Crossing breeding gardneri and australe? Albino Gardneri

[Shae]

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.

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.
Loh K L

Your opinion is that we all started from a common life form however it may not be of others, I personaly am a religious man. I am just heqading off to bed so will make it short, If you crossbreed killies in nz, you would in alot of trouble, we have worked extremely hard here to preserve what we've already got.

Shae

[stormhawk]

It wouldn't be a good thing to spread those short-bodied offspring, if any, around because they'll just add up to the list of "balloon" variants of a species. Though nobody can stop anyone from doing so, it shouldn't be encouraged.

It would be a good experiment however to see how many of the resulting fry will turn up with the short body mutation. For all you might know the first generation will not show it, but the successive generation may.

[timebomb]

It wouldn't be a good thing to spread those short-bodied offspring, if any, around because they'll just add up to the list of "balloon" variants of a species. Though nobody can stop anyone from doing so, it shouldn't be encouraged.

Jianyang, the answer I'm looking for is not of one of either encouragement or discouragement. You wrote that it isn't desirable to have "balloon" variants, my question is why?

Loh K L

[TyroneGenade]

"Short-body" fish like balloons and goldfish (Orandas) generally come with health problems. They have to fit their entire compliment of guts inside a smaller package (kind of like fitting a Cray super computer into a mini-tower). As consequence these fish often have swimbladder problems or are more prone to internal infections due to bowel obstruction.

These "short-body" fish are not simply short, they are missing several vertebrae! This is genetic abberation effecting proper development that is most likely due to inbreeding. Time to cross out to another line Loh.

These fish do not lead the same quality lives as normal fish and IMHO should not be propagated. When I look at balloon mollies and parrot fish I recoil with horror. Those poor animals! Why should they be abused in such a way simply to entertain human curiosity?

tt4n

[hwchoy]

Jianyang, the answer I'm looking for is not of one of either encouragement or discouragement. You wrote that it isn't desirable to have "balloon" variants, my question is why?

Loh K L

the same reason why we no longer have the "elephant man" and other freaks in the circus.

[timebomb]

Although I'm a bit sceptical, I would say that's the kind of answer I'm looking for. Thanks, Tyrone. I'm sceptical because the short-bodied australe I have seems perfectly healthy. It's probably short of a few vertebrae but that doesn't mean it can't squeeze all its essential organs into its body. Can someone give me a better reason?

As for what you said about recoiling in horror at balloon fish, I wonder how much of that is ingrained in us and how much is due to conditioning.

Loh K L

[timebomb]

the same reason why we no longer have the "elephant man" and other freaks in the circus.

If that's the reason, Choy, then I think it's a bad one. The "Elephant Man" was considered a freak during his lifetime but now we know he's not. He was suffering from some kind of skin disease. If we call the Elephant Man a freak, it would mean many of us are freakish too .

I'm challenging the norm. It seems like all the "educated" hobbyists are against breeding fish with short or balloon bodies. What's wrong with that, I ask? The short-bodied australe I have wasn't my creation. He isn't a hybrid. I don't think he's a freak too. He's a creation of nature. What is wrong if I help him to propagate his genes?

Loh K L

[hwchoy]

I'm referring to the shock values these "freaks" create to attract audience. it doesn't matter what caused it.

people just like fishes that look strange/weird/cute/grotesque… maybe it is human nature, we just like novelties.

[hwchoy]

anyway Freak = A person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed; according to my little online dictionary, so yah certainly the Elephant Man qualifies

[timebomb]

anyway Freak = A person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed; according to my little online dictionary, so yah certainly the Elephant Man qualifies

That's the official definition but we both know what it means when we say someone's a freak

If we say a short-bodied fish is an abberation, would it mean dwarfs and pygmies (I'm referring to humans) are abberations too? Does a dwarf have problems fitting all its essential organs into its body?

Loh K L

[TyroneGenade]

What's wrong with that, I ask? The short-bodied australe I have wasn't my creation. He isn't a hybrid. I don't think he's a freak too. He's a creation of nature. What is wrong if I help him to propagate his genes?

As ethics strictly speaking (according to my philosophy prof) only applies to humans the answer is probably "nothing." You are free to do as you please. If he appears healthy then fine. Breed him. It would be interesting to study the genetics of killi development so please keep his genes about... and keep track of the ratios of deformed to normal young in subsequent generations. Who knows, your little deformed AUS may end up the star in a Nature or Science one day.

would it mean dwarfs and pygmies (I'm referring to humans) are abberations too? Does a dwarf have problems fitting all its essential organs into its body?

But pygmies have all their vertebrae and have developed normally just that they do not have the same stature as some Sudanese tribesmen.

tt4n

[gary35111]

It is funny to see how human express their sympathy to certain man-made ornamentally deformed animals but will not think twice sinking their teeth into that succulent steak, porkchop or curry mutton.

I certainly agree with what Mr Loh say about human conditioning. Have we mankind not be conditioned into believing that it is "okay" to eat these mammals (who are one of the closest living-things to us in term of biological structure) ?

To people who say that they feels angry and sorrow for fishes who are "abused" for being commercially bred for human entertainment, how are these fishes being "abused" when they are swimming happily in the tank, waiting to be bought, fed and put into a place where they will have no fear of natural predators. Of course, it is a total different sad story for the little fishy if you are an irresponsible and sadistic owner who not only starve but over-populate them.

And for those who will question me how would I know that these fishes are "happy", I will not answer them until they tell me why will they not be "happy" and I am sick and tired of people saying that because they are "mutated", that they are "hybrid" that is why they are being abused and hence a "sad and sorry" fella. I might just believe you if you are a fishy telepathic.

Some may argue that it is unethical for we make these fish "Freakish". 'Freak' is a very subjective term nowadays. In fact, even "unusual" or "deformed" is fast becoming an objectively subjective definition of certain shapes, mannerism and things of nature or man-made. Why is this so? What is freakish ,unusual or deformed to you, may be just "okay" or even "not-to-bad" to me or that him or her down the street in some other part of the world.

I personally believe in 'minimum reasonableness and normalism" in almost all aspects of things and lives and the undeniable facts that different people often see things differently. Therefore, this 'minimum reasonableness and normalism' make me see certain "(beautifully) deformed" but without harms to human and environment fishes or animals as acceptable.

"Acceptable??!!! " This is what some people may feel. Still, I would say they are acceptable due to the 'minimum reasonableness and normalism". It is reasonable as I understand that the beauty and appeal of these fishes outweight its narrow-mindedly perceived deformity. It is also "normal" in the sense that it is not like the fishes are being deformed to the point of grostesque piece of painful-looking living aquatic life form.

This "minimum reasonableness and normalism", I believe exist in every individual, it just differ in its content. It is like even though we know that it is morally wrong to kill an adult living mammals, eat meats as the pains, sufferings and bloodshed spill by these slaughtered farm animals far outweight any justification when scientific studies has shown that human being actually has the same length of intestine as a herbivore; still in the name of neccessity be it economical or hunger , or rather for the taste bud and "nutrition" (when we can actually get the same if not better from non-animal sources), we still rationalise that it is "reasonable" and "normal" to eat them and cause so many blood-spilled and ignored cries of anguishs, pains and sufferings from these slaughtered animals.

I would feel better eating meats if I know that these animals were given anaesthetic before having their throats cut .

Anyway, I don't think the fishes are wailing in pain that their descendents are going to be deformed , in a "beautiful and attractive way", in order to make mankind adore them more.

Note : It will only be clear-cut unethical and irresponsible when someone deliberately breed fish or deform them in a reckless and negligent way which lead to directly or indirectly the near or complete extinction of the pure nature strain of that particular fish.

If it is just to add a new more aquarium-type oriented spieces (short or fat but just as healthy), why not. Who knows, perhaps it might even be something good to the pure natural type of fish in the sense that MOST people might not even bother about them anymore as they are now considered too "dull" for an aquarium. Hence, these "pure natural fish" can continue swim and breed freely undisturbed in their natural habitat.

( Don't feel like punching me. I am a peaceful person) Comon' if it is really all about preservation and studies and not ornamental leisure purpose, then we should never have gone into the bug-infested jungles or rain-forests to remove these fishes from their natural habitats and end them up in our beautifully aqua-sculpted planted tanks.

These fishes should thanks us for bringing them a step closer to paradise. Nice clean filtered water, beautiful lustre plants to nest and hide, prepared or live foods...and even mate! Don't even have to work that out like in the wild...and we make them more beautiful and appealing to our own kind so that there will be more of them to enjoy that quality life...these lucky fellas...

Note : Fishes/Lucky Fellas not referring to poor unfortunate one who ended up with a sadistic fish-hating owner.

So if you ask me if it is "unethical" to breed selectively a form of "mutated" but you think is a cute killie fish, I cannot answer you without prejudice. For conventionally, it is unethical to breed anything "mutated". Perhaps this thought has it roots with human deformity for it is definitely an outright unethical experiment to breed tons of human sufferings (deformed humans) but beautiful cute fishes with potential of quality fishy life?...hmm...

I will just do what I want to do as long as it does not violate the two altruistic principles of pity (dislike for voluntary inflicting harm on innocent beings, that include fishes) and probity (respects for other people rights and properties - that includes their beliefs).

Will very much like to see or know if that cute short killi of Mr Loh can grow healthily or even procreate..Oops Have I said something wrong...don't hate me.

Peace out
Gary
Sorry, I can be very long-winded.

[TyroneGenade]

If this thread continues down this line it is going to end up in the "chill out corner."

I don't think I have been conditioned. Since I can recall I have always displiked balloon mollies. I never found them to be better looking than the normal forms. Same thing for dwarf gouramies etc... As far as I am concerned a pond of comets beat a bowl of Orandas any day. It is purely aesthetics. What looks good to you?

When we talk about "happiness" and "quality of life" of the organism we are indeed walking a thin moral line. Does a women have the right to decide that the fetus inside her should do because she could never give it a quality of life equal to that of rich parents? Should she kill it because it will lower here quality of life and make her unhappy?

This may appear to be way off topic but this is some ways the heart of the matter. I would not advocate that you (Loh) kill your short-body AUS or that Wright kill his hybrid Chromaphyosemion that he had bred for research. We cannot judge the happiness of another organism. Nor can we simply say "it makes me unhappy lets kill it" because if we do not respect the smallest life for what it is then how can we respect any life?

Yes, bacteria have to die or risk them infecting us. And cows and sheep face the block because we as humans NEED creatine and protein to support our brains. You cannot equate cattle farming with the euthanasia of "defective" fish. It is two completely different schools of thought.

Culling for no practical reason devalues life and slaughtering for food is part of life. And what is practical? Certainly not killing it the organism because it offends your sense of beauty.

tt4n

Please send flames to my personal email address with the subject "skrew you" so that my email filter will automaticly assign it a spam label.

[RonWill]

Folks,
I'm beginning to tire from maintaining an unthankful position as far as killie keeping and conservation is concerned. It's a different mindset from the casual hobbyist and it's becoming clear that no amount of information and experience-sharing, will help inculcate and nuture these values.

With no less than 800 described species of killifishes, one can do better with tank space and resources, than to distribute anomalies, especially when there's plenty of other oddities already being circulated.

Wright's opinion reflects my own when he said, "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'm not proud of our SG Killie Census and every species that become 'extinct' from our shores, is no gain to anyone. How many species can we say, with absolute certainty, is well established and how much more resources need it take, before we look back in hindsight only to say, "Dammit, we had the chance but we blew it".

To envision a vibrant killie-scene is a very nice thought but in order to know where we're heading, we need to know where we've been... and that we already know, by the then-scarce availability and limited local experience.

To be curious is no crime, just as I'd want to know if the kinky Simpsonichthys myersi will recover from it's environmentally-induced, hopefully not genetically-linked, abnormality. Upon recovery, even these will not be distributed as I can never be absolutely sure. They will, however, remain with and maintained by those who have so graciously volunteered.

I'm into the killie hobby for the long haul but when I see sub-adult pairs of wild bettas sold at princely sum (with far less hassle), I'm so inclined to raise my brood of 140 B. unimaculata fry and see what it will fetch. Perhaps I should just take the leap with B. macrostoma or $40 Crystal Red Shrimps or rare apistogammas... or time for another killie hiatus, perhaps?

[timebomb]

Hi, fellas,

Please post your opinions but avoid words like "sick and tired". Such words only discourage others from giving their opinions. I had hoped that this discussion won't turn emotional but perhaps I was expecting too much. As I said earlier, don't be discouraged just because others don't see things the way you do.

For too long, we have adopted a stand that any fish that isn't pure is an abnormality. Is it really so, that's all I ask? We have some refreshing views from hobbyists like Gary. Is he wrong or is he bringing a new perspective? Let's all look at it from a new angle once again. Let's not simply accept what has been the norm. I'm sure Wright will come up with something which gives a new spin to the whole issue. Where's the Chief Bloviator when we need him?

By the way, I brought the short-bodied australe home. He's in a tub now and when I have time, I will take his picture.

For the moment, I like to say this - If you truly believe what you do is the right thing, you don't have to be afraid of being challenged. In fact, after this is over and we've come to a consensus, your beliefs will become stronger.

