Philosophy, DNA, Morphology and Taxonomy

[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

Dave,
In what way is your knowledge of the genes of fish also not severely limited - approaching zippo?

In no way. I don't know it, that's the point. At most, angelfish breeders have what they call "wild type" presumed scalare, but the domestic fish under that phenotype name are far removed from wild, and are a specific domestic phenotype of plain silver, usual barring, plain fin, etc.
the genotype given is (+/+) for everything on such a fish, meaning having genetics not resulting in any of the known sport mutation phenotypes, and only in regard to these mutations. It's a "negative" on having any of the recognized sport mutations, that's all.

A passing familiarity with some abstract molecular genetic terminology is not true knowledge.

I don't profess to have true knowledge; lucky for me.

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.

So I didn't grow that fin on a petri dish. I didn't make the software and I don't run a lab. That's why you take a bit of fin from a fish, and you pay a small fee to a lab, and they send the report to BOLD account and software indicates if there is reason for seeing your collection of samples as from one or more species.

All you know is that gene are to genotype as phenes are to phenotype.

Larry, you is too generous

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.

You'll "get it" soon, I'm sure. There is a problem with your explanation, Larry.

Colllection of base pairs "form' genes.
OK. As constituent elements of a set.

Onward;

"Some sequence of genes may form phenes".

????


No, Larry, you can never say that.

Code sequences are not constituent elements of a whole that is a phene. They are not constituents of phenes in the same way as your first sentence uses the word "forms" . You have wrongly equivocated.

Then you go back to using the word "form" in the first way again, with this: "Some sequence of phenes may form portions of phenotypes".

Here you use "forms" once again, correctly ( or rather, coherently, again) , as constituent parts "form" a whole.
So it adds up lacking meaning. It's not nonsensical; the problem is that it's incoherent. I hope you undestand that "incoherent" does not mean "stunned", 'wacky" , or anything like that. It's just that you equivocated wrongly, and so produced meaningless jabber.

A phene, a phenotype, or a phenome..none...none of these are a collection of DNA or of transcript.

Most of these building block are not known by anyone, including molecular geneticists.

that's why we're not talking about "most" of these building blocks; only a very small snippet.

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.

the promise is huge, so % yield is not insignificant. it requires time.

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.

Larry, can you offer any support for this blanket statement ? And what do you mean "abstract concepts " ? Of course there will be some concepts that are not put to practical application at any given time. I don't understand what you're talking about. ? Would barcoding help a little breeder produce zebra fry right now ? no, of course not ! And neither would the complete genome in a sac. What are you trying to say ? Nobody was hinting anything about using abstract molecular genetical concepts to breed a few zebras, guy.

Now..did anything I introduced have possible merit vis a vis zebra fry production ? I think so.


Altricial trout fry food is being studied. They do not like some of the coatings on feed that precocial fry do eat. They do like the gelatin based feed coating, not the protein link stuff that precocials eat. So if you're seeing altricial-tendency fry, at some point during development, they may improve with a different feed than the precocials.

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.

Nothing much has come from molecular biology? Wow. That's all I can say to that bald assertion. Barcoding helps distinguish species, as they may be defined, with solid evidence to back it.

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.

I believe I have already stressed the point to you, that we cannot copy the habitat and so on. We can't preserve all the original normal phenotypes even with a large number of individuals. Isn't that what I've been saying, Sir ? Glad you agree.

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.

The heart is warmed by your proclamation, but the brain likes to know "why" it should also feel so confident. What is "unnatural selection in the wild" ? Can you give me an example of that ? And explain how "inclusiveness" ( whatever that refers to) protects from extinction.

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.

Yes, like good dog breeders - that's what I was getting at. With German Shepherds, they have reduced hip dysplasia markedly in short order, by giving a numerical rating system of good phenotype for hips, that is adjusted later because of what his or her progeny shows. The breeder merely is restricted to choosing matings that between the pair have a combined score of 200 or less on the z rating. So a great dog otherwise, but has a 'z' rating score of 120, which is not great for breeding for good hiips, can be mated with a great female with a "z" rating score of 80...total 200. That way good phenes are not lost because of bad ones that are being rejected.

