[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Killietalk] Killietalk Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15
08:58:05 -0500From: "Hladky, John" <John_Hladky at tdytsi.com>Subject:
I don't think trying to make an analogy between discus populations and killifish populations are comparable.
What you have said only applies to the blue/brown goup/species of discus. They have over time regulary opportunities to breed across a wide geological range due to millions of years of expansive flooding.
The local variations are actually minute only a few percent of any populations has a distinctive difference in coloration and those few especially nice specimens become associated with a name location.
This causes many discus keepers to make the mistake that these locations are distinctively different from one another when in fact they are not.
Killie populations are subject to true isolation to a much greater extent than discus and that makes them subject to differences developing at the genetic level almost inevitably as they are never regularly recombined as is the case with discus.
I began breeding wild discus in 1969 and have over four decades of involvement in them and have a specific interest in the wild types.
Larry Waybright
Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?To: "killifish discussion list" <killietalk at aka_org> This is skirting the issue that has been my question since thisthread started (indeed since I started reading killietalk several yearsago). Why are killiefish so different than these others? As was statedbelow, to strengthen an angelfish line different collection sites aremixed with aquarium strains. Discus aquarium strains are "derived frommixing the different river collections". None of these have infertilityproblems after a few generations. Why won't this work for killiefish?I can't see how they could be are more isolated than others. All lakefish are isolated from other populations. Someone needs to experimentby mixing as many different populations of the same sub-species ofkilliefish to see if aquarium strains can be breed and established formany generations. Much talk has taken place on this list about the failure toattract and keep interested
killiekeepers. One of the reasons stated isthe difficulty of raising killies in commercial quantities. I thinkthat not being able to keep a line of fish breeding for more than a fewgenerations without them going infertile is a much bigger issue. Whowants to attempt to maintain a species that will invariably peter outafter a few generations. I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to dispel myignorance. I appreciate the other well written answers to my ramblings.They have been very informative, but no one has yet explained whybreeding programs that work for other fish don't work for killies. John in Huntsville -----Original Message-----From: killietalk-bounces at aka_org [mailto:killietalk-bounces at aka_org] OnBehalf Of R. BriceSent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:48 PMTo: killifish discussion listSubject: Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?Hello John,The collecting codes for cichlids are hidden in the name: Ps demasoni"pombo rock" ... where the
pombo rock is the collection code. Lab. C. "lionscove" is another collection code and so on for a lot of African cichlids.Discus have river collections attached to them unless they are anaquarium strain (derived from mixing the different river collections)Guppies are so mixed that there are very few wild strains traded ...Angels have collection codes but only for the "wilds" and are trackedonly by a few top breeders to clean out the genetic problems that followstrains like the gold marble pearlscale, which does not occur in the wild butonly a domesticated "aquarium strain"A few quick notes,Richard Brice----- Original Message ----- From: "John Jabba" <diapteronsrgud at yahoo_ca>To: <killietalk at aka_org>Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:06 PMSubject: Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?> HI;> I have been following the series of posts on collection codes and Iam > trying to understand the logic about maintaining them. To my way of > thinking, after a given
species has been kept and bred in yourfishroom > for a couple of generations the collection code is no longer valid for> this particular pair and its offspring should take on a code relatingto > your fishroom. After all its native biotope is now that of a locationin > your house.>> I wouldn't think that there is ever any likelihood of ever taking any > species back to the original collecting point to possibly repopulateit. I > have kept and bred many different fish over the years; Angels,Guppies, > Barbs, Cichlids, Discus, etc etc,and I don't see this kind of > concentration on a code relating to an original collecting point forthese > fish so why is it done for my new love, Killifish.>> John J>> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:34:21 -0400> From: "Ken"> Subject: Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?> To: "'killifish discussion list'">> I'm not t all against codes or labeling, as anyone who has received my> fish> or visited my home can testify; when it comes to
labeling and"isolation",> I'm either paranoid, schitzo, or both :-) (fancy/detailed labels aremy> thing!)>> ...anyway, the whole point of codes/labeling is genetic> integrity/identification...my crystal ball tells me; once it becomes> cheap/easy to do; labeling per DNA/genetic "Code" in some manner isthe> logical way to go...all else is really moot (if indeed genetic purityis > the> only reason for comprehensive labeling)>> Goals: understood we all got individual goals, but gotta admit thereis > some> hobby centric peer pressure & defacto unwritten/written codes ofethics> we/most follow...and those "rules" are indeed centered around somekind of> less visible goal(s),(or the behaviors these rules govern are near> pointless)...>> My thoughts were: w/o a clear understanding of exactly what we aretrying > to> accomplish through using codes & standards, any implementation theretois> relatively inefficient/meaningless unless the effort is concerted,widely> practiced and understood
what it is we are supposed to accomplish> ..Basically, other that I.D and therefore "dollar value", I'm notreally> certain>> ....pardon the slight soapbox journey there ;-)*>> KC>>>>>> --------------------------------->Answers.> Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/aka/modules/content/index.php?id=9.> Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/> Modify your subscription at > http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/killietalk>> Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/aka/modules/content/index.php?id=9.Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/Modify your subscription athttp://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/killietalk------------------------------Message: 4Date: Mon, 06 Aug 2007 08:50:14 -0700From: Wright Huntley <whuntley at verizon_net>Subject: Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?To: killifish discussion list <killietalk at aka_org>You ask good questions, John.I can't answer all of them, but I'll take a shot at a couple.Generalizations about
killifish are risky, for there are many hundreds of different kinds. What applies to one will not apply to others.The questions of hybrids and "mules" were addressed by Col. Jorgen Scheel over a period of many years. Many of his findings were published in _Rivulins of the Old World_ (aka ROTOW). Others were in letters that are now a matter of public record. I suggest you read ROTOW to understand some of the difficulties involved.Commercial acceptability has little or nothing to do with fertility. Killies are mostly just too small to be attractive in most shops. They are also too mean. As fish from small waters, they often have different behavior than big water fish like Tetras, Discus or Angels of the Amazon. They usually fight for territory and breeding rights, more like Bettas (also a puddle fish). Shops want good "community" fish, and few killies fit that niche. They are also a bit more difficult to raise in large numbers for the same reason. More dollars for smaller fish
isn't good commerce.Killifish rarely have infertility problems after a few generations. Those few just get talked about more. We have had a few examples of accidental or deliberate mixing of females from a different location by poor or unscrupulous exporters, mostly from W. Africa. South American and East African Annuals, and most Asian species have been quite free of such problems, by comparison.Because they tend to be from small waters (what I call puddle fish), killifish tend to become reproductively isolated rather easily. The net result is that they may hybridize readily, but such hybrids may have reduced ability to sustain fertility over several generations. This is a technical curiosity, but does not apply to the vast bulk of killifish species. Those, BTW, are kept out of this quagmire by just keeping locations isolated. That's why we keep collection locations and/or codes with all our fish when ever possible.Col. Scheel even found a pair of species that looked
identical in all ways, but actually had a different total count of chromosomes! Their offspring were, of course, infertile like "mules." [Donkeys and horses have different chromosome counts, which is why their mules are infertile.]There are actually a few very successful commercial killifish. "Golden Wonders" are raised in commercial quantities in SE Asia, and "American-Flag Fish" are readily available in most cities. I suspect the latter are not usually farm raised, but wild caught in FL. Shops don't know of their vegetarian needs, so they go from gorgeous to really ugly in the usual bare store tank with a few plastic plants. [Some ignorant shopkeepers also accept all females, and never know how glorious the male pupfish can be.]Personally, I don't much care that the local shops don't have any killifish. As long as we have an active hobby trade that can satisfy my need for an occasional "species fix'," I'm pretty happy to have the friendly interactions that go with that way
of doing fish.I hope I have addressed some of your concerns, John. Killifish aren't all that different. We are just blessed with a lot more variety than the poor chicklet folks. ;-)WrightHladky, John wrote:> This is skirting the issue that has been my question since this> thread started (indeed since I started reading killietalk several years> ago). Why are killiefish so different than these others? As was stated> below, to strengthen an angelfish line different collection sites are> mixed with aquarium strains. Discus aquarium strains are "derived from> mixing the different river collections". None of these have infertility> problems after a few generations. Why won't this work for killiefish?> I can't see how they could be are more isolated than others. All lake> fish are isolated from other populations. Someone needs to experiment> by mixing as many different populations of the same sub-species of> killiefish to see if aquarium strains can be breed and established
for> many generations. > Much talk has taken place on this list about the failure to> attract and keep interested killiekeepers. One of the reasons stated is> the difficulty of raising killies in commercial quantities. I think> that not being able to keep a line of fish breeding for more than a few> generations without them going infertile is a much bigger issue. Who> wants to attempt to maintain a species that will invariably peter out> after a few generations. > I'm not trying to be argumentative, just trying to dispel my> ignorance. I appreciate the other well written answers to my ramblings.> They have been very informative, but no one has yet explained why> breeding programs that work for other fish don't work for killies. > John in Huntsville >>> >> -----Original Message-----> From: killietalk-bounces at aka_org [mailto:killietalk-bounces at aka_org] On> Behalf Of R. Brice> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 1:48 PM> To: killifish discussion list> Subject: Re:
[Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?>> Hello John,>> The collecting codes for cichlids are hidden in the name: Ps demasoni> "pombo > rock" ... where the pombo rock is the collection code. Lab. C. "lions> cove" > is another collection code and so on for a lot of African cichlids.>> Discus have river collections attached to them unless they are an> aquarium > strain (derived from mixing the different river collections)>> Guppies are so mixed that there are very few wild strains traded ...>> Angels have collection codes but only for the "wilds" and are tracked> only > by a few top breeders to clean out the genetic problems that follow> strains > like the gold marble pearlscale, which does not occur in the wild but> only a > domesticated "aquarium strain">> A few quick notes,> Richard Brice>> ----- Original Message ----- > From: "John Jabba" <diapteronsrgud at yahoo_ca>> To: <killietalk at aka_org>> Sent: Thursday, August 02, 2007 2:06 PM> Subject: Re: [Killietalk]
Commercial imports; what to label them?>>> >> HI;>> I have been following the series of posts on collection codes and I>> > am > >> trying to understand the logic about maintaining them. To my way of >> thinking, after a given species has been kept and bred in your>> > fishroom > >> for a couple of generations the collection code is no longer valid for>> >> >> this particular pair and its offspring should take on a code relating>> > to > >> your fishroom. After all its native biotope is now that of a location>> > in > >> your house.>>>> I wouldn't think that there is ever any likelihood of ever taking any >> species back to the original collecting point to possibly repopulate>> > it. I > >> have kept and bred many different fish over the years; Angels,>> > Guppies, > >> Barbs, Cichlids, Discus, etc etc,and I don't see this kind of >> concentration on a code relating to an original collecting point for>> > these > >> fish so
why is it done for my new love, Killifish.>>>> John J>>>> Date: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 16:34:21 -0400>> From: "Ken">> Subject: Re: [Killietalk] Commercial imports; what to label them?>> To: "'killifish discussion list'">>>> I'm not t all against codes or labeling, as anyone who has received my>> >> >> fish>> or visited my home can testify; when it comes to labeling and>> > "isolation",> >> I'm either paranoid, schitzo, or both :-) (fancy/detailed labels are>> > my> >> thing!)>>>> ...anyway, the whole point of codes/labeling is genetic>> integrity/identification...my crystal ball tells me; once it becomes>> cheap/easy to do; labeling per DNA/genetic "Code" in some manner is>> > the> >> logical way to go...all else is really moot (if indeed genetic purity>> > is > >> the>> only reason for comprehensive labeling)>>>> Goals: understood we all got individual goals, but gotta admit there>> > is > >> some>> hobby centric peer pressure & defacto
unwritten/written codes of>> > ethics> >> we/most follow...and those "rules" are indeed centered around some>> > kind of> >> less visible goal(s),(or the behaviors these rules govern are near>> pointless)...>>>> My thoughts were: w/o a clear understanding of exactly what we are>> > trying > >> to>> accomplish through using codes & standards, any implementation thereto>> > is> >> relatively inefficient/meaningless unless the effort is concerted,>> > widely> >> practiced and understood what it is we are supposed to accomplish>> ..Basically, other that I.D and therefore "dollar value", I'm not>> > really> >> certain>>>> ....pardon the slight soapbox journey there ;-)>>>> KC>>>>>>>>>>>> --
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
Join the AKA at http://www.aka.org/aka/modules/content/index.php?id=9.
Archives are at http://fins.actwin.com/killietalk/
Modify your subscription at http://www.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo.cgi/killietalk