For those who are looking for adult males

[stormhawk]

ALL the current australe in the hobby that do not have a collection code have come from stock imported to Germany and sent all about the world via Joergen Scheel, Ernst Roloff, Walter Foersch etc...

If that is so then thanks to them we have a hodgepodge of colours.

You cannot possible "contaminate" your australe lines with store bought fish as they all come from the same source. Chocolate, Orange/Gold, Spotless, these are all variations from the same line and their is no danger in crossing in such a line.

Aphyosemion australe
With reference to the link above, the history section states the following:

1913 - First Import (Cap Lopez)
1921 - Formally described by Rachow.
1928 - Second Import (Port Gentil)
1953 - The spotted orange form is given a subspecific name - A.a. hjerreseni (AND is still used by some folks till this day)
1962 - Collected by Stauch (kept in a museum in Paris as A. cameronense)
1963 - Collected by Stauch (kept in a museum in Paris as A. cameronense)
1976 - Collected by Radda and Huber at Cap Esterias.

Same source? I don't think so. Collected at least 3 times since 1913 at different locations. Would these qualify as the "same" source?

It may take some time selectively breeding for a true breeding brown or spotted line but that is about the sum of the problem.

People did not spend their time for nothing when they bred them specifically to maintain lines that bred true in colour. Would you want to breed that something that would throw out all sorts of in-betweens and less than splendid colouration?

If any thing the farm bred fish imported into the shops are of excellent genetic quality---after all they had to put up with probably deplorable conditions by our standards and then still managed to spawn in large enough numbers for sale.

Excellent genetic quality? Had you seen some of the fish you'd think otherwise. Shorter finnage, patchy colouration, occasional deformities? Are these the hallmarks of a fish with excellent genetic quality?

In short, it is the buyer's choice to obtain such fish, be they pure in line or a mixed line. If they decide to buy a fish that comes from a possible mixed line with some bad genes and the fish are infertile or produce less than wonderful offspring then its their luck to be stuck with such fish.

[whuntley]

People did not spend their time for nothing when they bred them specifically to maintain lines that bred true in colour. Would you want to breed that something that would throw out all sorts of in-betweens and less than splendid colouration?

My perceptions differ on this, JianYang. I had a line of chocolates that were unusually pretty. The only reason was that they apparently carried the orange gene and the chocolate was an imperfect dominant, so the orange tended to glow through. They made ordinary brown (chocolate) AUS look really drab, by comparison.

Anything wrong with propagating them? I was pretty sure they were, like wild fish, a mixture of color genes. [The orange is just a wild color that was fixed in the hobby by selection for that recessive trait, isn't it?]

Wright

[stormhawk]

Wright, there's nothing wrong in propagating them if one chooses to do so on his/her own choice. What I was saying is, if these were originally obtained as pure lines they should be kept so without being crossed to other lines. If the original breeders had managed to maintain the lines without showing hints of other colours then we should carry on their work without having to deal with fish that may or may not produce differently coloured offspring.

The origins of the orange line is clearly stated on the link I mentioned. It was even described as a subspecies after Hjerresen, the breeder who found an unusually coloured female with a white head. Among the resultant offspring from a cross between the white-head female and one of her brothers, there were several fry that were orange in colour. These were the original broodstock from where the orange or gold lines descended from.

In the wild, some populations of australe exhibit a mix of colours as evident in the pictures found on Tim Addis's australe page. There's even a population from Doré that is splendid in orange colouration, yet somewhat different from the standard Orange.

Again, even wild strains such as the BSWG and EBT show differences even from the aquarium forms. My pictures in the other thread did not sufficiently show the wonderful colours these fish had but in real life they are clearly different from the chocolates that we know.

I have seen the fish you had being sold at the LFS. Though as beautiful as they were, the thought of them being unable to breed true was good enough a reason for me not to buy them.

[TyroneGenade]

If I recall correctly the 1913 collection died out in the hobby and the Port Gentil fish became the source stock. I do also believe that several other collections were made by commercial collectors that are of dubious origin that were bred into the already existing stock. It should be no wonder that the current aquarium strains (chocolate, orange, spotless) look NOTHING like the Port Gentil fish with the more recent BSWG collection code.

My australe line was a mixed line and I enjoyed it. The colour was richer, the fish more fertile and I didn't have to waste tankspace to get the whole range of lush spectacular colour.