In a few years they got good progress in removing unwanted bits of complex traits, without needing to know about the genes, or even about balancing the complex things, like bone dimensions and muscle attachments, thrust from the rear legs matching the front leg reach...you get a dog with good hips, and even hidden bad stuff is removed through attrition.
The aim is to remove and so improve. Not preserve.

That is one reason why I said that it's not about preserving the zebra genome with captives of a certain number, which would indicate genetic diversity approaching that of an infinite population. Remember ?
The ideas being floated about captive breeding programs and REGISTRY, seemed to me to indicate something a LITTLE bit more than basic husbandry , EH ? So what is all this about, if it's not about doing more ?

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.

Be precise, Larry . Show the lines you are talking 'bout, please. Remember that if you have ever used such terminology yourself, then you AUTOMATICALLY fall into the same nasty characterization you made of me ! So if I find that you've used such terms as you point out that I used..you fit the description you just gave
Perhaps you'll find that the dirty cloth will cling all the tighter when flung about your shoulders.

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'm insulting ? lol. I'm being nice. I might try to tease or have fun with you but I don't think I'm being hateful. I don't think I've really given you reason to turn so sour like that and offer such ad hom derogatory speeches.
Can you support your claim about the "grandiose claims" I've made here, that scientists doing the work do not make ? Which grandiose claims, Larry ? I'm interested. Heiko's final reply was that he considers it correct, what I said, but nobody is paying him to do it large-scale.

I noted and rejected some ideas floating about in your aimless thread with the wrong title and an opening post more heading towards the question of whether Hypancistrus are really illicit, despite Brazil's declarations. Also I agreed with some ideas.


1/ rejected the environmentalists' idea of self-sustaining hippie villages complete with strolling minstrels to save everything
2/ rejected the idea that we should even try to preserve the genome in captivity.
3/ rejected the idea that this project or any number of other initiatives would "fix" Brazil.
4/ entertained the idea of producing good breeding lines of zebras in the hobby. Hopefully you can produce strong healthy fish like nice yellow lab lines, even from your own few fish each.

Is that so fanciful ? And to barcode some fins when possible.
In a few posts , along with the fun, I've introduced to the discussion - and provided literature on - some concepts - concepts such as that of treatment of precocial and altricial fry in their early ontogeny, which is aquaculture specific. Slow development of zebra fry, I thought might be a subject of interest. Literature about defining "domestication" and the degrees of it as it may occur in fish. Barcoding. A very very neat breeders' method of manipulating the genetics from basically in the dark.

When I compare that to what you have given the discussion, I'm not ashamed. What have you given to the discussion other than bad temper ? My ideas are for discussion, or to be ignored, either is fine with me.

Noted that this reply from you, Larry - this flowery ad hom offering - contained not a speck of substantiation - nor any response to my previous answers to your posts.
I've asked to have my membership deleted, so I'll probably just read your response showing my grandiose, baseless claims, and learn, eh ?

[raglanroad]

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!

Yes, it's under the "Wild Angelfishes" folder, sub forum "Ask Heiko"...title...about barcoding

[apistomaster]

Dave,

I took offense at the first sentence in your response to my friend, Bas Pels post.

raglanroad wrote:
"Because the knowledge you have of the genes of the fish is severely limited - approaching zippo - you are dealing with phenes."

Then I went into my rant, totally off of the top of my head in a single long tirade. I knew I would make some technical errors but that those members who are able to follow your introduction of a great deal of technical jargon, would also understand what I was saying.
I was set off by your first intelligence insulting remark and I went off-half cocked, wrote what I wrote and let it stand, warts and all.
It was pounded out in a single go. I don't think I did half bad considering .....I didn't have to edit it 76 times.

I would have come to your side in the same way if another wrote the same of you on, http://www.finarama.com

[L number Banana]

Cool! Dr.Suzuki mentioned on Planet Catfish, he's one of my heros

I was wondering if the hot and bothered tone would persist if we weren't talking about such an expensive fish (zebra) or giant industry like dog breeding $$$. Hope there's people out there that care so much about C. paleatus etc.

I don't know diddly about the molecular stuff but if I could ever be part of reintroducing aquaria-bred Madtoms in my area of the world, I'd be doing a happy dance. Maybe that's wrong, maybe that's bananas but I'd still love to see it. They wouldn't be genetically identical to the 1800's fish but as long as it's the right species, that would make me happy.

It's nice that people in the breeding field come from every corner and many are quite happy to just breed for learning more about the fish. I think keeping fish can only have one consequence -new tank, new hobbyist - caring about the fish - caring about where the fish come from.
It's all good.

Good topic.
Cool link, Larry. There goes my afternoon.

[raglanroad]

Dave,

I took offense at the first sentence in your response to my friend, Bas Pels post.

Ok. So you share a few DNA bits with Dick Cheney ? That post did not mention Bas and was not a response to anything he said, it was to you zebra keepers about the possibilities and what can be realistically done. I mean, I don't think Bas Pets is going to restock the wild, eh ?

I didn't have to edit it 76 times.

I like to go back and pick off every bit of flack. kept me busy. Now I'll go look at the damned fish.
Carry on. i won the thread. But I think I need to launch an appeal over the somewhat inappropriate title.

[Bas Pels]

Bas Pets

Nice typo

[apistomaster]

Hi L number banana,

I know it must not look like it but raglanroad and I are old friends. This is hardly the first rousing game of Ha! Ha! Herman we have played.
We have spent plenty of fora times and e-mails discussing these and other topics. We have both learned a lot from each other. This is more like a couple of congressmen calling each other names on the floor to only to later join each other at some club, swilling high priced scotch, sharing cigars and chasing the same skirts. No one wins, the game's the thing. We both have thick skins and thick heads.

It is ironic to hear that Madtom Catfish are endangered or worse within any part of their native range. At least one Madtom Catfish species was accidentally introduced to the Columbia River and it's major tributaries late in the 19th century when other species of Catfish fry were used to introduce Channel and Flathead Catfish out West. They are not common but they still persist in niches throughout the Pacific Northwest USA. I collected a few when i was a kid and kept them in my aquariums. They are one of those small species one cannot find when actually looking for them out here. Just come across some by accident exploring small warmer streams or sloughs off main streams.

[Suckermouth]

What is said about us not knowing a thing about genetic variation in Hypancistrus is quite true. There has been very little molecular work involving Hypancistrus. One study I can think of only looked at mitochondrial genes, which of course gives no look at the diversity in the nuclear genes that actually contribute to the fish's genome. Mitochondrial genes are what's hot right now, so a lot of studies have been using those instead of the nuclear genes, although give it a few years and whole-genome analyses may become more commonplace.

That said, even if you look at the genes, it's more than sending in a couple fin samples to a lab. I cannot see how a lab would determine if the samples you gave them were of different species based on limited material you send them and without any published data about the variation that exists. Being able to determine species will take having some sort of foundation of samples already in the database to compare to. Because Hypancistrus has had limited study we cannot say how much genetic variation occurs within a species or between species. This genetic variation that differentiates Hypancistrus, if I were to venture a guess, will be MUCH smaller than the genetic variation that differentiates most species, due to the high rate of evolution of the genus and how most species in Hypancistrus look pretty much the same except for color. Thus, you may not need a lot of individuals of Hypancistrus to maintain a certain type.

Genetic variation is important, if only to prevent inbreeding depression. However, how much genetic variation is present in natural stocks? That can't be answered at this moment. But the other question, which arises from the fact that it is impossible to maintain the same genetic variation in captive stocks as in the entirety of a species in nature, is how much genetic variation needs to be maintained to prevent inbreeding depression? I haven't been looking at the litertaure, but I'm fairly certain this remains an open question, even with more economically important fish species such as salmon in trout in relation to conservation and management of these fish. On the other hand, because preventing inbreeding depression is not totally inclusive of genes related to phenotype, I do not believe that maintaining genetic variation and maintaining phenotypes is mutually exclusive and cannot be done simultaneously, especially as the phenotypes more or less maintain themselves in the wild with, I'm assuming, some form of genetic variation.

[L number Banana]

Larry,
Good to hear it's a friendly because it's really interesting.

It is ironic to hear that Madtom Catfish are endangered or worse within any part of their native range. At least one Madtom Catfish species was accidentally introduced to the Columbia River and it's major tributaries late in the 19th century when other species of Catfish fry were used to introduce Channel and Flathead Catfish out West. They are not common but they still persist in niches throughout the Pacific Northwest USA. I collected a few when i was a kid and kept them in my aquariums. They are one of those small species one cannot find when actually looking for them out here. Just come across some by accident exploring small warmer streams or sloughs off main streams.

They should be everywhere in my area including the stream in my back yard. We have waterways everywhere here and when I read the old explorer accounts, they were very common but the fishermen now only see them when they're scooping up invasive gobies to sell to the bait shops. Most are saying that they haven't seen many in recent years. I've got my number at the bait shops just in case My dream would be to bring them back but I have to find them first.

Good thread and I'll keep reading especially now that I know you guys are lobbing water balloons.

[raglanroad]

What is said about us not knowing a thing about genetic variation in Hypancistrus is quite true. There has been very little molecular work involving Hypancistrus. One study I can think of only looked at mitochondrial genes, which of course gives no look at the diversity in the nuclear genes that actually contribute to the fish's genome. Mitochondrial genes are what's hot right now, so a lot of studies have been using those instead of the nuclear genes, although give it a few years and whole-genome analyses may become more commonplace.

That said, even if you look at the genes, it's more than sending in a couple fin samples to a lab. I cannot see how a lab would determine if the samples you gave them were of different species based on limited material you send them and without any published data about the variation that exists.

Over- reliance on cytochrome B ? Anyway, why would you need published data when you have your own source of data to publish ..namely the fish ? You're making your own data. People with that job don't all like that idea. How many samples do some scientific studies use ? So say look at tarzoo Kullander Ready et al. for number of reference samples and just do one better than their weakest number from a population

[apistomaster]

Dave,
I can't remember how to spell their names, so excuse me on this but you will know who I mean and how their names are spelled, but aren't Izeni and Fererias doing molecular genetic work on P. altum?

[grokefish]

Matt[/quote]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 ".[/quote]

I'm sorry but what the fck have musicians got to do with sustainability of the human race on this planet. I would have said that "musicians" are causing a hell of a lot of problems on this planet as we speak.

That famous person can also go fck himself as far as I am concerned, that was in 1968, 50 odd years ago, and things are still fcked, seems to me speeches are all very clever but don't really mount to much.
And who are you to tell me I am part of the problem, what do you know about me or my lifestyle or what I do to help the environment, thats the problem with romantic hippy crap, all to wrapped up in speeches and music to do anything real about the situation.

And yes I think buskers are a waste of space.

Matt

[raglanroad]

Dave,
I can't remember how to spell their names, so excuse me on this but you will know who I mean and how their names are spelled, but aren't Izeni and Fererias doing molecular genetic work on P. altum?

natasha's study was to be submitted last new year. Apparently, being unfamiliar with the fish they study, they did not make sure to get Pterophyllum altum (Pellegrin) , they accepted any old piece of flesh.
I have Inirida. I can do better.

[raglanroad]

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 ".

I'm sorry but what the fck have musicians got to do with sustainability of the human race on this planet. I would have said that "musicians" are causing a hell of a lot of problems on this planet as we speak.

That famous person can also go fck himself as far as I am concerned, that was in 1968, 50 odd years ago, and things are still fcked, seems to me speeches are all very clever but don't really mount to much.
And who are you to tell me I am part of the problem, what do you know about me or my lifestyle or what I do to help the environment, thats the problem with romantic hippy crap, all to wrapped up in speeches and music to do anything real about the situation.

And yes I think buskers are a waste of space.

Matt

What about mimes, Matt? What about the mimes ?

[grokefish]

Yes, they too are a waste of space, their invisible doors are all over the place getting in the way-

There are people out there, including myself, that are taking real positive action to minimize the impact that we through multinationals such as oil and power, the basis of all industry, are having.
Not, writing songs and making speeches about this stuff but doing things that will really make a difference to the timescale of our self destruction. Buying time until someone with more brain cells than myself comes up with a real solution, and I guarantee you it won't be a musician.

MAtt

And it was 40 odd years ago-

[raglanroad]

Yes, they too are a waste of space, their invisible doors are all over the place getting in the way-

There are people out there, including myself that are taking real positive action to minimize the impact that we through multinationals such as oil and power, the basis of all industry.
Not, writing songs and making speeches about this stuff but doing things that will really make a difference to the timescale of our self destruction. Buying time until someone with more brain cells than myself comes up with a real solution, and I guarantee you it won't be a musician.

Maybe a breakdancer ?

[grokefish]

Assholes too.

Matt

[raglanroad]

you're being kind of hard to please. how about a nice ice cream truck on every corner if it gets too hot ?

[grokefish]

Nope, that is just silly.

Matt

[raglanroad]

reagan was right. although maybe it was Nancy Reagan.

[Suckermouth]

What is said about us not knowing a thing about genetic variation in Hypancistrus is quite true. There has been very little molecular work involving Hypancistrus. One study I can think of only looked at mitochondrial genes, which of course gives no look at the diversity in the nuclear genes that actually contribute to the fish's genome. Mitochondrial genes are what's hot right now, so a lot of studies have been using those instead of the nuclear genes, although give it a few years and whole-genome analyses may become more commonplace.

That said, even if you look at the genes, it's more than sending in a couple fin samples to a lab. I cannot see how a lab would determine if the samples you gave them were of different species based on limited material you send them and without any published data about the variation that exists.

Over- reliance on cytochrome B ? Anyway, why would you need published data when you have your own source of data to publish ..namely the fish ? You're making your own data. People with that job don't all like that idea. How many samples do some scientific studies use ? So say look at tarzoo Kullander Ready et al. for number of reference samples and just do one better than their weakest number from a population

The description of S. tarzoo includes 23 individuals for the molecular analysis, with 9 individuals being from the new species S. tarzoo, 12 individuals being from the other Discus species, as well as data from a number of other outgroups. However, they also sampled many rivers (13 localities), so that they could get a good scope of the genetic variation from throughout the range of Discus, which is impossible to do with specimens where you do not know their capture location. It's probable that each population is monophyletic, but they are not able to analyze that with their limited sample size. They even note that they were unable to get Discus from the easternmost areas of the range of Discus, which would mean that they may have captured less of the genetic variability in the genus. One of the few studies I know that uses molecular techniques to attempt to describe species in the family Loricariidae is Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos 2009; the species have not yet been described yet and they will be further studied morphologically because. These people used 200 loricariids, with a little over 10 individuals per locality. Notice that neither of these studies can do what they did without having a broad sampling of various different geographical locations, something that an aquarist buying their fish from a wholesaler or a shop can't know for sure.

What I'm saying is, that if you sent your samples into a lab, they have nothing to compare it to if you are the only person sending them fin samples of Hypancistrus. I'm assuming that a single person isn't going to have a sample size of 20 Hypancistrus of at least two species from different localities (this is conservative, even Ready et al. 2006 stated that more than 23 individuals would help them further understand the genus). If it is a collaborative approach and multiple people are sending in samples of Hypancistrus, then this approach gains more rigor as you'll eventually see trees starting to form and where your fish sample might fall on the tree. I bring up published data because that's something to compare to if a lab didn't already have prior data generated by themselves, not necessarily that you can't do a rigorous study without publication or being someone with a PhD. Its necessary to achieve a minimum N if you're going to deal with the tests that are used to determine monophyly, from which you can determine species.

Also, even if you find monophyletic groupings, you cannot simply say that they are individual species. Monophyletic groupings can be separate populations within a species. There is no set genetic difference that defines how different one monophyletic grouping must be to be a separate species. This is why Ready et al. and Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos are also taking the time to do a morphological comparison. For example, Ready et al. had found this separate clade but found that these fish did not differ in coloration from the other two species of discus, they'd have less of a case to separate out a species. Plus, they did not find a difference between S. aequifasciatus and S. discus, but they don't simply synonymize one with the other. On the flip side, some species, such as Peckoltia vittata, have a very broad morphological variation; there are likely monophyletic groupings within P. vittata, but these are not necessarily separate species.

[grokefish]

reagan was right. although maybe it was Nancy Reagan.

what exactly do you mean by that.
Cmon quit the cryptic shit and come out with it.

Matt

[apistomaster]

reagan was right. although maybe it was Nancy Reagan.

what exactly do you mean by that.
Cmon quit the cryptic shit and come out with it.

Matt

rag,

As I have told you before, posting links to obscure papers without any comments to set up the context
or generally making obscure references to inside jokes inside your head, irritates the hell out people.
Why waste others time and diminish your credibility? Don't say you don't care.
No one who posts does not care what others think. No one edits their own post 76 times if they don't care how it will be perceived and understood. Only those with some kind of personality disorder don't care about anyone or anything.

[grokefish]

Thanks Larry.

Matt

[raglanroad]

reagan was right. although maybe it was Nancy Reagan.

what exactly do you mean by that.
Cmon quit the cryptic shit and come out with it.

Matt

rag,

As I have told you before, posting links to obscure papers without any comments to set up the context
or generally making obscure references to inside jokes inside your head, irritates the hell out people.
Why waste others time and diminish your credibility? Don't say you don't care.
No one who posts does not care what others think. No one edits their own post 76 times if they don't care how it will be perceived and understood. Only those with some kind of personality disorder don't care about anyone or anything.

I suppose you're anti-busker too ? You're arguing with Professor Suzuki, not me. You're running against the consensus of expert opinion.

[raglanroad]

What is said about us not knowing a thing about genetic variation in Hypancistrus is quite true. There has been very little molecular work involving Hypancistrus. One study I can think of only looked at mitochondrial genes, which of course gives no look at the diversity in the nuclear genes that actually contribute to the fish's genome. Mitochondrial genes are what's hot right now, so a lot of studies have been using those instead of the nuclear genes, although give it a few years and whole-genome analyses may become more commonplace.

That said, even if you look at the genes, it's more than sending in a couple fin samples to a lab. I cannot see how a lab would determine if the samples you gave them were of different species based on limited material you send them and without any published data about the variation that exists.

Over- reliance on cytochrome B ? Anyway, why would you need published data when you have your own source of data to publish ..namely the fish ? You're making your own data. People with that job don't all like that idea. How many samples do some scientific studies use ? So say look at tarzoo Kullander Ready et al. for number of reference samples and just do one better than their weakest number from a population

The description of S. tarzoo includes 23 individuals for the molecular analysis, with 9 individuals being from the new species S. tarzoo, 12 individuals being from the other Discus species, as well as data from a number of other outgroups. However, they also sampled many rivers (13 localities), so that they could get a good scope of the genetic variation from throughout the range of Discus, which is impossible to do with specimens where you do not know their capture location. It's probable that each population is monophyletic, but they are not able to analyze that with their limited sample size. They even note that they were unable to get Discus from the easternmost areas of the range of Discus, which would mean that they may have captured less of the genetic variability in the genus. One of the few studies I know that uses molecular techniques to attempt to describe species in the family Loricariidae is Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos 2009; the species have not yet been described yet and they will be further studied morphologically because. These people used 200 loricariids, with a little over 10 individuals per locality. Notice that neither of these studies can do what they did without having a broad sampling of various different geographical locations, something that an aquarist buying their fish from a wholesaler or a shop can't know for sure.

What I'm saying is, that if you sent your samples into a lab, they have nothing to compare it to if you are the only person sending them fin samples of Hypancistrus. I'm assuming that a single person isn't going to have a sample size of 20 Hypancistrus of at least two species from different localities (this is conservative, even Ready et al. 2006 stated that more than 23 individuals would help them further understand the genus). If it is a collaborative approach and multiple people are sending in samples of Hypancistrus, then this approach gains more rigor as you'll eventually see trees starting to form and where your fish sample might fall on the tree. I bring up published data because that's something to compare to if a lab didn't already have prior data generated by themselves, not necessarily that you can't do a rigorous study without publication or being someone with a PhD. Its necessary to achieve a minimum N if you're going to deal with the tests that are used to determine monophyly, from which you can determine species.

Also, even if you find monophyletic groupings, you cannot simply say that they are individual species. Monophyletic groupings can be separate populations within a species. There is no set genetic difference that defines how different one monophyletic grouping must be to be a separate species. This is why Ready et al. and Cardoso & Montoya-Burgos are also taking the time to do a morphological comparison. For example, Ready et al. had found this separate clade but found that these fish did not differ in coloration from the other two species of discus, they'd have less of a case to separate out a species. Plus, they did not find a difference between S. aequifasciatus and S. discus, but they don't simply synonymize one with the other. On the flip side, some species, such as Peckoltia vittata, have a very broad morphological variation; there are likely monophyletic groupings within P. vittata, but these are not necessarily separate species.

thank you for the excellent reply. My answer is rather detailed, with specific examples to show, so I'll have to take some time to compose it. A start is to realize what Heiko knows. The specimens in institutions are, for some species, totally unreliable. Pterophyllum, as the people in the new study found, had a real scarcity of anything good for reference. So if you take , for new DNA review, some piece of mislabeled crap from the wrong river, your study is worse than worthless. Specimens are sent from here and there for these studies.

Do you know that for altum, Kullander described a trade specimen, dead from an aquarium ? Not a great locale.

dave

[grokefish]

[grokefish]

Such an expert he never got to grips with the "population thing" the fundamental problem and in fact the very source of the problem.

And by the way do not mistake me for an uneducated, ignorant or "stoopid" person, because I am afraid you will have mistaken me for someone else.

Now Raglan, I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as such yours is as valid as the next, and I respect it, which also must mean by default so is mine.

However there are "experts" in many fields but it does not mean that what they say is word, if you get me.
This Expert may have come to his conclusions after much deliberation about the subject but the fact is his context was in the 60's and however much of an expert he is/was he wasn't able to see the future.

No one can see the future, not even the mimes.
It is a fluid thing which can change a seemingly sound hypothesis into bunk over the course of years.
Things have moved on beyond what he could possibly have envisaged and so now the situation is different.
Also thanks for pointing me towards this "expert" as my quick research on him will undoubtedly lead to a more in depth study of his philosophies and I will be able to have a more rounded opinion of this topic.

That is all.

Matt

[raglanroad]

Such an expert he never got to grips with the "population thing" the fundamental problem and in fact the very source of the problem.

And by the way do not mistake me for an uneducated, ignorant or "stoopid" person, because I am afraid you will have mistaken me for someone else.

Now Raglan, I believe that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and as such yours is as valid as the next, and I respect it, which also must mean by default so is mine.

However there are "experts" in many fields but it does not mean that what they say is word, if you get me.
This Expert may have come to his conclusions after much deliberation about the subject but the fact is his context was in the 60's and however much of an expert he is/was he wasn't able to see the future.

No one can see the future, not even the mimes.
It is a fluid thing which can change a seemingly sound hypothesis into bunk over the course of years.
Things have moved on beyond what he could possibly have envisaged and so now the situation is different.
Also thanks for pointing me towards this "expert" as my quick research on him will undoubtedly lead to a more in depth study of his philosophies and I will be able to have a more rounded opinion of this topic.

That is all.

Matt

Matt, you're right that everyone is entitled to their opinion, but that does not make such opinion valid or correct. Just because Suzuki has 5 children and lives a luxury life is not reason to judge him negatively, either.

but I'm glad you're part of the solution, even a temporary one.

If you lived in Canada, you would see Professor Suzuki in saving energy ads many many times per day, as he sneaks into wasteful houses and does caulking and stuff.

we have a saying up here: "Get on board with Suzuki, or you aint dookie".

[grokefish]

After quickly scanning several sites on this guy David Suzuki guy, seems like I should meet him one day.
Some of the companies that are funding his foundation are companies that I have non-direct dealings with and I must say they are a strange lot for a sustainable development (survival) advocate to be buddies with.
However not one to jump to conclusions I shall continue to research this guy, I like his way of thinking.

Matt