# Other Aquarium Forums > Freshwater Fauna > Killifish >  Crossing breeding gardneri and australe? Albino Gardneri

## gary35111

I have been following the messages between Mr Loh and Drew regarding breeding and raising australe and the very much interesting topic of cross-breeding and hybrid.

The message by Mr Al Baldwin make me even more curious on hybrid. I searched a little on the internet and came across this really unique albino Gardneri. I never know that there are albino killies, I thought that only happens in guppy.

Actually, the picture look more like an orange australe to me, the only different is that instead of having orange skin and red spots , it has white skin and red spots, and yeah, red eyes. 

 :Very Happy:  Mr Loh in one of his message to Drew, said "If you use your male Chocolate to mate with the females of the orange, I don't know what the offsprings will look like but I bet they will be very colourful. It would be like when a Chinese marry a Malay. The offspring can either be fair or dark but he or she isn't a hybrid because both the parents belong to the same species, Homo sapiens. " ....or do you mean asian?

Before I go on, let me make crytal-clear that I have no intention to make any offensive or racist remarks. So please, do not read my message narrow-mindedly. I am just trying to draw an anology, albeit a bad one with human and killies. I am also sorry if my message unintentionally caused knee-jerked reaction to some readers.

I have studied and read a little on anthropology (My education requires me to). Human beings are 99.9% the same but certain spieces of Homo Sapiens (like caucasian or aryan) are different compare to oriental or asian in terms of bone structure - the former has bigger bone composition. The difference is only purely physical on a general basis not intellectual. 

When it comes to an Eurasian marriage, one cannot scientifically and logically says that it is a marriage of "two different spieces". The couple is both technically a homo sapien. That is what baffles me when it comes to this fishy-killies-ethical cross breeding hybrid issues. Killies are killie - fish of the spieces, killie. And if nature allow two different "spieces" of killies to be able to mate and reproduce (Australe and Garneri) if put together, can one really 'naturally' call them killies of "different spieces"? To me, they are more like 'long-lost cousin' after the "flood". 

Whether this killies or that killies belong to this or that spieces, to me, are but all just scientific terms or definition devised by those so-called scientist researching on them to better classify them and convenience themselves in their future research. Of course, the difference in appearance of killies also plays a very powerful role in reenforcing and making us believe that they are "different".

It is ,arguably, a good couse by many killies lovers to ensure that the "pure" strain of killies are not corrupted for it will be a shame to see some of these "natural" killies' genuine and original personality and colour be lost due to massive, unconscientious, irresponsible and reckless cross-breeding. However, personally, I don't see any harm experimenting moderately on breeding new and more colourful killes (if the law of nature allows) for the conscientious killies-lovers, hobbyist or just any responsible person.

Let's all not be hypocritcal, can one really say that the orange, gold or spotless is not a form of 'hybrid'? As Mr Loh had pointed out, these are creation by the commercial croonies chemically to enhance their attractiveness, hence market value. To me, this is a much worst and unethical form of "hybrid" of unnatural scientific colour enhancement with natural killies' colour. Would not killies' NATURAL enhanced colour, be it a production of "hybird" killes, be better off "ethically" than UNNATURAL scientific colour enhancement one?

Hmm...so, if we cross this albino gardneri with any normal australe (orange, gold or chocolate), wouldn't that be like when a Caucasian (light-coloured eyed homo sapiens) marrying an asian (dark-coloured eyed homo sapiens)? 

Just a thought.

Here's the web-site with the picture 
http://www.petfish.net/algar.htm

Regards 

Gary

----------


## RonWill

Gary,
No offence taken here, whether in regards to ethnic or otherwise, but caution should be taken, in large doses, when experimenting, in that the resulting 'Aquarium strain' should be for personal pleasure and not distribution, be it intentional or unknowingly.

Many, myself included, have gone through great lengths and resource$$, to ensure that what's being distributed, are what we received and subsequently maintained (including some lines already maintained for more than 2 years).

It would do me injustice should any of your 'offsprings' be paired to mine as I would have lost a recourse in the event something happens to my breeders. This line would, through such actions, see to their termination. Hence, it wouldn't be surprising when no one entertain the call for buying females when the males are from questionable sources.

That said, I have terminated at least three lines of _australes_ and two lines of _gardneri_, not due to hybridization but from accidental population corruption.

While some term me 'obsessed', it is a necessary evil, if we are to establish ourselves as a serious and reliable source to purchase eggs/fishes from. This trust does not extend just to local hobbyists but international ones as well. Screw this up and you'll find it more difficult to acquire new lines from overseas true-blue breeders (Why should they allow buyers to undermine their effort?). That is probably the main reason why most serious killie-keepers resort to imported eggs and fishes, or from those who care enough.

Personally, I do not endorse those experiments but I'd rather not chastise those who are responsible and informed enough, to appreciate their 'creation' within their own tanks. Fishes are innocent but thoughtless breeders aren't.

Interesting can of worms you've just opened but I bet my killies would love these wrigglers  :Wink:

----------


## CM Media

> I searched a little on the internet and came across this really unique albino Gardneri. I never know that there are albino killies, I thought that only happens in guppy.


Hi Gary, 

Albino is not due to corss-breeding of 2 different species! It can occur in any creature on earth. Have you ever come across albino in human? All albino will have red eyes for sure. In fact, it's not that the eyes are red, it's just that the colour pigment is missing and the red colour is actually the blood vessels. 

How do albino occur in nature? 

Size, colour and sex etc. are all determine by the genes on the 23 pairs of chromosomes in human. A gene is define as the DNA that controls the hereditary characteristic passed down by parents. What I mean here is that the colour pigment is actually make up of 2 genes. In order for albino to occur, the 2 gene that determine the colour pigment must be in recessive form. 

Example 1: 
Parents with 2 X dominant genes will give you 0% albino offsprings. 

Example 2 
If 1 parent has a recessive gene. The chance of having an albino albino offspring is also zero. 

So you need both parents to have a recessive gene each in order to have albino offspring. The percentage is 50% 

But if both parents are albino, they'll give 100% albino offsprings. There is 0% that any offspring will bare the normal pigment. 

Hope I do not confuse anyone. I've almost given back 70% of what I learnt during my school days.  :Opps:  

My proud albino_ Nothobranchius rachovii_

----------


## whuntley

Sermon Mode <ON>

Back when I first bred killifish, almost a half-century ago, biology considered any two individuals who could create viable fertile offspring were, by definition, of the same species.

If they produced "mules" like a horse and donkey, the sterile offspring proved they were different species. Well, a horse and a donkey have totally different numbers of chromosomes, and that is what actually causes the sterility.

More closely-related animals, like cows and bison, were found to produce fertile offspring (sometimes) despite being classed before as separate species.

Finally, biologists changed the definition of species to base it on relative reproductive isolation, and the concept of sterile offspring was chucked out completely. DNA and other modern study methods have proved that change was probably the right way to go.

Different species can hybridize to produce fertile offspring, but fertility may be a bit low and drop with each following generation. Eventually, they may become impossible to reproduce and are lost from the hobby. I see signs of exactly that happening with a recent popular ARN import.

This happened many times in the '60s, '70's and early '80s as one beautiful species after the other was being lost to the hobby. Species preservation groups, like the Killifish Conservation Committee (KCC) of the AKA were organized to keep at least some of the prettier and easier fish going in the hobby.

AKA decided that one way to stop the bleeding was to encourage folks to identify their fish by either a collection location, a collector's code, or both. They asked that folks not risk hybrids by breeding stock from different locations. Old, fertile strains were "grandfathered" by assuming they were not hybrids and called "aquarium strain." Those were fish that hobbyisits could feel free to select for long fins, or warped bodies, or whatever, but they often bring far less money at auction and are shunned by most experienced hobbyists. 

One exception is that good, reliable strains of easy fish are maintained by we with more experience, so we have stock for beginners that will get them going on the right track. I have some GUE eggs I plan to hatch, this week. They are a very pretty aquarium strain and were the first species of killifish I ever had, back about 1958! I also have an aquarium strain of FIL that I enjoy. Many of us were really disappointed when we lost the lovely FIL Lagos CI-91 that made it for about 4-6 generations.  :Sad:  Despite the best efforts of at least a half-dozen experienced breeders, they died off. Bet you can't find one in the hobby, now.

Nothing is so discouraging to a new hobbyist as to be given fish from a commercial import from Lagos that he cannot hope to keep going for more than one or two generations. Nearly all commercial shipments from Nigeria have been coming in with utterly fake "locations" and females of related but wrong species mixed in so the exporter doesn't have to compete with breeders in the destination countries. It might just be carelessness, but the consistency with which it has happened tends to make that excuse pretty weak.

Fish brought back by responsible collectors have become the backbone of the hobby. They tend to be easy to breed by the second or third generation, and almost never have the "creeping infertility" of a CI (Commercial Import) from Monrovia or Lagos.

No one is discouraged from experimentally trying hybrids, and their results should be made available to the hobby as information. I just don't want my aquarium strains of FIL and GUE to be mixed with them because of the potential fertility problem. That's why we ask anyone doing hybrids to keep them out of circulation for the general good of the hobby. I think it makes pretty good sense. YMMV.

Sermon Mode <OFF>

BTW, before doing any experimental breeding, the breeder should have a clear idea of the difference between a family a class, a genus, a species, and a strain (as well as sub-genus and sub-species). I wasn't sure if Gary was 100% aboard on those particular words. I'd like it if one of our more biologically literate would give us a short description of how those divisions came about taxonomically, and why they are important.

Wright

----------


## TyroneGenade

If I recall correctly Scheel sucessfully crossed _australe_ and _gardneri_. The resulting fish were infertile.

tt4n

----------


## gary35111

Mr Au S L said,"

Hi Gary, 

Albino is not due to corss-breeding of 2 different species! It can occur in any creature on earth. Have you ever come across albino in human? All albino will have red eyes for sure. In fact, it's not that the eyes are red, it's just that the colour pigment is missing and the red colour is actually the blood vessels. 

"

 :Cool:  I don't think I ever stated that albino is due to cross-breeding of 2 different species in my message. I just expressed my  :Shocked:  that there can be albino in killies. Up till then, I have never seen or read on one before  :Opps:  Perhaps I am still very ignorant when it comes to killiy fishy.  :Confused:   :Laughing:

----------


## stormhawk

Hello Gary,

Albinism as a trait has been recorded in more than one population of the gardneri. Out of the 3 or 4 subspecies under gardneri, at least two of them have been known to produce albino offspring or at least two different phenotypes in a single generation.

