>No one has ever shown it to be conclusively genetically either. Probably
>never will either, especially since no one has any bench marks to detect
>change from. Also, no one is going to do the genetics as it is nearly
>impossible to detect minor changes in just one or a few genes in a fish
>that no one has ever tried to sequence. However, it is possible to test
>whether or not something is highly likely to be genetic through breeding
>studies which no one ever bothers to do.
I never said that it had been "shown to be conclusively genetically" - I
merely wished to raise a shadow of possibility in people's minds that it
could be either or both...
It's a pity that no-one ever bothers to do the breeding studies - what's
involved with this?
(snip)
>My question would be what alternative conditions have people attempted to
>keep the fish under? Have you tried sending any to folks in Melb or
>elsewhere as eggs? If you get the same results after a few trials then
>it is likely to be genetic. You have to remember too that "every single
>(rainbowfish) keeper" in Canberra doesn't number that many people.
Granted. No, I don't think any were ever sent interstate - we'd have been
too embarrassed when they all started dying ;)
>> Explain to me why the "new" herberts we have in Canberra don't suffer from
>> ulcers, or if they do it is the same low level suffered by any other
rainbow?
>
>That is an interesting observation that tends to back up your earlier
>point regarding it being genetic, however, how long have these "new"
>herbies been in town for?
The new strain, oh, you'd have to ask Alan Ford that - I haven't kept the
new strain myself... Alan - is it a couple of years now?
>> Explain to me, maybe I'm stupid ;)
>
>Isn't that your middle name? :-) After all, you did take on the running
>of this list. That probably qualifies you. :-)
Nope - it's "gullable"... "stupid" is far too common these days for my
parents to have considered it ;)
>Part of the reason that some species are dying out is because either the
>person who has the rare species doesn't make sufficient efforts to get
>them out, or people aren't really interested in that fish. I've been to
>numerous auctions where a fish comes up that many people aren't
>familiar with. It hardly attracts any interest. People are vary wary of
>buying fish that they haven't seen a picture of. If no one keeps it it
>dies out.
Maybe we should adopt your last sentance as the Mailing List motto: "If no
one keeps them, they'll die out!" or something to that effect. I think that
there will always be "commercial" fish like G. incisus and M. boesemani that
are instantly recognisable to most aquarists - they would have to be the
most common NG 'bows - I suppose you could throw M. herbertaxelrodi and the
"upstart" M. praecox in there too - but is it that they are easier to breed,
or just more colourful, or maybe have a better PR team?
>> I'm yet to be convinced that genetic change through inbreeding is
>> not harmful to fish.
>
>Cary answered this one well, sometimes inbreeding can be good or bad.
>Depends on the genes one ends up with.
And the genes one starts with?
>It depends upon your goals as to whether or not fresh stocks are
>beneficial. If one has bred out all,or most of the "bad" genes you don't
>want new stocks. Alternatively, if one is breeding for conservation then
>one may want to maintain genetic diversity by regularly infusing new
>fish. There are no blanket answers in either case. You just have to
>take a best guess on what info one has.
IMHO, if the fish are dying out in captivity in Australia, which a few
species are, then it's probably time for some "infusion" - but it could be
that they are just buggers to keep alive, and buggers to breed, so are
"doomed" to be specialists fish...
Regards, Andrew Boyd
___________________________________________________________________________
Andrew Boyd - andrew at pcug.org.au - http://www.pcug.org.au/~andrew
"Are you a Klingon, or is that a turtle on your head?"
___________________________________________________________________________