[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Please don't confuse individual fish breeding ID #'s and collection codes

>If I set up young for breeding, I set up a new record with the male and
>female,  who the parents were, when set up.  Different batches of fry get a
>number that is the parents numbers - Aphyosemion austrate F1 M32 F54.  That
>goes on the tank of fry and follows them around. If all the fry die, are
>sold/traded/given away, I don't keep track of them individually. When they
>are all gone, the label above goes in the trash can. But if I pull a male
>out for spawning he becomes Aphyosemion M(77or something) and his record
>shows that he is from Aphyosemion austrate F1 M32 F54. So I can tell where
>he came from and who he is related to.
>
>This has been something that I can manage - a label on the breeding tanks
>telling me where the adults are from, and then a mass label for the fry.  We
>all have labels on the tanks anyway with the names of the fish. I just add a
>few extra letters.

I would support any system that helps prevent the line-breeding that
usually occurs with aquarium strains of killifish.  That being said, I
foresee a problem that will occur sooner or later if individual or batches
of fish are labelled with a breeder's internal numbering system, like the
system described above.  At some point, and I think on more than one
occasion, this will be read by somebody else receiving fish from the
breeder and will be misunderstood to be a new collection code, e.g,
"Aphyosemion australe M32".  Thus adding to the evergrowing confusion
regarding collection codes.  

(Something like this just happened to me from a pair of show fish bought at
the Tampa convention - the collection code on the entry turned out to be
somebody's internal number written on the bag and it was entered in the
show entry computer system, and it turned out that is was not really a true
collection code at all.  The resulting error is easy to understand.  The
data entry person had to assume it was a collection code.  I was about to
distribute young pairs of this fish with the new "collection code", but
when the recent JAKA came out and I was finally able to find out who had
entered the fish, I then spoke with him and asked him about this new-to-me
code, and he explained what had happened.)

I don't mean to suggest that you, David, will put out fish into circulation
with these numbers attached, but if this numbering concept is adopted by
others, sooner or later I am pretty sure this problem will start somewhere
somehow, resulting in new "collection codes".

To stop this problem before it starts, may I suggest some standardized
format which would be forever clearly recognized by all be proposed on this
list and hereby adopted, which indicates that the numbers and letters which
come afterward are somebody's individual fish tracking number system, and
NOT a new collection code.  In your fishroom, you can label the fish just a
short "M32 F54" or whatever, but perhaps EVERY SINGLE TIME a bag of fish
goes out of your fishroom, you either LEAVE THOSE NUMBERS OFF (as David
said above), or IF YOU DO INCLUDE THEM ON THE BAG, PRECEDE THEM WITH SOME
NON-LETTER, NON-NUMBER IDENTIFIER, like %% or something we can all agree
on.  So if something like "A. australe %% M32" or "A. australe BSWG 97/24
%% M32" shows up at a fish show or with a newbie, that it can be known to
most of us that this is NOT another collection code, and that the %% or
whatever means that what comes after was just somebody's internal tracking
number.  I don't care what identifier we would adopt and then all use, but
I suggest it not be a number or letter which could add to the confusion, or
any simple figure like a "/" or" "- or "!" or "^" that would be
mis-transcribed along the way.

Any comments or improvements for this proposal?


Bill
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe