[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: KillieTalk Digest V3 #770
Hi Fellows:
In January second week my last son trip to New York to take his
vacations
there .I'm interest if any can help me,because I need buy some Bettas
Halfmoon
males and females.Durings his holidays he stay in Manhattan area.
Regards
Juan Olcese
Buenos Aires
Argentina
KillieTalk Digest wrote:
> KillieTalk Digest Saturday, December 16 2000 Volume 03 : Number 770
>
> In this issue:
>
> Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
> Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
> Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success & population genetics
> Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success & population genetics
> Cyprinodon eremus.
>
> See the end of the digest for information on unsubscribing from the
> KillieTalk mailing list and on how to retrieve back issues.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:37:53 -0500
> From: "Jay-Scott Moylan" <moylan at emi_net>
> Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
>
> "Bruce Stallsmith" <fundulus at hotmail_com> wrote:
>
> > This evolutionary "cheater" strategy is surprisingly widespread. One of
> the
> > best studied examples of this strategy of smaller males achieving
> > reproductive success at the cost of larger, territorial males is with the
> > blueheaded wrasse on reefs in the eastern Pacific. Large males defend
> > territory, and as they spawn with females, smaller males who appear to be
> > females will rush in, release sperm, and often account for 20-30% of the
> > resulting fry. There's the extra twist here of sequential hermaphroditism;
> > when a dominant male dies, he's succeeded by a female who develops alpha
> > male physiology and behavior, and _becomes_ the alpha male. The secondary
> > males are _true_ males but never become primaries.
> >
> ________________________________
>
> I once had a female marble betta who spawned well, generally over
> 300 eggs per spawn. Then I didn't use her for a couple of months. She was
> kept in a group tank with a bunch of females. During that time her fins
> grew a lot. I finally set her up with another male and they started to
> fight like crazy! I was shocked to realize that she had changed into a
> male! I then spawned her with a female successfully. I eventually spawned
> two fry- one of which she/he mothered, and one she/he fathered! Pretty
> cool! No errors. Definitely one fish that underwent a sex change.
>
> Jay Moylan
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:51:06 -0500
> From: "Jay-Scott Moylan" <moylan at emi_net>
> Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
>
> Apologies to those who dislike the keeping of a whole string of ideas
> together.
>
> Doug,
>
> I'm afraid I'm still not completely clear on a couple of your points
> below. It makes perfect sense from a betta breeders point of view. The
> goal there is to take one desirable (breeder's desire) pair of fish and fix
> a set of genes to consistently produce a particular strain. In that case to
> dilute the genes with another male's is bad. I thought with killies our
> goal is try and preserve a group's diversity. It seems that keeping some of
> the B male's genes going would be a good thing. Fish A might not possess
> all the genes we wish to preserve. Of course, the limited population we can
> keep pretty much forces the breeders to make selections anyway, and
> guarantees loss of diversity. Many select for color or size of fins, etc.
> so our preferences for appearance supercede nature's. I agree that gang
> spawning seems the least bad compromise and is my preference when I can do
> so as well. Thanks for the lessons.
>
> Jay Moylan
>
> - ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Doug Karpa-Wilson" <dkarpawi at indiana_edu>
> To: <killietalk at aka_org>
> Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2000 11:11 AM
> Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
>
> > Hey, Jay,
> >
> > Sure! The important bit is that if you have a lot of AX offspring
> already,
> > BX's will contribute more than other AX's since they're redundant.
> > Whichever is the rarer type will contribute more. Think about it from the
> > point of view of what proportion of genes from each of the parents are
> > retained in the next generation. Just to keep the argument intelligible,
> > let's assume both the females reproduce equally, so we can focus on the
> > males. On average the females will leave two offspring each (Unless the
> > tank space is continuously expanding over the protests of spouses who have
> > to now keep their sweaters in the unheated garage ;-).
> >
> > For the sake of argument, let's stay with 2 offspring each. Let's say
> male
> > A has his first offspring (A1). He will contribute half his genes (one
> > copy of each of the thousands of genes the species has) to the first
> > offspring. Total genes of his retained: 1/2 of his genome (one copy of
> > each gene).
> >
> > The second offspring will also have half his genes, but since they come at
> > random, half the genes A passes on to the second offspring (A2) will be
> the
> > same ones he passed on to A1, so only half of the genes in A2 are genes
> > that would have been lost if A hadn't had the second offspring. Total
> > retained in A1 and A2: 3/4 of A's genes.
> >
> > The third offspring will also retain 1/2 A's genome, but 3/4 of that half
> > are copies found in A1 and A2 as well, so the part of A's genome that A3
> > preserves uniques amounts only to 1/8 of A's genome. Total saved 7/8 of
> A's
> > genome. As you can see trying to keep a copy of every single on of A's
> > genes becomes very hard.
> >
> > Since we're limited in the total number of offspring that we can keep,
> that
> > third offspring comes at the expense of B having a second offspring.
> Thus,
> > A gets 3 offspring retaining 7/8 of A's genes, but now B gets only 1 so
> > only 1/2 of his genes are preserved. In order to get 1/8 of A's genes we
> > gave up 1/4 of B's.
> >
> > The general priniciple is that the more variation there is among the
> > numbers of offspring among individuals the faster genes are lost. It gets
> > more complicated than that, for sure, when you start keeping track of the
> > differing amounts relatedness among individuals (for example, A1 and A2
> > have one quarter of their genes in common because of their common sire,
> > while A1 and B1 have none, so breeding A1 and B1 is better than A1 and A2,
> > but you knew that!).