Albinism has also been recorded for some South American killifish, namely Simp. (Nem.) whitei and Austrolebias nigripinnis. Also as Au has illustrated in his pictures, even East African species such as the Nothobranchius are capable of producing such offspring.

While this trait is not often seen, it is regarded more as a recessive trait. My knowledge of genetics is rather rudimentary but it is good enough for me to know when to mix and when not to mix. 

Cross-breeding, if done to save a species from extinction, may be necessary indeed but not if it is done on a personal whim just to create a "hybrid" of sorts. Take the "luohan" or flowerhorn cichlid for example. Created from a cross between 3 or more species in the "Cichlasoma" or whatever genus they are now, they are a testament to the stupidity of man to create something "new". 

In these hobby we have two kinds of hobbyist. One that sees no wrong in crossing known lines since they're all of the same species, and one that ensures that coded lines are kept intact as they are.

I belong to the second group and will give a reason as to why I am in it.

These fish or should I say, populations of a species, exist because of hundreds, maybe thousands of years of isolation have caused several traits to be different from their cousins in another location a short distance away.

Take for example the species _Simpsonichthys hellneri_.

A friend of mine recently mentioned to me that among the four or more populations of this species, they are differentiated by means of intensity of the blue scales on their flanks and also the richness of their colour. 

Now would I be doing the species a favour if I intentionally cross the different populations? Maybe I will, maybe I won't but I rather not create an "aquarium strain" when they are already "distinct" in their own right.

As for aquarium bred strains like the australes, we did have a discussion regarding this species which I will not reproduce here. If they were distributed as Orange, Chocolate or whatever it is now, then keep it as such. When you cross them either intentionally or accidentally, then keep them just as australe with no connotations of their supposed parentage.

While its true in the wild there is only the "chocolate" form of the australe, even among this "chocolate" form we see slight variations among the known populations in the hobby.

The collectors did not spend thousands of dollars and countless hours in the bug-infested forests to collect and distribute these species in the hobby. Those hobbyists who spent time perfecting a colour type by means of selective breeding, as seen in the australes and some other species are also counted in this group of dedicated hobbyists. By crossing these lines intentionally we are deliberately *SPITTING* on their efforts.

I emphasise my point because I am sick and tired of listening to two camps argue about this point.  :Evil:  

People tend to think along simpler lines like "hey, if its the same species why not?". Yes why not? The question may ask. But the answer lies within ourselves. If there is a choice to keep the codes and populations intact then by all means do so. It all boils down to whether we are diligent enough to keep the lines as such or whether we're just plain lazy to do so.  :Mad:  

Please pardon this rather long and sermonising post because I am very very disaffected by the actions of some people in the hobby.  :Sad:  

On a personal note to you Gary, ignorance can be cured by means of reading up more. Good luck on your search for more information.  :Wink:

----------


## timebomb

If you go back far enough, we all share the same ancestor. Be you a fish, a worm, a blade of grass, a vinegar eel, a whale or a human, we all originated from a common life form. Through natural selection over a span of a few billion years, life on earth has diverged into countless species. We seem to think that natural selection is perfectly alright but artificial selection is no good. So we frown on those who cross their Killies but we don't seem to mind when hobbyists selectively breed albinoes. In nature, albinoes rarely exist because they suffer from a survival disadvantage. When you're all white, you stand out in a crowd and if you're a prey, you're most likely to be the one who gets picked off by a predator. In certain societies, albinoes are considered sacred. The White Elephant and the White Tiger are a few examples. 

Where would the Golfish hobby be if people hadn't selectively bred the mutants? Be it a Ranchu, a Rhyukin, a Star Gazer, a Bubble Eye, a Pearlscale, they all were selectively bred from a fish that looks like a Carp. Is it wrong to enjoy something beautiful? Is it wrong for some aquatic plant farms to come up with cultivars like the _Echinodorus Oriental_ and _Microsorium pteropus_ "Windelov"? 

I've said this once before and I say it again. If you believe cross-breeding is undesirable and keeping fish with population codes distinct is important, so be it. But don't be critical of others who don't share the same beliefs. Do not discourage hobbyists from buying Killies from the fish shops just because the fish do not come with a population code or identity. Newcomers to the hobby will see us as a bunch of snobs if we push this too far and fish shop owners will resent us for interfering in their business. 

To the layman, it's all very confusing when on the one hand, we speak of keeping species pure but on the other, there are already many varieties of _Aphyosemion australes_ around. The fact that some selectively breed Albino Killies also serves to confuse everyone further. Don't forget that for many hobbyists, all they want is to keep beautiful fish. We sound so imposing sometimes we're turning people away from the hobby. Educate but do not be critical. 

When I first started, I was terribly delighted to get any Killie, even if it wasn't one that came with a collection code. If memory serves, that was true for every Singaporean Killifish hobbyist here. When we were new to the hobby, collection codes and all weren't important because Killies were so hard to come by we were happy to get any. But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too.

Don't be pushy. Don't ask them to return their fish to the shops or to destroy them. We have no right to tell anyone what fish they should or should not keep. Over time, the newbies will understand and they will start asking for collection or population codes. I'm not certain but such codes came about because the collectors weren't sure if the fish were of the same species. A guy collects what he thinks is a _Fundulopanchax gardneri_ from a certain stream. He travels a few hundred miles or even maybe just a few metres and finds a similar-looking fish in another stream. The fish looks similar but the finnages are slightly different or the colours aren't the same. He isn't sure if it's a different species so to be safe, he attaches a collection code to the name. It may take years or forever before anyone comes up with concrete evidence that a _F. gardneri_ N'sukka is the same or a different species from a _F.gardneri_ Baissa. The idea of attaching a collection code to the name is a noble one but over the years, the perception has degenerated into one where a Killie without a collection code is deemed to be less valuable. Frankly, I don't buy that.

Loh K L

----------


## stormhawk

As I have mentioned earlier this is more of a personal preference. My post was not to "push" anyone but rather more of an illustration of my own frustration.

On a personal note I have never been critical of pet shop killies and have bought some myself, as evident in my purchase of a group of Epiplatys togolensis a few months back. So perhaps they were wild, but they are still uncoded fish, as is with some of my other fish.

Value is in the eye of the beholder and people, not just us, tend to attach a higher price to the coded fish. Take the rest of the world for example. Perhaps you may not buy that but many others do. 




> But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too.


Had we been snobs then I'd be one of those that got snubbed. Wherein lies the snob in all of us? I bet at least everyone has one or two uncoded fish swimming around. I have uncoded fish of some SAAs and still they are beautiful. In as much as I feel the need for codes sometimes the beauty of the species blurs out that aspect. That I would agree. But if there is a choice between a coded and an uncoded, I'd go for the coded fish only because genetically it has retained its traits from years of geographical isolation.

While people may feel its OK to cross-breed just as long as they're the same species, each population has a slight variation to their phenotype and perhaps other traits. A difference in karyotype will also render the following generation infertile as evidenced in the species _Aphyosemion escherichi._




> Don't be pushy. Don't ask them to return their fish to the shops or to destroy them. We have no right to tell anyone what fish they should or should not keep.


We have never asked anyone to return their fish to the shops or destroy them. We have only sought to educate people about the fallacy of buying such fish when the females are evidently mixed. Wherein lies the good in buying such fish when almost always they will end up hybridising the fish deliberately or accidentally. Though sometimes these words may sound harsh but it is for their own good that we tell them so. It is ultimately up to these people to do what they feel is best.

Personal feelings aside, it is true that nobody can tell someone else what to keep and what not to keep. But when we keep quiet and let the beginners buy the wrongly matched pairs unknowingly, then we are doing a great disservice to these people and to the hobby.  :Sad:

----------


## timebomb

> Value is in the eye of the beholder and people, not just us, tend to attach a higher price to the coded fish. Take the rest of the world for example. Perhaps you may not buy that but many others do.


My exact sentiments, Jianyang. I'm sure you know how much those so called "stupid" hobbyists paid for their Luohans  :Laughing: 

By the way, my post wasn't directed at you so there's no need to defend yourself  :Smile: 

Loh K L

----------


## stormhawk

Edited this post regarding the explanation of a killie's family tree. Check the new sticky.  :Very Happy:  

Sorry for any inconvenience caused.  :Wink:

----------


## whuntley

Fabulous Jianyang. Even I understood most of it and I'm just a dumb "injuneer."

My earlier post as to how the collection "fetish" came about wasn't to discourage any hobbyist from keeping fish he/she likes. It was an attempt to educate and to show that we all have some non-coded fish that we keep and like. That is, it was an attempt to explain to a newbie why we react the way we do and not an effort to tell them how to keep what fish.

I hope no one took it the wrong way.

Wright

----------


## stormhawk

LOL Wright. You're not a Injuneer but the Chief Bloviator.  :Laughing:  

That said, I've decided to move the posting and set it as a sticky.  :Wink:

----------


## timebomb

> That said, I've decided to move the posting and set it as a sticky.


Good thinking, Jianyang. The post was well-written and easy to understand. It deserves to be a sticky.




> My earlier post as to how the collection "fetish" came about wasn't to discourage any hobbyist from keeping fish he/she likes. 
> I hope no one took it the wrong way.


Don't worry about it, Wright. We wouldn't have made you Chief Bloviator if we didn't think you were someone special. I'll elaborate a bit more about why I think some of us seem pushy but that will come as a new topic. It will take a while for me to compose my thoughts but it's gonna be another can of worms, that's for sure  :Laughing: . 

Loh K L

----------


## hwchoy

_stormhawkii_, I would respectfully request that you mention that the generic and specific epithets be customarily written in _italics_.

----------


## stormhawk

Point noted will edit accordingly. Thanks.  :Wink:

----------


## RonWill

> Where would the Golfish hobby be if people hadn't selectively bred the mutants?


 Each of these goldfish variants were bred and appreciated for different characteristics and with exception of the Rhyukin and Star Gazer, I've bred the ones you mentioned including the Black Moor and Oranda, but never once did I contemplate cross-breeding a Ranchu and Bubble Eye  :Shocked:  




> If you believe cross-breeding is undesirable and keeping fish with population codes distinct is important, so be it. But don't be critical of others who don't share the same beliefs


 Kwek Leong, the culture of this forum is akin to that of killie-keeping. We discourage, with a firm hand, SMS-styled postings and we should strive for that same mindset with crossings between different valid species. What a hobbyist do within his tanks cannot be governed but to circulate the resultant hybridized fishes is IMHO, one step backwards.




