PlanetCatfish.com

Jools wrote:If this gets cast up again - by anyone - I'm going to issue a warning to that person for trolling and lock the thread. For the record I do not think it is derogatory (except to the fish), offtopic (it clearly refers to the picture posted), I do not think it is misleading (these are opinions and not fact Shane and I have great fun disagreeing with each other on the hybrid point - the kind of disagreeing that ends up in a mild hangover and zero hard feelings). As Steve points out; the more anyone knows about something, the less sure they are of facts. Jools

The only reason I posted that up Jools is because of this comment you made ( see above ) Sorry no knowledge was gained from sidguppys comment. Now the fact of it the hybrid issue Shane has posted DNA tests were done and they concluded that the fish is a pure not hybrid. ( Read below )

Report this postReply with quoteRe: BNP Calico or Chocolate LF
by Shane » Wed May 09, 2012 12:58 pm

They are all man-made forms of a single species. Genetic testing (DNA) has shown they are not hybrids. In fact hybridization among Ancistrus appears to be extremely rare. I am only aware of a single strongly documented case of hybridization between two Ancistrus spp.
-Shane

racoll wrote:If they are receptive <snip>

racoll wrote:

Jools wrote:how does an OP tell the difference between being ignored and not being read? If my "Do you like my new LED skull ornament" got no "likes", does that mean no one likes, or no one listens?

Not sure it matters. In many cases there will be members who genuinely like LED skulls, and will reply. If not, then the poster may get the hint and move onto a different board (nothing wrong with that), or if they ask "Bump, I've 100 views but nobody's replied?", then someone can politely respond with "well those LED skulls aren't really our cup of tea here".

Yes, I can't argue with that at all. However, what, given the above, if "they" are not receptive - no one seems to use the "foe" feature...

Jools

shane wrote:Genetic testing (DNA) has shown they are not hybrids.

@Shane, or anyone else, can someone point me at this paper? From memory, Racoll did some testing on Albino Bristlenoses which showed identical mtDNA, almost certainly derived from the same maternal breeding stock but I was not sure if this was carried out with long fin or calico/red specimens or what the control was? Out of my own ignorance I am also not sure if this proves hybridisation or just proves common maternal breeding stock (for whatever was tested).

Cheers,

Jools

PS I sense the autumnal influx of forum visitors is upon us! I've had more PMs today than in the last couple of months!

Jools wrote:

shane wrote:Genetic testing (DNA) has shown they are not hybrids.

@Shane, or anyone else, can someone point me at this paper? From memory, Racoll did some testing on Albino Bristlenoses which showed identical mtDNA, almost certainly derived from the same maternal breeding stock but I was not sure if this was carried out with long fin or calico/red specimens or what the control was? Out of my own ignorance I am also not sure if this proves hybridisation or just proves common maternal breeding stock (for whatever was tested).

Cheers,

Jools

I like to see thar paper too.

Now I can say this I know of a friend that had a few females albino Short Fin BNP and tried to use a wild male and they would not breed . He tried for months, I got him a few albino males with in a week they were breeding with the albino males

vinny.. wild male from where? there are no wild males of common ancistrus which was my point earlier.. no1 knows where they are from.. how can you get wild stock.. also how can anyone test for hybridization if they dont know the original wild stock.... its a slippery slope my friend.

Jools wrote:no one seems to use the "foe" feature...

I do.

racoll may be abil to help us here

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 3&start=20

what does the foe function do?

m1ke715m wrote:vinny.. wild male from where? there are no wild males of common ancistrus which was my point earlier.. no1 knows where they are from.. how can you get wild stock.. also how can anyone test for hybridization if they dont know the original wild stock.... its a slippery slope my friend.

the male was not a common it just was a wild BNP I have no idea from where

vinman wrote:racoll may be abil to help us here

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 3&start=20

that discussion made my feeble brain hurt.. ill leave all that stuff to you experts.. lol

Mike what they need to do is take DNA from a L144 and compare it to the color morphs and see if they match

Jools wrote: @Shane, or anyone else, can someone point me at this paper? From memory, Racoll did some testing on Albino Bristlenoses which showed identical mtDNA, almost certainly derived from the same maternal breeding stock but I was not sure if this was carried out with long fin or calico/red specimens or what the control was? Out of my own ignorance I am also not sure if this proves hybridisation or just proves common maternal breeding stock (for whatever was tested).

I only sequenced a regular bristlenose and a so called "**" for mtDNA. They were exactly the same, with the most likely explanation being that the "black eyed yellow bristlenose" is simply a colour variety of the common bristlenose (which many people have said all along). Here's the thread.

As I say in the post, it really is idle speculation about the common bristlenose being a hybrid. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but there's no way of knowing without DNA from a complete reference library of potential parent species, and a huge sample of bristlenose from throughout the hobby.

**P.S. that link points to the common name of , rather than the real L144.

racoll wrote:

Jools wrote: @Shane, or anyone else, can someone point me at this paper? From memory, Racoll did some testing on Albino Bristlenoses which showed identical mtDNA, almost certainly derived from the same maternal breeding stock but I was not sure if this was carried out with long fin or calico/red specimens or what the control was? Out of my own ignorance I am also not sure if this proves hybridisation or just proves common maternal breeding stock (for whatever was tested).

