Philosophy, DNA, Morphology and Taxonomy

[raglanroad]

I think this article brings out an interesting distinction to be made, between the conditions of "captivity" and "domestication" - or perhaps it's more of a gradation of degree of domestication, vis a vis the fishes' viability in an imagined scenario of re-stocking.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+oldes ... 0155569282

However, the matter of dependence also applies to animals at the first stage of domestication which Clutton-Brock (1999) calls exploited captives and others call tamed or cultured. Most recently wapiti deer have become such captives on farms neighbouring our residence in Canada. Many attempts at domestication remain only at that level. Most fish cultured as food and as ornamentals also remain merely exploited captives, especially in cases where wild individuals are occasionally brought into the stock bred in captivity. To be a true domesticate, therefore, the earlier mentioned criteria (d) and (e) must apply, i.e., shape, size and coloration exhibit variations never or rarely seen in the wild ancestor. Some of these variants would not survive without human protection in captivity. Furthermore, the original criterion of Clutton-Brock (1999), that of economic profit, may only partially apply to domesticates as pets. Fishes that are introduced by humans into waters other than their native waters and become established there are termed naturalized by Lever (1996). We are not interested in these in this treatise.

but where to restock ?
David Suzuki

Sustainable living would be much healthier: we would go out and walk around because there would be shops, musicians and people out on the street that we'd want to meet.

LFS ?

[grokefish]

Sustainable living would be much healthier: we would go out and walk around because there would be shops, musicians and people out on the street that we'd want to meet.

Could you please explain the relevance of this hippy crap?

Matt

[raglanroad]

Sustainable living would be much healthier: we would go out and walk around because there would be shops, musicians and people out on the street that we'd want to meet.

Could you please explain the relevance of this hippy crap?

Matt

I can help you out with that....Professor David Suzuki is a highly respected Canadian scientist and world-renowned environmentalist. He's got it all figured out except for the "population thing". It's his vision of a sustainable future. Do you take a strong stance against buskers or something ?
Because a famous person once said "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem ".

[Bas Pels]

Because a famous person once said "If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem ".

famous or not - and famous for what precisely?

people can become famous because they can say lines written by others very well - actors for instance. Or becasue they can handle a ball better than others. All examples of people not known for their brains

To me, the quoted sentence is nonsense

[raglanroad]

It's from the most respected environmental activist in the world, and I think President Ronald Reagan too. As I understand it, mimes have a very low carbon footprint compared to breakdancers, and so figure prominently in Suzuki's vision.

Here is his foundation...deserves everyone's support http://www.davidsuzuki.org/

But do you have a better plan ? Everyone's ideas are needed - they don't just come from the top down !

[raglanroad]

I rather regret my choice of the subject title

And I couldn't find the word "traffick" in the dictionary, Larry.
Even the American ones. Not trying to nit-pick. But you might want to fix that. Since it's the title.

take 'er easy, Bud

Dave

[apistomaster]

I rather regret my choice of the subject title

And I couldn't find the word "traffick" in the dictionary, Larry.
Even the American ones. Not trying to nit-pick. But you might want to fix that. Since it's the title.

take 'er easy, Bud

Dave

The inspiration came from a desire to shift the discussion away from a different thread having more to do with illegally caught then smuggled out of Brazil, quantities of Hypancistrus zebra. At least in much of N.A., the word "trafficking" is used in the context of on-going criminal production, importation by way of smuggling, contraband, illegal drugs and undocumented human beings and sales of things and people that are destined for exploitation or sexploitation, hence the choice of the word 'traffick". The word appears in many parts of the Federal laws and US Drug Enforcement(DEA) documents and those of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) documents. Simply "traffick" often suffices.

The discussion soon turned more toward conservation and captive breeding program. Breeding program for the sole purpose of keeping Hypancistrus spp going for use within the hobby not for the purpose of reintroduction back to a damaged environment. As things developed, I we began discussing the environmental issues and aquarium breeding programs which were entirely legal enterprises so I thought the substance reflected the illegal fish trafficking very little. Despite the way it is spelled in media and legal definitions, the hit movie about all aspects and effects of the illegal drug trade, "Traffic" , 2000, actually used the traditional spelling of the word.

It is difficult to change the title at this point and would serve no purpose. If you enter "traffick" or "trafficking" in a Google search, there will be no shortage of "hits".

[raglanroad]

Yeah, I guess it's just the dictionary that doesn't have it
Has 'trafficking", no "traffick".

If you enter "traffick" or "trafficking" in a Google search, there will be no shortage of "hits".

The word appears in many parts of the Federal laws and US Drug Enforcement(DEA) documents and those of the US Immigration and Naturalization Service(INS) documents.

here's how our former Attorney General defines "trafficking humans"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFISP_PrhFo

[apistomaster]

raglanroad,

You have no right to change the title of my thread on planetcatfish.
You don't even spell philosophy correctly.
Please undo this change. I will have to speak to Jools and Shane and see what they want to do about your interference with a vibrant discussion.
It would be regrettable to see you get banned but your pranks are unwelcome here.

[apistomaster]

Message sent to Jools and Shane in "Site suggestions and bugs"


* Edit post
* Delete post
* Report this post
* Reply with quote

Unauthorized takeover of topic

Postby apistomaster on Thu Sep 10, 2009 6:34 am
Dear Shane and Jools,
Username raglanroad has somehow changed title and hijacked the thread, "Traffick in Hypancistrus"
to "Dictionary and "Philosify(sic) and dictionary.
Please take care of these unwanted and unwarranted actions taken by this user.

Thank you on the behalf of the other participants and myself.

Sincerely,

Larry Waybright

[Janne]

Larry,
Your thread is not changed at all, it's still there and intact... I just split the thread and made a new topic for irrelivant discussions.
And my spelling is not always correctly ;)

Janne

[apistomaster]

Larry,
Your thread is not changed at all, it's still there and intact... I just split the thread and made a new topic for irrelivant discussions.
And my spelling is not always correctly ;)

Janne

Hi Janne, Thank you.
It was not evident from my end. When I clicked the link in the e-mail notification for "Traffick in Hypancistrus" it lead to the unwanted intrusive commenys/posts made by raglanroad. I have contacted him directly as we know each other, warning him not to "screw' with me.

[raglanroad]

Ok, OK, I didn't have any coffee in the house this morning. I guess I could plead that my fish are dying and I'm a worrier. Maybe that's why I needed a distraction.
See, I thought it directly on topic and a lighthearted way of expressing the futility of some environmentalists' programs...even the absurdity of movements to use soy instead of dairy, while soy production is said to be the worst blight the amazon has ever seen. We don't know which way to go...we know how to temporarily stop global warming, quickly if we have to, through pushing dusts into the stratosphere a la mode volcanic action... but where does that lead? To relaxing about things, increasing population to satisfy economic growth demands, and higher living standards.
The absurdity of having animals with no habitat. LFS sustainability.

Sorry and I'll ask to be removed.
Dave

[apistomaster]

Or you could be a constructive contributor. I know you can be when you want to.

[raglanroad]

I can change ...if I have to.

[raglanroad]

If you're interested in keeping them for posterity, it's the normal phenotype you need to preserve, not original genome with approximation of genetic diversity approaching that of an infinite population.

[Jon]

what the hell is going on here. I can't see a point through all the marijuana smoke.

[raglanroad]

Well, I trolled a thread and offered some poor absurd humour that is the kind hard to appreciate on a serious subject.
On subject:
Now keeping a number of specimens and not directly inbreeding, that does not say you preserve the all-important "normal" phenotype.

[apistomaster]

If you're interested in keeping them for posterity, it's the normal phenotype you need to preserve, not original genome with approximation of genetic diversity approaching that of an infinite population.

Genetic diversity can be maintained since a sufficiently diverse stock of wild fish presently forms the majority of catfish populations.
Even Hypancistrus zebra are mainly still F1 specimens from a broad range of specimens being kept around the world.
Preserving the "original genome" is more the province of cloning which has to yet been applied to any pleco species.

The vast majority of breeders of the rare or recently banned Brazilian Hypancistrus spp have far to progress before there is any chance of degrading the quality of the captive populations genetics. We are much better positioned than the zoos keeping Tiger subspecies, Cheetah, Panda Bears or White Rhinos to name a few.

Hey Jon,
Don't bogart that joint.

[raglanroad]

If you're interested in keeping them for posterity, it's the normal phenotype you need to preserve, not original genome with approximation of genetic diversity approaching that of an infinite population.

Genetic diversity can be maintained

sure. but that's not the way to maintain the normal phenotype.

[apistomaster]

Normal phenotype?
Hell, we don't even have an easy way to identify the majority of the Hypancistrus specie yet. Only a handful have been properly described.

[raglanroad]

Normal phenotype?
Hell, we don't even have an easy way to identify the majority of the Hypancistrus specie yet. Only a handful have been properly described.

What is the project aim, in that case ? Whatever it's aim, it is to preserve but surely not hybridize...unless hybridization is occuring in nature...is it ?

So you have to decide what phenes you'd like to preserve and breed for them, delete ones you don't want.
Quite apart from the epigenetic effects of tank raising, breeders will always select the quickly maturing strong fish to keep, and also very strongly select for most pleasing conformation down to patterning.
This selection process also exists outside of picking and choosing, in that a deal more attention is paid to the care of prized individuals.
The selection also exists in the manner of tank rasing, depending on how much the larvae have a perceived stocking-densities-and-resources-availabilty response.


People who need money will go for quick maturing big clutch producers, despite whatever deleterious genes might show.

[Bas Pels]

Assuming not all eggs hatch, and not all larvae grow up to breed, some selection will always occurr

First we select on the ability to survive in a tank - which is, I think, not the same as teh ability so survive in nature. Than we end up with say a few dozen of fish (or, for other species with larger litters, a few hundreds) while we have room for only 3 of 4 pairs

So we will have to decide which fishes to keep - a selection most likely done visually, looking at apparent health, the quality of the body pattern and so on.

Then we decide to breed which male with which female - only if they don't accept each other, we might reshuffle these pairs.

It can also be the case we keep the group together, and let them decide who pairs up with who - but we sill still de selecting the pairs - and being able to pair in a tank is not the same as being able to keep a natural territory in nature

After a few generations of tank-selection we might end up with something which still resemble in our eyes the original fishes, but it could have been changed a lot still: desease resistance, growing speed, preferrred food, intelligence to find food in the first place, I think one of 2 items are not original any more

So even if we have the large amounts of unrelated specimen as we have of the H zebra, I still think we are far worse off than soos with cheetas and so on - because these species produce less offspring, and thus the selection done by zoos is far less

[apistomaster]

You summed things up well, Bas.
It is almost a given that aquarium bred populations are not subject to natural selection pressures and it is silly to think fish raised many generations removed from the wild are identical to those still left in the wild. If we preserve aquarium strains not outwardly different than their wild cousins we have done the best we could. The aquarium strains are definitely selected on the basis of the ancestral stock's willingness to spawn in artificial conditions which is desirable from a fish keeping perspective. Community peer pressure operates to minimize divergence from the appearance but once captive breeding begins it often leads down the path of unintentional consequences, albinos, long fins etc. The original form tends to be favored by most.

When Dave becomes a world famous breeder of his Pterophyllum altum we will see how he handles so much responsibility.

[raglanroad]

It might have to be straight to intelligent, deliberate selective breeding, by necessity. Even linebreeding. Original Genome is not even in the picture. It's all about the original phenotype if it's for preservation. If it's for hobby fun, then it's about preservation of likable phenes.

[raglanroad]

Assuming not all eggs hatch, and not all larvae grow up to breed

Right. the first selection might be done by tank temperature. Ones that respire too fast might croak before hatching or some other like effect. If it were just a man made fish like flowerhorns, with a fish with huge clutches, the slower hatching ones might be even be discarded once a good brood is hatched. So that's survivability selection right there before hatching - conscious or unconscious selection.

[raglanroad]

Because the knowledge you have of the genes of the fish is severely limited - approaching zippo - you are dealing with phenes. If it's not for restocking the wild, all you need to do, is a "Pierre Brichard", and produce nice lines of healthy zebras for fun and profit.
Get rid of those fish producing deformed and poor gainers, be they that for any reason, and away you go. At worst, sell them as single trophies.
And that's what this is really all about. You'll can linebreed the good ones to find the bad and weed it out thoroughly.
Then you'll have strong zebras that breed well in tanks, and get a good buck for a while, even when other breeders are selling lots of them.

good luck and have fun in the hobby.

Dave

[raglanroad]

You summed things up well, Bas.
It is almost a given that aquarium bred populations are not subject to natural selection pressures and it is silly to think fish raised many generations removed from the wild are identical to those still left in the wild. If we preserve aquarium strains not outwardly different than their wild cousins we have done the best we could. The aquarium strains are definitely selected on the basis of the ancestral stock's willingness to spawn in artificial conditions which is desirable from a fish keeping perspective. Community peer pressure operates to minimize divergence from the appearance but once captive breeding begins it often leads down the path of unintentional consequences, albinos, long fins etc. The original form tends to be favored by most.

When Dave becomes a world famous breeder of his Pterophyllum altum we will see how he handles so much responsibility.

In this situation, I think that barcoding is the best response in our position. Nice tutorial , just press on the button

http://www.barcodinglife.org/views/login.php

I now have multiple specimens with Pterophyllum altum, Inirida, DNA, so I can now barcode Pterophyllum altum and compare altumish looking angelfish from other locations that are proposed as altum, to it, through the software. Also can compare scalare or leopoldi to it.
Here Heiko answers about resistance to barcoding.

http://www.angelfishkisses.com/forum/sh ... php?t=3031

Angelfish are not disappearing from earth so abruptly as these might.
Now for Hypancistrus, if there is no thorough-going scientific investigation re DNA and species , then barcoding of any WC now seems the small appropriate measure which a group like you could easily accomplish.

[apistomaster]

Because the knowledge you have of the genes of the fish is severely limited - approaching zippo - you are dealing with phenes. If it's not for restocking the wild, all you need to do, is a "Pierre Brichard", and produce nice lines of healthy zebras for fun and profit.
Get rid of those fish producing deformed and poor gainers, be they that for any reason, and away you go. At worst, sell them as single trophies.
And that's what this is really all about. You'll can linebreed the good ones to find the bad and weed it out thoroughly.
Then you'll have strong zebras that breed well in tanks, and get a good buck for a while, even when other breeders are selling lots of them.

good luck and have fun in the hobby.

Dave

Dave,
In what way is your knowledge of the genes of fish also not severely limited - approaching zippo?
A passing familiarity with some abstract molecular genetic terminology is not true knowledge.
Bar coding has it's uses but you are wrong to say, "All I need to do is bar code snip" Dave, all you can do is submit tissue sample to others who are doing that work. You aren't able to do it yourself.
All you know is that gene are to genotype as phenes are to phenotype. Each are merely names given to the collection of DNA base pairs that may form genes, some sequence of genes may form phenes and some sequence of phenes may form portions of phenotypes.
Most of these building block are not known by anyone, including molecular geneticists. This science is still in it's infancy. Mapping of the human genotype was an impressive technical accomplishment but has not yielded much of it's promise yet in improving the human condition.
No one is yet in the position to put any of the the abstract concepts of molecular genetics to practical use in this hobby to do their best to breed in captivity a few Hypancistrus species to help keep them in the fish hobby.
About the only useful results of the advances in molecular genetics has been to help clarify the evolutionary phylogenetic relationships between some groups of fish, no small achievement, to be sure.

Not you, not me nor anyone else is in a position to begin extrapolating how to correctly begin modest hobby breeding projects that would be equivalent of natural selection. The fish aren't extinct in nature yet and are not very likely to become so in our lifetimes; the populations are inclusive enough to prevent unnatural selection from occurring in the wild. Besides, even using the most basic of animal husbandry breeder selection techniques will be adequate for fish hobbyist needs for quite some time into the future.

Using the terminology as if you really know what you are talking about when even the scientists doing the work do not make such grandiose claims is obfuscation at best and mental masturbation at worst. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing and it is a double edged sword which cuts both ways. I don't know why you have such a drive to try to insult the intelligence of people on internet forums but I have known you long enough to know you enjoy it.
I know that there are much more intelligent and knowledgeable planetcatfish members who are much more knowledgeable than either you or me and especially so in the field of fish molecular genetics. There are some who are doing extensive work in the field of molecular phylogenetic relationships of fish. They would be the first to point out that species may be defined in a variety of ways and unless you can agree on what a species is then trying to breed them true to type is not possible in captivity. Species are really sets of traits some visible some not and there are no perfectly delineated boundaries where one ends and another begins. No one has reached a definition that fulfills every condition and is acceptable to all. Most of us have to use the simpler, I know one when I see one approach.

[racoll]

Here Heiko answers about resistance to barcoding.

http://www.angelfishkisses.com/forum/sh ... php?t=3031

raglanroad, I would like to read this, but the link requires me to join. I can however browse topics by going into the individual sub-forums from the main page.

I cannot search either.

What is the name of the sub-forum and thread please?

Thanks

P.S. Great rant Larry - I agree!