ANGFA of North America
visit the ANGFA website at:
reach me at:
roy at angfa.org
From: Rob Wager <raintree at mail.cth.com.au>
To: 'rainbowfish at pcug.org.au' <rainbowfish at pcug.org.au>
Date: Wednesday, October 22, 1997 12:10 AM
Subject: SPAM RE: [RML] Looking for bright Rainbows
>It wasn't hell and back unless he went with Unmack and Hunter:-)
>From: Mach Fukada[SMTP:tuhoitc at aloha.net]
>Sent: Wednesday, 22 October 1997 13:05
>To: rainbowfish at pcug.org.au
>Subject: Re: [RML] Looking for bright Rainbows
> Nice to see you back on the list Derek Onishi said "hi" and that
>you guys took him through hell and back on his visit to OZ last time.
>Now back to this thread. I was looking at this from the angle of the young
>pup just getting into the hobby and learning the fish , a neophyte if you
>will (which is what I am). We don't have years of experiance, or even in
>some cases good color photos. I will be getting the Atlas, but as far as
>Sahul fishes go it sucks. Some of us don't have access to older good
>photos. I also suspect some of us newbies haven't even seen a wild caught
>fish, F1, yes, but not wild in all their glory. Allong these lines I am
>still willing to see about setting up a web page for Pseudomugils as long
>as I can get the picts and info. This way more of us can have access to
>the "good" photos especially for those fish that have several distinct
>populations (signifer, gertrudae, etc).
>>I have enjoyed looking back at this thread which to me is the essence of
>>the reason why associations like ANGFA, IRG and RSG were formed in the
>>first place. We came aware of the existence of these "Jewels of Sahul"
>>because of beautiful colour photos of theses fish. Those photos depicted
>>and looking as good as they do when they are feeling good e.g. spawning,
>>Everybody knows that rainbowfish show a wide range of colours and
>>brightness that varies between idividuals, local populations, subspecies
>>etc as well as the contentment and mood of the individual fish.
>>No matter how careful we are with our selection of breeders for the next
>>generation every time we breed them in the limited numbers ( from the
>>limited numbers of breeders that we use each time) we lose some of the
>>genetic diversity of that gene pool.Even when we select for wild-type
>>appearance we have no guarantee that the metabolic "fitness" of the line
>>are producing is as good as the original stock and we don't have a
>>easy way of measuring this except in a superficial way by the vigour,
>>fertility and longevity of the line we are producing.
>>I guess what I am trying to say is that I agree generally with Cary that
>>should try to stick to the wild type as our model for appearance but
>>try to check those 3 metabolic parameters regularly. I know that
>>techniques play a major part in this but there's not much point to a line
>>that looks right but dies out because of poor fertility.
>>What can we do in terms of practical advice to breeders? Breed from your
>>oldest generation for as long as you can ( since each has most likely got
>>potentially more genetic diversity than the next) but try to group spawn
>>with as close to equal numbers of each sex as possible ( since the genetic
>>contribution from each parent is equal) to avoid ending up with a
>>strain/line that has too strong a genetic component derived from our
>>practice of using only one male and several females.
>Mach Fukada, Webmaster
>Please Visit the Honolulu Aquarium Society's Home Page at: