> In breding per se in not necessarliy bad, after all there are hundreds of
> varieties of near isogenic angel forms, platies type etc. What we are
> trying to do is maintain genetic diverisity which is not helped at all by
> in breeding. You can select individuals which can in breed and not create
You missed my point completey. If a species does not have much genetic
variation then no matter how much out or inbreeding you do it will not
change a single thing! Population size will not really matter. If a
species has a reasonable level of variation then that is a completely
different matter.
> Very shady to assess without direct access to wild fish and then leaves
> you open to the arguement that it will be different for every species
> that exists (and that would be true)
Not the case in Australia. It is not too difficult to get wild fish.
The collection history of some stocks are well known too.
> Actually I would not worry so much about that because the study was not
> designed to pick up differences between individuals. It was a study of
It still detected variation within populations which is the same thing.
Sure, she was not focusing on within population variation, but it can
still be detected.
> of the very recent PCR technolgy ie RAPD's and AFLP's may begin to answer
> some of the questions that you are talking about Peter.
Oh crap. Electrophoresis can do it as can anyother molecular technique
be used to detect within population variation. Sure, some techniques may
be better than others but one can begin to answer questions without RAPD
and AFLP.
Tootles
Peter Unmack