> >
> > There is also the important Wright principle that if wild killies are
> > totally inbred none of this matters. In that case, A and B are
> genetically
> > identical, so it doesn't matter who mates with whom since there aren't any
> > different versions to retain. Every individual has all the genes of the
> > entire population. This takes a long time, and it takes very little gene
> > flow to prevent it.
> >
> >
> > The issue you raise about gene combinations (i.e. AX, AY, BX,BY stuff) is
> > actually cutting edge genetics, but it may not be so important to simply
> > retaining as many versions of genes as possible. Of course, for the super
> > hyper types, the way to go would be to breed both males with both females
> > so you have known parentage and keep one offspring from each cross.
> >
> > It should be noted that I gang spawn my fish! Of course, they're all sibs
> > (i.e. very similar) and I'm not a serious large scale breeder. I am only
> > really paying attention to output from a single species right now.
> >
> > I hope I haven't offended anyone here, but I'm sure I have somehow.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> >
> > >Doug,
> > >
> > > I know you have more training by far than I do in genetics. I am
> > >not fully following the math here on the loss of diversity. So, I'm
> asking
> > >for a bit more clarification. If I have a group consisting of males A
> and B
> > >and females X and Y and A is dominant, then we would intuitively expect B
> to
> > >be unsuccessful in passing on his genes. All offspring from the group
> would
> > >be either AX or AY genetically. If B is sneaky enough to get his genes
> into
> > >the mix, then some fry would be BX and BY and some would still be AX and
> AY.
> > >To me that looks like an increase in genetic diversity. It also seems
> that
> > >if the pairs are separated into two tanks, A with X and B with Y, then
> the
> > >offspring will be limited to AX and BY. This also seems like a loss of
> > >total genetic diversity. Can you more fully explain how this is actually
> > >not true, and results in less genetic diversity? Thanks.
> > >
> > >Jay Moylan
> > >
> > >----- Original Message -----
> > >From: "Doug Karpa-Wilson" <dkarpawi at indiana_edu>
> > >To: <killietalk at aka_org>
> > >Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 12:17 AM
> > >Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success
> > >
> > >
> > >>
> > >> >
> > >> > I stand by what I said about the unexpectedly high success
> rate
> > >of
> > >> >non-dominant males in the spawning of many species. Some species have
> > >> >25-50% success by non-dominant males in species with clearly dominant
> > >alpha
> > >> >males who violently repell competitors
> > >> >Jay Moylan
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> More than you'd expect, as in more than zero. The simple fact remains
> > >that
> > >> gangspawning where some of the males are getting only 50% of their
> share
> > >> means that you are losing the genetic diversity quite a bit faster than
> if
> > >> you bred them individually.
> > >>
> > >> Doug
> > >>
> > >> Doug Karpa-Wilson
> > >> Department of Biology
> > >> Indiana University
> > >> Jordan Hall
> > >> 1001 E. 3rd St.
> > >> Bloomington, IN 47405
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ---------------
> > >> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
> > >>
> > >
> > >---------------
> > >See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
> >
> >
> > Doug Karpa Wilson
> >
> > Department of Biology
> > Jordan Hall
> > Indiana University
> > Bloomington, IN 47405
> >
> >
> > ---------------
> > See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
> >
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:56:04 -0500
> From: "Jay-Scott Moylan" <moylan at emi_net>
> Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success & population genetics
>
> Doug,
>
> That was a great description of genetic/environmental interaction
> you wrote.
>
> Jay
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 23:06:39 -0500
> From: "Doug Dame" <dameda at shands_ufl.edu>
> Subject: Re: Alpha Male Breeding Success & population genetics
>
> Thanks for those kind words. I was about to think it just disappeared into the void without even an echo. I think it genetic diversity in the fishroom is a topic we all really need to learn and understand much more about,, cause it seems to be something we kinda understand in an abstract way, but we're clueless about what if anything we could do different or better. Bill Vannerson periodically stirs a stick in it just to provoke some dialogue, but it doesn't last long ... which kinda suggests interest is low.
>
> But after writing that, I got pretty excited about the topic ... I wrote myself 5 ½ pages of stream of consciousness thoughts afterwards ... and I'm seriously considering writing an article or two on the subject for JAKA, if they're interested. It's not like I really know much about the subject though, so I'll have to do some review of current literature in the field if it's going to be credible.
>
> Later
>
> d.d.
>
> >>> moylan at emi_net Friday, December 15, 2000 7:56:04 PM >>>
> Doug,
>
> That was a great description of genetic/environmental interaction
> you wrote.
>
> Jay
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 10:38:45 +0100
> From: "Martin Ravn Tversted" <martinrt at email_dk>
> Subject: Cyprinodon eremus.
>
> Hi again.
> I think I have made a mistake.
> When I first got the fishes it was my understanding that it was a brackish water species, and I threated it that way. But I misunderstood what I was told. Fortunately the fishes didnt care about what kind of water thay were in and they were breeding with succes. I then changed the conditions to freshwater and they accepted that too.
>
> So this just proved that the species are hardy and suitable to adapt themselves to different kinds of conditions.
> This is a little away from what Nonn started to ask about, but I thought I would correct myself.
>
> And now I hear that the species is to be called Cyprinodon eremus. Thank you for that.
>
> Martin Tversted
>
> - ---------------
> See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of KillieTalk Digest V3 #770
> ********************************
>
> To unsubscribe from killietalk, send the command:
> unsubscribe killietalk-digest
> in the body of a message to "Majordomo at AKA_ORG". Archives are
> available on the web at http://www.actwin.com/fish/killietalk
> or via FTP to ftp.actwin.com in /pub/aquaria/killietalk.
---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe