned got to do with the Punnet Square i learnt in Secondary school?

Iatfai

[zmzfam]

IatFai,

try not to quote the whole message out when replying. It waste bandwidth as well as harddisk space. Quote only the relevant text.