L144 CotM article/species page

[Richard B]

in light of this excellent article it appears odd that the registered keeper list is so large - surely they keep the sp.4 misidentified species? - could the species page be altered to reflect this, if the purpose is to remove confusion & reflect how scarce the L144 really is

[racoll]

Nice article Mats! I have one comment:

My own personal opinion is that another amelanistic fish was imported, probably from a different region than the L144, and this fish was bred with common bristlenose; the identification of which are also something of an epic fishy tale.

I am not sure about this sentence. In a fish as fecund as a bristlenose, mutations such as amelanism will crop up pretty regularly. If you want weird mutations, the worst place to find these would be among wild imports, due to the selection pressures imposed in the wild. Rather, I am sure this mutation originated in a breeder's tank.

[bekateen]

My own personal opinion is that another amelanistic fish was imported, probably from a different region than the L144, and this fish was bred with common bristlenose; the identification of which are also something of an epic fishy tale.

I am not sure about this sentence. In a fish as fecund as a bristlenose, mutations such as amelanism will crop up pretty regularly. If you want weird mutations, the worst place to find these would be among wild imports, due to the selection pressures imposed in the wild. Rather, I am sure this mutation originated in a breeder's tank.

Pardon my naïveté, but if sp.4 did originate in captivity a long time ago, is it possible that this variant is just another mutation within the cf. cirrhosus lineage (since, AFAIK, back then most of the commonly bred-in-bulk Ancistrus would have been what we typically know today as "cf. cirrhosus"), just like albino, red, green dragon, and long fin?

in light of this excellent article it appears odd that the registered keeper list is so large - surely they keep the sp.4 misidentified species? - could the species page be altered to reflect this, if the purpose is to remove confusion & reflect how scarce the L144 really is

If so, then all of these registered sp.4 fish (and all the registered L144 fish) would be cf. cirrhosus?

From the photos I see that neither L144 nor sp.4 is spotted, so maybe they're from a non-cirrhosus lineage (all the albino cf. cirrhosus I've ever seen are spotted, although sometimes the spots are subdued). Is there any genetic evidence to say that sp.4 is not simply an albino, blue/grey/black-eyed cf. cirrhosus? ... I suspect that the answer to my question is that, for those who know the backstory, they are clearly not cf. cirrhosus, but I'm just not aware of the justification, and that's why I'm asking.

Cheers, Eric

[Borbi]

Hi Eric,

In my opinion and as far as I am aware of the back story what is sold as L144 is indeed a mutation of the common bristlenose.

The fact that it shows no spots should be a side effect of the specific mutation, depending on which pigment cannot be produced. I would expect albinism and xanthism to result in different patterns.

Cheers,
Sandor

[bekateen]

Hi Sandor,

Thanks for that info. In that case, I could envision, ultimately, that sp.4 might one day get added to the list of "common names" for cf. cirrhosus, just as is the case for "Sp(3) Bristlenose."

This would not be the case for L144 - it would retain a unique L number and CLOG page since the original fish was a wild-caught individual from a specific origin. However, to follow Richard's original insight, all of the people who currently keep either L144 or sp.4 would get moved into the keepers list for cf. cirrhosus. And something like "albino blue-/black- eyes" (or simply "melanized-eyes" to be more generic) would then be added as a variant of cf. cirrhosus.

Cheers, Eric

[racoll]

Pardon my naïveté, but if sp.4 did originate in captivity a long time ago, is it possible that this variant is just another mutation within the cf. cirrhosus lineage, just like albino, red, green dragon, and long fin?

That is precisely what it is (but see below).

Is there any genetic evidence to say that sp.4 is not simply an albino, blue/grey/black-eyed cf. cirrhosus?

I did an albeit very small test (n =1), and our false L144 (= sp. 4) had identical mtDNA to a regular bristlenose. That's not conclusive proof by any means, but it certainly does not reject the hypothesis that they are breeding forms of the same thing.

for those who know the backstory, they are clearly not cf. cirrhosus, but I'm just not aware of the justification, and that's why I'm asking.

I don't remember why they got labelled as sp.4 instead of cf. cirrhosus, but probably digging around in the forum archive long enough will reveal the info.

[bekateen]

Thanks!!

[Jools]

Nice article Mats! I have one comment:

My own personal opinion is that another amelanistic fish was imported, probably from a different region than the L144, and this fish was bred with common bristlenose; the identification of which are also something of an epic fishy tale.

I am not sure about this sentence. In a fish as fecund as a bristlenose, mutations such as amelanism will crop up pretty regularly. If you want weird mutations, the worst place to find these would be among wild imports, due to the selection pressures imposed in the wild. Rather, I am sure this mutation originated in a breeder's tank.

Yeah, I would support changing that too. Or keeping the opinion because there is another form of amelanism which we see which is already in A. cf cirrhosus. @MatsP?

