Jump to content





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

International Guest - Adrian Indermaur - March 6th - Details here

PCS Photo Competition 2017 - Enter Now - Details here

February PCS Meeting  - Auction Night Tues 6th February - Details soon

February Fish of the Month -  "TBA" - Details soon

PCS Family BBQ Fun Day 2018 - January 14th - Details here


Photo

What L144's Really Are


  • Please log in to reply
36 replies to this topic

#21 Hood

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

Posted 18 November 2016 - 05:36 AM

I'm sure if you did punnet squares you could figure out the percentage you'd get from each batch. But you kinda first have to know/make a basic assumption about the fishes genetics. As for all we know your fish could have been crossed with albino or calico gene carriers way in the past before you acquired them. Since they are recessive gene and require double doses to get closer to 100% fry and fix the gene for that mutation in place. But you randomly breeding random pairs then getting small amounts of albino's or calico's after only the third batch does not confirm that this was a natural throw or just a recessive trait showing itself from a crossing in the past. You might have even been getting small numbers in all your spawns, but being that albinism and calico are known to be of weaker genetics due to the mutation, it is possible the fry in earlier batches died out very early on.
Just brainstorming on the genetics side of things. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#22 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 19 November 2016 - 02:03 AM

depends on the gametes at the time of spawning - much more random then you think... tried many times to predict outcomes and mostly were wrong... better things in life, to worry too much about fry outcomes of b/n :) 



#23 Hood

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

Posted 19 November 2016 - 07:35 AM

Haha. Fair enough. Thank you for your time to discuss with me your observations johno. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#24 Hood

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

Posted 19 November 2016 - 07:35 AM

Haha. Fair enough. Thank you for your time to discuss with me your observations johno. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#25 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 20 November 2016 - 01:44 AM

and calico genes are quite strong - almost on par with commons... albino and leucistic which are weaker genes... well IMO anyway....

 

breed a common with albino - get no albinos generally

breed a common with calico - get up to 50/50 common / calico... very rarely more calico than common... 



#26 Hood

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

Posted 21 November 2016 - 05:29 AM

Awesome. Thank you again for your observations. I may just have to do some different BN pairings for myself to do some research into this. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#27 Hood

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

Posted 22 November 2016 - 05:08 AM

Oh yeah just remembered. Any thought as to why the false L144's do not have spots like other b/n? Leucism is responsible for the pigment, but why would they have no spots like other b/n? Typically leiucism still displays patterning and only coloring is effected.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#28 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 23 November 2016 - 12:17 AM

i dont have the answer for that... only a theory that perhaps the spots you refer to are the same colour as the fish..... i have some albinos with almost no spotting... just a few faint outlines.... not familiar with leucism in other fish - cichlids generally dont interest me unless they are surrendered to become rtc poop.... :)



#29 Hood

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

Posted 23 November 2016 - 05:06 AM

Ok cool. Thanks again for the response I appreciate it. :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#30 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 24 November 2016 - 01:11 AM

had a good look today at albinos and lemons - both same as for patterning and spots,,, they are there just you have to look harder... more prevalent in adults.... obviously different albino lines as some have more noticeable spots than others... some lines very yellow without any colour food.... and some very white.... 

get colour variations in commons depending on their environment and food and water parameters in the same blood line... more than likely its the same with albinos and lemons... 



#31 Hood

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

Posted 24 November 2016 - 06:22 AM

My albinos have lots of spots, as do my commons Etc. But not one of my L144's have any sign of spots what so ever. I know calico's don't as the pattern is substituted for splotching. But yeah, none at all on my lemons. In cichlids leiucism doesn't normally effect patterning as far as I'm aware. So maybe it was part of the selection process used when isolating the leucistic gene and then crossing back to lock it in place for true breeding subsequent generations. So here is a thought, we know the one L144 male was shipped to Germany and bred to common BN then back to the L144 male to lock the leucistic gene in place to create what looked like L144. It's then mentioned that these fish died out...but what if the common looking offspring from the first few crossings were circulated into general population? Then surely some subsequent spawnings would throw some small leucistic gene L144 crosses. What if this is where our current L144 BN come from? this may also explain the lack of patterning if it is in fact a throw back gene that has been locked into place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Hood, 24 November 2016 - 06:32 AM.


#32 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 25 November 2016 - 12:21 AM

nah it didnt happen - i know where the original fish come from.... secret squirrel :)

 

my lemon b/n have patterning - you just have to look harder when they are adults... 9-10cm and the spotted pattern is there....

i have had albino fry and lemon fry growing up in same tank and the only distinguishing feature is their eyes.... 

you'll notice the sash of lighter colour on their tails - same as other bristlenose.... more prevalent on the long fins....


