Change Page: < 123 > | Showing page 2 of 3, messages 21 to 40 of 43 - powered by ASPPlayground.NET Forum Trial Version
Author
|
Message
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Saturday, July 2, 2011 12:13 PM
( permalink)
Yes I agree Luis. I think my Snow Onyx pair will probably spawn having closely related parents, where as my Lecokranos, Thellei pair I am not so sure, although at the moment they seem to be displaying very sexually active posturing and the female has started chasing the male as he keeps nudging her and cleaning their pot. He has also started making drumming noises which I know to be a pre spawning sign.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, July 4, 2011 1:33 PM
( permalink)
I just wanted everyone to know that the Council is taking this issue very seriously and we are looking at what it would take to make this happen. We have not at all forgotten about this. We would like to continue to get more feedback and thoughts from the public on this.
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011 9:26 AM
( permalink)
It's my understanding that you can make a report as of right now with a hybrid, however points will not be given. Is that correct? I think you have to do a new species and also a breeding report. I asked this question before and was told we can.
RLTW 180 Gallon Mixed Reef Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Tuesday, July 5, 2011 10:36 AM
( permalink)
You can create a journal for for the pair and keep track of the information there but right now there is no way to submit a report. If you notice when sumbitting reports you have to select the species from a drop down of classified species. Since you are only able to select a single species there is no way to submit a report that uses parents from more than one species or morph.
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 17, 2011 5:48 PM
( permalink)
I would like to see a system for hybrids, both to journal and report. Just my 2cents 
Our goal with "The Clown Factory" is simple....Raise healthy, beautiful, captive clownfish and ...his is our small part to help keep the Worlds reefs as God intended them to be.....Beautiful
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 17, 2011 6:38 PM
( permalink)
I'm in the no points for hybrids boat. 99% of hybrids in the marine ornamental field are clownfish. Why? Because clowns sell. And they are easy to breed and raise. Perhaps is the science guy in me but lets worry about the 90000 other species of fish we haven't bred before we cross another species of clown.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 17, 2011 11:03 PM
( permalink)
While I agree that hybrid pairs should be documented, and can be in a journal, I do not think it should be encouraged by rewarding such with points. I understand that there will always be people out there that are looking for the newest "designer" hybrid but, it is my opinion that the true focus should be on breeding species that have not already been raised in captivity. Rather than promoting the production of hybrids simply to make a buck, or to see what happens. That is purely my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the MBI Council.  There are several articles in the latest issue of CORAL magazine with different takes on this subject.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, July 18, 2011 11:26 AM
( permalink)
For sure it's a difficult issue. I would also ask the question how many commercial breeders (outside of asia, where labour and land are cheap) would make money if they didn't hybridise? The markup on designers is significantly more than standard species. Also take a look at the morality within the food fish aquaculture industry. There is money available for research here, but not so for ornamental species. The Uk has a massive commercial interest in fish farming all over the world and alot of cash is spent on researching hybrids to improve feed conversion rates and grow out reduction times. Also how many of us eat shrimps? Up until recently eye ablation was common practice to improve fecundity. Is that moral and how many of us would stop eating them if they knew? Destruction of mangroves blah, blah, blah. I agree with Tal and many other people that share the view lets concentrate on breeding and learning about species that are presently undocumented and difficult. However honestly I love designer clowns albeit somewhat vulgar. Money will always play a part in our hobby and I think whilst we shoud not promote hybrids we need to accept them and do what we can to control and document them. FWIW.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, July 18, 2011 11:40 AM
( permalink)
I pretty much agree with you Duck...They aren't going to go away anytime soon. As long as there is a demand for them and it makes sense financially to produce them. Someone is going to fill the gap in the market. We are better off finding a way to work with the industry than fighting it.
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, July 18, 2011 11:49 AM
( permalink)
You can learn a lot from trying to create a hybrid. May not make any money off it, but playing with genetics you can start to flesh out dominate traits in various fish and start to seperate genetic traits vs environmental ones. I agree generally with the concept that trying to have a vast market of hybrids could create issues and should not be encouraged. Still the inate curiosity within me always wants to know what would happen if you could mate a pig with an elephant? (see if anyone catches the reference )
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, July 18, 2011 12:28 PM
( permalink)
Yep, I think we (The MBI Community) are in a unique position. We have the ability to influence and inform on the importance of attempting new and not tried species, as well as encouraging the documenting of hybrids and at least trying to control what is and isn't a "good idea" when crossbreeding fish. Documentation is the only way to go with crossbreeding, as has been pointed out by the Orchid example and the RHS.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 31, 2011 3:40 PM
( permalink)
Just to keep everyone up on things the Council has not forgotten this issue at all. We are working on how we can introduce this capability to the system and make it work within the current MBI structure while creating a system that will allow us to both record and name both hybrids of different species as well as varieties of the same species. In the mean time we are still interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 31, 2011 9:19 PM
( permalink)
lol so much fun being on council!! Especially with this particular subject! Chad is definately correct in that we have all been seriously considering this in the back end. Most likely to the degre of offering the ability to report on hybrids without points. We are very early in the game here as it relates to methodologies and knowledge and *any* insight is premium, barring insight from hybridization at this point would be counter productive. That said I too am a fan of no points for hybrids. I am curious to see however, what hybrids people are working on outside of the typical clownfish arena? There are so many other species out there ripe for the picking (species in the Salarias arena particularily intrigue me) that I think there is a lot of useful information hanging on the fringes if you will. Anyone trying anything interesting?
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 31, 2011 10:01 PM
( permalink)
Couple questions/statements at least to me are fundamental because I find the some of the arguments at odds. I think everyone agrees hybrids are not going to go anywhere. I do agree there is clearly many more fish to work with than this, but the reality is there are really only a handful of people in the world with the capacity (knowledge, resources, access to stock, material, space...etc...etc..) to work on 'advanced' fish. As we all know, clownfish are easier and make themselves a natural candidate for hyridization. From what I can tell from my reading, to some degree this occurs in nature...obviously not on the scale that we do it in our aquaria. So given this.... 1a) Should captive breeding be purely for advancement of the topic (personal or community)? 1b) or is it a process to increase our capacity to supply the market (profit or not.) with CB? 1c) or there other motivations involved such as collector items, etc...? If exclusively 1a, then the reality is there is very little need for this site. There are simply not enough people out there that can adequately contribute in any way other than providing a random idea to break the status quo. Many who broach this hobby quickly find out that even breeding an Oc requires more time and money than they can reasonable afford. This leaves us back to the reality that information sharing is not needed accept for a few elite or heavily dedicated individuals. If exclusively 1b, then we must accept the movement of the market. If the market is willing to shift to hybrids, thus acheiving the goal of captive breeding aleviating some of the import requirements, then hybrids should be welcome with open arms. If 1c, which I assume works it's way into the notion that animals should not be collected for posessions, but I think we can all accept that is, in fact, what the aquarium trade is. And is likely, at least in part, what got each of us into this hobby. Vanity and fundamental morals surrounding 'owning' anything is at play in this discussion and should be assessed by each individual as they explore this topic for themselves. Alteratively, even if the answer is a combination of either 1a or 1b or 1c, as long as 1b is in accepted as part of the mission of MBI or breeding in general, then the answer becomes the same...hybrids should be accepted. Now to push this arguement a bit further, I find that most people commonly accept inbreeding as an acceptible practice. As I understand it, including many on this site opposed to hybrids. The interesting part of this is that, as I see it, hybrids are the natural conclusion of this commonly accepted practice. Certianly correct me if I am wrong, but these are the very reasons why inbreeding is not allowed in humans, as passive traits become active and we can cause many unpredictable results. Clearly we all accept our beloved dogs, which are often the result of hybridization and extensive inbreeding. So on the counter, I think one can take 100s if not 1000s of years of more conventional animals and argue that inbreeding and the side effects can be not only acceptable, but desired. I am merely suggesting both sides of the same coin, either way you come to the same conclusion. Therefore, assuming my understanding of the natural conclusion of inbreeding, any hybrid should be accepted as a valid fish genre as long as inbreeding is accepted. To me these arguments are equal in weight. I recently read an acticle, that I believe was from pederson, that suggested even at this point, one could not utilize captive stock to restock the oceans as indentifying the origins would be near impossible. If this, in fact, is a valid arguement, then that furthers the case that hybrids should be accepted as part of a market solution to assist in providing captive bred fish as a market alternative. Now, should there be a hybrid database, maybe. I am not sure if I have an opinion. I think it is most likely a good idea, but can be a precarious one. Should points be awarded? I think I fall into the category, that if the purpose of MBI is to support captive breeding, and assuming my arguements above are rational, and that MBI is going to go to the extent of maintaining a database, then I think the answer is yes. Maybe limited the F level to which points can be awarded, or maybe a reduced point level. But to ignore the accomplishment in itself (which seems to be a major focus here), I do believe underminds the nature of MBI, captive breeding in general. Now to be clear on this, I actually do not have an opinion, well one that is 'passionate' (which is ironic if any of you knew me very well). Do I feel objected to owning a snowflake? Nope, I think he is the most beautiful fish I own, but note I 'own' him. I don't see him every day when I go swimming in the ocean. He resides in a fake environment, born in a fake environment, raised on fake food and he is still as wonderful as any of the other fish I have, totally irregardless of the 'purity' of his parents.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Sunday, July 31, 2011 11:29 PM
( permalink)
 Originally Posted by Caesra
1a) Should captive breeding be purely for advancement of the topic (personal or community)?
1b) or is it a process to increase our capacity to supply the market (profit or not.) with CB?
1c) or there other motivations involved such as collector items, etc...?
All 3 and then some.
Originally Posted by Caesra Alteratively, even if the answer is a combination of either 1a or 1b or 1c, as long as 1b is in accepted as part of the mission of MBI or breeding in general, then the answer becomes the same...hybrids should be accepted. "Accepted" in what form/capacity/manner?
Originally Posted by Caesra Now to push this arguement a bit further, I find that most people commonly accept inbreeding as an acceptible practice. As I understand it, including many on this site opposed to hybrids. The interesting part of this is that, as I see it, hybrids are the natural conclusion of this commonly accepted practice. In fact the very act of hybridizing is taking the concept of OUTCROSSING to a whole new level, wherein you are jumping across the boundaries of naturally occuring forms and creating something that most often (but not always) would or could never occur in nature.
Originally Posted by Caesra Certianly correct me if I am wrong, but these are the very reasons why inbreeding is not allowed in humans, as passive traits become active and we can cause many unpredictable results. You can't equate fish to humans - the genetics are far too disparate. Inbreeding (line breeding and backcrossing) is a tool breeders can use to "refine" or "fix" a trait, indeed. But it takes several generations for inbreeding to be a problem in FISH. Outcrossing (by breeding two fish from unrelated lines) provides the influx of non-related genes that would/could 'dilute' the negative effects of inbreeding.