Jools

[Jools]

in light of this excellent article it appears odd that the registered keeper list is so large - surely they keep the sp.4 misidentified species? - could the species page be altered to reflect this, if the purpose is to remove confusion & reflect how scarce the L144 really is

Yes, I planned to do that but the admin facility to do so is broken. Working on fixing that now...

Jools

[MatsP]

I'm not sure whether another amelanistic fish was imported, or if the mutation occurred naturally. It's of course possible that it occurred naturally too. But if someone gets a lone male that is amelanistic, what females would you breed it with? (If it's a female amelanistic fish, it may be harder to identify, so harder to "match" with a captive fish)

I'll make an update tonight, and send to Jools for review.

--
Mats

[Jools]

You know, I've been thinking about this. Bristlenoses have been bred in captivity in numbers for a long time, so why does the false L144 only turn up in around 2005? Isn't an amelanistic individual more likely to be produced in the wild where there is a larger gene pool and there are lots more adults breeding?

Jools

[Jools]

I've moved all L144 keepers to sp(4). However, it appears that I also need to create a facility to move breeding reports too. I'll need to do that before I can put this one to rest and before I move on to other stuff.

Jools

[MatsP]

And I have finally got round to doing what I said I would do yesterday. Came home yesterday with a head feeling like it had been shrunk two sizes, so went to bed after watching the motorcycle racing.

Anyways, R1588 contains a few lines of updates to the article...

--
Mats

[bekateen]

Hi Jools and Mats,

Is there any way to remove or block the "Add to My Cats" link on the L144 CLOG, so that more people in the future don't sign up for this fish again as being theirs? I suspect that this is probably way more difficult than it sounds, since I expect that it's more of an element which automatically appears on every CLOG page, and cannot be managed CLOG by CLOG... Just a thought.

Cheers, Eric

[racoll]

You know, I've been thinking about this. Bristlenoses have been bred in captivity in numbers for a long time, so why does the false L144 only turn up in around 2005?

Well, most of the breeding forms of the common bristlenose appeared at around that time too, I think (?). Looks to me that the breeders realised at that point there was a market for these creatures, and starting making efforts to line breed them.

Isn't an amelanistic individual more likely to be produced in the wild where there is a larger gene pool and there are lots more adults breeding?

Generally, no. All things being equal, the base mutation rate will be no different in the wild or captivity, but the fixation rate of these alleles will be higher in the much smaller and less genetically diverse captive population.

[MatsP]

Hi Jools and Mats,

Is there any way to remove or block the "Add to My Cats" link on the L144 CLOG, so that more people in the future don't sign up for this fish again as being theirs? I suspect that this is probably way more difficult than it sounds, since I expect that it's more of an element which automatically appears on every CLOG page, and cannot be managed CLOG by CLOG... Just a thought.

Cheers, Eric

The difficulty is, unless we do

Code: Select all

if (species != 'sp(L144)') show_add_to_my_cats();

, but actually implement a "this species can't be added to my cats" in a generic form, it's a fair bit of work. We'd have to add a field to the database and then add code to be able to set it, and finally add the code to say

Code: Select all

if (allowed_for_my_cats) show_add_to_my_cats();

- and what if someone actualy DOES have the genuine fish? Whilst nobody [that understands the situation] actually believes that someone does, it's very hard to prove a negative.

--
Mats

[bekateen]

Hi Mats,
Thanks for the explanation. Yes, I didn't expect it would be easy or so simple. I suppose if we did execute some kind of block for adding L144 to My Cats and then someone came along and wanted to add it, then they would post a question like "how do I add L144 to My Cats?" At the very least, that would give them the opportunity to post a pic or two as part of their inquiry. And if they did have a new L144, that would be really neat.

Cheers, Eric

[Jools]

I've had the problem and a solution to the

Corydoras julii

/

L144

/

Farlowella acus

/

Synodontis petricola

"my cats" problem in my head for a while. It in essence is the idea of a flag being available to fishes that are commonly misidentified on the data sub page.

When the end user is adding to my cats, there is a "are you sure, because..." function which would hopefully dissuade the vast majority. I thought I'd right something like, you've got more chance of rolling a dice and getting five sixes in a row than actually finding these fishes for sale type thing alongside a "there are no other keepers of this species, are you really sure" messaging.

Jools

[Jools]

Anyways, R1588 contains a few lines of updates to the article...

Unfortunately, my edited version of the article wasn't checked in, so you edited the old version. I've tried to resolve this conflict but I could not find the actual changes you've made. Could you check them in again to the (now up-to-date) version in the repository? Sorry for the hassle.

Cheers,

Jools

[MatsP]

Ok, I have made another update, which I _think_ is what I wrote last time, give or take.

--
Mats

[Jools]

I don't think what you checked in was based on a change to the latest version but I think I've found the change you made and edited it in. Meanwhile, I've ensured that version is also in the repository.

Cheers,

Jools

[Jools]

Can I move to resolved?

Jools

[MatsP]

I'd say so.

--
Mats