Re: Extinction (was Re: Fp. robertsoni)

[Edd.Kray at rf_doe.gov]

 In keeping with my habit of questioning the "stylish wisdom  of the day",
I ask:

Wright, you profess : "That means rigidly keeping different locations of
the same species
separate ". And how does this reconcile with the goal, of even the KCC for
example, to maintain genetic diversity within our stock of a specific
species? Aren't we then doing the same thing, e.g., inbreeding, that dog
breeders have done for hundreds of years and  that has led to the
concentration of recessive gene defects like hip displaysia in Shepards and
Nards.  Don't we want to promote genetic diversity in our stock and
wouldn't that be best done by mixing different locations of the same
species? Isn't this why the australe, in the hobby for 50 years, is now
runty and poorly colored vs wild stock ?

I have this issue with my huberi strain.......As we have kept them in
captivity for over 12 years (an "instant".... in the biological history of
a species) , starting from the same wild strain and inbreeding them, I am
seeing a gradual size reduction and a decrease in color and viability. I
want some new genes but and am concerned that I would be mixing in a
"different strain" from that originally sent to us by Bitter.  So I
haven't. IS it better to let my aquarium strain die out, or to mix in genes
from a slightly different locality? Tough decision for me.

Do we have a contradiction in principles in our breeding programs, the need
for genetic diversity vs the desire to maintain our strains as distinct as
they were from the wild? But then who is to say how distinct they were in
the wild.Its the hobbyists guess.

---------------
See http://www.aka.org/AKA/subkillietalk.html to unsubscribe
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/AKA/Applic.htm