Wild Common Discus

[barmby]

i saw these wonderful specimen at JZX and i can't help but take some raw pictures from my hand-phone. can you imagine how good it will turn out if i ask genes to go camera it.

first of all, it doesn't look like fishes being sold at LFS

secondly, no clamp fins and no sign of distress

they are so in the mood of showing off and i can't help... i want to share with everyone.

hope wild discus mania can come back and our slowing fish market and get reprieve.. hahah..

talk so much.. here are the pictures:





now someone need to get rid of that "eat $hit fish". eh why need that for discus tank? keep zebra pleco will be better because it will eat the remains of good food that we fed to discus as always.. and the great water condition.

[Luc Tango]

i don't think this is the common one. :P they are from H&K and probably the best in Singapore's market now. I agree, they really look damn good. sigh, hope to get some one fine day.

[barmby]

Aren't they Symphysodon haraldi (the blue/brown/common discus) ? a.k.a 五彩

The other 2 is green wild, and heckel wild.

please enlighten me.

[Luc Tango]

lol, i understand what you mean. probably we need to term them as 'uncommon common' discus? i meant they were not common in terms of shipment.

[illumnae]

There are 3 species of wild discus - Blue/brown (S. haraldi), Green (S. aequafasciatus) and Heckel (S. discus). This is the first time I've heard blue/browns being referred to as "Common Discus" as their common name

As mentioned by Luc, JZX has recently become the local distributor of wild discus from H&K Discus, one of the top (if not the top) discus exporters in Brazil (the other 2 of note are Santarem Discus - company name, not locality - and W.B. Sabby). Those that you pictured are a batch of XLG sized Curuai red and semi-royals with strong centre bars (sometimes referred to as "ica type"). I got some from the same batch that I shared here in January.

[Shrimpong]

Though these are wilds but I also see them as very common breed. The 2 pieces on the left are throwback turquoise. The other 2 pieces on the right are also throwbacks..since they have lines on their forehead and even slightly beyond. These are what our current fanciful discus derive from. But whether they are wild or captive bred....I still see them having the '五彩' genes.

[mordrake]

beauty is in the eye of the beholder but to label these wilds as "throwbacks" seems to be a tad overboard.

[mordrake]

Just a little clarification. If the term throwback was used to indicate individuals who exhibit the characteristics of an ancestral form, rather than the desired characteristics of the breeder's strain,
Ie intention was to say that turqouise throwbacks may look like wilds.
then I was too quick with my post.
Apologies if any offense caused.

[Shrimpong]

I maintain that these are throwbacks phenotypes. For people who go gaga over wild discus maybe they may choose to look at it from another perspective. To some, wild means good. I will respect each and individual rights to decide what he prefers for himself. But I insist these are throwbacks whether these came from the wild. No offence intended.

[stormhawk]

If a fancy discus owner would look at it from a different perspective, he too would know that without wild discus, and their genes, none of these fancy strains would be in existence, throwback or not. The term "throwback" itself refers more to captive bred fish, usually of fancy pure bred strains. How does it apply to wild discus that show variations among populations and individual fish, which were not caused by selective breeding in captivity?

[Shrimpong]

Acccording to dictionary. It means "A reversion to an earlier ancestral characteristic." I don't think throwback is restricted to captive bred fish only. But you're welcome to disagree. No issues And I was talking about the phenotypic expression of the fish. Wild or not, it is what it is. A spade is a spade. But nobody has to agree with me, we all had our say so lets agree to disagree.

[stormhawk]

A spade is indeed a spade, but a wild fish is not a cultivated strain, nor a genetic throwback that occurs from selective breeding, but that of an ancestral line. Calling a wild fish a throwback is akin to calling a fancy discus an aberrant mutant. I agree with your comment that you were talking about the phenotypic expression of the fish, but as strongly as you insist that wild fish are throwbacks, I too insist that calling them throwbacks is wrong, given that these fish are showing their wild colors, untouched by selective breeding in a farm or an aquarium.

[illumnae]

Shrimpong, you talk as if domestic discus existed first before wilds. I agree with stormhawk that your use of the term throwback is wrong. Instead of saying that wild fish are throwback phenotype, you should probably reverse the order and instead say that throwbacks are a reversion to the wild phenotype.