Originally Posted by Caesra Clearly we all accept our beloved dogs, which are often the result of hybridization and extensive inbreeding. So on the counter, I think one can take 100s if not 1000s of years of more conventional animals and argue that inbreeding and the side effects can be not only acceptable, but desired. I am merely suggesting both sides of the same coin, either way you come to the same conclusion. Dogs are domesticated, they are not fish, and dogs are not at risk of being exterminated from the planet (whereas many of our beloved reef fish are, if you consider the implications of climate change and ocean acidification). So dogs are really a faulty argument in support of both hybridizing and inbreeding. And in fact, while there is inbreeding in dogs, one of the primary goals of records such as those maintained by the AKC is to reduce inbreeding in a breed. The reality is that "dogs", to a great extent, are more an example of man's ability to "accelerate" the presumed natural processes of evolution.
Originally Posted by Caesra Therefore, assuming my understanding of the natural conclusion of inbreeding, any hybrid should be accepted as a valid fish genre as long as inbreeding is accepted. To me these arguments are equal in weight. They are fundamentally different propositions. Inbreeding for example, will happen in the ongoing efforts to ensure the long term captive population of Amphiprion mccullochi. It's a necessary tool given the foundation stock of only 4 spawning pairs. That said, there is ample opportunity for enough offspring to be produced via sexual reproduction that perhaps there is enough foundation genetic diversity to create a stable captive population. None of this has anything to do with hybridizing (i.e. the act of mixing A. mccullochi with A. frenatus for example). And to take it one step further, the act of hybridizing a struggling species like A. mccullochi creates problems for the actual preservation of the species, as well as potentially muddying the genetics of a few other species along the way through indiscriminate breeding practices.
Originally Posted by Caesra I recently read an acticle, that I believe was from pederson, that suggested even at this point, one could not utilize captive stock to restock the oceans as indentifying the origins would be near impossible. While I'm not sure what article you are pointing to, here is a example of the problem you might be trying to draw on. Amphiprion pacificus vs. A. akallopsisos. They look virtually identical. The former, a new species described recently, but found in a place where aquarium fish collection is common in the Pacific. The latter, a long standing species that hails from the Indian Ocean, where I *believe* collection is not *quite* as common but still, certainly it has been collected. These two species no doubt have entered the trade being considered the same. If these fish were not kept through the entire chain of custody with proper geographical collection data, there is little if any chance of determining which species one actually had. Of course, back in the days, no one even thought about geographic collection data, so when trying to breed what was then A. akallopisos, you simply grabbed what was sold as such. The unfortunate reality is that now, because we've learned we are actually dealing with 2 species, EVERY captive bred A. akallopisos in the trade is of questionable heritage, and any wild caught "Akallopisos" Skunk Clown is all null and void unless collection origin is comfortably known. So the reality here is that because of the questionable genetics of these fish, you could probably never take captive bred stock at this point in time and use it to repopulate a location where A. akallopisos had been extripated. The only responsible way to work with this species now is to go back to fish of wild origins and know exactly where wild caught broodstock came from. Everything else will be suspect.
Originally Posted by Caesra If this, in fact, is a valid arguement, then that furthers the case that hybrids should be accepted as part of a market solution to assist in providing captive bred fish as a market alternative. Actually, the above is a prime example of how hybrids, and indescriminant breeding, can be damaging to a species as we know it, and is the primary cause of the problem that you cite as a justification to continue the problem. In other words...since we made the same mistakes before, we might as well keep making them in the name of commerce and profit. I'd argue we can do FAR BETTER, and we don't need hybrids to acheive all the goals of captive breeding (except for the goal of some to intentionally create hybrids).
Originally Posted by Caesra Now, should there be a hybrid database, maybe. I am not sure if I have an opinion. I think it is most likely a good idea, but can be a precarious one. Why is this a precarious idea? What harm does it do to document the results of hybridization, to give a new hybrid only one name, and to make that information available? It is quite well documented that other interests where species preservation is vitally important, this has worked fine for over a century. I'm talking ORCHIDS. I would argue that one of the only redeeming qualities that the pursuit of creating hybrids has to offer is a deeper understanding of how a species genetics may work and display influence on another, and the very fact that we can look at such a database and simply have the knowledge gained. Granted, these are pretty flimsy reasons to justify hybridization, but if it's going to be done, better to document the outcome for the benefit of all than to not do so. Perhaps the documented hybrids of species could be used to help identify the random wild hybrids that may very occasionally pop up. Again, really shallow redeeming merit, but some.
Originally Posted by Caesra Should points be awarded? I think I fall into the category, that if the purpose of MBI is to support captive breeding, and assuming my arguements above are rational, and that MBI is going to go to the extent of maintaining a database, then I think the answer is yes. Maybe limited the F level to which points can be awarded, or maybe a reduced point level. But to ignore the accomplishment in itself (which seems to be a major focus here), I do believe underminds the nature of MBI, captive breeding in general. But what is the real accomplishment of creating a new hybrid, other than "creating a new hybrid"? Little useful knowledge is gained (in my opinion). There is no breakthrough in breeding techniques to create a hybrid (except perhaps the actual pairing or mating process). However, as illustrated many times over, the downsides of intentional hybrids are many and great. That is why I cannot encourage the pursuit of them at this time in our hobby. That said, I am very guilty of creating many Orchid hybrids...far many more hybrids than breedings of actual species. But the ORCHID hobby and industry is in a far different place than the marine fish breeding hobby is, hybrids still pose risks to the Orchid Breeder but not at the level that fish hybrids could represent. That, and orchid breeders follow a much better ethic about their breeding, primarily due to a long engrained practice of doing things the "right way". There will perhaps one day be a time where I might have no qualms over the intentional creation of a new fish hybrids. Now is simply not that time. So while I cannot speak for the MBI Council as a whole, I can speak for my own stance on the issue. Opening up the MBI systems to be able to document the activities of hybridizers is GOOD, given the fact that regardless of what I say about it, people are going to do it. That said, I cannot condone or encourage this direction of breeding at this point in time, so I am vocally against "awarding" the efforts of a breeder who I see as doing something counterproductive to the overall aspect of preserving natural biodiversity. In addition to all the risks and issues that "designer" fish represent, the undeniable truth is that they are taking the spot of a naturally occuring species in your tanks. There is an undeniable struggle between commerce and conservation, yet we can have our cake AND eat it too, but only if we think about this in the long term. It can be very difficult to take a long term view when earning a paycheck is difficult enough, but for the hobbyist breeder who presumably is breeding for reasons other than profit, there's really no justification other than ones own whim. Look at the freshwater hobby...they've been around for a LOT longer than we have. It cuts both ways. Good luck trying to find natural forms of certain fish...they just don't exist in the trade any longer. And perhaps that's OK, unless that natural form is also gone in the wild. That's a tragedy. That's where pursuing designers and hybrids at the expense of natural forms is going to take the marine aquarium hobby. That's why I won't do anything to encourage these lines of breeding, but knowing that they will happen, try to encourage what little redemption can be had while also perhaps trying to steer folks in directions that are not as harmful as, perhaps say a Percularis. There's my buck and change... Matt
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, August 1, 2011 1:18 AM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra
1a) Should captive breeding be purely for advancement of the topic (personal or community)?
1b) or is it a process to increase our capacity to supply the market (profit or not.) with CB?
1c) or there other motivations involved such as collector items, etc...?
All 3 and then some. I agree, simply put, I picked what I see to be the top three most fundamental questions to push at this topic.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Alteratively, even if the answer is a combination of either 1a or 1b or 1c, as long as 1b is in accepted as part of the mission of MBI or breeding in general, then the answer becomes the same...hybrids should be accepted. "Accepted" in what form/capacity/manner? Of course this is part of the larger question, but at the fundamental level, this topic started as a question of 'should it be accepted' by MBI, and my suggestion is the answer to that question lends itself from answers to the questions above.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Now to push this arguement a bit further, I find that most people commonly accept inbreeding as an acceptible practice. As I understand it, including many on this site opposed to hybrids. The interesting part of this is that, as I see it, hybrids are the natural conclusion of this commonly accepted practice. In fact the very act of hybridizing is taking the concept of OUTCROSSING to a whole new level, wherein you are jumping across the boundaries of naturally occuring forms and creating something that most often (but not always) would or could never occur in nature. As i understand much of the 'designer' fish development it is not outcrossing, but line breeding and inbreeding to produce the desired results. While the origination of the attempt (and possible reiforcing efforts) is out crossing, it takes considerable efforts to selectively pull the traits out of each batch. These batches, from what I have read, occur through extensive inbreeding and line breeding. While I understand that you are suggesting that if the original outcrossing did not occur, the designer fish would not be as likely to occur naturally, I think we can both agree that extensive inbreeding or line breeding is involved in order to develop these 'designer' fish. Thus lending itself back to the original point that if inbreeding was not accepted, the passive traits that are brought into dominance would not have a slim possability of enduring.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Certianly correct me if I am wrong, but these are the very reasons why inbreeding is not allowed in humans, as passive traits become active and we can cause many unpredictable results. You can't equate fish to humans - the genetics are far too disparate. Inbreeding (line breeding and backcrossing) is a tool breeders can use to "refine" or "fix" a trait, indeed. But it takes several generations for inbreeding to be a problem in FISH. Outcrossing (by breeding two fish from unrelated lines) provides the influx of non-related genes that would/could 'dilute' the negative effects of inbreeding. I hesistated to use dogs or humans as an example because of worries that someone would try to 'split hairs'. As best I understand the genetics, the fundamentals are stil lthere. Several generations is absolutley correct, as most 'designer' fish require several generations to develop. Again, I understand and acknowledge what you are trying to state about two unlrelated, and geographically disparate specices being forced to breed.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Clearly we all accept our beloved dogs, which are often the result of hybridization and extensive inbreeding. So on the counter, I think one can take 100s if not 1000s of years of more conventional animals and argue that inbreeding and the side effects can be not only acceptable, but desired. I am merely suggesting both sides of the same coin, either way you come to the same conclusion. Dogs are domesticated, they are not fish, and dogs are not at risk of being exterminated from the planet (whereas many of our beloved reef fish are, if you consider the implications of climate change and ocean acidification). So dogs are really a faulty argument in support of both hybridizing and inbreeding. And in fact, while there is inbreeding in dogs, one of the primary goals of records such as those maintained by the AKC is to reduce inbreeding in a breed. The reality is that "dogs", to a great extent, are more an example of man's ability to "accelerate" the presumed natural processes of evolution. Not to be rough on this rebuttle, but many of the current dogs we view as normal are the result of undomesticated dogs being outcrossed, inbred and linebred. My beloved Molly, my rottweiler, is the product of such things. They were undomesticated and intentional forced to breed for 100s of years to produce what we now call Rotweillers, much like we are doing with our fish. A response to food does not mandate 'domestication'. If that arguement is standing, then our fish are entirely domesticated and the argument does not apply. In regards to the AKC and other such organizations, while they have gone through great efforts to certify animals, the ever present momentum of hybrids is growing rapidly in that market too. With the same conversations occuring. There is no depletion of dogs, yet the momentum behind this same question exists in that context too. Issues like ocean depletion and extinction are very seperate topics and I don't think there is one person on these forums that can successfully argue that they have not contributed to this problem, in countless ways. So, in reality, such an arguement needs to be carefully considered in the background, but has a very small amount of standin in the conversation of hybrids.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Therefore, assuming my understanding of the natural conclusion of inbreeding, any hybrid should be accepted as a valid fish genre as long as inbreeding is accepted. To me these arguments are equal in weight. They are fundamentally different propositions. Inbreeding for example, will happen in the ongoing efforts to ensure the long term captive population of Amphiprion mccullochi. It's a necessary tool given the foundation stock of only 4 spawning pairs. That said, there is ample opportunity for enough offspring to be produced via sexual reproduction that perhaps there is enough foundation genetic diversity to create a stable captive population. None of this has anything to do with hybridizing (i.e. the act of mixing A. mccullochi with A. frenatus for example). And to take it one step further, the act of hybridizing a struggling species like A. mccullochi creates problems for the actual preservation of the species, as well as potentially muddying the genetics of a few other species along the way through indiscriminate breeding practices. I find this arguement to be difficult to maintain, as you are justifying when it is appropriate and inappropriate to violate the 'rules'. This becomes a moral question for the individual, which pushes us back into the very topic. At least in my opinion.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra I recently read an acticle, that I believe was from pederson, that suggested even at this point, one could not utilize captive stock to restock the oceans as indentifying the origins would be near impossible. While I'm not sure what article you are pointing to, here is a example of the problem you might be trying to draw on. Amphiprion pacificus vs. A. akallopsisos. They look virtually identical. The former, a new species described recently, but found in a place where aquarium fish collection is common in the Pacific. The latter, a long standing species that hails from the Indian Ocean, where I *believe* collection is not *quite* as common but still, certainly it has been collected. These two species no doubt have entered the trade being considered the same. If these fish were not kept through the entire chain of custody with proper geographical collection data, there is little if any chance of determining which species one actually had. Of course, back in the days, no one even thought about geographic collection data, so when trying to breed what was then A. akallopisos, you simply grabbed what was sold as such. The unfortunate reality is that now, because we've learned we are actually dealing with 2 species, EVERY captive bred A. akallopisos in the trade is of questionable heritage, and any wild caught "Akallopisos" Skunk Clown is all null and void unless collection origin is comfortably known. So the reality here is that because of the questionable genetics of these fish, you could probably never take captive bred stock at this point in time and use it to repopulate a location where A. akallopisos had been extripated. The only responsible way to work with this species now is to go back to fish of wild origins and know exactly where wild caught broodstock came from. Everything else will be suspect. Which was the point I was trying to make, by definition, our broodstock serves no purpose other than to serve one of the questions in 1a, 1b or 1c.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra If this, in fact, is a valid arguement, then that furthers the case that hybrids should be accepted as part of a market solution to assist in providing captive bred fish as a market alternative. Actually, the above is a prime example of how hybrids, and indescriminant breeding, can be damaging to a species as we know it, and is the primary cause of the problem that you cite as a justification to continue the problem. In other words...since we made the same mistakes before, we might as well keep making them in the name of commerce and profit. I'd argue we can do FAR BETTER, and we don't need hybrids to acheive all the goals of captive breeding (except for the goal of some to intentionally create hybrids).
Originally Posted by Caesra Now, should there be a hybrid database, maybe. I am not sure if I have an opinion. I think it is most likely a good idea, but can be a precarious one. I have read many of your respones to this topic and I find many of your comments well thought out and articulated. I have alot of respect for you holding your position regarding your point of view, but I can say that you have softened your stance considerably since some of your responses, to this topic, compared to several years ago.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Why is this a precarious idea? What harm does it do to document the results of hybridization, to give a new hybrid only one name, and to make that information available? It is quite well documented that other interests where species preservation is vitally important, this has worked fine for over a century. I'm talking ORCHIDS. I would argue that one of the only redeeming qualities that the pursuit of creating hybrids has to offer is a deeper understanding of how a species genetics may work and display influence on another, and the very fact that we can look at such a database and simply have the knowledge gained. Granted, these are pretty flimsy reasons to justify hybridization, but if it's going to be done, better to document the outcome for the benefit of all than to not do so. Perhaps the documented hybrids of species could be used to help identify the random wild hybrids that may very occasionally pop up. Again, really shallow redeeming merit, but some.
Precarious, only in the administration. I should have expanded on my statement.
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra Should points be awarded? I think I fall into the category, that if the purpose of MBI is to support captive breeding, and assuming my arguements above are rational, and that MBI is going to go to the extent of maintaining a database, then I think the answer is yes. Maybe limited the F level to which points can be awarded, or maybe a reduced point level. But to ignore the accomplishment in itself (which seems to be a major focus here), I do believe underminds the nature of MBI, captive breeding in general. But what is the real accomplishment of creating a new hybrid, other than "creating a new hybrid"? Little useful knowledge is gained (in my opinion). There is no breakthrough in breeding techniques to create a hybrid (except perhaps the actual pairing or mating process). However, as illustrated many times over, the downsides of intentional hybrids are many and great. That is why I cannot encourage the pursuit of them at this time in our hobby. That said, I am very guilty of creating many Orchid hybrids...far many more hybrids than breedings of actual species. But the ORCHID hobby and industry is in a far different place than the marine fish breeding hobby is, hybrids still pose risks to the Orchid Breeder but not at the level that fish hybrids could represent. That, and orchid breeders follow a much better ethic about their breeding, primarily due to a long engrained practice of doing things the "right way". There will perhaps one day be a time where I might have no qualms over the intentional creation of a new fish hybrids. Now is simply not that time. So while I cannot speak for the MBI Council as a whole, I can speak for my own stance on the issue. Opening up the MBI systems to be able to document the activities of hybridizers is GOOD, given the fact that regardless of what I say about it, people are going to do it. That said, I cannot condone or encourage this direction of breeding at this point in time, so I am vocally against "awarding" the efforts of a breeder who I see as doing something counterproductive to the overall aspect of preserving natural biodiversity. In addition to all the risks and issues that "designer" fish represent, the undeniable truth is that they are taking the spot of a naturally occuring species in your tanks. There is an undeniable struggle between commerce and conservation, yet we can have our cake AND eat it too, but only if we think about this in the long term. It can be very difficult to take a long term view when earning a paycheck is difficult enough, but for the hobbyist breeder who presumably is breeding for reasons other than profit, there's really no justification other than ones own whim. Look at the freshwater hobby...they've been around for a LOT longer than we have. It cuts both ways. Good luck trying to find natural forms of certain fish...they just don't exist in the trade any longer. And perhaps that's OK, unless that natural form is also gone in the wild. That's a tragedy. That's where pursuing designers and hybrids at the expense of natural forms is going to take the marine aquarium hobby. That's why I won't do anything to encourage these lines of breeding, but knowing that they will happen, try to encourage what little redemption can be had while also perhaps trying to steer folks in directions that are not as harmful as, perhaps say a Percularis. There's my buck and change... I will simply respond to the first set of statements. If there is no value in such efforts, then where is the value in someone sharing their experience breeding a pair of clownfish. There is little to be gained from the community as a whole and this goes back to my original questions, 1a, 1b and 1c. One who is learning, such as myself, finds great value in each attempt I read, regardless if this attempt is a 'pure' species or a 'hybrid' and regardless of past history regarding the species. The accomplishment is the same if it is a perc or a snowflake. To ensure we are talking the same thing, I am referring to, say someone breeding picassos instead of someone trying to create a new 'designer' fish. I mean no disrespect via my rebuttles, in fact, I have a great respect for your writings and honesty regarding your opinions, observations and experience regarding this trade. Also, I appologize for poor gramar and spelling..really ought to be sleeping =)
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, August 1, 2011 2:44 PM
( permalink)
I think Matt's point is that there is no value to be gained from hybrids, that cannot be learned from breeding same species clowns. We can all learn something from pooling our attempts and seeing what we do differently as you state. You do have a valid point though, when you say "why do we want to document if it is no use"? In my opinion the answer contradicts the first point that it has no value. Well in fact it does because it enables us to have some traceability as to what was crossed with what to produce x. Which in itself could be useful in the future. It would also help to clarify the miriad of hybrids that are already sold and have different names. Should we also take more care to understand where our fish were caught and document that? I would say definitely yes! As Matt has pointed out Many fish of same species but specific geographical locations will undoubtedly be lost in the very near future. Clownfish in particular have many different colours and markings dependant upon location. Crossbreeding will only exacerbate this and quicken their demise. We have to document, educate and inform the wider audience to further their, and our understanding to ensure a more balanced approach.
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, August 1, 2011 3:00 PM
( permalink)
Very true. I would love to know exactly where mine where caught or where their parents or blood lines are from. It would help to preserve the species and to get the right hybrids if you choose do it that way.
RLTW 180 Gallon Mixed Reef Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, August 1, 2011 4:44 PM
( permalink)
I think other there is some confusion here as well because we are talking about two different things in is conversation. Hybrids and selective breeding. Selective breeding is what we see in our dogs. The same species is used for both parents but those parents are selected for certain traits in the hopes that those traits are passed on and become more dominant. These are the snowflakes, Picasso's, Onyx percs. In these cases both parents are of the same species the parents are just picked specifically for certain characteristics. These are varieties or morphs of a species. Not a hybrid The other. Issue is hybrids were the parents are of different species. This would be your Black Photon clowns, one parent is an onyx percent the other a black and white occy. The system we are talking about will serve to document both hybrids and morphs/varieties . Why? Several reasons actually. First and foremost to begin to establish some sort of standards. So that a person selling a specific morph or hybrid calls it the exact same thing s someone on the other side of the world selling the same exact thing. Right now there is nothing out to document any foe this stuff. It's a totally free for all and there is no comprehensive documentation out there. At the same time we create a record of how these morphs and hybrids are created.
Chad Penney - MBI Council Agis quod Adis
|
|
|
Re:Hybridisation , documentation and control?
Monday, August 1, 2011 8:28 PM
( permalink)
Good afternoon Caesra, I've omitted the topics where I believe we've found common ground, and only addressing the points where our views may differ.
Originally Posted by Caesra
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by Caesra accepted as part of the mission of MBI or breeding in general, then the answer becomes the same...hybrids should be accepted. "Accepted" in what form/capacity/manner? Of course this is part of the larger question, but at the fundamental level, this topic started as a question of 'should it be accepted' by MBI, and my suggestion is the answer to that question lends itself from answers to the questions above. OK, that was a very political non-answer, so I'm going to repeat the question. Define "accepted". What does "accepted" include as it pertains to hybrid breeding within the MBI?
Originally Posted by Caesra As i understand much of the 'designer' fish development it is not outcrossing, but line breeding and inbreeding to produce the desired results. While the origination of the attempt (and possible reiforcing efforts) is out crossing, it takes considerable efforts to selectively pull the traits out of each batch. I think the part that you're missing is that the creation of a hybrid does not involve inbreeding. Hybridization is, by definition, the polar opposite of "inbreeding". The process of what is being done, and the reasons for doing each, are drastically different. Now you COULD use hybridization as a jumping point to then take the resultant offspring and line breed that new hybrid to stabilize some particular outcome within the hybrid, but that's a secondary situation that your arguments did not even consider....in other words we're not even at that point yet.
Originally Posted by Caesra These batches, from what I have read, occur through extensive inbreeding and line breeding. Which "batches"? You're being perhaps a bit vague. Are we talking Picassos? Platinums? Black Ice? Snowflakes? Mochas?
Originally Posted by Caesra While I understand that you are suggesting that if the original outcrossing did not occur, the designer fish would not be as likely to occur naturally, I think we can both agree that extensive inbreeding or line breeding is involved in order to develop these 'designer' fish. I think there's some ongoing confusion of jargon, and that's making your statements a bit confusing to follow: Hybrid = the result of mating of two separate species Outcrossing = the act of breeding two unrelated fish with each other Inbreeding - far too vague on some levels, as it encompasses both line breeding (pairings of siblings in each subsequent generation) and backcrossing (normally the pairing of offspring back to their parents), and perhaps other forms of breeding that serves to concentrate the overall gene pool rather than diversify it..
Originally Posted by Caesra Thus lending itself back to the original point that if inbreeding was not accepted, the passive traits that are brought into dominance would not have a slim possability of enduring. "passive" is again perhaps a bad choice of words. We need to think of genetic traits using more genetic jargon, i.e. dominant, codominant, recessive etc. For example, it does seem that one or more genes plays a role in the breeding of Picassos and Platinums, and that these genes are perhaps rather dominant. Meanwhile, something like Albinism is a well understood recessive mutation. The simple truth is that it requires minimal inbreeding, if any, to establish Albinism for the long term. So too, Picasso percs CAN be outcrossed to normal SI perculas (or any percula for that matter) with the expectation of getting Picasso genes. I believe the implication of some is that people are intentionally inbreeding over many generations to cause mutations to occur. I cannot speak with any certainty that such breeding is actually being undertaken. What I can say is that such breeding would indeed have downsides. But so far, from the honest mutations that we DO see, they have been random mutations that breeders then capitalize on. That's not the same thing.
Originally Posted by Caesra I hesistated to use dogs or humans as an example because of worries that someone would try to 'split hairs'. It's certainly not splitting hairs. If human siblings have offspring, there are immediate genetic problems that can result. That is NOT the case with fish. Dogs, so too, cut both ways, and again, the AKC registries exist to help PREVENT 'inbreeding' and ethical breeders strive to eliminate congenital genetic problems within their breeding lines (while questionable ones don't).
Originally Posted by Caesra As best I understand the genetics, the fundamentals are still there. Several generations is absolutley correct, as most 'designer' fish require several generations to develop. Yes, but no. the "designer" fish we've seen to date did not require several generations...in fact, I would not be surprised to learn that the original Picasso at ORA could very well still be spitting out Picasso offspring.
Originally Posted by Caesra Not to be rough on this rebuttle, but many of the current dogs we view as normal are the result of undomesticated dogs being outcrossed, inbred and linebred. My beloved Molly, my rottweiler, is the product of such things. They were undomesticated and intentional forced to breed for 100s of years to produce what we now call Rotweillers, much like we are doing with our fish. A response to food does not mandate 'domestication'. If that arguement is standing, then our fish are entirely domesticated and the argument does not apply. Actually I'm just going to have to outright state that the above is fundamentally incorrect. While there are many definitions of domestication, the reality is that the process you described, the "outcrossed, inbred and line bred" is a human-imposed mate selection and is part and parcel of how an animal becomes domesticated. To use the breed you cite, the Rottweiler, I'd suggest starting with the AKC's breed history - http://www.akc.org/breeds/rottweiler/
Originally Posted by American Kennel Club The Rottweiler's ancestors were the drover's dogs accompanying the herds the Romans brought with them when invading Europe. The controllable herding and guarding instincts were recognized by the Germans, and dogs were selectively bred for these traits. As need for its services diminished, the Rottweiler almost fell into extinction. In the early 1900s, a newly formed club established a breed standard. The breed has not appreciably changed since that time. As you can see, even in this particular breed, the ancestors have been domesticated animals for centuries. To compare that to fish, we have truly only begun the process of "domestication", and the vast majority of the fish we keep are still from wild origins.
Originally Posted by Caesra In regards to the AKC and other such organizations, while they have gone through great efforts to certify animals, the ever present momentum of hybrids is growing rapidly in that market too. With the same conversations occuring. There is no depletion of dogs, yet the momentum behind this same question exists in that context too. Well first, again, perhaps the misuse or misappropriation of a term, "hybrids". If every breed of dog were thought of as a species, then yes, the "mutt", the Labradoodle, would be a hybrid. However, I believe that we have overall come to accept that all dogs are still considered one species, and we are looking at breeds within them. So, to take that to fish, the "Labradoodle" of the clownfish world might be...well actually that's just it....we don't really have "breeds" of fish in the way in which dogs, or goldfish, have been forced into "artificial speciation" through selective breeding. Fundamentally, you can't compare the two or use the same arguments at all because they're not the same situations. So humans, and dogs, should just be thrown out.
Originally Posted by Caesra Issues like ocean depletion and extinction are very seperate topics and I don't think there is one person on these forums that can successfully argue that they have not contributed to this problem, in countless ways. So, in reality, such an arguement needs to be carefully considered in the background, but has a very small amount of standin in the conversation of hybrids. Again, I'll just have to take the opposite position that because of the "we're all guilty" factor that you described, we should be even more sensitive to the potential damage that man-made hybrids offer in the face of conservation / preservation oriented breeding. Again, I see your standpoint as "we've already screwed it up this much, so why bother" and "breeding and conservation are mutually exclusive", which in fact they are largely mutually dependent in my eyes.
Originally Posted by Caesra I find this arguement to be difficult to maintain, as you are justifying when it is appropriate and inappropriate to violate the 'rules'. This becomes a moral question for the individual, which pushes us back into the very topic. At least in my opinion. This comment is in regards to the Mcc' example. First, I am making no such "justification" to violate any "rules" because first off, there are no "rules", but there are principals and facts. Second, there is probably going to be a certain amount of inbreeding with a foundation population of 8 fish...that's an unavoidable reality. But responsible breeding will negate any of the potential ill-effects. Irresponsible breeding will bring about problems and we'd lose the species in captivity. But here's the killer - it supposedly took 4 lionfish to populate the entire Atlantic with the species. What does that mean? It means that due to the fecundity of a species like A. mccullochi, you will very quickly give rise to a large captive population, all produced through sexual reproduction and thus all with some genetic variation. And thus, in the end, it is completely realistic to say that 8 fish, 4 foundation pairs, can quite comfortably start the a stable and self sustaining population of A. mccullochi, even though initially, there could be some inbreeding. The best breeders would seek to work with the source producer (Ryan Dwyer) to create as many F1 pairs as can be created with offspring from the original 4 pairs. What do the F1 pairs from such breeding then look like? AA AB AC AD BB BC BD CC CD DD That's 10 different pairings at minimum. If we toss out the sibling pairings (which are the AA, BB, CC, and DD) we are left with 6 pairs in the F1 broodstock and zero inbreeding in the F2 offspring. You can even then backcross the F2 offpsring to F1 offspring to get further initial genetic diversity, i.e. A X BC, D X BC etc.... Now here's the interesting part. I came across a nice little gem of information - http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AD013E/AD013E04.htm
Originally Posted by FAO A population held in check at Ne = 50, will lose about one-fourth of its genetic variation after 20 to 30 generations, and along with it, much of its capacity to adapt to changing conditions. Thus, if it is desired to maintain a particular stock for longer than this, it will be necessary to increase its Ne. A rough rule of thumb is that G is approximately equal to Ne, G being the number of generations the stock is likely to retain its fitness at a relatively high level. Some of the critical components of the above. 1. the population size is kept "in check" at 50 fish. 2. even then, 20-30 generations to lose 25% of the genetic variation within the population. The reality is that with a fish like the MCC, we can easily avoid inbreeding AND avoid even this short term genetic issue because a single pair in a generation may produce 200,000+ offspring over the course of their lifespan. In the end, you can quite quickly overcome the problems of inbreeding solely by thinking your breeding through. So too, the same concepts can easily be applied to the establishment of a fish like the Lightning Maroon (in my case, the entire PNG bloodline preserved in 4 fish, only 2 pairs). And in the end, none of this has one iota to do with hybridization.
Originally Posted by Caesra
Originally Posted by mpedersen So the reality here is that because of the questionable genetics of these fish, you could probably never take captive bred stock at this point in time and use it to repopulate a location where A. akallopisos had been extripated. The only responsible way to work with this species now is to go back to fish of wild origins and know exactly where wild caught broodstock came from. Everything else will be suspect.
Which was the point I was trying to make, by definition, our broodstock serves no purpose other than to serve one of the questions in 1a, 1b or 1c. I'm still not following your point here.
Originally Posted by Caesra I have read many of your respones to this topic and I find many of your comments well thought out and articulated. I have alot of respect for you holding your position regarding your point of view, but I can say that you have softened your stance considerably since some of your responses, to this topic, compared to several years ago. Ha - regardless of what you may have been led to believe, I can certainly be open to changing my point of view or acknowledging when I'm wrong I think one of the biggest eye-openers for me was that the Picasso percula is a naturally occuring variety in nature. The one thing that I've held near and dear for years is that breeding should serve to preserve natural biodiversity. As such, I'd be a hypocrite to condemn the Picasso percula given the revelation that it IS part of the natural biodiversity of the Percula species. Still, IF I were to ever own a pair of Picasso Percs, I'd be going back to the ORA bloodline, looking for F1's, which are straight up Solomon Island Percs carrying the Picasso gene. From there, I could outcross to other SI percs, come back in, and ensure a nice, diverse, healthy population of A. percula with a geographic origin (Solomon Islands) while having the Picasso mutation (or not). And since the doubling down of Picassos seems to be what produces Platinums, you could argue that you can even have a Solomon Islands Platinum Percula. Same line of reasoning behind why I have a Lightning Maroon, and why it was important to have the PNG bloodlines intact. Conversely, it seems that A. ocellaris vs. A. ocellaris Darwin may well be separate species. And A. percula and A. ocellaris certainly are. Given the problems that hybrids / cross breeds of these create for people who are trying to preserve the natural species, I can't in good conscience condone such lines of breeding.
Originally Posted by Caesra I will simply respond to the first set of statements. If there is no value in such efforts, then where is the value in someone sharing their experience breeding a pair of clownfish. There is little to be gained from the community as a whole and this goes back to my original questions, 1a, 1b and 1c. I think I stopped short of saying "no" value. More like "little". Truly though, I think your argument is valid on one level - is there really anything new that someone else might gather from the massive compilaiton of breeding accounts for A. ocellaris. On the surface, there probably isn't. The individual accounts may serve little in regards to providing any new or profound insights. However, going through the motions of a BAP is more an opportunity for troubleshooting, community building, and content generation at the participating site or club. There may come a point when such a data set can in turn be mined, researched, and perhaps interesting revelations CAN be had from the data.
Originally Posted by Caesra One who is learning, such as myself, finds great value in each attempt I read, regardless if this attempt is a 'pure' species or a 'hybrid' and regardless of past history regarding the species. The accomplishment is the same if it is a perc or a snowflake. To ensure we are talking the same thing, I am referring to, say someone breeding picassos instead of someone trying to create a new 'designer' fish. Ah, but if you can learn the same lessons from breeding standard A. ocellaris vs. Percularis, I'd rather encourage breeders to do the former because of the RISKS that the latter creates that the former does not. It is about a bigger picture and long term responsibility, vs. the short-term gains that the latter might offer.
|
|
|
|