Designer Fish

Exactly..........Back to documentation and control. Trouble is how would you get everyone to commit? There are so many people out there that just want success in breeding I think it requires a niche group to take responsibilty for say a species and build from there.
I think that's how the documentation and control of Orchids started. Specialist groups are now widespread within horticulture, why not marine ornamentals? I think it may have something to do with the commitment and cost involved? Hmmmmm I wonder if I could get a local aquarium interested in setting  up a project?
 
Maybe we should bang the drum a bit harder and approach more commercial aquariums to set up species conservation. Maybe contribute fish and help out?

So is the question we trying to answer here "What are designer fish?" or "Are designer fish a good thing?"  We seem to really be touching on both issues.  The orginal question was I believe to define what they are... I think that question was for the most part answered as something like this:
"Fish that are created through some form of selective breeding to bring about characteristic that are appealing to consumers"
 
Dictionary.com defines designer so: 
( modifier ) designed by and bearing the label or signature of a well-known fashion designer: designer jeans  
( modifier ) (of things, ideas, etc) having an appearance of fashionable trendiness: designer pop songs ; designer stubble  
( modifier ) (of cells, chemicals, etc) designed (or produced) to perform a specific function or combat a specific problem: designer insecticide  
( modifier ) (of an animal) cross-bred for a specific purpose, such as looks, temperament, or likelihood of causing an allergy: designer dogs
 
Can we agree one this?

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

 
It's an issue of size, critical mass if you will.  In FW, we have Killifish breeders, Anabantoid specialists, Cichlid Specialists who deal with maybe only one lake, Rainbowfish groups etc.  You can do that because FW breeding is a relatlively "mature" interest group.  Even so, they are still growing by leaps and bounds and learning from their own past mistakes.
 
WE, marine breeders, are not even close to there yet.  From my viewpoint, that alone suggests that now is a time to learn from the mistakes and experiences of other, more mature groups.  I find it honestly a bit surprising that even when you pull up examples from other groups, it often falls on deaf ears as if we're somehow "different".  I may not have enjoyed history class in school, but I DID get the overarching message - if you ignore the mistakes of the past, you're doomed to repeat them.


 
It's an interesting idea on some levels, but honestly, I gotta be blunt.  "Hobbyists" as an all encompassing group are not held in very high esteem to begin with, and sadly, the past 2-3 years did nothing to help that.  To say that academic and commercial interests are leery of working with the general public is putting it mildly.
 
Andy, on a related note to your post, I'm assuming you saw this -> http://www.lightning-maroon-clownfish.com/?p=1143
 
Conservation need not be as "grand" in scale as you might think.

 
I take that definition, and compare it to my own proposed definition:
 

 
and I say - YUP, seems like those two definitions use different words to get the same meaning across, perhaps with one subtle distinction - I don't view the selective breeding of a rare WILD form of a fish to be a designer fish as the result.  My Metriclima estherae example is a case of what initially may have been acceptable breeding being taken way too far to the point of taking a polymorphic species with at least 3 male color forms and 2 female color forms, and creating subpopulations that are not polymorphic (arguably what I AM kinda trying to do with the Lightning Maroon depending on how you look at it) but then throwing some likely accidental hybridization in the mix (i.e. even with separate genera) to create what is truly a man-made fish that does not have an analogy in the wild, and that man-made form has displaced the wild form in the mainstream hobby.

I think the definition is pretty solid as you quoted IMO. I think there is a relevance in i"s it a good thing" even though it is drifting away from the original question Unless others think it's strayed too far?

I wasn't really complaining about where we are going as it is really good discussion I just wanted to make sure that we had answered the original intent of the thread as well. One of the cool things about these types of discussions is that they are almost organic in and of themselves, constantly changing and evolving as new thoughts are brought into the conversation. I think it's great.
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

In that case......
Matt, you are probably one of the most experienced members actively involved in this conversation. You have a history of success in other areas of breeding not only in marine.
 
Give me a goal and maybe some objectives to show me what success looks like (in your opinion) to enable me to develop a sustainable, conservation minded approach to breeding marines that won't cost me a fortune, but fulfills my desire to be a conscientious conservationist.
 
Is that a bit of an ask?

 
Well, here's some main goals need to happen for "conservation-oriented" breeding.
 
1.  Better management and breeding practices applied in general to tracking of broodstock and lineage, with an emphasis on maintaining a reasonably-sized captive population.    I.e. a species like the Mcc may well be lost if we don't work with the source (Ryan Dywer) to ensure that doesn't happen.  Carefully planned breeding WILL keep that species around.  We have ONE shot at it.  Even so, education is a large part of it - most folks don't realize there are all these awesome geographical variations of Amphiprion melanopus or A. clarkii.  Because they're not known, not talked about, no one can want them and demand them in the first place.  So perhaps 1a) better education about natural biodiversity in the first place.
 
2.  R&D on species and groups that have not been done.  "More" new clownfish unforutnately has a side effect - we're limited to the number of clowns that the world aquarium hobby can sustain.  In the absense of multi-tank collectors (because in reality, the "clownfish collectors" are generally people with breeding as an intention) we just only have room for so many clowns.  I mean heck, if someone buys a Latezonatus, that still displaces a spot that could've been a black saddleback or an ocellaris.  With a captive livespan of 20-30 years, that only makes things worse.  We probably need a few "specialist" clownfish breeders who really nail down the geographical variations and such, but we don't need two dozen people doing that.  We need other groups of fish besides clownfish.  Clownfish are arguably "done to death".
 
3.  Do things OTHER folks aren't doing.  As that relates to the "specialist", we could certainly use a Goby Specialist, a Dottyback Specialist, a Fang Blenny Specialist etc.  Someone who really hones in on one niche, one small group of fish, and does them really well.  Someone who seeks out and preserves ALL the Elacatinus cleaner gobies for example.  By being a specialist, you set yourself apart from everyone else who is just doing mom and pop clownfish.  You also give people a reason to talk to you (afterall, a wholesaler may take note and consider you more seriously if you have 12 different Gobies on your list at any given moment).  Diversity of offering cuts both ways....it doesn't necessarily mean having a coupe clownfish and a couple gobies and a couple dottybacks.  It can mean being "Mr. Dottyback" and having CB species that no one else even bothers to do because on LARGE scales, they don't make financial sense.  Another phrase for this - be Boutique Suppliers.

Another side note example - the Snake Breeders and what they are doing is nothing short of astonishing.
 
Now, you may recall I said that designer clownfish have the potential to displace the natural forms altogether, right?  Case in point - Look at the various Reticulated Phytons on this site ( I love their vids) - http://www.prehistoricpets.com/browse/pythons/reticulated-pythons
 
All sorts of amazing stuff.  What comes up when you click on the "wildtype / localities" link?
 
NOTHING.
 
Now, I'm sure you could find wildtype reticulated pythons somewhere, but case in point, you can get anything you want from the site above, so long as it's NOT the natural form.  And I don't think that's because they're "sold out", more that they're "out of stock" because they're not even bothering.

And when I say the snake people "have it down", here's a nice genetics fundamentals page...from the snake crowd - http://www.blumenboas.com/geneticterms.htm

BTW, Matt, I'm sorry. I never got back to you on the reference to the FAO document. IMO, the bottleneck is fine--as you point out--just as long as nothing deleterious passes through it. That is, if you have a bottleneck that happens to concentrate something like flared gills in clowns, for example, or hip dysplasia in German shepherds then that's in your larger population forever. Now, if the bottleneck is forced upon us then there's nothing we can do about it (sort of like the McC issue where what we've got is _all_ we're ever likely to get) and you do the best you can. Otherwise, it's wise to choose well when choosing the bottleneck individuals. As most breeders probably know anyway (get the best broodstock you can), but still bears mentioning.

--Andy, the bucket man.
"Not to know the mandolin is to argue oneself unknown...." --Clara Lanza, 1886

 
I agree that fundamentally we/I need to have more focus on specialising in a particular group of fish.  It's the way other areas of conservation go and it's a proven way of delivering a sustainable gene pool and at the same time providing provenance for known and existing fish, which could be developed as understanding and geographical differences are better characterised and documented.
Well I would love to start a "species group" just need to figure out how to tear down some of my tanks and develop a suitable system! Then of course theres the issue of budget management. My electricity bill is killing me!
 
I think as you say a small species like Elacatinus would be a good start as I know I can spawn and keep them in very small tanks. What concerns me is the long growout to saleable size, but im confident there's a market, just not sure if it would cover my costs as one of my goals is to give up work to concentrate 24/7 on breeding. Maybe I should get a job in an lfs and convince them to do it there! Hahaha. Now that would be a first! An lfs with a specialist breeding program!

Elacatinus shouldn't have a long growout - i..e 4-6 months it hsould be ready (they only live a year or two in nature).

I've got some that are over 3 years, with no signs of aging.  I've heard 5 years more recently.  Not sure how long they are fertile.  Mine stopped rather shortly.

More from the snake folks...  Dealing with the "dark side" of all their genetic "designer" breeding...
http://www.snakepreview.com/wordpress-2.9.2/wordpress/pythonregius/1831/
http://www.repticzone.com/forums/BallPython/messages/1709878.html

I am surprised you are so against the designer clowns..   In some says isnt the lighting project sort of going after "designer" characteristics..?
 
If you produce offspring with "lighting" patterns, those fish will be coveted, they will be further bred with other PNG maroons, or possibly other "lighting" like clowns.. I see the lighting characteristic going down the same road as any other designer morphs..
 
After all, we know that variants like "picasso" or "snowflake" occur in the wild, so it is easy for me to see how two wildcaught "picasso" clownfish could produce a "platinum"   This fish would have the same genetics as any other WC fish.
 
If these variant are bred to ensure genetic integrity would you still be against them?

There are really two parts to "designer" breeding.  The first is just basic morphs of the same species, black occelaris for example.  Compare it to the freshwater angelfish, which has been well documented for inheritance of traits, or the fancy guppy.  A wild-type (silver) p. scalare is the same species as a veil gold pearlscale p. scalare, and is simply the result of selective breeding.  The traits exist in nature but are rarely expressed.
 
On the other hand, there is also hybridization, an occelaris/percula cross for example.  This results in a third species or a hybrid, not just a color morph of the original.  This is, in nature, normally an abomination.  We know that some crosses do occur in nature, but it is extremely rare and no where near the rate of a purposeful cross done in a breeding setup.
 
Is either wrong?  Are they the "natural" way?  Should it make any difference to us, ecologically, ethically or legally?  Those are questions we will probably never have a definitive answer for.
 
Jeff

I would love to focus my breeding efforts on holotype specimens.  I am working a few pairs right now.   But designer clownfish give the aquarist an opportunity to put a truly unique, in some case one of a kind looking fish into their aquariums.  They also provide the breeder with a better selling price.   If you we want breeders to focus on breeding holtype fish then we need to pay more for those fish..
 
I have been looking to to get my hands on a pair of Fusco's for going on 3 years now, I haven't even found anyone who has ever collected there. Im starting to think they only way to get them is to get the try and secure the permits myself.. Finding rare clowns that are holotype is nearly impossible.. IMO.

 
Yes, in some sense you could certainly argue that.  The only reason I have the Lightning is that it's "Ma Nature's".  There's been more than one too.  It IS something with a geographic origin too.  So we're looking at natural biodiversity.  Really, by all accounts, that fish could've come out of two PNG Maroons paired up in someone's aquarium and I a) wouldn't buy it and b) would classify it in the "designer" group.  Yes, I realize it's a fine line I'm walking, but we're all going to have to make such a call at some point. 


 
I would encourage poeple to outcross it to other PNG Maroons.  I would strongly speak out against the efforts to create something like a "Gold Stripe Lightning Maroon".  Again, long term thinking here...there won't be a real "gold stripe" lightning maroon unless it originates out of GSM stock...afterall GSM and WSM are not really the "same" fish...taxomonically yes, but taxonomy is far from prefect and doesn't account for those things we as aquarists realize.
 

 
That is the downside to the project.  If I succeed, I preserve this unique natural form, but I also offer the tools to open pandora's box.


 
Actually, I am only aware of the Picasso being found repeatedly in the wild.  The "Snowflake" mutation in Ocellaris occured in captivity.
 

 
Yes, it is possible perhaps that two WC Picasso Percs could output F1 Platinum percs.  To do so with a geographically known set of Picasso Perc parents would have some redeeming merits perhaps.  But to say that the fish would have the same genetics as any other WC fish would be inaccurate.  There aren't any wild Platinum percs..they're not part of the naturally occuring biodiversity.  It's not to say they couldn't happen.  Natural selection prevents it.  And you couldn't use Platinums for repopulation efforts (unless the natural predators that would ordinarily eliminate them are gone).


 
In theory, yes, I'd still be against them because the original, natural form of the species is lost in such lines of breeding (although perhaps not...I saw something somewhere that suggested that Plat X Plat can still put out throwbacks to natural percs).  A better example might be the displacement of normal ocellaris with albinos.  Let's just say it happened.  The end result is the same....non-natural fish...while hte "species" perhaps is still preserved, the natural form is lost, and thus, the goal of conserving natural biodiversity has failed.
 

 
Ah, but here again is an example of taxonomy not really fully matching up with biology and geography.  We know that Darwins come from one specific area.  I don't know for a fact, but it sounds like there aren't any normally colored ocellaris in the area.  In our tanks, we find they have pretty substantial differences in breeding and reproduction, being closer in some respects to percs vs. ocellaris.  We may one day come to find that the "Black ocellaris", at least the natural form, could represent a subspecies or a new species altogether.
 

 
Ah, but the fancy guppy is now though to be the result of hybridization.  What about our captive discus....hybrids too.  It is quite possible that we could come to find that our captive bred lines of Angelfish may well actually have sprung forth from disparate populations of wild angelfish that, upon greater examination, could prove to be distinct species afterall.
 
A veil gold pearscale angelfish yes, is the result of selective breeding, but also has never been found in nature and presumably would fail to exist in nature much in the same way that albinos get snatched up fairly quickly.  And can we get the natural form of P. scarlare from the viel gold pearlscale angelfish, or is the natural form lost?


 
Not sure I have anything to respond to there.


Depends

The very definition of natural should answer that.

Ecologically it certainly matters to the species in the wild.  Legally?  Not sure what the law should have a say in.  Ethically?  I believe we can all work ethically together to ensure that the efforts of one group don't impair the efforts of another.  So yes, it does matter.
 

 
I'd argue that these questions not only have been asked, many times before us, but they've been answered many times before as well.  To say we can't have a definitive answer is to simply a) give up or b) try to paint enough vaugery or doubt on the issues as to suggest they can't be solved.  They can, they have been, so what's standing in the way here?
 

 
Here's something to consider.  Educating our fellow hobbyists.  Setting an example. Why do African Cichlid enthusiasts generally avoid all the "designer" cichlids?  Simple, because the community has established a common understanding that there are plenty of natural forms available, rare enough in their own right, and has shown that they're worthy of our appreciation.  There too, there are still difficult goals for hobbyists to try to tackle and thus, can still gain noteriety if they succeed (breeding of a fish like Benthochromis tricoti comes to mind). Sadly, these lessons, and these modern appreciations, didn't come forth out of careful thought.  Instead, they were born out of hobbyists being BURNED by other hobbyists and suppliers...i.e. wanting one thing, getting something else, wasting time, effort and money along the way.  That results in a lot of finger pointing and animosity.

 
 
I'm not sure what the holotype has to do with it here...afterall there are some 20-30 variations on things like Melanopus and Clarkii...the "holotype" for the species represents only one geographic location to start with.  What about all those other forms?
 
Indeed, Mcc's came about only because someone did just that...got the permits and got the fish themselves.  Someone has to take the initiative.

Matt,
 
Let me know if you remember where you read about the Plat X Plat. I'd be interested in reading it.

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

 
I'm pretty sure it's one of our MBI participants. Now you're gonna make me go find it...great.

I was wrong, it was Picasso X Platinum.  From what I *think* we know about the genetics, that cross should give nothing but plats and picassos, but he's calling out some normal ones.  Granted, I think it's too early to tell in the vid he's showing them in (asked for an update).

Yes, it is possible perhaps that two WC Picasso Percs could output F1 Platinum percs.  To do so with a geographically known set of Picasso Perc parents would have some redeeming merits perhaps.  But to say that the fish would have the same genetics as any other WC fish would be inaccurate.  There aren't any wild Platinum percs..they're not part of the naturally occuring biodiversity.  It's not to say they couldn't happen.  Natural selection prevents it.  And you couldn't use Platinums for repopulation efforts (unless the natural predators that would ordinarily eliminate them are gone).
 
Obviously natural selection does not foster these morphs but to say it inhibits them.. I am not sure I agree. How do you know that predators eliminate these morphs..?  For all you or I know, Platinums and other variants may be in fact more common than the lighting.. Saying that one is a natural occurence and the other is eaten by predators just becuase it worked out that we actually have a lighting in captivity doesnt really add up to a whole lot for me.. I actually believe that the majority of variation and speciation we see within the Amphiprioniade are due to sexual selection (a thesis I hope to tackle shortly).  We often see sexual dichromatism in clownfish, which is a clear marker of strong sexual selection. I also just dont see the survivability factors favoring the morphology and variation we currently see.
 
I also don't see how an average aquarist putting a platinum or putting a regular occelaris in their tank has any effect on the long term survivability of the holotype. Most aquarist are not breeding clowns. I would bet that the average lifspan of a clownfish in captivity is only a short time anyway for most. The responsibility of preserving the species should go to science. Public aquariums, biologists, afficionados, we are responsible.  The breeding of these "designer" clowns provides people with the opportunity to have a unique fish, that is all they really want.. It takes the pressure off of WC clowns.. IMO/IME there are not very many of the "aquarium obsessed" buyers who want a just a regular clownfish, especially a CB one at that.
 
If rare clowns were available to breeders... Trust me, we would be breeding them.


I'm not sure what the holotype has to do with it here...afterall there are some 20-30 variations on things like Melanopus and Clarkii...the "holotype" for the species represents only one geographic location to start with.  What about all those other forms?
 
Yes, by "holotype" I just mean, the "original"  or breed standar specimen of any naturally occuring variant. So clarki, for example, has many holotype variations.

I imagine that a little white clown baby would make an easy target in the wild. Also, why would a potential mate prefer a less well camouflaged partner. Wouldn't that pair be a likely target as well? I'm not arguing here but just trying to use logic. Also I come from a background in Killifish where hybrids are a big no-no and the separation of strains is critical. Many killie strains are tracked down to the collection spot since it literally could be a different strain of say, F. gardneri gardneri than was found in the mud puddle 50 yards away. Here's a nice little thread from the AKA forum about hybrids
http://www.aka.org/aka/mo..._id=2867#forumpost2867
I think we have a lot in common and a lot to share with other organizations of hobbyists trying to preserve wild strains of animals and plants.

Maybe. But assuming that white clownfish would make an easier potential target.. Is an assumption.. I get a little cringe everytime I hear "that clownfish/any fish, would be eaten up instantly".. Maybe.. but it could also lead to speciation, or proliferation of the charactersitic.. Without empirical evidence of one or the other, I will make neither claim.  Crazy variants and hybrids may encounter circumstances where their mutations/abberations are in fact favorable to survival..

I guess I am just trying to understand how the sale of overpriced designer variants hurts the long term survivability of the holotypes..  I can easily see how they are not naturally common, that is obvious.
 
*I also didn't read the whole thread

 
Once again, the main message here - why can't we learn from all these other interest groups who've already figured it out?  I see a lot of the objections and blowback from people arguing a pro-designer standpoint frankly stemming from concerns surrounding 2 things - profitability and "ease of innovation".  Profitability comes from the marketplace, and as hobbyists, we set the tone with our dollars, but also through sharing our viewpoints.  So in that respect, it is a bit of an ideological battle going on in the pro-designer vs. pro-conservation minded breeding camps.
 
Innovation is much harder to pin down, and to the uninitiated's eyes, a Platinum Percula is ever bit as new as an usual yellow-chested PNG Saddleback Clownfish.  In reality, there is probably little differences in breeding, so I'd ague that bringing either to the table is hardly "innovative".  Any success with the Lightning Maroon certainly would not be something I consider "innovative" - it's hardly more than good breeding practices and a dice roll.
 
From a commercial standpoint, profit and easy paths to innovation are strong incentives, but we, the hobbyists and consumers, decide which we reward.  From a hobbyist / part timer standpoint, those are goals or needs we can dispense with.  I don't breed to make money, and I didn't make a name for myself by producing random clownfish morphs or hybrids.  I will ditch good productive broodstock in a second if I come across a natural form or project I deem more worthy of my attention.


 
Picassos ARE more common than the Lightning.  Take a look at the Platinum and compare with an albino. How many wild albino marine fish, of ANY variety, do we have records of.  There's a reason stark white reef fish don't really exist.
 

 
We already know that speciation is driven by mate selection in a related group (the Victorian cichlids) where females choose which fish they mate with.  14K years of evolution from a single foundation species gave us 500 or so...which we've pretty much wiped out.  At any rate ,you might want to look it up.  Mate selection in the fish tested was visual, which is why the males have such unique and vibrant patterns.
 

 
Actually dichromatism in clownfish is rather limited compared to other sequential hermaphrodites (i.e. wrasses).  And the social structure of a clownfish as such works differently than free ranging fish.  With short larval cycles, there's limited larval distribution too, which is why you see more geographic variations in clownfish than in something like a Powder Blue Tang.  Arguably, for the clownfish, simply finding it to an amemone and waiting your turn in line...it would seem that survivability drives mate selection more than any free choice between the fish at hand.


 
It's not about the hobbyists, it's about people breeding what hobbyist will buy.  If the market rewards the production of Picassos and Platinums over the natural forms of Perculas, then that's what breeders will produce.  And if we get caught with our pants down, and what we're doing is all these designer fish when the wild forms become inaccessible, well, then all we have is Picassos and Platinums.
 
The marine aquarium industry gets criticized for precisely the types of mindless consumer mentality that causes people to value a Platinum higher than a normal Perc.  We see our literature preaching reef conservation, and we talk about the exposure and educational benefits of our tanks.  In the end however, pursuing designers at the expense of natural forms fails to conserve and ultimately preserve the natural forms.  And like it or not, blame politics, activists, climate change, whatever you care to, the likelihood is that yes, we will lose access to wild caught marine fish at some point.  So if we want to make sure we have good 'ole nemo around in his natural coloration 50 years from now, people need to rethink their choices both as consumers, and as breeders.
 
The FW hobby is replete with both failures and successes.
 

 
Ah, but we WILL fail then.  Shirking the responsibility of species preservation off as "someone else's problem", "not my job" will virtually ensure it doesn't happen.  Institutions don't have the resources to tackle such a thing in the first place.  They are forced to pick and choose what they work on.  My favorite posterchild for how the industry can succeed at species preservation is the Freshwater Red-Tailed Shark.  EXTINCT in the wild.  Only still alive because it is cultured, en-masse, for the aquarium trade.  And it's only cultured in large scale because it's popular.  What if the only form people wanted was the albino and the normal form fell out of favor?  One change in tastes and shazam...the normal black and red fish is gone forever.
 
A-fish-ionados on the other hand, set the tone, and relay the message that it's important to appreciate the natural forms that already exist.  I keep fire clowns, a fish most people don't want, because they're cool and I like them.  They're also supposedly Sumatran Fire Clowns to boot...so I have a basic geographic reference on them too.  Hopefully I'm not the only one working with this awesome, but often overlooked species, because if not, we could one day loose it while the Black Naked Ocellaris runs amuck (and frankly, if you wanted an all black saltwater fish just go get some black mollies already).


 
Where's the flood of Mccs, Latz, Chrysopterus etc...?

 
Ah, but conservation's goal isn't to create some new mutation / aberration...it's to conserve the species as-is.  Admittedly, when we work towards any preservation / conservation in captivity, we are already at some less than ideal situation.  But that doesn't mean we don't shoot for doing the best possible.
 

 
#1.  Seriously, why not read the whole thread before asking questions which were already addressed?
#2.  A couple ways they hurt.  a) the designer forms displace the natural forms in the industry, and thus, in captive breeding.  b)  some designer forms (i.e. some hybrids) are not readily discernable, and can be inadvertently mixed into the efforts of a conservation-minded breeder (or any breeder for that matter), thereby wrecking the project for the next guy.  c) designers distract from true innovation...rather than R&D on new species that are difficult or have not been done, efforts are instead focused on the latest and greatest new designer morph using the same old breeding techniques, providing no actual progress forward.  d) when the wild caught fish go away, we are left with whatever we can breed.  If we focus our efforts on natural biodiversity now, we preserve all that great diversity for the future, which helps both ongoing preservation but also provides expanded tools for the future designer breeder. 
 
Because ultimately - my opposition to designer fish is not infinite; it's a time-based conundrum where NOW is not the right time for pursuit of designer fish.  If we conserve now, we can have our cake AND eat it too later.  If we pursue designers now, we screw both camps in the future for the sake of short-term profit and lazy innovation.  Businesses are going to do whatever they do and justify it in the name of staying in business, which is why it falls to the hobbyists to lead.

This thread need pics! 

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

Yup, it's an assumption based on the fact that I've never seen any quantity (or any, actually) of mostly white percs or occys collected from the wild. I think if one was it would be a pretty loud bang in the hobby and we all would know about it. Even if it COULD survive in the wild, would preserving that 1 in a million mutation (and enhancing it through selective breeding)do much to represent the general wild form going forward?

BTW, I think that there's room for both conservationist breeding and ornamental breeding, but let's be honest...they are different.

The Latz are everywhere.. The other two are a work in progresss (im working on one myself)

Can someone expain how to do the quoting correctly on this site?  Thanks!

 
No one is ever going to be able to answer, definitively how many Lightning Maroons are out there vs. Platinum Perculas are out there in the wild.  But we can draw some reasonable theories / hypothesis / educated guesses based on the numbers to date.  Lightnings 2, Platinums 0.  So currently, "wild platinums" are rarer than Lightning Maroons.
 
But of course, you're also ignoring the fact that we pretty much now know that it takes not one, but two Picassos mating together in order to produce Platinums Percs.  So, how many wild caught Picassos of good caliber have been found over the years.  Certainly more than 2, but they are still quite rare.  So, already quite rare fish, getting together in the wild, to create a small percentage of offpsring that are all white...the statistics start really suggesting that while there is an outside chance, the realities are such that even if there IS a Picasso X Picasso pair somewhere in the wild, their white offspring are already at a tremendous disadvantage and make up only a minority percentage of the offspring that are even produced.  Combine that with the theory that out of all of those offspring of that pair, the goal is to produce only 2 that live to maturity and reproduce themselves.  Based on the small data sets collected thus far, the odds of even getting one Platinum to adulthood alone are slime to none.  It is *almost* impossible for there to be wild Platinum Perculas out there (based on what we currently know).  Meanwhile, there's been plenty of rumors out there that there are more than 2 Lightnings in the wild.
 

 
Ah but these "ghost" tags are a different beast, and the logic here suggests that these "ghost" tangs are white from day one and are somehow growing up?  Well, let's look at the scenario and how it's potentially not the same (and thus you can't draw the comparision of a ghost tang to a platinum perc).
 
#1.  We don't know that these white tags are white as the sizes during which they are normally heavily predated on.  Platinums are platinum very early on.  An easy target.  Cannot say the same for a "ghost tang".
 
#2.  Some observations suggest that the "ghost" tangs are not genetic, but could be caused by environmental factors.  Why?  Because some of them turn normal yellow in captivity.  I've also read an interesting theory that such coloration in fishes can be brought about later on, towards maturity, akin to something like a disease.
 
#3.  If it was genetic, we have to remember that tangs are highly fecund but also, if the trait was dominant, it would be much more prevelant in the offspring.  I..e if 50% of 100% of the offspring are white from the get go, it's far more likely than if 12.5% or 25% are....especially if there's more of them.
 

 
No, it's not.  Size differences in mates is dimorphism.  Color differences are dichromatism.
 

 
Fundamentally wrong in this case because you're acting as if a clownfish is only male, or female.  It's not.  It is first male, and later on it becomes female.  There are reproductive advantages to having big females with small males, but that's not a function of mate selection, it's a function of gamete production and larval survival rates. Combine that with the fact that not all clownfish species exhibit strong size differences in mates (i.e. some exhibit none at all).  All of that, and clownfish don't select their mates in the same fashion that other fish do either.  Based on the social structure, the ability of who mates is largely determined by social standing, which is attained through longevity.


 
Which is why many more people simply turn to designers.  A quick, easy, short route.


 
Again, one less tank for a regular Black Ocellaris to live in.


 
Really?  Because I'm only aware of one breeder in the US, and maybe one other abroad, who is actively producing them.  Now the fact that you can find this one breeder's offspring at probably a dozen or more retail outlets doesn't change the fact that it's just one breeder.

Enter in the code like this:
 

[quote=De Angelr] 
 Can someone expain how to do the quoting correctly on this site?  Thanks! 
 [/quote]

 

You can disagree, but that doesn't mean it's wrong.  Again, we have the opportunity to learn from the FW industry.  Show me the natural form of a Discus.  Give me the percentage that the natural wild, geographically pure race & species makes up in the overall discus trade in relation to all the hybrids and "designer" strains.  Or even better show me a true wild guppy.  Seriously.  Find me someone,anyone, selling the real, clean, natural species Poecillia reticulata.
 

Originally Posted by De Angelr

 Wild type clowns are not available for breeding, if they are, they have already been bred.  I see the proliferation of designer clowns as a positive for collection of WC clown.. Collection in large number is bad news.. Each designer clown sold is another regular (and more imortant) occellaris left in its natural state.

 
Short term, in theory yes, any CB fish takes the spot of a WC fish.  But leaving normal ocellaris on the reef is not going to preserve the natural form for the future breeder.  That's where this thinking falls down.  If we could be reasonably certain that wild clownfish will exist for the next 100 years if we simply didn't harvest any from the wild, eureka.  But in truth, that's a dangerous assumption.
 

 
Not really.  The cost to produce an actual new designer variant is quite high.  I.e. we have a reasonably good understanding that supposedly, if you want an albino of anything, that mutation occurs once every 200,000 or 300,000 fish.  So, you want an albino - start producing mass quantities of the species and the lottery will hit at some point, for someone.  In the case of the Picasso, that started with presumably a very expensive wild caught specimen.  And then think of all the breeding that had to happen until we got Platinums in numbers.  How many tanks are devoted to these pursuits?  How much manpower and resources goes into this?  Conversely, get your hands on a few specimens of a rare species, treat them well, give it time, and patience, and you're home free.
 
What is true is that it is cheaper for an aspiring breeder to pick up a pair of Picassos to start competing with everyone else who's already now doing them, vs. trying to track down some rare species.  Why?  Because the originator did all the hard work, the expensive work, already.  That's why you perceive them to be cheaper.  And by the same token, that's the exact same reason why I wish all that breeding capacity was put towards preserving natural forms which are currently unpreserved.
 

 
HMM.  What about the multiple forms of A. peridariaon, as well as nigripes, akallopisos, sandaracinos, pacificus?

 

 
I assume you're mostly referring to the Tomato/Fire complex and perhaps Maroons, and yet all of these certainly do sell and have their places too.  I'd rather see someone with Fires in a tank instead of Naked Ocellaris.  And frankly, my fires live in a 10 gallon tank with a mated pair of Double-Striped Dottybacks.  It's one of my favorite tanks, a great little community, but frankly there's been enough misinformation over the years that these fish have indeed fallen out of favor.
 

 
I assume you're really only referring to the ultra-rare species, because frankly many of the species that CAN be bred are still more often imported from the wild vs. being sold as captive bred (or aren't even being done by breeders because the allure of designer fish with higher prices has sucked them in).  And those too will be lost in the future if we've pinned our hopes and majority interests on designer clowns.
 
And we're still only in the world of clowns...how many other desireable fish ARE out there and CAN be done and simply "aren't"?  I have a LONG list there.
 
Matt

 
 
 
 
 

 
How is it presumptuous to propose that we should start thinking about "saving" the 28 species (and numerous additional geographical variants) of clownfish?  Afterall, while I most routinely look at the generally accepted forecasts of climate change and ocean acidification as the ultimate reason these fish will not be available to us, the truth is that far sooner we will see governments restrict if not shut the wild fish trade down.  Being a broken record here, but it's already happened with the wild bird trade.  Individual fish or countries are already off limits.
 
It is far from assumptive, or presumptive, but in fact, it is smart planning to start working now towards conserving ALL our natural biodiversity.  That means for people breeding clowns, focusing on the natural forms in all their diverse glory.  But that also means getting out of the rut of simply breeding more clownfish, and instead doing other things.


 
First, you'll note that you simply elaborated on my own acknowledgement of WHY you perceive it to be "cheaper".  There's no innovation in a breeder getting a platinum pair or picasso pair and simply making more.   If you are "independent", I assume you mean to suggest a part-time for profit venture?  As an independent breeder, you're leaching off someone's hard work and competing against them.  Your right to do so, but don't expect me or the people who invested their time to develop these forms to be enthusiastic about it.  Granted, I still say focusing on creating new designers is "lazy" innovation because again, there is nothing actually "innovative" about it...it doesn't move us all forward, it largely is a commercial venture and I don't really believe that the profits are going to funding actual innovation.  I of course could be wrong, but I haven't seen much to truly suggest it.


 
Aggressive?  See, here's the thing with clownfish.  They ALL can be aggressive in certain circumstances.  You want to know who my most aggressive clowns are?  It's my Onyx Perc pair.  And percs actually do have that reputation if you go do the homework.  Meanwhile, I've never ever ever heard of an aggressive fish out of the skunk complex.  "Finicky"?  Finicky in what fashion?  As breeding material?  Or as fish for a hobbyist's tanks?
 
If I can extrapolate the "selling points" you're offering on a pro-designer clownfish point of view, here's what it's starting to boil down to.  Ocellaris and Percs are peaceful, easy to breed, and thus, that's why they're popular.  And we should focus on them because they're easy to breed and people generally like them and we're starting to get all these cool forms...anyone can buy them and make money.  Well, starting to sound a lot like guppies.  Do we want a marine aquarium hobby that is reduced largely to guppies?  You want to breed guppies, I can't stop ya, but there's more to life, and more to the world, than guppies.


 
Some say the same about Maroons, and yet none of mine that share tanks with other fish have had ANY aggressive problems except with each other and other clownfish.  And they're all in small tanks too.  Mcc aren't the meanest fish you've ever seen, unless you're specifically talking about their interactions with each other.  That's far different than with other tankmates.  The reality is that clownfish aggression, just like every other type of fish aggression, is easy to manage provided you simply pick the right tankmates.  You know who my meanest fish are?  My breeding trio of Centropyge argi.  Those are vicious, ruthless mofos, but even they only attack CERTAIN fish, while having no issues with others.  Mandarin is completely ignored.  So what I'm trying to say is this - aggression is often a poorly understood issue, and because it isn't well understood, broad labels get applied to fish that perhaps shouldn't.  


 
Again, it is not a matter of PLACE, it's a matter of TIME.  And yes, by all accounts, if people are shown the naturally occuring forms of clownfish, well, there are some stunning varieties out there.  


 
There are many reasons why you couldn't sell the Maroons, including the aforementioned "they're murderous" reputation (I believe pretty undeserved based on multiple observations).  And no surprise, those "percs' that are "easy" really aren't so easy.  Even Black ocellaris are more difficult (by orders of magnitude) than regular Ocellaris.


 
Frankly that assumes that people would "make the room".  I really view breeding capacity as a relatively finite thing, and breeders make tough calls about what they're going to work with.  Not only the industry, but the hobbyist too.  To say it's no one's fault...I can't agree.  You traded your Maroons for Platinums.  Someone else made the conscious decision to do X instead of Y.  This breeder and that breeder said you can't make money on Banggai cardinalfish (which is why they're not done commercially) when in fact hobbyist breeders can make quite a bit of money...more than they could with clownfish in fact...and yet no one seems to take up the challenge (I don't because frankly, I'm just not INTERESTED in breeding them...I'm worried on Butterflyfish, the Lightning Maroon, and a few other projects).  We are all responsible for our choices, and we all vote with our wallets.  To say we're blameless and faultless denies the collectively glaring truth.  And, to some extent, we're all a bit sheepish and part of the crowd and consumer society that is driven towards a Platinum Perc or Tomato X Perc hybrid even though the latter is just about as ugly of a fish as one could hope for.

One thing that is sure about designers is that really were just talking about clowns!
 
I believe there probably will always be this trade in designers as they are fairly easy (relatively) to cross and develop certain traits.
 
The "misinformation" regarding the fierceness or otherwise of certain clowns is largely in my opinion perception based on poor choices made regarding time of introduction. I have had very aggressive clowns and still do, but they have been in a tank on their own for so long that they won't tolerate any other fish. I have also  had a GSM pair quite happily sharing with a goby pair that regularly spawned.
As regards breeeding rarer fish, I agree with De Angelir that trying to find them is extremly hard. However don't think I'll be giving up any time soon as I would love any of the rarer E. African clowns, Fusco's, Latifasciatus, Gasters but no luck with either. I am concentrating in the mean time on Chrysopterus, Akindynos and I think I am going to split my Leuc, Thiellei pair to give them more suitable mates.
I do think it's important that we develop a broader clown market to show the biodiversity of clowns and educate as to their merits, but I also have concerns at the imports I now see coming in from the far east, as I don't believe quality control is as tight as it should be which could lead to genetic weaknesses in the various species. I would consider this probably a greater threat than designers.
 
 
Great discussion BTW guy's!