Jump to content





Posted Image

PCS & Stuart M. Grant - Cichlid Preservation Fund - Details here


Photo

Hybrids For Sale


  • Please log in to reply
45 replies to this topic

#21 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 02 December 2016 - 11:15 AM

Yes I agree with the definition provided.
I disagree with your interpretation.
The desired characteristic being selected for can be "true to form". ;)

#22 sandgroper

sandgroper
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 24-April 06
  • Location: Near Malaga

Posted 02 December 2016 - 12:38 PM

Chris your confusing selective line breeding true to type fish with selective line breeding for mutated fish and deformity. I was meaning as what happens in nature, the biggest most vibrant healthy specimen. We have a responsibility as fish keepers to not breed from CRAP other wise we are only hurting ourselves.



#23 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 03 December 2016 - 09:14 AM

It appears that our interpretations are the issue - the essence of the definitions is to achieve a desired outcome - a desired outcome is by default something different from the norm. In reading some internet stuff on line breeding (always dangerous) line breeding is all about changing what is normal for that breed.
In your interpretations you are not changing anything - just breeding true to form! And therefore technically not line breeding. Because of our limited gene pool of fish we do "line breed" i.e. back to own family members, but not for the purpose of changing the origional.
Go on agree with me - you know you want to LOL

Sent from my SM-T815Y using Tapatalk

#24 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 03 December 2016 - 10:52 AM

Chris your confusing selective line breeding true to type fish with selective line breeding for mutated fish and deformity. I was meaning as what happens in nature, the biggest most vibrant healthy specimen. We have a responsibility as fish keepers to not breed from CRAP other wise we are only hurting ourselves.


Agree "We have a responsibility as fish keepers to not breed from CRAP other wise we are only hurting ourselves" but you are not technically line breeding because you are not trying to change anything by breeding "true to type"

#25 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 03 December 2016 - 05:49 PM

Yes Chris. But the desired outcome can be the best specimens of true to type fish. Your interpretation is wrong I believe, as you keep focusing on line breeding only to express a mutation, when selective breeding can be used to fix non mutated genes that are the best expression of true to type. Selective line breeding for desired traits is just that, for the "desired" traits. Whether they be true to type or non true to type. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Hood, 03 December 2016 - 05:50 PM.


#26 sandgroper

sandgroper
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 24-April 06
  • Location: Near Malaga

Posted 03 December 2016 - 10:06 PM

Yep what he :rolleyes:  said.



#27 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 03 December 2016 - 10:50 PM

Look I understand your train of thought - but selective breeding is not necessarily line breeding which is quite specific in that it is within the same (generally close) family line - mother, father, brother, sister etc to achieve a desired outcome, where as selective breeding is not confined to the same family line.

It cant be both ways because that means there is absolutely no difference in selective breeding or line breeding.

Any way we will just have to agree to disagree,

#28 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 03 December 2016 - 11:37 PM

Agreeing to disagree is not the correct course in this situation I feel, as you are imposing opposing opinion or personal agenda onto factual definitions.
Selective breeding is the use of selection alone but not necessarily of the same genetic line of fish, agreed. To do this without it also being line breeding really you would need to be working with wild caught fish, where you would be making the assumption that few of the individuals are actually related.
However with such a select amount of genetics in this country, and that most people just buy from one source when procuring species, you are working within a genetic line, so you are in effect selectively line breeding....and thus my original comment, we are all line breeding. We are just not all necessarily being selective to a high/standardized set of criteria/criterion, thus what some describe as the decline in quality of fish here. However if more active selective line breeding were taking place, you could essentially raise some genetics to a more desirable state.


Edited by Hood, 03 December 2016 - 11:39 PM.


#29 Poncho

Poncho

    Vice Presidente Castro

  • Committee
  • Joined: 20-January 06
  • Location:Warnbro
  • Location: Warnbro

Posted 04 December 2016 - 08:42 AM

A good example of what Hood is saying there is with the ellioti firemouths. A few individuals coming into the country and bred with a very limited gene pool. Pretty much all offspring had kinks in their spines and no one really wanted a bar of them. Number of breeders took these on and selectively or line bred offspring and now there are some not bad specimens going around. The deformities are still present but because of the strategic breeding, the problem is not as severe. Hopefully it continues to improve.

Conversely, about 10 years ago it became close to impossible to get the shelldweller N multifasciatus without deformed jaws. This was because people or maybe even one person, were pumping them out with no thought to the quality. Understandable because the size of these fish make deformities hard to see. But spreading slightly deformed fish around can have a serious impact on the quality of those fish in the local hobby because other uninformed people will buy and breed with them.

I think there's merit in what you're both saying but for me the decline in fish quality is because there's a lot of people breeding a lot of fish with no thought about the quality and they probably have next to no understanding of genealogy. Discussions like this hopefully encourage people to think about it a bit more.

#30 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 04 December 2016 - 02:02 PM

Guys, guys guys - the definitions are clear - "the selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line."  breeding true to form is not a desired feature it is an EXPECTED feature or the norm if you will,  because you are not trying to change anything!. I am not disagreeing that we all line breed as a matter of necessity to maintain the species in the hobby -but the fact that there are man made varieties of the same fish (Ancistrus as an example) is deliberate line breeding to achieve a desired result, which is to change from the original  Agree or not?

 

Based on the assumption that you agree is it correct then to refer to Lemon bn, longfin bn albino bn etc as linebred? or should we refer to them selectively bred? 

 

It therefore follows that if I find the best male dovii in wa and the best female dovii in eastern states and breed them with the Expected outcome/features that they will be normal dovii are they line bred or selectively bred 

I say selectively bred because 1) you are not wanting to change anything 2) you are maintaining the strain as it is. That is why breeders like my self and you guys try and source stock from different lines to try and breed true to type. Correct?

Sandgroper unfortunately your comment that I am "confusing selective line breeding true to type fish with selective line breeding for mutated fish and deformity"  is a contradiction selective breeding and line breeding are two separate things - selective breeding does not necessarily involve breeding back to close family lines and selective breeding is ideally done from different lines.

 

If you disagree with that then there is no point in having a definition for line breeding - everything would be selective. 

 

And Hood  you comment "However with such a select amount of genetics in this country, and that most people just buy from one source when procuring species, you are working within a genetic line so you are in effect selectively line breeding....and thus my original comment, we are all line breeding." is correct but by circumstance not selectively or for the the purpose of trying to achieve a desired feature, hence technically NOT linebreeding. As I said above we would all love to be able to source our stock from different line to maintain a true representation of the fish we breed. Again the definitions are clear, and they are not mine - I just don't feel the need to contradict them. 

And finally are Ancistrus varieties linebred or selectively bred? or better still how did they come about a) from different lines or B) back breeding to the same line.?



#31 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 04 December 2016 - 09:03 PM

Guys, guys guys - the definitions are clear - "the selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line."  breeding true to form is not a desired feature it is an EXPECTED feature or the norm if you will,  because you are not trying to change anything!. I am not disagreeing that we all line breed as a matter of necessity to maintain the species in the hobby -but the fact that there are man made varieties of the same fish (Ancistrus as an example) is deliberate line breeding to achieve a desired result, which is to change from the original  Agree or not?


Chris, Chris, Chris -  the definitions are clear (for selective line breeding)- "the selective breeding of animals for a desired feature by mating them within a closely related line." no where does it state that the desire has to be to change anything, it just states for desired feature. It can be to produce the best examples of what the breeder believes to be true to form.
 

Based on the assumption that you agree is it correct then to refer to Lemon bn, longfin bn albino bn etc as linebred? or should we refer to them selectively bred? 


They have been selectively bred along a genetic line to produce a desired outcome, as the definition states. Selective line breeding.
 

It therefore follows that if I find the best male dovii in wa and the best female dovii in eastern states and breed them with the Expected outcome/features that they will be normal dovii are they line bred or selectively bred 


If we assume the fish are actually un-related then this could be just selective breeding. However, when fish are brought into the country from a supplier, unless wild caught we are sent offspring from a set of parents. These are then bred and distributed, only so many survive and are then again bred and distributed etc. so therefore most fish in the country are related despite your best efforts. Thus most probably still breeding down a genetic line, even if it is cousin to cousin etc.
So selective line breeding still most likely taking place in this case.
 

I say selectively bred because 1) you are not wanting to change anything 2) you are maintaining the strain as it is. That is why breeders like my self and you guys try and source stock from different lines to try and breed true to type. Correct?


Not all offspring are created equal, so you should be selecting only the best specimens to breed from. Thus the "desired" trait you are selecting for.
 

Sandgroper unfortunately your comment that I am "confusing selective line breeding true to type fish with selective line breeding for mutated fish and deformity"  is a contradiction selective breeding and line breeding are two separate things - selective breeding does not necessarily involve breeding back to close family lines and selective breeding is ideally done from different lines.


How is Sandgroper contradictory? You can select for the best true to type fish, or you can select for different expressions. You can breed down a genetic line or you can bring two lines together.
You can select for the best true to type fish and line breed them to continue the desired outcome, or you can select for the best different expression and line breed them to continue the desired outcome.
You can also try to bring unrelated individuals together that you have selected for your desired traits, however there is likely to be more variance in the offspring, more likely to be more undesirables.
 

If you disagree with that then there is no point in having a definition for line breeding - everything would be selective. 


Incorrect. Selection during the breeding process is selection, and breeding along a line of genetics is line breeding. The two are exclusive of each other but not necessarily mutually so.
 
 

And Hood  you comment "However with such a select amount of genetics in this country, and that most people just buy from one source when procuring species, you are working within a genetic line so you are in effect selectively line breeding....and thus my original comment, we are all line breeding." is correct but by circumstance not selectively or for the the purpose of trying to achieve a desired feature, hence technically NOT linebreeding. As I said above we would all love to be able to source our stock from different line to maintain a true representation of the fish we breed. Again the definitions are clear, and they are not mine - I just don't feel the need to contradict them. 


Yes, just as I originally stated, we are all line breeding, just not necessary with a stringent/good/whatever set of criteria/criterion.
 

And finally are Ancistrus varieties linebred or selectively bred? or better still how did they come about a) from different lines or B) back breeding to the same line.?


I assume you are referring to albinos, lemons, etc. again here?
There are a few ways of achieving this, some are more intensive and are quicker, some may take longer.
First an individual has to surface with a desired mutation ie. albinism or leucism in these two cases.
Then you breed that individual to a natural variant ie common. Dependent on whether that particular gene is dominant or recessive, you will get varying amounts of offspring that carry the mutation.
You then select the offspring that have the desired trait and either continue breeding down the line brothers to sister to lock the gene, this takes longer. Often two lines are started so they can be crossed further down the line to freshen up the genes from time to time if any undesirable traits start to surface in to higher frequency in the offspring, or fresh genes from outside the breeding program can be brought in, however this also introduces more new variance into the next batch of offspring in this breeding program. Or you go more intensively and "back breed" to the grandparent. Back breeding is a tool of line breeding.
This then continues until the desired outcome is achieved in a true breeding line.

This is both selective and line breeding to achieve a desired outcome which is different to the naturally occurring variant.
This still has no bearing on whether these same tools can be used to maintain or improve the quality of what is deemed to be true to type.

giphy.gif

#32 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 05 December 2016 - 07:32 AM

We are all aware of the constraints of the hobby in Australia in regard to obtaining quality stock from different lines, that is not the point of this discussion. You are right the definitions do not say "to change" nor does it say "selective line breeding" however it is my understanding, that to achieve a desired feature, change is implied. On one hand all you are telling me is that you believe there is absolutely no difference between selective breeding and line breeding and should be all "selective line breeding"  (The literature would appear to disagree with you.) yet on the other " Selection during the breeding process is selection, and breeding along a line of genetics is line breeding. The two are exclusive of each other but not necessarily mutually so."  you appear to be agreeing with me that they are different?