> Do not discourage hobbyists from buying Killies from the fish shops just because the fish do not come with a population code or identity


 That is not the main issue. I maintain and enjoy uncoded killies as well and if you can recall, we did split a bag of 50 _Ps. annulatus_, not because they had population codes but because we like them. FWIW, the ANN still rank high amongst my favourites. To be critical of others with store-bought killies would be hypocritical.




> Newcomers to the hobby will see us as a bunch of snobs if we push this too far...


 Strange that you should mention this but recently some newcomer snubbed that the killies I'm maintaining were the 'common ones' and then nonchalantly ignored my explanation that killifishes are becoming more readily available because of a growing awareness and that some local hobbyists are breeding them.

There ought to be some pride, or at least some satisfaction, in being able to breed, raise and make killies available for distribution but when a newbie hobbyist (to fish keeping and husbandry) expects to buy 'rare killies' off the rack, I wonder who's 'snobbing' who.




> ...and fish shop owners will resent us for interfering in their business


 I don't see that likely to happen. The suppliers to LFS might get ticked off but not LFS operators, who are 'lost' with no clear directions what the next thrend will be after the Lor Han/Flowerhorn craze. Our persistence in promoting the killie hobby has in fact lead to more killies in LFSs' tanks. (I think they should thank us instead of resentment)




> When I first started, I was terribly delighted to get any Killie, even if it wasn't one that came with a collection code. If memory serves, that was true for every Singaporean Killifish hobbyist here. When we were new to the hobby, collection codes and all weren't important because Killies were so hard to come by we were happy to get any


 Prior to your first pair of killifishes, all I had were *Fp. GAR 'Baissa'*, N'sukka and a few lots of uncoded fishes but I enjoyed them just the same. Your first pair of *Simp magnificus* wasn't coded either but we felt they were magnificent, didn't we?




> But now, we're beginning to sound like a bunch of snobs, turning up our noses at those who keep or buy Killies without collection codes. Please don't forget that was how we started on the hobby too


 So what makes it any different now? For one, we didn't have many choices and second, there wasn't a local forum we could turn to.

I'm not against uncoded killies but feel sympathetic towards those who think it's cool to come up with 'something different'.




> I'm not certain but such codes came about because the collectors weren't sure if the fish were of the same species


 From our end, we can but try to maintain them as they are.

Folks, I won't be anal about the issue but time will tell if our collaborative efforts and persistence are on the right track.

----------


## timebomb

I would say we have come a long way, Ronnie. When I first started I thought I was alone. By chance, we found each other. If you were female, I think I would have fallen in love with you  :Laughing: .

I see your points and understand your lines of argument. Actually, we're on the same side. I don't like the idea of anyone creating hybrids too but I feel it's only human to experiment. My point is we shouldn't be too harsh on such hobbyists. 

Also, I would like to say that although it's good to be passionate about the hobby, we shouldn't let passion cloud our opinions. When hobbyists experiment with cross-breeding, most do so without any ill-intentions. They're not spitting on us nor the collectors of the fish. In other words, forgive them, for they know not what they do  :Laughing:  

Do not be discouraged or disaffected when the newbies don't follow what we preach. Our goal is to share what we have learnt and to spread the enjoyment of the hobby. We hope all who love Killies become our friends and not our enemies. 

Loh K L

----------


## whuntley

> I see your points and understand your lines of argument. Actually, we're on the same side. I don't like the idea of anyone creating hybrids too but I feel it's only human to experiment. My point is we shouldn't be too harsh on such hobbyists. 
> 
> Also, I would like to say that although it's good to be passionate about the hobby, we shouldn't let passion cloud our opinions. When hobbyists experiment with cross-breeding, most do so without any ill-intentions. They're not spitting on us nor the collectors of the fish. In other words, forgive them, for they know not what they do  
> 
> Loh K L


It should be even more. 

Good breeders might well devote a tank or two to hybrid production, for the knowledge it brings us. A too-rigid policy would make that kind of exploration impossible. We gained a lot of understanding of hybridization problems from the good works of Col Scheel.

Like him, we should never let fish from those experiments out into the hands of innocent hobbyists, but the results of the crosses should be photographed and fertility described in detail in JAKA or the DKG Journal or similar places.

Personally, I'm not emotionally suited to creating fish I know I'm going to have to destroy. Therefore, I never try. From the standpoint of the good of the hobby, I consider that a weakness that does no one any good. Still, we all have to live with ourselves and recognize our limitations.

I believe we need to be ready to bring new breeders aboard on what has happened historically. Col Scheels book ROTOW is a great starting point. We then need to be cooperative and helpful to those who have the scientific urge for knowledge to pursue hybridization on a sound basis.

In SG, you have been so intent upon just getting some variety of species going well, that anything distracting from that is a serious loss. I can dig that. The time will come when you have serious breeders who have a powerful urge to know new things. Support them and cooperate so they generate useful knowledge without feeding a local frenzy for Luhans or Crown Tail Bettas.

That's my view of the situation as seen from across a whole lot of water.  :Very Happy: 

Wright

PS. I still have a powerful preference for wild-type fish. I do cultivars only as they attract new folks and we need that to get them started.

----------


## timebomb

Thanks for your input, Wright. 

I like to have your opinion on a certain subject which I've been keeping to myself and Esther Lee. A while ago, I found a short-bodied _A. australe_ among a batch of fry that I raised. Other than having a short body, he looks perfectly normal and healthy and the bugger's damn cute  :Laughing: .

A year or so ago, Tony Teiceira highlighted on KillieTalk Digest, the appearance of short-bodied _Jordanella floridae_(commonly known as American Flag Fish) in the fish shops of USA. The response from the mailing list was generally one of condemnation. If I remember correctly, you said something about "can't bear to look" at the picture. Someone even went on to call the breeders whom he believed were from Singapore, scum. Sia Meng and Ronnie defended us then.

Correct me if I'm wrong but a short-bodied fish isn't a hybrid. It could be a mutant. In nature, such fish have little chance of becoming a population of its own as whatever recessive gene that causes the short body to come about will probably be filtered away as the fish mates with other normal fish. The same would be true with albinoes.

Natural selection will invariably throw up mutants like short-bodied fish, albinoes, balloon bodies etc. In nature, either they rarely survive long enough or are sufficient in quantity to propagate a whole new population. But artificial selection (selective breeding) can bring about whole new varieties. In the fish shops, there are already many fish that you won't find in the wild. There are Balloon Rams and Mollies, long-fin Danios and Tetras etc. Every Goldfish that exists today was selectively bred from a Carp.

The short-bodied male is with Esther now and she's collecting eggs. I don't know how the fry will turn out but I'm curious. My question is this:

"Am I doing something unethical?" If your answer is yes, I like to understand why. If your answer is no, then my next question would be: "If I can bring about a whole new population of short-bodied _A. australes_, is it wrong to distribute the fish around?"

Loh K L

----------


## Shae

> If you go back far enough, we all share the same ancestor. Be you a fish, a worm, a blade of grass, a vinegar eel, a whale or a human, we all originated from a common life form. Through natural selection over a span of a few billion years, life on earth has diverged into countless species. We seem to think that natural selection is perfectly alright but artificial selection is no good. So we frown on those who cross their Killies but we don't seem to mind when hobbyists selectively breed albinoes. In nature, albinoes rarely exist because they suffer from a survival disadvantage. When you're all white, you stand out in a crowd and if you're a prey, you're most likely to be the one who gets picked off by a predator. In certain societies, albinoes are considered sacred. The White Elephant and the White Tiger are a few examples. 
> 
> I've said this once before and I say it again. If you believe cross-breeding is undesirable and keeping fish with population codes distinct is important, so be it. But don't be critical of others who don't share the same beliefs. Do not discourage hobbyists from buying Killies from the fish shops just because the fish do not come with a population code or identity. Newcomers to the hobby will see us as a bunch of snobs if we push this too far and fish shop owners will resent us for interfering in their business. 
> Loh K L


Your opinion is that we all started from a common life form however it may not be of others, I personaly am a religious man. I am just heqading off to bed so will make it short, If you crossbreed killies in nz, you would in alot of trouble, we have worked extremely hard here to preserve what we've already got.

Shae

----------


## stormhawk

It wouldn't be a good thing to spread those short-bodied offspring, if any, around because they'll just add up to the list of "balloon" variants of a species. Though nobody can stop anyone from doing so, it shouldn't be encouraged. 

It would be a good experiment however to see how many of the resulting fry will turn up with the short body mutation. For all you might know the first generation will not show it, but the successive generation may.

----------


## timebomb

> It wouldn't be a good thing to spread those short-bodied offspring, if any, around because they'll just add up to the list of "balloon" variants of a species. Though nobody can stop anyone from doing so, it shouldn't be encouraged.


Jianyang, the answer I'm looking for is not of one of either encouragement or discouragement. You wrote that it isn't desirable to have "balloon" variants, my question is why?

Loh K L

----------


## TyroneGenade

"Short-body" fish like balloons and goldfish (Orandas) generally come with health problems. They have to fit their entire compliment of guts inside a smaller package (kind of like fitting a Cray super computer into a mini-tower). As consequence these fish often have swimbladder problems or are more prone to internal infections due to bowel obstruction. 

These "short-body" fish are not simply short, they are missing several vertebrae! This is genetic abberation effecting proper development that is most likely due to inbreeding. Time to cross out to another line Loh. 

These fish do not lead the same quality lives as normal fish and IMHO should not be propagated. When I look at balloon mollies and parrot fish I recoil with horror. Those poor animals! Why should they be abused in such a way simply to entertain human curiosity? 

tt4n

----------


## hwchoy

> Jianyang, the answer I'm looking for is not of one of either encouragement or discouragement. You wrote that it isn't desirable to have "balloon" variants, my question is why?
> 
> Loh K L


the same reason why we no longer have the "elephant man" and other freaks in the circus.

----------


## timebomb

Although I'm a bit sceptical, I would say that's the kind of answer I'm looking for. Thanks, Tyrone. I'm sceptical because the short-bodied australe I have seems perfectly healthy. It's probably short of a few vertebrae but that doesn't mean it can't squeeze all its essential organs into its body. Can someone give me a better reason?

As for what you said about recoiling in horror at balloon fish, I wonder how much of that is ingrained in us and how much is due to conditioning. 

Loh K L

----------


## timebomb

> the same reason why we no longer have the "elephant man" and other freaks in the circus.


If that's the reason, Choy, then I think it's a bad one. The "Elephant Man" was considered a freak during his lifetime but now we know he's not. He was suffering from some kind of skin disease. If we call the Elephant Man a freak, it would mean many of us are freakish too  :Laughing: .

I'm challenging the norm. It seems like all the "educated" hobbyists are against breeding fish with short or balloon bodies. What's wrong with that, I ask? The short-bodied australe I have wasn't my creation. He isn't a hybrid. I don't think he's a freak too. He's a creation of nature. What is wrong if I help him to propagate his genes? 

Loh K L

----------


## hwchoy

I'm referring to the shock values these "freaks" create to attract audience. it doesn't matter what caused it.

people just like fishes that look strange/weird/cute/grotesque maybe it is human nature, we just like novelties.

----------


## hwchoy

anyway Freak = A person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed; according to my little online dictionary, so yah certainly the Elephant Man qualifies  :Smile:

----------


## timebomb

> anyway Freak = A person or animal that is markedly unusual or deformed; according to my little online dictionary, so yah certainly the Elephant Man qualifies


That's the official definition but we both know what it means when we say someone's a freak  :Laughing:  

If we say a short-bodied fish is an abberation, would it mean dwarfs and pygmies (I'm referring to humans) are abberations too? Does a dwarf have problems fitting all its essential organs into its body?

Loh K L

----------


## TyroneGenade

> What's wrong with that, I ask? The short-bodied australe I have wasn't my creation. He isn't a hybrid. I don't think he's a freak too. He's a creation of nature. What is wrong if I help him to propagate his genes?


As ethics strictly speaking (according to my philosophy prof) only applies to humans the answer is probably "nothing." You are free to do as you please. If he appears healthy then fine. Breed him. It would be interesting to study the genetics of killi development so please keep his genes about... and keep track of the ratios of deformed to normal young in subsequent generations. Who knows, your little deformed AUS may end up the star in a Nature or Science one day.




> would it mean dwarfs and pygmies (I'm referring to humans) are abberations too? Does a dwarf have problems fitting all its essential organs into its body?


But pygmies have all their vertebrae and have developed normally just that they do not have the same stature as some Sudanese tribesmen.

tt4n

----------


## gary35111

:Smile:  It is funny to see how human express their sympathy to certain man-made ornamentally deformed animals but will not think twice sinking their teeth into that succulent steak, porkchop or curry mutton.

I certainly agree with what Mr Loh say about human conditioning. Have we mankind not be conditioned into believing that it is "okay" to eat these mammals (who are one of the closest living-things to us in term of biological structure) ?

To people who say that they feels angry and sorrow for fishes who are "abused" for being commercially bred for human entertainment,  :Rolling Eyes:  how are these fishes being "abused" when they are swimming happily in the tank, waiting to be bought, fed and put into a place where they will have no fear of natural predators. Of course, it is a total different sad story for the little fishy if you are an irresponsible and sadistic owner who not only starve but over-populate them. 

And for those who will question me how would I know that these fishes are "happy", I will not answer them until they tell me why will they not be "happy" and I am sick and tired of people saying that because they are "mutated", that they are "hybrid" that is why they are being abused and hence a "sad and sorry" fella. I might just believe you if you are a fishy telepathic.

Some may argue that it is unethical for we make these fish "Freakish". 'Freak' is a very subjective term nowadays. In fact, even "unusual" or "deformed" is fast becoming an objectively subjective definition of certain shapes, mannerism and things of nature or man-made. Why is this so? What is freakish ,unusual or deformed to you, may be just "okay" or even "not-to-bad" to me or that him or her down the street in some other part of the world.

I personally believe in 'minimum reasonableness and normalism" in almost all aspects of things and lives and the undeniable facts that different people often see things differently. Therefore, this 'minimum reasonableness and normalism' make me see certain "(beautifully) deformed" but without harms to human and environment fishes or animals as acceptable. 

"Acceptable??!!!  :Evil:  "  :Arrow:  This is what some people may feel. Still, I would say they are acceptable due to the 'minimum reasonableness and normalism". It is reasonable as I understand that the beauty and appeal of these fishes outweight its narrow-mindedly perceived deformity. It is also "normal" in the sense that it is not like the fishes are being deformed to the point of grostesque piece of painful-looking living aquatic life form. 

This "minimum reasonableness and normalism", I believe exist in every individual, it just differ in its content. It is like even though we know that it is morally wrong to kill an adult living mammals, eat meats as the pains, sufferings and bloodshed spill by these slaughtered farm animals far outweight any justification when scientific studies has shown that human being actually has the same length of intestine as a herbivore; still in the name of neccessity be it economical or hunger , or rather for the taste bud and "nutrition" (when we can actually get the same if not better from non-animal sources), we still rationalise that it is "reasonable" and "normal" to eat them and cause so many blood-spilled and ignored cries of anguishs, pains and sufferings from these slaughtered animals. 

 :Laughing:  I would feel better eating meats if I know that these animals were given anaesthetic before having their throats cut  :Crying:  .

Anyway, I don't think the fishes are wailing in pain that their descendents are going to be deformed , in a "beautiful and attractive way", in order to make mankind adore them more. 

 :Exclamation:  Note : It will only be clear-cut unethical and irresponsible when someone deliberately breed fish or deform them in a reckless and negligent way which lead to directly or indirectly the near or complete extinction of the pure nature strain of that particular fish.

 :Very Happy:  If it is just to add a new more aquarium-type oriented spieces (short or fat but just as healthy), why not. Who knows, perhaps it might even be something good to the pure natural type of fish in the sense that MOST people might not even bother about them anymore as they are now considered too "dull" for an aquarium. Hence, these "pure natural fish" can continue swim and breed freely undisturbed in their natural habitat.

( Don't feel like punching me. I am a peaceful person)  :Cool:  Comon' if it is really all about preservation and studies and not ornamental leisure purpose, then we should never have gone into the bug-infested jungles or rain-forests to remove these fishes from their natural habitats and end them up in our beautifully aqua-sculpted planted tanks. 

These fishes should thanks us for bringing them a step closer to paradise. Nice clean filtered water, beautiful lustre plants to nest and hide, prepared or live foods...and even mate! Don't even have to work that out like in the wild...and we make them more beautiful and appealing to our own kind so that there will be more of them to enjoy that quality life...these lucky fellas...

 :Exclamation:  Note : Fishes/Lucky Fellas not referring to poor unfortunate one who ended up with a sadistic fish-hating owner.

So if you ask me if it is "unethical" to breed selectively a form of "mutated" but you think is a cute killie fish, I cannot answer you without prejudice. For conventionally, it is unethical to breed anything "mutated". Perhaps this thought has it roots with human deformity for it is definitely an outright unethical experiment to breed tons of human sufferings (deformed humans) but beautiful cute fishes with potential of quality fishy life?...hmm...

I will just do what I want to do as long as it does not violate the two altruistic principles of pity (dislike for voluntary inflicting harm on innocent beings, that include fishes) and probity (respects for other people rights and properties - that includes their beliefs). 

Will very much like to see or know if that cute short killi of Mr Loh can grow healthily or even procreate..Oops  :Confused:  Have I said something wrong...don't hate me.

Peace out
Gary
 :Opps:  Sorry, I can be very long-winded.

----------


## TyroneGenade

If this thread continues down this line it is going to end up in the "chill out corner." 

I don't think I have been conditioned. Since I can recall I have always displiked balloon mollies. I never found them to be better looking than the normal forms. Same thing for dwarf gouramies etc... As far as I am concerned a pond of comets beat a bowl of Orandas any day. It is purely aesthetics. What looks good to you?

When we talk about "happiness" and "quality of life" of the organism we are indeed walking a thin moral line. Does a women have the right to decide that the fetus inside her should do because she could never give it a quality of life equal to that of rich parents? Should she kill it because it will lower here quality of life and make her unhappy?

This may appear to be way off topic but this is some ways the heart of the matter. I would not advocate that you (Loh) kill your short-body AUS or that Wright kill his hybrid _Chromaphyosemion_ that he had bred for research. We cannot judge the happiness of another organism. Nor can we simply say "it makes me unhappy lets kill it" because if we do not respect the smallest life for what it is then how can we respect any life?

Yes, bacteria have to die or risk them infecting us. And cows and sheep face the block because we as humans NEED creatine and protein to support our brains. You cannot equate cattle farming with the euthanasia of "defective" fish. It is two completely different schools of thought. 

Culling for no practical reason devalues life and slaughtering for food is part of life. And what is practical? Certainly not killing it the organism because it offends your sense of beauty.

tt4n

Please send flames to my personal email address with the subject "skrew you" so that my email filter will automaticly assign it a spam label.

----------


## RonWill

Folks,
I'm beginning to tire from maintaining an unthankful position as far as killie keeping and conservation is concerned. It's a different mindset from the casual hobbyist and it's becoming clear that no amount of information and experience-sharing, will help inculcate and nuture these values.

With no less than 800 described species of killifishes, one can do better with tank space and resources, than to distribute anomalies, especially when there's plenty of other oddities already being circulated.

Wright's opinion reflects my own when he said, "_In SG, you have been so intent upon just getting some variety of species going well, that anything distracting from that is a serious loss_".

I'm not proud of our SG Killie Census and every species that become 'extinct' from our shores, is no gain to anyone. How many species can we say, with absolute certainty, is well established and how much more resources need it take, before we look back in hindsight only to say, "_Dammit, we had the chance but we blew it_".

To envision a vibrant killie-scene is a very nice thought but in order to know where we're heading, we need to know where we've been... and that we already know, by the then-scarce availability and limited local experience.

To be curious is no crime, just as I'd want to know if the *kinky* _Simpsonichthys myersi_ will recover from it's environmentally-induced, hopefully not genetically-linked, abnormality. Upon recovery, even these will not be distributed as I can never be absolutely sure. They will, however, remain with and maintained by those who have so graciously volunteered.

I'm into the killie hobby for the long haul but when I see sub-adult pairs of wild bettas sold at princely sum (with far less hassle), I'm so inclined to raise my brood of 140 _B. unimaculata_ fry and see what it will fetch. Perhaps I should just take the leap with _B. macrostoma_ or $40 Crystal Red Shrimps or rare _apistogammas_... or time for another killie hiatus, perhaps?

----------


## timebomb

Hi, fellas,

Please post your opinions but avoid words like "sick and tired". Such words only discourage others from giving their opinions. I had hoped that this discussion won't turn emotional but perhaps I was expecting too much. As I said earlier, don't be discouraged just because others don't see things the way you do. 

For too long, we have adopted a stand that any fish that isn't pure is an abnormality. Is it really so, that's all I ask? We have some refreshing views from hobbyists like Gary. Is he wrong or is he bringing a new perspective? Let's all look at it from a new angle once again. Let's not simply accept what has been the norm. I'm sure Wright will come up with something which gives a new spin to the whole issue. Where's the Chief Bloviator when we need him? 

By the way, I brought the short-bodied _australe_ home. He's in a tub now and when I have time, I will take his picture.

For the moment, I like to say this - If you truly believe what you do is the right thing, you don't have to be afraid of being challenged. In fact, after this is over and we've come to a consensus, your beliefs will become stronger.

Loh K L

----------


## timebomb

Hi, folks,

Here are the pictures:





I've been contemplating. I like to discuss this furthur but it isn't worth it if this discussion agitates my friends to the point where they lose heart and talk of giving up on Killies. After Wright has his say, I think I will drop the matter altogether. The short-bodied _australe_ will go into my planted tank with the other _australes_ and his eggs will no longer be collected.

What I hope though, is that this discussion has cause you to examine the issue furthur. On your own perhaps, if you don't like to even talk about it. 

Loh K L

----------


## timebomb

Well, what do you know!!  :Shocked:  

Right after my post, I visited KillieTalk Digest and was surprised to find a discussion on Hybrids going on. I was even more surprised, shocked even to read that some folks are *for* the breeding of hybrids. 

If you like to take a look, click here and look for the subject heading "Hybrids".

Loh K L

----------


## stormhawk

If hybridising killies was done along the lines of research as Col. Scheel has previously done with some Aphyosemion species then it is considerably fine with me. From his research we could see the problems caused by hybridising, in that infertility and other problems could come in.

I believe we can't tell everyone to toe the line on this issue so I'll let people make their own personal choices. As once was mentioned, we cannot force people to follow our beliefs, but we can educate them. If they're unable to see the light then so be it.

The fish are innocent. Mankind isn't. What has hybridisation done for the status of some Central American cichlids? There was once a form or variant of the "luohan" that almost resembled a Jack Dempsey. What good would that hybrid have done for the reputation of the Jack Dempsey as a beautiful species to start with? I've seen some cichlid species being offered as a type of "Luohan" and that is blatant misrepresentation.

People are always out for a fast buck. Its in the need for money that greed blinds us to what we should have done in the first place. That is, to maintain our stocks properly without having to have hybrids in the first place.

Why create a fish so that we'll hype up the hobby a little? All we need is a colourful species and every Tom, Dick and Harry will try to be a killie hobbyist. I admit, I was first attracted to killies by virtue of their colour and that they were almost impossible to find in the shops back then. It should always be this way where killies form some sort of exclusivity. 

"Why pay lots of money when I can get such fish from the farms?" That's the reasoning of some folk. Thats when people start to grumble and say why killies are so expensive, why people are so bent on keeping their populations and codes intact and why people are so intent on keeping the forum in check with the rules. I say to these people, fine, grumble all you want but that's not going to change anything.

Some people say killies are boring yet they've only seen the tip of the iceberg. There's a saying in Malay that goes like this -> "Katak Di Bawah Tempurung". Loosely translated it means A Frog Under A Pan. This alludes to the fact that some people blind themselves to the reasons behind doing this just because money becomes a factor to them. 

Creating another aura of "something new" for a new form of killie only adds to the hype. Would it be good for the hobby if everyone thought of it as a fad? To rise and fall with the whim and fancy of the general hobbyist? Some people tell me killies are expensive. If that's the case then don't pay a single dollar for an Apistogramma, Discus, or even an Arowana for that matter.

Frankly speaking, paying a few thousand dollars for an Arowana seems to be nothing for some people yet the natives of this region regard the species as a food fish.  :Rolling Eyes:

----------


## TyroneGenade

That AKA thread must be one of the the most useless in a long time. Were it not for Brian Watter's content it would be utterly of no value. In light of that thread I have no regrets about unsubbing from killietalk a while back... although I will briefly return to render my 2c on this issue.

tt4n

----------


## whuntley

I basically agree with Jian Yang on this,

I have been in the hobby when killifish were virtually unavailable.

I have been in it when I had 150 tanks going to support all my species, and I could get almost anything I wanted.

My strictly personal preference is for wild-type fish in their natural size, shape and coloration. With 1000 species to choose from, only 700 or so even named, I don't have a big urge to do what I did in my early days with guppies.

I worked for several years to perfect a double-swordtail (lyre-tail) guppy that was never quite as gorgeous as an AUS Orange. It was a wonderful exercise for the student in that I learned a lot about genetics. I got it to breed quite true. It also made me look at what nature had done to select wild species, and showed me why those wild fish could swim better and had survival skills that the aquarium fishes had lost.

Like fish, I have kept dogs that have fairly natural configuration, like Rottweilers and Labradors Retreivers. I have known some delightful Pekinese, Bassets and Toy Poodles, but I like the way my dogs run and swim a whole lot better.

I believe the hobby has an obligation to protect itself against practices that reduce the average hobbyist's ability to enjoy the hobby. AKA, based on some disasters in the '70s and '80s, has chosen to discourage distribution of known hybrids. I find absolutely nothing wrong with that. If I wish to experiment with crossings, I feel I am free to do so. I just will not let the offspring of any such experiment out to contaminate the precious gene pool of general hobby fish.

Is that unreasonable?

Wright

----------


## TyroneGenade

No, Wright you are not unreasonable. But on the same not Loh is not unreasonable in wanting to breed his short-body AUS. It would certainly be very interesting from a genetics point of view. Is this one allele? Is it dominant or recessive? Do you have several alleles? How many do you need to get a mutant fish? Loh's fish is invaluable from a scientific point of view. While it may be undesirable to your and Jian Yang's aesthetic senses it may not be undesirable to Loh's. I personally would not want the fish as something to ogle over but I have a penchant for genetics and I find this mutation interesting. I've bred 100s of AUS and never seen anything like it. It is new to me and what ever genetic abberation is at work it is of value. If Loh could breed a pure line I would probably pay to acquire eggs of it. But i certainly wouldn't put it in killie shows as 1) it won't do well so what's the point and 2) we already struggle to maintain the species and strains we have, why add another? 

That AUS does have spectacular fins though! Wow! 

Keep well

----------


## hwchoy

I agree, just as I support glo-fish (_Danio rerio_ implanted with jellyfish genes) for research but not for sales as pets.

----------


## timebomb

> Is that unreasonable?


No, it's not. Not quite to the point but not unreasonable either. Thanks, Wright but you didn't answer my question. I can understand and agree on Jianyang's and your stand on hybrids but what I have isn't a hybrid. 

I asked that you all take a look at the discussions in KillieTalk Digest because I sense a change in attitudes and not because I support the breeding of hybrids. I've always thought the very word "hybrid" is absolutely taboo in KillieTalk but the fact that some hobbyists supported it kind of shocked me. 

I think we're going to have a problem. You all gave good reasons why we shouldn't breed and distribute hybrids around but so far, I haven't heard one convincing argument that doing the same for a short-body Killifish can in any way harm the hobby. Actually, Ronnie came up with a good reason why I shouldn't breed the short-body australe when he spoke of giving up on Killies. But perhaps, I should say "good way" instead of "good reason" because it will stop me from breeding the australe if I know that will cause him to lose heart. It isn't a good reason but a good way, if you know what I mean.

Let's try it again once more, without becoming emotional.

Loh shouldn't breed his short-body australe nor distribute its kind around because..........(please fill in as many reasons as you can).

Loh K L

----------


## nonamethefish

because.....

tank space would be better spent maintaining true species/populations rather than a mutant for curiosity in the hobby?

Or...because its possible that people would unintentionally cross this short bodied to normal fish and people who don't want them would end up with them in the batches of fry as culls?

But then...what do we consider a mutant?--another can of worms...or perhaps vial of fruitflies  :Smile: 

However, I'd say that scientifically speaking this fish is indeed worthwhile to fool around with as far as genetics are concerned.

----------


## timebomb

> because.....
> 
> tank space would be better spent maintaining true species/populations rather than a mutant for curiosity in the hobby?


Tank space isn't a good reason. One can easily acquire more tanks or prioritise space.




> Or...because its possible that people would unintentionally cross this short bodied to normal fish and people who don't want them would end up with them in the batches of fry as culls?


The short body is quite apparent so there's little possibility of unintentional breeding. 




> But then...what do we consider a mutant?--another can of worms...or perhaps vial of fruitflies


I think we shouldn't be afraid of opening cans or worms or vials of fruitflies if we are sincere in understanding more and understanding better  :Smile: 

Loh K L

----------


## whuntley

I generally agree with you, KL, and think you have every right to experiment with the apparently-mutated stubby AUS.

I have a horror of such fish getting out into circulation, because I know a lot of folks actually like Orandas and similar cripples. I, personally, do not, but that doesn't mean you need to subordinate your interests to mine.

I think we need a high level of openness in this area, and to be sure anyone getting such fish knows exactly what they are getting. I fear that will lead to "Balloon AUS" and other weirdnesses, but it isn't my choice. Keep building your species list, and avoid too much divergence for now, is my advice.

Free advice is always worth every penny.  :Very Happy: 

Wright

----------


## RonWill

> Loh shouldn't breed his short-body australe nor distribute its kind around because..........


Crude as it comes... as founding member of the first local killie forum, you're looked upon as the corner-stone and beacon by many of us. What you say and do, especially to those impressionable killie-newbies, will affect the hobby and more likely beyond your control. That should be reason enough. Get them off on the right track*[1]*, guide them and the rewards will come.

2nd unrefined reason:
You're busy enough as is, to even maintain what you have, let alone the newly received _austrolebias_ (whatever became of them??). If you really have *that much* free time, I need help with my tanks  :Exclamation:  




> ...but so far, I haven't heard one convincing argument that doing the same for a short-body Killifish can in any way harm the hobby


I liken your position to this awkard analogy;
Many think nothing of a common man who patronize the brothel but it is unbecoming when a pastor is caught with his pants down.

No, you never laid claim to the pedestal or as 'Mr Know-It-All', but as one whom many have come to respect, there are issues that need discipline.

