> I checked my facts with Neil Armstrong and there were red and yellow
> fish caught at the same location at the same time.
Are talking about body colour or fins here or both?
> Neil also concurs with me that the original "wild" fish had yellow
> fins (not red) and the body colour was yellow too.
Meaning the original wild fish he recieved all had yellow fins?
Having had the benefit of keeping the fish from both USA (Lange's stock,
from Ek Well originally?) and Australia (Victorian stock from Silvia Gilbert
originally from R. Bowman if I remember correctly) I can't
really say that I can see any obvious differences between the two.
Again, you'd have to check with Neil (someone buy the guy a computer and
email account......it'd be cheaper than calling, he's called budgie for a
good reason :-) ), but I understand that the original fish to come into the
USA was through him as was all the Australian stock. I don't know if
Heiko ever collected any and brough them back to Europe. We may well have
the same stock in both places, except that they have been independantly
bred from the first generation and they are basically the same looking
fish to me (yer, I know, I'm blind, but I do wear glasses....).
Another important question that no one has considered, what is the
dominance/recessiveness of red or yellow tails in herbies or any other
bows etc? How many genes control caudal fin colour? Phenotype doesn't
equal genotype. What you see is not always what you have.
> The original body
> shape was stockier too. The difference in body shape between "herbies"
> and "tris" is similar to that between true "sexlineatas" and
> "mccullochis". >
In aquarium raised fish, especially rainbows body shape means nothing in
my opinion. I can raise a number of bows pencil thin or round like a 50c
coin (without all the corners....like an American one....since this is an
international list). It's mostly environmental. Feed
them heavy with no current and they go deep bodied. Keep 'em lean and in
current and they will be far more slender. Everytime a fishkeeper tends
to see something different in their fish they call it a genetic defect.
This may sometimes be the case, but many times I feel it is not. While I
don't think there is anyone from Victoria on this list, some of you may
know that the few folks who keep M. affinis pagwi (in Vic at least,
Canberra stocks look different although they are from the same original
fish--another example of how we can change fish from the same stock, I
can explain it if people want but this email is already too long) have had
many problems with bent backs and crooked jaws. I have raised fish from
this stock (the female had crooked jaws) and the 40 or 50 we raised had
no deformities what so ever. Why, I don't know? Again, phenotype
doesn't equal genotype.
What do you consider to be the difference in shape between "true" sexlineata
and maccullochi? Except for the wild sexlineata I don't think you can judge
a "true" shape. This species seems to be by far the most susceptable to
being very deep bodied (relative to the "original" fish) of any 'bow. M.
papuae seem to also suffer this problem, but to a lesser extent. I am
comparing these depths to photos of wild fish from N. Armstrong largely
and Gerry's photos in his publications. Of the few other people I have
seen keeping these species they have similar "problems" (whether they'll
admit it is another thing).
> I hate to say it but it seems that most if not all of our aquarium
> stock in Australia is contaminated with Trifasciata genes or has been
> selected for Trifasciata phenotype.
I'll bet you that if you cross a tri and a herbie you'll get a
different looking fish in many minor aspects but I'm sure it would be
pretty obvious. To get this thing back looking close to a herbie again
you may have to backcross the hybrid to herbies for one or more
generations. These would need to be a very deliberate breeding program.
Do we really think that it is possible that USA and Oz stocks have both
been contaminated in similar ways independantly (with what would have to
be the same trifasciata variety or very similar) despite all the distinct
lineages that have been maintained? I think that we may have seen
fixation in a couple of previously variable characterists that may not
have been very obvious in the wild fish. How many fish did the original
stocks come from? I'll bet it was only 2 or 3 pairs. There is no doubt
that there are some herbie hybrids around in Oz, but these are usally
easy for the trained eye to pick.
Comments?
The Sceptic
Peter Unmack