Your comment "Back breeding is a tool of line breeding" - actually Back breeding IS line breeding. My bad as to my last statement "And finally are Ancistrus varieties linebred or selectively bred? or better still how did they come about a) from different lines or  B) back breeding to the same line.?" This was a rhetorical question and I was not intending to take this discussion down the line of genetic mutations with a full on discussion about 'alleles' and 'homozygotes'.  Your overall comment though in answer to that question would indicate that you acknowledge that there is a difference between selective and line breeding and involves change .

 

This is both selective and line breeding to achieve a desired outcome which is different to the naturally occurring variant.
This still has no bearing on whether these same tools can be used to maintain or improve the quality of what is deemed to be true to type.
 

 In my view ancistrus varieties, along with numerous other fish varieties, discus, angels on so on which are generally a result of initial  line breeding to achieve a desired characteristic should be referred to as Linebred. This will ensure a distinction from the naturally occurring form and take the guess work out of it for the novice? As I hope to be up for the meeting on Tuesday we can continue the discussion then. Even better still this could be an issue for the committee to take up to establish a code if you will as to what may or may not be referred to as line bred, hybrid etc   I see there was a list of hybrids listed previously and maybe this could be updated to include line bred varieties as well.



#33 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 05 December 2016 - 09:37 AM

If you read my responses I am saying there is selective breeding, line breeding and selective line breeding. Just cause someone doesn't use actual selection for a desired trait when crossing related lines does not mean they are not still breeding down/within a genetic line and thus line breeding. Back crossing is a tool of selective line/line breeding, as is sibling crosses and out crossing etc, as I established in my Ancistrus example, an outcross can and often still is within the line, just a less so closely related line.
No they should be classed as not true to naturally occurring type, or ornamental aquarium strain. Line/selective/selective line breeding is a technique/something you do/something that is done, not a classification.
...and my point still stands, this conversation still has no bearing on whether these same tools can be used to maintain or improve the quality of what is deemed to be true to type.

Edited by Hood, 05 December 2016 - 11:05 AM.


#34 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:00 PM

Yes there is 'selective breeding' and there is 'line breeding' but not 'selective line breeding' - it is one or the other - line breeding by definition is breeding within a line to achieve a desired outcome, it is not open to discussion, it is defined - There is no definition for 'selective line breeding' only selective breeding and line breeding. if you choose to impose your interpretation by adding the word selective to everything to do with Line breeding so be it - It doesn't change the fact that the ancistrus varieties referred to many times above , as well as pretty well every other man made variety is as a result of line breeding. If it was selective breeding we would be destroying the deformities and mutations.  And yes again - line breeding does happen regularly in Australia by necessity and or ignorance to maintain the species but not with the intent of changing anything and if in that process we get a variant we destroy it - wow is that selective breeding or what.

Back crossing is a tool of selective line/line breeding, as is sibling  

And again back crossing is not a tool it IS line breeding. 

 

No they should be classed as not true to naturally occurring type, or ornamental aquarium strain. Line/selective/selective line breeding is a technique/something you do/something that is done, not a classification.

Finally, linebreeding is  the noun and linebred is the adjective, and is therefore an appropriate descriptive word also it is a little less chunky, but I'll go with 'ornamental aquarium strain" all we need to do now is educate all the shops.

 

Anyway I'm going to let someone else have a go - I'm sure there are many more opinions out there other than yours or mine. 



#35 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 05 December 2016 - 04:56 PM

I'm glad you've decided we can use the descriptor ornamental aquarium strain as it takes away negative connotation from selective and line breeding, as these tools can be used to maintain and improve current fish stocks in this country in their true to type/wild/natural form. I'll leave the rest for debate another day. Thank you for your time and good day to you fine sir. :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Hood, 05 December 2016 - 04:57 PM.


#36 Chris Perth

Chris Perth
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 21-June 02
  • Location: Eaton

Posted 06 December 2016 - 06:20 AM

Just read you response and unfortunately I can not let it go unanswered - you are sounding like my ex-wife - always had to have the last word with a twist LOL I did NOT decide to use the descriptor "ornamental aquarium strain" I said "I'll go with 'ornamental aquarium strain" it is your descriptor and your decision to use it. However in view of your additional comment "as it takes away negative connotation from selective and line breeding"  in the fish game I believe a negative connotation is well deserved so I have decided to stick with 'Linebred' as a valid descriptor.

Sorry - I tried to give you a little win with the name ,but you threw it back in my face :-(

 

We have had this discussion solely focused on the aquarium /captive fish industry (and it is an industry, worth hundreds of millions of dollars a year worldwide)  - but I read an article recently that brought to light a greater ecological impact and I quote"If you were to cross two different populations of the same species, say a Threadfin Ranbowfish from Arnhem Land with one from Southern PNG, you are effectively “undoing” about 13,000 years of separate evolutionary history. The progeny no longer represent what exists in the wild. If the mixed genes get back into the wild, deliberately or accidentally, we have effectively interrupted the evolution of the species. This is why serious keepers of some fish, and some conservationists, see crossing of wild types as equivalent to hybridisation in terms of evil practices." 

 

And before you start jumping up and down - I know this refers to cross-breeding and hybridisation (synonymous) but the ramifications would be similar if say some linebred lemon bns were introduced back into the wild populations?  Thousands of years of Natures work undone, 

 

Yeah - line-bred does deserve a negative connotation because Iike the clown selling crosses (the original subject of this thread) need to know that this is not OK and can have ramifications far beyond what the individual could imagine. 



#37 Hood

Hood
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 06-February 08
  • Location: Clarkson, WA

Posted 06 December 2016 - 07:09 AM

I wasn't having a jibe mate. I was pointing out my original intention right from my original comment.
Look it's alright, I'll just log you away as another one of the odd balls that complains about all manner of the aquarium hobby, but refuses to consider any possible ideas in which we can improve things. "No lets just plug on the same way we have for years, but gees quality of fish have gone to crap..."
Right from point A.) you have fought me, you were condescending in your posts to me and others which in turn I ramped up my condescension in return. Do you really think fish from Perth are ever going to be released back into the wild? Our fish will always be different as they were raised in tanks and fed different food to what they would eat in the wild etc. etc.
It's the aquarium hobby industry mate. The best, most prettiest form of fish is going to keep the hobby alive, and there is no reason that can't happen with natural true to type variants, which can be maintained and improved through selective line breeding.
I'm sorry you took my final comment in such a negative way, and could not just leave it be, even though that is what you said you would do, I was just acknowledging your post and bidding you a good day.

#38 Poncho

Poncho

    Vice Presidente Castro

  • Committee
  • Joined: 20-January 06
  • Location:Warnbro
  • Location: Warnbro

Posted 06 December 2016 - 07:53 AM

Guys the discussion is turning into a bit of a petty argument over words rather than the issue being discussed.

I don't want to lock it down as it can be constructive discussion and it's an issue that should be discussed more. Can you both just take a couple days off from commenting on this particular thread and let the tension dissolve first before continuing please.

Hopefully someone else can comment in the meantime - some interesting philosophies here being raised.

#39 chrishaigh82

chrishaigh82
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-February 16
  • Location: South Perth / Canning Vale

Posted 06 December 2016 - 08:09 AM

if zoo's were to line breed say an all black or all white panda bear. It would not be right, even though it would have the same latin name.

 

An all black and all white panda would be awesome.



#40 moses123

moses123
  • Forum Member
  • Joined: 08-November 15
  • Location: Dianella

Posted 06 December 2016 - 06:34 PM

Also known as a polar bear and black bear




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users