The faults you mention of store fish are the product of mass production and poor quality control. The odds of the "mutations" being genetic are slim as they all come from the same genetic line. How many of your collection codeless AUS have mutations? I never saw any in mine.

You give 3 collections (the last strain still floats about as AUS Cap Esterias by the wat). Where did Hjerresen's fish come from? His orange/gold fish were a sport, a mutation, that originated from the 1913 or 1928 fish... or some unknown collection by commerical traders (sailors in those days went about port to port collecting all manner of things to sell when they got home).

If anything the chocolate, brown orange, gold and spotless strains are all mongrel and have no genetic purity at all to contaminate.

And just by the way, today Cape Lopez is called Port Gentil. and Cap Esterias isn't even a hop skip and jump away from Port Gentil.

tt4n

[stormhawk]

The faults you mention of store fish are the product of mass production and poor quality control. The odds of the "mutations" being genetic are slim as they all come from the same genetic line. How many of your collection codeless AUS have mutations? I never saw any in mine.

Like you have said - product of mass production and poor quality control. That is the VERY problem with some fish coming in as commercial shipments from commercial farms. The mutations appear as fish having one colour dominant over the other and some showing patchy colouration.

You give 3 collections (the last strain still floats about as AUS Cap Esterias by the wat). Where did Hjerresen's fish come from? His orange/gold fish were a sport, a mutation, that originated from the 1913 or 1928 fish... or some unknown collection by commerical traders (sailors in those days went about port to port collecting all manner of things to sell when they got home).

As mentioned, the link states the history of Hjerresen's fish but did not mentioned from which import it arose from. It was indeed a sport, like many other fish, were bred specifically for that colour form.

If anything the chocolate, brown orange, gold and spotless strains are all mongrel and have no genetic purity at all to contaminate.

The term "mongrel" refers to a mixed-breed animal. If the strains could breed true then how do they qualify as "mongrels"? Had they no genetic purity at all, would they produce offspring showing the same colouration as the parents?

And just by the way, today Cape Lopez is called Port Gentil. and Cap Esterias isn't even a hop skip and jump away from Port Gentil.

Information from the Gabonese Embassy website.
Port-Gentil is an oil town, built on an island (Ile de Mandji) at the mouth of the Ogooué River. The northern point of the island, Cap Lopez, is flooded with expatriates, top-end hotels and the only decent beach. Port-Gentil has more restaurants, nightclubs and stores per capita than any other African city and has expanded to include a casino and a decent hospital. The African quartiers are cheaper than the top-end of town and offers a host of inexpensive restaurants, bars and clubs that are as lively and interesting as those in Libreville and even safer to visit.

Uptil now many websites and even the site above mentions Cap Lopez and Port-Gentil as two different places on the same island. So I don't think Cap Lopez is called Port Gentil.

Cap Esterias is the name of a beach near Libreville, the capital of Gabon. Information on the Embassy site also states the following.

Port-Gentil is about 200km (125mi) south-west of Libreville. The only way to get there is by air or water. There are flights from Libreville, a ferry between Port-Gentil and the capital, or a riverboat, which you can catch in Lambaréné or Ndjolé.

So no, its NOT a hop skip away like you said. Australes don't swim to live in two spots separated by 200km of ocean.

There are also populations from cities further south like Mayumba and Gamba. Are these also a hop skip away from Port-Gentil?

[stormhawk]

Again, if they were mongrels then why are there Species Maintenance Programs being done for the Chocolates? Refer to the link below.

http://www.aquabid.com/cgi-bin/aucti...fish1099766505

This pair of chocolates were offered as AUS Chocolate KCC 5. Had they been mongrels, would they have been part of an effort in conservation?

[TyroneGenade]

Such SMPs exists because those concerned are ignorant of history and genetics. Port Gentil is a port town on the peninsula of Cape Lopez. Huber himself, on Killi-data, equates the Cap Lopez and Port Gentil fish.

About Cap Esterias, there is more variation between the populations of A. ahli no less than 20 km apart than there is between australe 200 km apart. It is safe to say that australe are rather genetically homogenous. The fact that when you cross two aquarium strains and get phenotypes of every persuasion suggests that the aquarium strains are 1) inbred and 2) inadvertantly or intentionally had alleles fixed that can be separated by ordinary breeding programs. This has been done very succesfuly with the basic brown/orange colour. Chocolate is a double brown and oranges a double orange for the respective alleles. And the spotless browns were far more beautiful than the spotted browns/chocolates IMHO.

Wild type fish correspond to neither colour. As you will have seen the wild Port Gentil fish look very little like the aquarium strains that were their progenitors. Somewhere along the line some one fancies more dark body colour than green/blue and then Hjerresen saw a gold fish and liked that. This is also how many breeds of dog arose. When you cross two breeds of dog you get a mongrel...

So, to summate my argument:
1) aquarium strains (chocolate, brown, orange, gold, spotless) are highly inbred which is why some strains are strong and others week (the genetic lottery).
2) all aquarium strains come from uncertain sources and are nothing nearly as "special" as the Port Gentil BSWG... collections in the eyes of narrow-minded people who see codes more important than intrinsic beauty.
3) There is no evidence that the diversity within wild populations is any less or any more than the genetic diversity of the entire species. Were individual populations to have less diversity or unique alleles then one could argue they are evolutionary units and worth keeping separate. As things stand it seems with line breeding you can arrive at the same phenotypes as the aquarium strains which means that aquarium strains are nothing more then inbred wild strains and essentially they are all the same fish: Aphyosemion australe.
4) the problems that arise with inbreeding are naturally remedied with out-crossing to other fitter strains and then sound selective breeding practices to fix the fit-phenotype genes. It is sad you got rid of your mixed strains Ronnie as with some effort you could have bred a far superior and fitter strain with the genes you had available.
In three generations you can weed out the recessive gold or spotless genes if you know what you are doing. I did this with a mixed strain of korthausae several years back and got red fish far superior to those you about from "pure" lines... (BTW, Wright did you pass any of them on to others, I would love to get that strain back too!)
5) Furthermore, in most well maintained strains (such as what Norm Reubsamen breeds) you still fine significant variation in the fish. This is a sign of good breeding and maintenance of strong strains. When last we chatted he told me he was breeding at least 6 lines... all from aquarium strain stock and all different.

The reason, as I understand it, the KCC is concentrating on the US chocolate strain is because it is so inbred it is near infertile. In dire need of some hybrid vigor IMHO!

tt4n

P.S. If I seem to becoming more terse and my tone more forceful it is because I am ill and my brain has ceased to implement the inhibitory mechanisms to keep my wicked wit and nasty temper in check. I'm dreadfully sorry... I am also groing impatient with people who still fail to see my point---which I have this time highlighted in bold.

P.P.S this is the 3rd time I am now editing this post... Again terribly sorry if every time you read it it changes but I am ill and not thinking all togther very straight. Luckily I have this arguement hashed out in several forms in several articles...

P.P.P.S I should also perhaps change my sig to read "the unfriendly neighbourhood geneticist"

[RonWill]

...This pair of chocolates were offered as AUS Chocolate KCC 5

aah Jian Yang... I was also watching that same auction but with the EBT, BSWG around, adding one more KCC in close proximity is just asking for trouble.

I can get this line in if there's anyone willing to maintain it (well yeah, paying for it too :wink: ).

[TyroneGenade]

KCC stands for Killifish Conservation Committee and is just another old line dating back the original AUS imports from Cape Lopez (most likely Port Gentil as these imports where via sailors who collected around ports of call which is why Huber synonimizes the populations on Killi-data). It is an old inbred strain and totally different to the BSWG and EBT collections which are supposedly more "heterogenous" and representative of wild fish.

tt4n

[RonWill]

heh, for someone who isn't feeling well, you can still churn out a decent rebuttal. Someone please remind me not to argue with him on his better days!

Tyrone, I understand what you're saying but the written word is easily misinterpreted. Strains that breed true, should remain that way. Just as it's pointless to re-invent the wheel, what would one achieve by undoing another person's effort. Let AUS Chocolate, Orange, Spotless and Gold remain as they are.

As for my discontinuing the mixed-lot AUS, whether these are more 'superior' remain to be seen but I tire from being asked; "Why are my Chocolates becoming more orangey", "Why is there a spotless in my brood of Orange", "Why...."

I do not feel comfortable when my integrity as a serious killie-keeper is being questioned.

