[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Arguments Against Mixing Locations was Re: N. rachovii LONG EMAIL
>>>Perhaps they are genetically modified by life in an aquarium for 40+ years or perhaps they came from a different location/species to begin with.<<<
Hi, Lee. So you're back from OZ!
The chocolate AUS example, a strain that's been in the hobby for a long time, may be an example where cross location breeding has set an undesirable trait (from our point of view) that causes them to be difficult to breed. It also could have occurred from a random change or from long term inbreeding.
The Gold AUS example is interesting. Perhaps it's a case where the strain adapted and long term isolation, as opposed to location crossing, fixed the trait. Years ago, the breeder who fixed the color morph, did so with presumably good stock. Folks have subsequently maintained that strain, which could be analogous to a location, in order to maintain the color morph. So no other strains for other locations were added to the line. This may have maintained the prolific, long lived attributes.
If someone were to fix a gold morph from another location, and the existing and the hypothetical new morphed were crossed, we may (but not necessarily, see a degradation in the offspring and subsequent generations.
The new wild imports, it will be interesting to see if they become long lived. The trout research Barry cited shows that they were very adaptable in a small number of generations. So it's quite likely that the F2 wild generations that currently are short lived, may adapt to aquarium life (good food, no predation, constant temps, clean water) and become more long lived.
I'm a little scared about making statements regarding inheritance and genetics, as I'm not even close to being an expert. But it is an interesting subject for one to interject his 2 cents worth.
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe