Change Page: < 1234567 > | Showing page 4 of 7, messages 61 to 80 of 122 - powered by ASPPlayground.NET Forum Trial Version
Author
|
Message
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 12:49 PM
( permalink)
 Originally Posted by Fishtal
Matt,
Let me know if you remember where you read about the Plat X Plat. I'd be interested in reading it.
I'm pretty sure it's one of our MBI participants. Now you're gonna make me go find it...great.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 1:00 PM
( permalink)
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).
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 1:19 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 1:51 PM
( permalink)
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:17 PM
( permalink)
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..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:22 PM
( permalink)
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
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:39 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by bookfish
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.
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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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).
Originally Posted by De Angelr If rare clowns were available to breeders... Trust me, we would be breeding them. Where's the flood of Mccs, Latz, Chrysopterus etc...?
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 2:56 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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..
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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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
#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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:28 PM
( permalink)
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:31 PM
( permalink)
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?
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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..
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 3:57 PM
( permalink)
BTW, I think that there's room for both conservationist breeding and ornamental breeding, but let's be honest...they are different.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:27 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen 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. I think that you share a common goal with many hobbyist breeders here.. To have a goal of profit you would have to set up something on a much larger scale than what most breeders that I have encounters are practicing.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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.. 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. I said that platinums may be as common as the lighting morph.. Making a judgement that becuase two lighting (the first of which did not have anywhere near as vivid as markings as yours IMO) have been caught and zero platinums, that the lighting is more common doesn't have any sound logic to back up that sort of statment.. We see collected imports of "ghost" fish at least on a bi-monthly basis these days.. There is no telling how many are really out there.. I wouldnt call them common, but I would certainly not say that they cease to exist in the wild. Anyways... This is not the point.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. 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. Size difference in mates is considered dichromatism.. Not to mention several species showing coloar variation.. I see it as common.. The size difference is a product of sexual selection. This becomes more difficult to explain given the protandrous hermaphrites clownfish are but none the less, any differenced in Male and Female morphology can only be explained by sexual selection. I also see geographical seperation as a bonus to studying this phenomena.. Seperation of the gene pool allows for differeces in female choice to be more exacerbated. In my experience pairing clownfish I would argue that females certainly tend to show mate preference when given the opportunity to choose between two like individuals. 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. I really just do not see the pursuit of designers as an alternative to natural forms.. Everyone I know of (in person and on the boards) that actually has fish like Chrysop's Gaster's, Mcc's, Leuk's are trying to breed them.. These fish are just not available and for the most part are more difficult to breed that perc or Occy's
Originally Posted by De Angelr 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. (and frankly, if you wanted an all black saltwater fish just go get some black mollies already) A little of an unfair statement.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder right.. My friend just got a pair of Domino clowns.. probably my least favorite looking designer.. However they were what caught here eye, more power to her to have fish she is really happy with.. As someone who doesnt care about any of this, or Designer vs Holotype, she just went with what appeased her.. I dont see this as hurting the holotype clownfish.. [Where's the flood of Mccs, Latz, Chrysopterus etc...? The Latz are everywhere.. The other two are a work in progresss (im working on one myself)
<message edited by De Angelr on Monday, August 15, 2011 4:41 PM>
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:30 PM
( permalink)
Can someone expain how to do the quoting correctly on this site? Thanks!
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 4:39 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen
Originally Posted by De Angelr
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
#1. Seriously, why not read the whole thread before asking questions which were already addressed? Don't take it personally.. A lot of the converstion in the first few pages is direct quoting like what we are doing right now.. From an outside perspective its just not that exciting to read.. I really enjoy the interaction I have with people on the forums and so don't hesitate to just chime right in.. #2. A couple ways they hurt. a) the designer forms displace the natural forms in the industry, and thus, in captive breeding. I just disagree with this statement.. I know that I am not the only one, I have had several converstions with some biologists that I really respect that see this going both ways, it is up to each breeder to make his own conclusion. 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. 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. I view this a little differntly as well.. Rare WC type fish are much harder to get a hold of and are very expensive compared to the designer variants.. Not only that but most of the designer clowns are either Perc or Occy, these are the two best clown species for the average aquarist and mixed reefs. Most of the large clownfish are not suitable for most people tanks and so their demand is less. Agian, I agree with you that efforts need to be put into the conservation of wild type clown, however, the ones that are not availble CB are not available WC.. 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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 6:28 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr I said that platinums may be as common as the lighting morph.. Making a judgement that becuase two lighting (the first of which did not have anywhere near as vivid as markings as yours IMO) have been caught and zero platinums, that the lighting is more common doesn't have any sound logic to back up that sort of statment 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr We see collected imports of "ghost" fish at least on a bi-monthly basis these days.. There is no telling how many are really out there.. I wouldnt call them common, but I would certainly not say that they cease to exist in the wild. Anyways... This is not the point. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Size difference in mates is considered dichromatism. No, it's not. Size differences in mates is dimorphism. Color differences are dichromatism.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I see it as common.. The size difference is a product of sexual selection. This becomes more difficult to explain given the protandrous hermaphrites clownfish are but none the less, any differenced in Male and Female morphology can only be explained by sexual selection. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I really just do not see the pursuit of designers as an alternative to natural forms.. Everyone I know of (in person and on the boards) that actually has fish like Chrysop's Gaster's, Mcc's, Leuk's are trying to breed them.. These fish are just not available and for the most part are more difficult to breed that perc or Occy's Which is why many more people simply turn to designers. A quick, easy, short route.
Originally Posted by De Angelr A little of an unfair statement.. beauty is in the eye of the beholder right.. My friend just got a pair of Domino clowns.. probably my least favorite looking designer.. However they were what caught here eye, more power to her to have fish she is really happy with.. As someone who doesnt care about any of this, or Designer vs Holotype, she just went with what appeased her.. I dont see this as hurting the holotype clownfish.. Again, one less tank for a regular Black Ocellaris to live in.
Originally Posted by De Angelr The Latz are everywhere.. The other two are a work in progresss (im working on one myself) 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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 6:29 PM
( permalink)
Enter in the code like this: [quote=De Angelr]
Can someone expain how to do the quoting correctly on this site? Thanks!
[/quote]
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 6:49 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Originally Posted by mPedersen
a) the designer forms displace the natural forms in the industry, and thus, in captive breeding. I just disagree with this statement.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I view this a little differntly as well.. Rare WC type fish are much harder to get a hold of and are very expensive compared to the designer variants.. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Not only that but most of the designer clowns are either Perc or Occy, these are the two best clown species for the average aquarist and mixed reefs. HMM. What about the multiple forms of A. peridariaon, as well as nigripes, akallopisos, sandaracinos, pacificus?
Originally Posted by De Angelr Most of the large clownfish are not suitable for most people tanks and so their demand is less. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Agian, I agree with you that efforts need to be put into the conservation of wild type clown, however, the ones that are not availble CB are not available WC.. 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
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 7:32 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by mPedersen
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. Yes, dangerous assumptions. But with the current state of our planet it is also presumptuous to think such efforts should be undertaken to save 28 species of clownfish. (Of course I agree with you on that one though).
Originally Posted by De Angelr I view this a little differntly as well.. Rare WC type fish are much harder to get a hold of and are very expensive compared to the designer variants.. 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. Yes, of course the total economic costs of produce variants such as platinums in large attainable number has been extremely expensive. The costs to industry as you mentioned are huge. Similar to the costs with your Lighting clown if it were to go down the same route. I am not referring to this market. I am speaking from the perspective of a small independent breeder. the cost to the breeder (not the industry) is much cheaper.. First of all, it is easy to get a platinum, Onyx, or Picasso clownfish. A few months wait at the most and you will have the fish of your choice. For most casual clownfish owners, even breeders, they just want a unique fish as reasonable expense. The rare fish takes extreme patience to acquire, and often at astronomical costs (as far as $ out of the pocket). Then, since your fish are all the same looking (hopefully if you are culling culls, and breeding them to your original holotype), sell about 100 of them and your selling fish for 1/100 of the value you bought them for. I wouldn't call this home free. It doesn't even support the hobby and passion of breeding the super uber rare...
Originally Posted by De Angelr Not only that but most of the designer clowns are either Perc or Occy, these are the two best clown species for the average aquarist and mixed reefs. HMM. What about the multiple forms of A. peridariaon, as well as nigripes, akallopisos, sandaracinos, pacificus?
Many many aquarist have reported skunk clowns to be extremely finicky if not down right aggressive. I would not call any of the skunk class "easy" fish. And from what I can tell, If you want a CB pair of peri's, sandar's you can get them... I know Nigripes are also CB, but they are notoriously difficult shippers and also finicky. Pac's are bran new, they will be CB soon. (Especially if I can get some  )
Originally Posted by De Angelr Most of the large clownfish are not suitable for most people tanks and so their demand is less. 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. What misinformation? I have no experience with ephippium.. Most people say they are very fiesty or aggressive. I know that my Mcc are downright the meanest fish I have ever seen... I would assume them similar to other tomato complex clowns (could be a bad assumption).
Originally Posted by De Angelr Agian, I agree with you that efforts need to be put into the conservation of wild type clown, however, the ones that are not availble CB are not available WC.. 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. I think I see that we are getting on the same page here... I think.. The pressure needs to be put on the buyers to want wildtype clowns. All of them are unique and have their place.. Skunks, Clarki, Tomato, and Maroon types included. It is our responsibility as "af-fish-ionados" to encourage those on forums and at conferences to admire the beauty of naturally occurring clowns. I do not think that this means there is not place for designer type clowns. I was a college student and was so proud to have bred a pair of maroons.. I only had a few survive and when I went to sell them, I couldn't give them away. I soon decided that just in the interest to support my breeding hobby (not profit!) I would trade in my breeding pair for some platinums.. This was in early 2009 and I thought I was doing the smart thing... almost three years later and my fish haven't bred, I honestly can't even tell which is male or female.. The reason I went for platinums is because I looked endlessly for a clownfish that wasn't available CB and could not find broodstock for months.. I settled for what I could find.
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. I can totally understand your argument that the industry focuses too much on designer clowns. But I do not see this as anyones fault, or responsibility.. If wildtype clowns can found by enthusiastic breeders, there will be a home for them to be bred as well.
<message edited by De Angelr on Monday, August 15, 2011 7:53 PM>
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 8:15 PM
( permalink)
Originally Posted by De Angelr
Originally Posted by mpedersen 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. Yes, dangerous assumptions. But with the current state of our planet it is also presumptuous to think such efforts should be undertaken to save 28 species of clownfish. (Of course I agree with you on that one though). 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Yes, of course the total economic costs of produce variants such as platinums in large attainable number has been extremely expensive. The costs to industry as you mentioned are huge. Similar to the costs with your Lighting clown if it were to go down the same route.
I am not referring to this market. I am speaking from the perspective of a small independent breeder. the cost to the breeder (not the industry) is much cheaper.. First of all, it is easy to get a platinum, Onyx, or Picasso clownfish. A few months wait at the most and you will have the fish of your choice. For most casual clownfish owners, even breeders, they just want a unique fish as reasonable expense. The rare fish takes extreme patience to acquire, and often at astronomical costs (as far as $ out of the pocket). Then, since your fish are all the same looking (hopefully if you are culling culls, and breeding them to your original holotype), sell about 100 of them and your selling fish for 1/100 of the value you bought them for. I wouldn't call this home free. It doesn't even support the hobby and passion of breeding the super uber rare... 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr Many many aquarist have reported skunk clowns to be extremely finicky if not down right aggressive. I would not call any of the skunk class "easy" fish. And from what I can tell, If you want a CB pair of peri's, sandar's you can get them... I know Nigripes are also CB, but they are notoriously difficult shippers and also finicky. Pac's are bran new, they will be CB soon. (Especially if I can get some ) 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr
What misinformation? I have no experience with ephippium.. Most people say they are very fiesty or aggressive. I know that my Mcc are downright the meanest fish I have ever seen... I would assume them similar to other tomato complex clowns (could be a bad assumption). 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I think I see that we are getting on the same page here... I think.. The pressure needs to be put on the buyers to want wildtype clowns. All of them are unique and have their place.. Skunks, Clarki, Tomato, and Maroon types included. It is our responsibility as "af-fish-ionados" to encourage those on forums and at conferences to admire the beauty of naturally occurring clowns. I do not think that this means there is not place for designer type clowns. 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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I was a college student and was so proud to have bred a pair of maroons.. I only had a few survive and when I went to sell them, I couldn't give them away. I soon decided that just in the interest to support my breeding hobby (not profit!) I would trade in my breeding pair for some platinums.. This was in 2008 and I though I was doing the smart thing... almost three years later and my fish haven't bred, I honestly can't even tell which is male or female.. The reason I went for platinums is because I looked endlessly for a clownfish that wasn't available CB and could not find broodstock for months.. I settled for what I could find.
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.
Originally Posted by De Angelr I can totally understand your argument that the industry focuses too much on designer clowns. But I do not see this as anyones fault, or responsibility.. If wildtype clowns can found by enthusiastic breeders, there will be a home for them to be bred as well.
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.
|
|
|
Re:Designer Fish
Monday, August 15, 2011 8:47 PM
( permalink)
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!
|
|
|
|