To experiment with your little 'stubby', in your tanks and for your pleasure, is a personal decision. To then hand this fish over to a killie-newbie (and she's collecting eggs!), is something I cannot accept. I'm not blaming Esther, for she knows not what she's doing, but your good self for lack of foresight. The 'harm to the hobby' will come and is subtle.

The argument on KillieTalk, if you observe closely, is coming from 2 groups;
Kyle*[2]* and some are from the 'casual side of things' who just appreciate nice fishes. Nothing wrong with it provided that's where distribution stop.

Dr Cooper, Goldstein, Watters, et al, are the 'hardcore' who'd strive for lineage preservation (and I believe in that) for future distribution. Why else would they have bothered to collect, study and introduce them to the niche hobby.

I don't believe that mindsets are set in stone and cannot be changed. I was also wrong to disbelieve that this forum can thrive without Singlish and SMS garbage but with education and persistence, I know it is possible but still, a mean feat for an individual. Your position should be beside me (even though I don't wear skirt). Your role should be in line with mine, if we are to see meaningful growth of the forum*[3]*.

Newbies don't understand why we're so anal about 'population corruption' or 'collection codes'? I beg to differ. In private, I've devoted time to 'convert' those, who refused to have killies in their tanks, to learn and nuture a deeper appreciation of conservation, and I can proudly include Kho and Kenny amongst my 'newbies', whom I hope one day, will become serious killie-keepers.

*[1]* I'm willing to contribute a few pairs of AUS EBT 96-27 to your breeding effort and redistribution.

*[2]* IIRC, Kyle is a killie-newbie and I've responed to his GAR ID-request on AKA's forum and I know he is amongst us. He may be new to killies but not necessary new to fish keeping and his views are in line with most casual hobbyist, much like Gary's... "where's the harm", they think, "a fish is still a fish".

*[3]* http://www.angelfire.com/journal2/fi...ie_journey.htm
It was a personal page I started but probably won't be updated. Henceforth, the journey continue from here.

BTW, Tyrone, this thread deserves to be in Killie Arena.

----------


## timebomb

Wright, you being the Chief Bloviator, your views are of paramount importance to me  :Smile:  Seriously, you don't know what a relief it is for me to read what you just wrote.

I share your concern about this getting out of hand, that it will eventually lead to all sorts of mutated Killies appearing in the market. Fret not. The short body _australe_ and his offspring won't be distributed to anyone. I won't sell it to Tyrone even if he offers me a princely sum for it  :Laughing: 

I hope this discussion has led to a new perspective, that anything out of the ordinary isn't necessarily bad. To guide the hobby along its proper course, we have to be able to come up with good guidelines. Guidelines cannot stand up to scrutiny and challenges if we don't have good reasons. It's of no use saying things like there are already hundreds of species or that people are financially motivated when they breed hybrids. We need to come up with good moral and ecological reasons. If we can't, hobbyists who breed hybrids will resent what we do and if that happens, you can bet they will go out of the way to flood the market with hybridised fish. As I've said before, it's only human to experiment. There's a Victor Frankenstein in all of us  :Laughing:  In order to keep him from creating monsters, we have to be able to come up with convincing arguments.

Loh K L

----------


## nonamethefish

On the other hand...what are the reasons for hybrids/selectively bred abnormal fish? I'am not a hybridiser or a Luo-Han fanatic so here's my best guess....

(1) Curiosity or course....wonder what will happen if I cross a blue gularis with a gold gardneri...would I get gardneri color and sjoestedti finnage...?
(2) The search for the perfect killifish/fish. Aquarists wish to try to improve species by selecting and hybridizing species in hopes of spectacular color pattern, size, whatever. This and 1# can also be applied to selective breeding. IMO their is a muddy line between selectively breeding for good color/vitality for the general health of the fish and breeding for a certain strain or color traits etc. You can do the latter unintentionally too.
(3) Scientific reasons such as for taxonomy. I'm pretty sure most everyone is fine with this providing results are destroyed.
(4) Money: Not to point fingers or accuse all people who make hybrids but the creating of the perfect fish would then become a possible money revenue. We all know flowerhorns go for often ridiculous prices.
(5) The opportunity: Ok, confess guys, if you were raising a species in which albinos were not previously known and spot an albino in a batch of fry what are you going to do? Are you going to cull it? Perhaps you start to see the dollar sign(#4)
(6) Personal preference/customs of the hobby niche: Some people just enjoy fish with long fins, doub tails etc. or otherwise the challenge of creating and maintaining beautiful strains. This in many other parts of the hobby has been widely accepted.
(7) Authority or right....aquarist wishes to excercise priviledge or ability to manipulate the fish?

And reasons for maintaining 
(1) Again, personal preference. Some people just appreciate fish as they came from the wild and the natural beauty they possess. 

(2) Do not want to risk infertility: Keeping populations/species seperate helps prevent sterile fish. 

(3) Conservation: Related to number 2...if we keep species and populations pure we are more likely to have them in the future.
(4) hobby niche: In the killifish hobby it is in general frowned upon to make hybrids and many people don't even want fish lacking collection codes(other end of the extreme). Therefore, most killifish fanatics will end up "purebreed" hobbyists.

Any more for either side? Just trying to get a good view here  :Smile:  

~Joseph

----------


## timebomb

> Crude as it comes... as founding member of the first local killie forum, you're looked upon as the corner-stone and beacon by many of us. What you say and do, especially to those impressionable killie-newbies, will affect the hobby and more likely beyond your control.


 :Shocked:  Well, I guess that's a really good reason although I have never seen myself as a corner-stone or beacon  :Smile:  But Ronnie, that reason applies only to me so it makes little sense to others.




> You're busy enough as is, to even maintain what you have, let alone the newly received _austrolebias_ (whatever became of them??). If you really have *that much* free time, I need help with my tanks


I'm still keeping a close watch on the _Austrolebias_ eggs but darn it, they're not even eyed-up yet. I don't have much free time, that's true but I like to have a few species going in my tanks. I keep the _Aphyosemion australes_ and _Nothobranchius rachovii_ because these are the species the newbies look for when they write me for Killies.

I might have been a corrupting influence on some but I like to think we're open-minded enough to let the newbies ask sensitive questions and hear their views. I like to think too that nothing is taboo on Killies.com. 

Loh K L

----------


## timebomb

> Any more for either side? Just trying to get a good view here


What about this, Joseph? We all love playing God  :Smile: 

Loh K L

----------


## nonamethefish

LOL Timebomb: Thats quite true.

I have noticed that people don't seem to really want albino killifish(and much less hybrid killies). I remember observing the Aus. nigripinnis albino auction on aquabid which apparently no one bid on(No offense to anyone who happens to like them) and kind of though that for a fish that is famed for being "like stars in a summer night" albinos just didn't seem fitting. 

Going back a few pages...Dealing with all the infertility issues of hybrids wouldn't it would be hard to truly mass market to the public as feared? Unless the results are truly electrifying most people won't know the difference.

----------


## hwchoy

just to gently remind that select breeding of a strain or variety is entirely different from hybridising. I'm sure most of us knows that just sometimes we forgot the distinction during the debate.

----------


## timebomb

> just to gently remind that select breeding of a strain or variety is entirely different from hybridising. I'm sure most of us knows that just sometimes we forgot the distinction during the debate.


Thanks for the reminder, Choy but I think we're all aware of that. The agreement on hybrids is unanimous. Hybrids are undesirable; we shouldn't cross-breed unless we know exactly what we're doing and the offspring should never be distributed. 

The line becomes a bit thin when it comes to mutants. I would say it isn't wrong to breed them but the possibility of the market being flooded with all sorts of mutants is very real. In fact, observing what has happened to the Tetras, Mollies and Platies, the original would be lost after a while. I bet the young guys here don't even know that the original Zebra Danoi and Black Tetra do not come with long fins but these are what you find in the fish shop these days. And who can remember what the original Black Molly looks like? Come to think of it, is a Black Molly a mutant actually? Isn't the original colour red or orange?

Loh K L

----------


## hwchoy

a similar topic came up in a shrimp forum. I mentioned I have several kinds of shrimps hybridising in my tank and I gave them the name "Jaguar" shrimp. The guys were keen to obtain some but as per my standing philosophy, no distribution of any hybrids.

similarly, many people cannot distinguish hybrid shrimps vs selectively bred strains such as Crystal Red.

----------


## timebomb

> Going back a few pages...Dealing with all the infertility issues of hybrids wouldn't it would be hard to truly mass market to the public as feared? Unless the results are truly electrifying most people won't know the difference.


I don't understand what you mean by not knowing the difference but we have seen what happened with the FlowerHorns so we know it's not difficult to mass market a hybrid fish. The FlowerHorn craze was one where no one could foresee how crazy it can become. People who have never kept fish in their lives were buying them by the dozens and they were suckered into spending hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to possess the fish. It did a lot of good for the fish shop owners who were going through a trying period (Asian financial crises fallout) but it did nothing for the hobby in general. There was no attempt to educate the crowds but the marketing, the drive to push the LuoHans to the masses was incessant. The aftermath of the LuoHan craze is one where we now find many of them in the local streams and ponds. Singapore isn't economically dependant on agriculture or this will be a national disaster.

I do believe the fallout when the Luohan craze died and the general aversion to it by the more "enlightened" hobbyists have led to the present view that any fish which isn't pure is bad. We all went overboard when we started to condemn short-body fishes and uncoded Killies. 

We need a new perspective.

Loh K L

----------


## nonamethefish

I don't know much about cichlids...but I think one thing that made Luo-Han so volatile is that they were still fertile and could thus be backcrossed and crossed again to make all kinds of different looking fish. Killie hybrids for the most part run into fertility problems or egg development problems somewhere down the line which would prevent people from going insane in exactly that fashion.

I remember reading on killietalk archives when someone mentioned that many times aquarium strain fish are often more hardy and colorful than location fish. He used Aus. nigripinnis, SJO, and a few others as examples. I find it sad that currently in the F&E listing that aquarium strain N. foerschi needs some pretty extreme help to keep a foothold in the hobby. I wonder if this thinking goes further we might lose, say, Fp. scheeli since this fish doesn't seem to have any locations.

----------


## stormhawk

Hi KL,

The Black Molly we have in the hobby now is a mutation of the regular _Poecilia sphenops_ or what we otherwise term as a "longkang" or drain molly. These are the ones that are silvery in colour and rather drab so to speak. Bred in the millions for the feeder fish industry.

This species has also been crossed with the other mollies to create the lyretail form, which incidentally, exists in the wild naturally in some individuals.

Hi Choy, yes I understand that selectively breeding for a colour type or finnage type is totally different from hybridising but there have been times where similar and related species were used in the selective breeding process. This was to infuse a requirement like a certain type of finnage or colour pattern that the other species possessed. When this type of "selective breeding" by means of infusing genes from related species, the line between "selective breeding" and hybridising becomes blur.

Aquarium strain fish are naturally hardier than their coded cousins because they have a combination of genes that makes them variable in tolerance to current conditions in an aquarium. That in a way makes them stronger but dilutes the differences between some populations. However, this hardiness can come at a cost for us who actually keep them. When you obtain an aquarium strain, you will not know how they were raised, how they were obtained and whether they were bred follow intraspecific methods without outcrossing or hybridising to other related species.

In farms they require fast growing fish to meet the demands of the market. If the fish are fed with growth hormones to enhance their growth and also fed colour enhancers excessively, their fertility is severely impaired. Furthermore, fish fed with growth enhancers grow incredibly larger than their normal-growth cousins and only serves to project an awkward increase in size, not normally seen even in wild fish.

Aquarium strain species can also carry with them "genetic baggage" which does not manifest itself until the next generation and so forth are produced from such species. Say for example these are normal looking fish but were bred from parents that may or may not have a crooked spine. The resulting offspring may not show this trait but their descendents may. This effectively ensures that the line is more or less consigned to producing deformed individuals in the near future and this is what I mean by "genetic baggage".

As for selectively bred strains, not all of these fish are that popular or remain popular for a long time so to speak. Where are the moss-green tiger barbs? Where are the albino tiger barbs? I've not seen these for sale for a long long time. The hype died and so the demand for these fish died. Last I checked people were selling normal tiger barbs as feeder fish. How sad the status of a wonderful species has fallen. I for one would not like to see killifish in such a predicament as the tiger barbs have become.

The short-bodied australe may be a cute little fella now but in time other hobbyists, and not just killie hobbyists, may start calling it a "freak of nature". Let's not let that poor fella and his descendents be labelled as such. Experimentation is fine with me just as long as the proper controls are applied. 

If there was really a form of australe that is different from the other strains and still look good, here's a picture of an australe "Lineatus" from killi.net.



Picture copyright - Charlie Drew, 2001

This is probably a xanthic form bred from the red/orange strain. I wonder where it went.

----------


## penumbra

I have mixed feeling with regard to cross-breeding. I had always admired the dedication of conservist in the modern world where the value of money surpass the value of moral. They are however also the bloackage for progress and development.

Hybrids were pretty common these days. Even if you guys managed to convert the 'lost' today and bagged an uncountable number of success story in conserving. I could foresee the killifish becoming just like the discus.

I agree that research should be done but definitely not through any trial and error by the curious. Could you GM (gene modified) these fish to become more hardy (temp & ph tolerance and such) without tilting the balance of their natural habitat eco-system? Simply put, leave it to the qualified.

You guys should get a grant or something. The cause are noble and I salute you. By the way, I am sad to hear that I am not young anymore.  :Sad: 




> I bet the young guys here don't even know that the original Zebra Danoi and Black Tetra do not come with long fins but these are what you find in the fish shop these days.

----------


## stormhawk

Actually, there's no need to modify their genes in the first place.  :Smile: 

Some fish adapt to a new environment much better than we humans can. Sometimes we give less credit to the fish than they're due for. 

Getting a grant needs alot of reasoning behind it. Its not possible to ask for outside sponsorship since most killifish, with the exception of Aplocheilus panchax, are not native to Singapore.

Young as I am I still know the looks of the original types of the zebra danio and black skirt tetra, aka _Brachydanio rerio_ and _Gymnocorymbus ternetzi_ respectively. They were among the first fish I had but not exactly the most popular in my list. 

I do have a long-finned danio at home but that fella is a tankmate for my brother's tortoise.  :Laughing:  Probably going to be sushi for the tortoise anyway.  :Cool:

----------


## penumbra

> Some fish adapt to a new environment much better than we humans can. Sometimes we give less credit to the fish than they're due for.


I am disheartened to hear that more species are becoming extinct than the number of new species found each year. Sadly, environmental activist can never win against the coporate world. And hopefully like you say so.. nature will find its way.




> Getting a grant needs alot of reasoning behind it. Its not possible to ask for outside sponsorship since most killifish, with the exception of Aplocheilus panchax, are not native to Singapore.


True.. guess the facts that species after species of an unknown fish going down the road of extinction simply could not warrant their upmost attention. Hmm.. just a thought. How many killies are presently in the endangered list? Anyone knows?

----------


## stormhawk

More than one. At least one population of Aphyosemion elberti is extinct in the wild if I'm right.

----------


## Steffen Hellner

Hi Stormhawk,

from your postings I take that you are a real enthusiast of the S. hellneri. The ones you have are most probably from the strain I introduced from malhada in 1995. From the type locality near Itacarambi the S. hellneri have never been introduced into the hobby and this location most probably is gone due to the fct that a four lane road has been built right through it. The other population in the hobby is from Sao Francisco, the small city at the River Sao Francisco. The differences within the populations are not significant and represent only individual characters. The metallic blue shine is way more intense in captive fish than in the wild and to me is the result of human selection. But it looks real nice. The wild fish had enormous extensions in the unpaired fins and the females where golden with deep black blotches.

I am happy that this fish is well distributd amongst hobbyists in SEA as it is not very popular in Europe anymore. I myself had to stop all fishes for three years from 1998 and ever since dont have them anymore.

Best,

Steffen Hellner

----------


## stormhawk

Steffen, sadly I don't have them anymore. I love the hellneri alot but could not keep them going. Trying to obtain eggs from my friend whom I got them from originally but I don't think he has them anymore.

Its true that its not very popular, but its colours are just wonderful. I wish I could try them again.  :Crying:  

I was initially unsure of the population for this strain because mine came from Argentinian breeders. I tried asking opinions from Dalton Nielsen and also Andre Carletto but they were just as unsure.

----------


## wHeEzO

I found this topic rather interesting while reading what everyone has wrote. Both sides has some good points. Now... I was just wondering about that short bodied australe. Have you ever thought of what he would say if he could say anything? He is definately different so I wonder if the other australes make fun of him.  :Laughing:  Does he want to be like everyone else or does he want everyone else to be like him? 

Nobody cares about what the fish thinks! "It's just a fish."

heh... just pondering out loud.

----------


## timebomb

> Have you ever thought of what he would say if he could say anything? He is definately different so I wonder if the other australes make fun of him.  Does he want to be like everyone else or does he want everyone else to be like him? 
> 
> Nobody cares about what the fish thinks! "It's just a fish."


Good question, Henry. After all the arguments, I've come to the conclusion that there are 2 groups of serious hobbyists. Both are serious but one cares only for the purity of the fish and little for the fish itself. The other group is where I think you belong. They care for purity but they also care for the fish. As they would say, "The fish are innocent".

If you like to know, the short body _australe_ died a natural death in my tank. I couldn't bear to put him to sleep so I let him live out his time. And no, I didn't collect any of his eggs.

Loh K L

----------


## Scott_sg

Hi everyone,
I have read through all the posts on this topic and it is interesting so i will throw my cards on the table also.

Ok i apologize first, since this is a bit preachy and i probably drift a bit off topic.. But then again like all Killifish keepers I am as opinionated as the rest of you.  :Wink:  

Everyone has made some good points, one of the central questions is exactly what constitutes a species, this is essentially one of the research areas I am looking at now and Killifish provide an excellent example of this and the problems that crop up. The reason why the location codes are so important as far as I am concerned is that as better evidence comes in we may find that what we thought of as the same species but from different locations, is in fact seperate species all together. 

I am not saying this will happen in all cases and probably not many, but the point is once the location codes are mixed up or lost, then we will never know. It also makes it very hard to do any further research with regard to speciation or environment.

The fact is that there are just not enough people to study all of the fish, this is compounded by the fact that killifish in general have very small geographic distributions. So it just takes one farmer with a bulldozer and the fish is gone. Therefore to me it is important that those serious hobbyists who have the inclination take as much care with the populations as possible. And i would go further and suggest that they also contribute to the literature when possible. In much the same way as amateur astronomers have and continue to make big contributions in that field, I think there is a lot of room for home aquariasts to actually contribute to the science side of things.

With all that being said, I have no problems at all with aquarium strains of species and crossed species that are stable both in the wild AND in the hobby. They can be a great way to get the average persons interest, although personally they are not for me, but there is no problem so long as they are clearly labelled as such. For a lot of people the first adventure into Killifish is normally through the local fish store with a pair of _A. Australe_, and i would doubt the purity of most of them. But it is a start, and as people get more involved they can then develop into the areas that interest them.

With the genetic side of things, it is a double edged sword trying to keep strains pure but also genetically healthy, i dont think it is such a surprise that so many people have problems with tanks being wiped out by one disease - it is essentially monoculture like a field of modern wheat or rice, or that we see such problems with belly sliders and so on.

Here locally in Singapore i get the feeling that most of the killifish around can be traced back to 2 or 3 local guys, so essentially brother and sister for generations, globally i think it is pretty much the same everywhere. Once a species is established locally everyone moves onto getting things that are not available locally which is fine but I also think we should bring in new blood occasionally if possible, perhaps swapping a bag of eggs of the same species with a friend overseas. It is not perfect since most of the species in the hobby are all derived from normally a few pairs contributed by the guys who go out with the nets. 

This is also another area i am looking at, how small populations such as killifish can survive genetically. But definitely we should try and mix up the bloodlines as much as possible while keeping the strains pure.

Another thing, i think it was Ron who mentioned a long time ago, was that we should (as in Singapore) be extra careful about our reputations. For example if I start selling mixed up junk on aquabid it will not take long before people overseas start thinking - gee all of singapore - dont buy from them. Lets face it everyone generalises and you only need to look at the problems some of the other Asian countries have selling their fish and eggs. Personally Singapore is one the most efficient and trustworthy places in the world, but it is small and very easy to be lumped in with the rest of Asia. No offence to people in the rest of Asia, but i think everyone knows what i am talking about.

Regarding human genetics that has been a taboo subject since Hitler decided he would do his own experiments. But I can say my boy is 50% European and from his mother a mix of chinese malay and indian, and well he is damn handsome, i wish i looked like him, but i do worry what girls mothers will be calling and abusing me when he is a teenager! But definitely as humans go we are all too inbred. My parents are from different villages a few miles apart in Scotland, but they meet in Gibraltar and get married after finding out that there grandparents knew each others family. So for most of us we are as inbred as our _A.australes_. 

Ok i will shut up now.
Have a nice day to everyone.
 :Very Happy:  
Scott.

----------


## RonWill

> Another thing, i think it was Ron who mentioned a long time ago, was that we should (as in Singapore) be extra careful about our reputations. For example if I start selling mixed up junk on aquabid it will not take long before people overseas start thinking - gee all of singapore - dont buy from them


 Scott, I've been drumming the same tune for so long, I won't repeat myself but thanks again for bringing up the point. All it takes is just one joker and we're screwed.

As far as I'm concerned, I keep my slate clean and hopefully, those I mentored will adopt the same mindset. "Lead by example", I always say.

[BTW, let me know if you're still game with the microscopic soup]

----------


## timebomb

> All it takes is just one joker and we're screwed.


I thought I will let this pass but last night as I lay in my bed, I felt the resentment rising up in my chest. As I'm the only one here in this thread who's of the opposing view, I deeply resent being called a "joker". 

Unlike almost every other hobbyist in Singapore who is regularly buying or selling eggs on aquabid, I've never taken part in any of the auctions there. When I give eggs or fish to fellow hobbyists, I've always taken pain to explain that mine are mostly aquarium strain fish. So you don't have to worry about being screwed. 

As I've tried to explain many times, such puritanical attitudes will only turn people off. And really, that's the last thing you want to do if you really believe that one joker alone can screw everyone up. 

Loh K L

----------


## stormhawk

My take on the joker bit is as follows:

Aquarium strain fishes are no less a killie compared to their coded brethren. Only difference being that a big number of folks tend to view coded killies as being "superior" to aquarium strain. True enough, most folks would prefer to keep fish with a "pedigree", but on more than one case, a "mongrel" killie would even outdo the beauty of its original parents.

I remember being mesmerised by the beauty of the gardneri in KL's tank a long time ago. Although they were a cross of the N'sukka and Baissa, they were nevertheless, a beautiful fish in their own right. Selling them to the common man on the street with no codes attached would have probably seen them selling like hotcakes because of their vibrant colours.

KL, it's not a matter of who's the joker, or who's screwing who. It's how we do things individually. Some of us may differ on opinions in certain facets of our hobby, but we are all still killie keepers at heart. We shouldn't take certain comments to heart although it is good to make your feelings known in a civil way. 

I would prefer to have coded killies, but having a "mongrel" strain short of a hybrid between two distinct but related species, I don't see a problem there as long as their parentage is made known to the next buyer. In fact, I would rather keep an aquarium strain fish in my main community tank. Only reason being that they are already indistinct from others.  :Wink: 

I believe that when Ron mentioned the term joker, he wasn't singling out anyone but rather, he was referring to someone or anyone who lowers the reputation of our fellow countrymen by making a fool of him/herself within the international community of killie folks. One can do this by many ways - commercialising the hobby via Aquabid (look at our neighbours to the far north), selling sub-standard eggs (I've heard of this) and by selling hybrid fishes to unsuspecting buyers. But luckily, none of us have done so and I believe none of us will ever do so.

For some time I used to have puritanical thoughts on how our hobby should be done. But after some time, I realise we're all different in our thinking. As long as we do what we can to keep the hobby going, I'd say we've done our bit, even if our methods may clash.  :Cool:

----------


## timebomb

Just for the record, Jianyang, that fish you saw in my tank may not be a cross between the Baissa and N'sukka. I only suspected it was so as he had unusual vibrant colours. I do admit I get my fish mixed up at times. When I started off with Killies, it never occurred to me then that it was of paramount importance to keep them pure. I understood that it was of great importance not to intentionally cross-breed different species but being a beginner then, I didn't realise how easy it was to get the fish mixed up occasionally. The females of the Baissa and N'sukka are impossible to distinguish from one another and at that time when I had both species in my tanks, I never knew a female can jump from one tank into another. I also was unaware that a plant transferred from one tank to another could possibly have eggs hidden among their leaves. 

We have different opinions on this subject but all of us here are not so unethical as to sell sub-standard eggs or pass off hybrids as pure species to other hobbyists. 

The point I tried to make several times in this thread is that we shouldn't be too harsh on those who want to experiment with their fish. There are also hobbyists who don't give a hoot about names, much less collection codes. These are people who simply want to keep and breed beautiful fish and it isn't a sin if they don't want to learn the names. There are many people in Singapore who have difficulties with English, let alone Latin.

I just gave 3 different genus of fish to a friend last week. I gave him _Austrolebias nigripinnis_ Villa Soriano, _Nothobranchius guentheri_ Zanzibar and _Simpsonichthys fulminantis_ Guanambi. And you know what? He called me this morning to ask me about the breeding habits of the fishes and not once in our conversation, did he mention the names. He couldn't remember them  :Laughing:  

Scott made a good point about hobbyists being able to contribute to the scientific aspect of the hobby but for many people, all they want is to keep beautiful fish. If we go around telling newbies that they should in no way, mix up their Killies or that they must memorise the scientific names and collection codes of the fish they keep, we might as well tell them not to keep any Killies at all. We should encourage everyone who's interested to be serious about the hobby but we shouldn't be too puritanical with our views. To put it bluntly, we shouldn't sit on "high horses" when we give advice to newbies. 

Heck, up till this day, I can't pronounce the name "Simpsonichthys". I usually cheat and simply say "Simp". For someone like you, Jianyang, latin names were never a problem but this isn't the case with most Singaporeans. 

Loh K L

----------


## Scott_sg

Hi,
I did not mean to upset anyone with my comments. Like i said the first Killifish I got were orange and beautiful that was all i knew, but it did inspire me to keep going. I have always had a scientific bent so that is the direction I lean with my fish, but some people have no interest in that which is fine also. Just because i like dried apricots does not mean everyone else has too  :Smile: 

I do agree that all the puritanical stuff is off putting to anyone new to Killifish and personally I believe that a lot of people in Killifish do get on the high horse at times, me included. Latin names and so on I have been around for a while now and still get them mixed up - let alone pronouncing them  :Shocked:  But I do think that is why there are a lot of people for example who are registered on Killies.com and all the other Killi forums etc, but they are scared to really comment for fear of getting things wrong. 

So especially with new comers I think it is important to be tolerant and patient. For myself I would rather write_ S._ than _Simpsonichthys_ because I live in fear of spelling the horrible names wrongly. And then getting ten people correct me. Maybe that is just me, but i doubt it. 

I think there is room for all levels and abilities in the hobby, for me yes i like everything to be as accurate as possible but if someone likes a certain cross then that is there choice. The best dog I ever had was a complete mongrel! In the end it is the communication that is important, so as long as I know what someone is trying to say then i am ok with it. Of course we should try and do the best we can, but really that is all you can ever ask of anyone.

Regarding my comments on Singapore, it was not aimed at any particular fish, i would just hope that things are labelled properly and that people know what they are getting. Which is the same in any transaction. I can label all my fish perfectly and have exact location codes, but if i sell snail eggs in the peat instead, it makes no difference. We will all suffer. So it was not aimed at any particular fish, rather the way in which we conduct ourselves.

Sorry if i stirred up something here, it was not intentional.

Scott.

PS. Timebomb, I dont really know your name? Loh K L - I am scared I will get it wrong also !! Haha

----------


## RonWill

Kwek Leong,
We were on different wavelengths even before we met. I knew what I wanted from killie keeping and I'm still as anal regarding certain issues.

I make no apologies for the "joker's screw". Neither was it intended for your perusal. General sentiments that western killie-keepers hold towards S.E. Asia is not favorable and for lack of better words, one of distrust.

We can do much to hold our grounds but what one does in individual capacity is limited but we can try, if not try harder. I strive to be on equal standing with dedicated hobbyists but bottom line is, respect and good repute is earned, not bought off the shelf.

'Puritanical attitudes', as you aptly put it, isn't always counter-productive. This forum has a culture of it's own and sure, some aspects and house-rules will turn people off but look at the quality membership and informative postings.

I recall you saying, "It was one of our goals to make this an international message board and in this aspect, I think we have succeeded". Personally, we could apply that same mindset with killifishes; conservation and distribution.

On the flipside, it is mind over matter.... if one doesn't mind, it doesn't matter.

A closing note; unless you live up north, otherwise, sorry. You do not qualify for 'joker status' (now quit getting worked up and go get some rest  :Wink:  )

----------


## timebomb

> HSorry if i stirred up something here, it was not intentional.


No worries, mate. You were right on many counts but I was just pointing out that there are many who don't see things the way we do. This forum needs more hobbyists like you, Scott. Don't be afraid to post your opinions. We need more of them. By the way, you can call me KL, Loh, Kwek Leong or timebomb. I'm not particular about what I'm called, so long as it is spelt correctly  :Laughing: 

The guy I'm mad at is Ronnie. We have a love-hate relationship, you see. I can't live without him but at the same time, I can't stand him  :Laughing: 

Loh K L

----------


## RonWill

We are all creatures of different temperaments, so it's ok for anyone to be mad at me (my wife sometimes feel that way too!  :Laughing:  )

Kwek Leong,
How we can cohabitate within a tiny corner of cyberspace, let alone have dinner together at the same table still behoofs me but a positive note, it takes a mammoth dose of maturity and patience to accomplish that (even if the feeling is mutual, no?  :Wink:  )

Folks,
For as long as we're able to account or factuate what's said or written, one shouldn't fear of repercussions. IMHO, I believe we shouldn't be denied the opportunity to learn from a healthy dialog or discussion, even when opinions, ideology, hypothesis or methods, differ vastly.

Language proficiency, or rather the lack of it, is just a poor excuse for not participating. If one has enquiring minds, you've come to the right place. [heck! my fingers are still as itchy as the day I was born  :Twisted Evil:  ]

----------


## johnchor

Mr Loh shouldn't breed his short-body australe nor distribute its kind around because..........(please fill in as many reasons as you can).

1) because they look UGLY.  :Exasperated: 
2) it feels like giving birth to a mutated baby  :Evil: 
3) they are a one time off mutated fish, please let it grow old and die naturally. :Angel: 
4) breeding them make other ppl angry .  :Blah: 

HAHAHA  :Grin:

----------


## RonWill

John, you've dug up a very old post from 2005 (not that it's bad since it serves to highlight why killifish hybridizing is generally discouraged by those who still have a passion for these understated fishes) but the skeletons were swept under the carpet a long time ago. I think they like it there, so let's let them be.

----------