Edited by bigjohnnofish, 25 November 2016 - 12:26 AM.


#33 Hood

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

Posted 25 November 2016 - 07:19 AM

So you know something about how these came about that isn't on record do you?

Yeah looking at my lemon breeders. Definitely no patterning on mine. No sash on the tail or anything. Maybe mine are different to yours?
I'll see if I can get a picture when the big fellas out of his cave.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

#34 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 26 November 2016 - 01:06 AM

the chances of leucistic fish appearing from normal breeding stock is approx 1 in a 100,000.... although that ratio has been significantly reduced over the years with different chemicals present in aquarium water having effect on the mutation of genes.... 

so the possibility of getting one leucistic bn is prob like winning the lottery.... but to have 2 leucistic bn and they turned out to be male and female and survive and breed is quite an amazing feat on its own.... from the original fish have spawned many leucistic fry which have travelled far and wide and once demanded $500 for a single 3-4cm fry to todays price of about $10.... 

theres nothing stopping someone else from putting an albino bn over lemon bn and im sure this would alter some genetic makeup and will explain any slight differences you may have,,, you may not even have pure lemons anymore lol :) 

leucism is responsible for quite a varying effect on skin colour of animals so i see no difference in fish....

 



#35 Hood

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

Posted 27 November 2016 - 01:02 AM

Selective linebreeding can lock any mutation in place after only a few generations. You don't need a pair with the trait, just one fish. Breed one leucistic fish to a normal and about 25% of the fry will be leucistic, 25% will be completely normal and 50% will look normal but carry the recessive leucistic gene. The same goes for all recessive gene fish, most obvious example would be the batches of longfins where we see not all offspring being longfin, the gene has not been 100% locked in place yet. Back to my example, breed those offspring back to the grand parent and you will get at least 50% of the offspring showing the desired trait the other 50% will be gene carriers. Do one more cross and badda Bing, the resulting offspring you can breed together to produce 'true' breeding offspring. I still see no real evidence saying that this couldn't have happened from the common looking offspring of the L144 crosses as essentially they were using this wild leucistic male to introduce the desired mutant gene. This seems more likely to me than just a random leucistic fish just turning up without having it in it's ancestry somewhere. Crossing an albino with a lemon still follows the same rules I outlined above. You'd just be creating albino lemons as albinism and leiucism are in different gene locales. Plenty of examples of this can be seen in such fish as the albino fire fish/dragon bloods Etc. They show traits of both leiucism and albinism. I still think there is something to my lemons not having any spots whatsoever, in stark contrast to my albinos which have lots. I do believe mine to be true breeding as that is what the resultant offspring show. But our conversation is probably at a stale mate now. Thank you for your time. I do always love a good conversation over genetics. :) Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Edited by Hood, 27 November 2016 - 01:03 AM.


#36 bigjohnnofish

bigjohnnofish
  • PCS Club Member
  • Joined: 02-August 10
  • Location: Banjo Country aka just past Mundaring

Posted 28 November 2016 - 12:09 AM

are you assuming leucism to be a dominant allele or recessive alleles... has been documented that both exist....

so do you think your lemons are homozygous or heterozygous.... 

 

the basic rules of genetics to predict outcomes of b/n spawns really doesnt apply.... very random and depends a lot of the gamates at the time of conception... 

in simple terms female has for example 100 fertile eggs... male will be producing far more sperm to fertilize and produce zygotes (fertilized eggs)....

so this male may produce 1000 sperm for example.... this male may carry some form of leucism - lets say 25% for arguments sake so there will be 750 common alleled sperm with its characteristic alleles and 250 sperm with leucistic alleles.... out of 1000 sperm its totally random how many actually fertilize the 100 eggs... its quite possible that the zygotes formed contain no leucistic alleles from the male bristlenose... or only a few or 50/50 or 100%..... it all depends on which taddies swim the fastest.....

i hope i put that in as easy to understand terms so you get it... and dont waste the rest of your days trying to predict fry outcomes of bristlenose :) :) :) 



#37 Hood

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

Posted 28 November 2016 - 06:03 AM

I wouldn't pretend to assume whether my fish are heterozygous or homozygous for the allele. As I haven't spawned them enough to analyze enough offspring. That and I'd have to spawn them to what I assume to be true commons to get any kind of true accuracy/understanding anyway.

Like I said before I thankyou for your time and advise. I just do not like being told the old 'trust me, I know who made them and how they were made' and then not much else that is confirmed info wise.

I understand that this is just often the case when it comes to fish...but it doesn't mean I still don't like to ponder as to just what/how they came about.
Thank you again, I do love a good theoretical debate on genetics. I hope you have a good day Johnno. It's been too many years since our last face to face. What has it been, like 6 years now? :)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users