Loh K L

[timebomb]

Hi, folks,

Here are the pictures:





I've been contemplating. I like to discuss this furthur but it isn't worth it if this discussion agitates my friends to the point where they lose heart and talk of giving up on Killies. After Wright has his say, I think I will drop the matter altogether. The short-bodied australe will go into my planted tank with the other australes and his eggs will no longer be collected.

What I hope though, is that this discussion has cause you to examine the issue furthur. On your own perhaps, if you don't like to even talk about it.

Loh K L

[timebomb]

Well, what do you know!!

Right after my post, I visited KillieTalk Digest and was surprised to find a discussion on Hybrids going on. I was even more surprised, shocked even to read that some folks are for the breeding of hybrids.

If you like to take a look, click here and look for the subject heading "Hybrids".

Loh K L

[stormhawk]

If hybridising killies was done along the lines of research as Col. Scheel has previously done with some Aphyosemion species then it is considerably fine with me. From his research we could see the problems caused by hybridising, in that infertility and other problems could come in.

I believe we can't tell everyone to toe the line on this issue so I'll let people make their own personal choices. As once was mentioned, we cannot force people to follow our beliefs, but we can educate them. If they're unable to see the light then so be it.

The fish are innocent. Mankind isn't. What has hybridisation done for the status of some Central American cichlids? There was once a form or variant of the "luohan" that almost resembled a Jack Dempsey. What good would that hybrid have done for the reputation of the Jack Dempsey as a beautiful species to start with? I've seen some cichlid species being offered as a type of "Luohan" and that is blatant misrepresentation.

People are always out for a fast buck. Its in the need for money that greed blinds us to what we should have done in the first place. That is, to maintain our stocks properly without having to have hybrids in the first place.

Why create a fish so that we'll hype up the hobby a little? All we need is a colourful species and every Tom, Dick and Harry will try to be a killie hobbyist. I admit, I was first attracted to killies by virtue of their colour and that they were almost impossible to find in the shops back then. It should always be this way where killies form some sort of exclusivity.

"Why pay lots of money when I can get such fish from the farms?" That's the reasoning of some folk. Thats when people start to grumble and say why killies are so expensive, why people are so bent on keeping their populations and codes intact and why people are so intent on keeping the forum in check with the rules. I say to these people, fine, grumble all you want but that's not going to change anything.

Some people say killies are boring yet they've only seen the tip of the iceberg. There's a saying in Malay that goes like this -> "Katak Di Bawah Tempurung". Loosely translated it means A Frog Under A Pan. This alludes to the fact that some people blind themselves to the reasons behind doing this just because money becomes a factor to them.

Creating another aura of "something new" for a new form of killie only adds to the hype. Would it be good for the hobby if everyone thought of it as a fad? To rise and fall with the whim and fancy of the general hobbyist? Some people tell me killies are expensive. If that's the case then don't pay a single dollar for an Apistogramma, Discus, or even an Arowana for that matter.

Frankly speaking, paying a few thousand dollars for an Arowana seems to be nothing for some people yet the natives of this region regard the species as a food fish.

[TyroneGenade]

That AKA thread must be one of the the most useless in a long time. Were it not for Brian Watter's content it would be utterly of no value. In light of that thread I have no regrets about unsubbing from killietalk a while back... although I will briefly return to render my 2c on this issue.

tt4n

[whuntley]

I basically agree with Jian Yang on this,

I have been in the hobby when killifish were virtually unavailable.

I have been in it when I had 150 tanks going to support all my species, and I could get almost anything I wanted.

My strictly personal preference is for wild-type fish in their natural size, shape and coloration. With 1000 species to choose from, only 700 or so even named, I don't have a big urge to do what I did in my early days with guppies.

I worked for several years to perfect a double-swordtail (lyre-tail) guppy that was never quite as gorgeous as an AUS Orange. It was a wonderful exercise for the student in that I learned a lot about genetics. I got it to breed quite true. It also made me look at what nature had done to select wild species, and showed me why those wild fish could swim better and had survival skills that the aquarium fishes had lost.

Like fish, I have kept dogs that have fairly natural configuration, like Rottweilers and Labradors Retreivers. I have known some delightful Pekinese, Bassets and Toy Poodles, but I like the way my dogs run and swim a whole lot better.

I believe the hobby has an obligation to protect itself against practices that reduce the average hobbyist's ability to enjoy the hobby. AKA, based on some disasters in the '70s and '80s, has chosen to discourage distribution of known hybrids. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I wish to experiment with crossings, I feel I am free to do so. I just will not let the offspring of any such experiment out to contaminate the precious gene pool of general hobby fish.

Is that unreasonable?

Wright