Those who know me, can say that I'm narrow-minded as well. I advocate preserving lineage and such codes are, to the newcomer, just alphabetical and numerical references.

While this codes should not deviate the hobbyist from appreciating the "intrinsic beauty" of any species, what is worrying, is when the un-informed interbreed 'Lyretails' with available coded AUS.

Sad will be the day when "they are all the same fish: Aphyosemion australe".

Commercial imports into SG, for all I know, could be either aquarium raised or another aquarium strain.

Not all I maintain are coded either. One fine example is the Fundulopanchax filamentosus (that appeared in SAKS Newsletter, Volume 4 Number 3, September 2004*) which I failed to breed before losing it to dropsy.

Since no one else is maintaining FIL (Fp. filamentosus), I can't wait when my Fp. filamentosus 'Ouidah' arrives, together with Fp. robertsoni, which I believe is extinct in it's natural habitat. The ROS isn't coded but the epitaph at this page best expresses my concern.

Conserve or lose it.

* SAKS Newsletter in PDF & HTML version.

[TyroneGenade]

Crossing out to another strain is the difference between 5 eggs per day and 25 eggs per day. No jokes. For many many moons genetists and breeders have been harping on about "hybrid vigor". When you breed selectively you fix the good with the bad. But the more stringent your selection the more good you can get relative to bad. This is what Scheel et al did. They bred for facundity which is why old strains like AUS are still around while new strains simply vanish from group breeding where your selection isn't very stringent at all.

Best of luck with the robertsoni and filamentosus. That no-name filamentosus is a real nice fish. Breeds easy and looks good.

tt4n

[learner]

Hi guys,

I was at Clementi Florist at block 328 (the original one) during lunch and again saw some killies swimming in one of their tank near the front of the shop.

This time, they are not packed in tiny bags but swimming freely in a tank. How 'pure' they are I really have no idea but the fishes are in great shape. Quite big in size, and nicely coloured up. If my memory serves me right, they have some nothos, fundolopanchax and some australes.

Disclaimer 1: I am not associated to the shop in anyway.
Disclaimer 2: I hope I'm not fueling the debate on unknown killies. Just want to share the information so that people looking for pretty fishes can go check them out.

Cheers.

Yi Hong

[timebomb]

I hope I'm not fueling the debate on unknown killies. Just want to share the information so that people looking for pretty fishes can go check them out.

Yi Hong, thanks for the lead but you shouldn't worry too much about fueling the debate on Killies of unknown origins. If you ask me, it's perfectly alright to keep such fish so long as you don't distribute them around. Come to think of it, there's nothing wrong with distributing unknown fish so long as you don't anyhow give them an identity. If I give my King Kong Killie to someone, I'll just make sure he or she understands it's a fish of unknown identity and origin. We can't make a rule that hobbyists cannot distribute unknown fish around because that would mean they have to destroy the fish when they don't want them anymore. As I've said once, the fish are innocent.

Location codes and all are important to hobbyists who insist on pure strains but there are many of us who just want to keep lovely fish or rather, I should say fish which we like. Beauty is in the eyes of the beholder after all. What's a Louhan to someone is a Killifish to another.

I draw the line only when it comes to hybridisation. We shouldn't play God and come up with hybrids when already, there's more than enough species to keep one occupied a lifetime.

There are 2 kinds of hobbyists - One loves to experiment with their fishes and are constantly coming up with new strains, for instance, the hobbyists who breed fancy Guppies and Discus. The other type of hobbyist prefers the pure strains, like people who keep Killies, wild Bettas and Apistos. Each group has their own reasons for doing what they do. Over the years, I have learnt that it's futile to try to change one to the other. Leave well alone. Keep the fish you like and do not be critical when others don't have the same beliefs as you. You can say it's almost like religion

Loh K L

[keehoe]

Loh, there are third type. Those cross the strain for a purpose in an control environment. One of the possible cause of action would be trying to keep a species able to fit the change in environment. Some use that to try keeping a wild strain of killies while others just wanted to have the look alike of the species that is impossible to keep in Singapore environment otherwise.

I hope you didn't missunderstood me when i ask "Who try to be god". What i actually mean is every individual own a life and right to stay that way. I like killies because of their beauty and uniqueness in many way be it Hybrid or non-hybrid. Terminating a living creature is not my cup of tea.