As you mentioned, according to the dictionary, a throwback means "a reversion to an earlier ancestral characteristic". The "ancestral characteristic" referred to in this case is the physical resemblence to, and the display of, wild characteristics. Hence, a throwback in this case is indeed a reversion to the earlier wild look of discus, aka the "wild phenotype".

By saying that a wild is a throwback phenotype, by your definition, you are saying that the wilds are reverting to their earlier ancestral characteristic. However, what do you mean by this? First, the wilds didn't change. They simply stayed the same. Unless you're saying that some wilds somehow reverted back to an ancestral form of fish? I don't think so. Second, if you're saying that this "throwback phenotype" (which only emerged after discus were domesticated) is the "ancestral characteristic", then you are being illogical. "Throwbacks" only emerged when people started selectively breeding discus, and the term was used to refer to offspring who didn't bear the same look as the parent strains, but instead resembled wild fish from many generations before. See how this correlates exactly to your dictionary definition? The throwback in question resembled wild fish from many generations before - aka, "reversion to an earlier ancestral characteristic".

Wild discus existed way before domestic discus (and by connection, throwback discus) did. Hence, wild discus contain all the ancestral characteristics. Domestic discus were selectively bred to remove the ancestral characteristics and produce different colours and shapes. Throwbacks are domestic discus that reverted to look like wild discus. Throwbacks hence have reverted to their earlier ancestral characteristics. Hence, throwbacks display the "wild phenotype". To instead say that wild discus conform to a "throwback phenotype" is simply putting the cart before the horse.

[Shrimpong]

A spade is indeed a spade, but a wild fish is not a cultivated strain, nor a genetic throwback that occurs from selective breeding, but that of an ancestral line. Calling a wild fish a throwback is akin to calling a fancy discus an aberrant mutant. I agree with your comment that you were talking about the phenotypic expression of the fish, but as strongly as you insist that wild fish are throwbacks, I too insist that calling them throwbacks is wrong, given that these fish are showing their wild colors, untouched by selective breeding in a farm or an aquarium.

Good for you. Buy more wild discus then.

[Shrimpong]

Shrimpong, you talk as if domestic discus existed first before wilds. I agree with stormhawk that your use of the term throwback is wrong. Instead of saying that wild fish are throwback phenotype, you should probably reverse the order and instead say that throwbacks are a reversion to the wild phenotype.

As you mentioned, according to the dictionary, a throwback means "a reversion to an earlier ancestral characteristic". The "ancestral characteristic" referred to in this case is the physical resemblence to, and the display of, wild characteristics. Hence, a throwback in this case is indeed a reversion to the earlier wild look of discus, aka the "wild phenotype".

By saying that a wild is a throwback phenotype, by your definition, you are saying that the wilds are reverting to their earlier ancestral characteristic. However, what do you mean by this? First, the wilds didn't change. They simply stayed the same. Unless you're saying that some wilds somehow reverted back to an ancestral form of fish? I don't think so. Second, if you're saying that this "throwback phenotype" (which only emerged after discus were domesticated) is the "ancestral characteristic", then you are being illogical. "Throwbacks" only emerged when people started selectively breeding discus, and the term was used to refer to offspring who didn't bear the same look as the parent strains, but instead resembled wild fish from many generations before. See how this correlates exactly to your dictionary definition? The throwback in question resembled wild fish from many generations before - aka, "reversion to an earlier ancestral characteristic".

Wild discus existed way before domestic discus (and by connection, throwback discus) did. Hence, wild discus contain all the ancestral characteristics. Domestic discus were selectively bred to remove the ancestral characteristics and produce different colours and shapes. Throwbacks are domestic discus that reverted to look like wild discus. Throwbacks hence have reverted to their earlier ancestral characteristics. Hence, throwbacks display the "wild phenotype". To instead say that wild discus conform to a "throwback phenotype" is simply putting the cart before the horse.

Seeing that you had a hand in importing these discus, I'm not going to be able to convince you. But how I wish you look up the full definition of throwback before arguing your way through.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwback_style

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/throwback

[Shrimpong]

And I think this should settle it.

1. a. a person, animal, or plant that has the characteristics of an earlier or more primitive type

[illumnae]

I think you are pretty blinded by your opinion that domestic discus are somehow superior to wild discus.

I agree that your definition should indeed settle it. Did you even read what I wrote?

Let's dissect your definition step by step:

(a) Your definition (which I agree with) states: A throwback is "a person, animal, or plant that has the characteristics of an earlier or more primitive type"

(b) The "earlier or more primitive type" in this definition refers to wild discus, since we agree that throwbacks look like wild discus and wild discus look like throwbacks.

(c) So the definition now reads, in this proper context: A throwback is "a person, animal, or plant that has the characteristics of a wild discus"

(d) Now, let's put some context to the subject. We can both agree that the "throwback" you are referring to is a discus right?

(e) So now the definition, with subject contextualized: A throwback discus is "a discus that has the characteristics of a wild discus"

(f) Let's now take a look at the definition of "phenotype" (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phenotype) - (a) the observable constitution of an organism; or (b) the appearance of an organism resulting from the interaction of the genotype and the environment. In other words - the physical characteristics of an organism (in this case, a discus)

(g) Using this definition on the above contextualized definition of throwback in our circumstances yields this: A throwback discus is "a discus that has a wild discus phenotype" (aka physical characteristics)


I have looked through the full definition of a throwback as you wished. I have also taken you at your word and used your definition for throwback. The result is still the same. A throwback is a reversion to the "source". The "source" is the wild. Domestic bred throwbacks are a reversion to wild characteristics and not vice versa.

Like you said in your post above, I think your definition (and my explanation to you of your definition) should settle it.

Cheers

[illumnae]

I think at the end of the day, what you're trying to say is that to you, wild discus look no different from throwback discus. And I think relatively speaking, everyone can and should agree with you to a certain extent. However, to say that wild discus are somehow derived from throwback discus is akin to saying that the modern day African elephant is somehow derived from the Wooly Mammoth of the Ice Age. They both look similar - but the Wooly Mammoth came first. To claim otherwise is simply putting the cart before the horse. Likewise, the wild discus came first and hence should not be deemed as a "throwback phenotype", which insinuates that the throwback is the "earlier or more primitive type" of discus than the wild discus.

P.S. Whether or not I had a hand in importing these discus is really irrelevant to this discussion of pure definitions None of us are here to argue which form of discus is more attractive or superior. We all have our own tastes and we can agree to disagree with each other on that. The issue that we have here is that your use of the word "phenotype" when referring to wild discus and throwbacks is incorrect. It's a semantics issue and that's all.

[limz_777]

guys let just enjoy the beauty of discus colin posted

[Shrimpong]

I think at the end of the day, what you're trying to say is that to you, wild discus look no different from throwback discus. And I think relatively speaking, everyone can and should agree with you to a certain extent. However, to say that wild discus are somehow derived from throwback discus is akin to saying that the modern day African elephant is somehow derived from the Wooly Mammoth of the Ice Age. They both look similar - but the Wooly Mammoth came first. To claim otherwise is simply putting the cart before the horse. Likewise, the wild discus came first and hence should not be deemed as a "throwback phenotype", which insinuates that the throwback is the "earlier or more primitive type" of discus than the wild discus.

P.S. Whether or not I had a hand in importing these discus is really irrelevant to this discussion of pure definitions None of us are here to argue which form of discus is more attractive or superior. We all have our own tastes and we can agree to disagree with each other on that. The issue that we have here is that your use of the word "phenotype" when referring to wild discus and throwbacks is incorrect. It's a semantics issue and that's all.

You are then blinded by your opinion that wild discus is superior to domestic discus. That is the BIG problem here.

Throwbacks are individuals who exhibit the characteristics of an ancestral form.

Is that very hard to understand?

You are merely picking chicken bones out of chicken eggs and coining new terms like "Domestic bred throwbacks" and put them in my mouth to make yourself feel like a winner.

Live and let live buddy. Import it and sell it. Those who are happy to buy, will buy it.

But to me it is no different from a turq throwback. Have a good day buddy