I only sequenced a regular bristlenose and a so called "

L144

**" for mtDNA. They were exactly the same, with the most likely explanation being that the "black eyed yellow bristlenose" is simply a colour variety of the common bristlenose (which many people have said all along). Here's the thread.

As I say in the post, it really is idle speculation about the common bristlenose being a hybrid. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but there's no way of knowing without DNA from a complete reference library of potential parent species, and a huge sample of bristlenose from throughout the hobby.

**P.S. that link points to the common name of

Ancistrus sp(4)

, rather than the real L144.

you did the tests

vinman wrote:the male was not a common it just was a wild BNP I have no idea from where

This is my main argument for hybrids being present in the hobby, wild Ancistrus from all over the place which look pretty similar (I can't tell a lot of them apart) are sold, bred and offpsring traded without knowing what species. There are lots that look similar. I'm not saying its done on purpose but every time someone breeds an Ancistrus and doesn't know what the parents are then there is a risk. I am basing this mostly on the scene in the UK where often single specimens are sold at auction and sometimes in LFS too.

racoll wrote:As I say in the post, it really is idle speculation about the common bristlenose being a hybrid. I wouldn't be surprised either way, but there's no way of knowing without DNA from a complete reference library of potential parent species, and a huge sample of bristlenose from throughout the hobby.

Indeed. So, in short, there's no firm scientific view either way. In that case it would appear we are left with idle speculation, or, to use a single word, opinion. On the matter of this red longfinned thing being a hybrid or not, it is opinion. Correct me if I'm being an idiot.

Cheers,

Jools

Your right jools

Not to go off topic but this has to be said

BTW I give credit where credit is due. I have to say Jools I give you big kudos !!!! A lot of Owners/admins of forums have this god attitude. That they are always right and if you don't like what they have to say go else where. You on the other hand seem seem to be a rounded person. Willing to debate a point. Not afraid of being wrong but still stand your ground on what you feel whats right. I know a lot of owners/admins would have lock this up already . I'm glad to see you willing to hear what the members have to say and the willing to debate it without saying my word is final, locked thread. I wish more owner and admins were more like you. You even though are the top dog here still don't flaunt your position so freely . instead you hang out like just one of the regular members. This is a very rare quality and i have to commend you on that.

BTW just to let you know I'm not trying to butter you up or trying to get on your good side . I just felt it had to be said and wanted you to know that I know it too. Thank you for being so nice and willing to discuss a point with out being a dictator. It is hard to be a fair leader. All that power and knowing how to use it wisely is a rare quality

racoll wrote:I only sequenced a regular bristlenose and a so called "

L144

**" for mtDNA. They were exactly the same, with the most likely explanation being that the "black eyed yellow bristlenose" is simply a colour variety of the common bristlenose

The only conclusion is that they must have a common female ancestor somewhere in the maternal line.
All the rest is speculation , often colored by personal belief.

People who use mtDNA to prove there was never a male from a different species involved are not enough educated or not honest.

I would like to see more DNA tests done with wild L144 males and females compared to the color morphs male and female

Good luck finding them.

Bijn wrote:People who use mtDNA to prove there was never a male from a different species involved are not enough educated or not honest.

I've been very careful to not state anything as fact. You're right, though, it certainly doesn't rule out a male of another species, and it's important to know the limitations of whatever method you're using.

However, the "L144" being a colour variety of the common bristlenose certainly seems quite plausible to me, as I understand that many German hobbyists have been saying the same thing for a long time.

I want to invite the people who have a substantiated opinion about the origin of the L144 to have a look and eventually give their opinion in this topic:

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 43&start=0

i must have missed the beginning of this thread but um.... whos the unscrupulous aquabid seller anyways?

i must have missed the beginning of this thread but um.... whos the unscrupulous aquabid seller anyways?

Look up the original thread here.
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=24

Birger

vinman wrote:

OK but I know this for a fact
Super red X normal make normals
super red X Calico make calico
Super red X normal het calico make calico and het calico
The red gene in the common starin BNP is a line bred calico

I'm working on LF super reds and albino calico in LF and SF

Vinman:
From what I can see, I conclude you have some experience with Reptile or am I going the wrong way.
While in the Reptile Hobby, Morph combo, Morph creation to develop new ones is often praised and rather seen positively (not by all)...in the Fish hobby it is mainly the opposite...a ery few praised combo or morph and the majority praise keeping natural phenotype.

Still I understand it is a point of interest for you, not much has been done in that way with catfish which I think is a great things... Working with Guppy, Discus, Siamese Fighting fish (Betta splendens) to name a few, you might find this interest for combo and morph...

Cheers
Yann

As per @Racoll s good suggestion, a lot of the discussion on this thread (the topic being Marc expressing his feelings on past events) has happily moved on to talking about fish. That's not to say we've not all benefited from a "clearing of the air" but it is time to move on.

I think the original topic has been fully discussed and I've moved the emergent discussion here: http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... 25#p254525

Jools

I think I missed a lot reading this topic .

To me I'll find it very sad that there where public accusations to Marc and Sidguppy.

These two guys have very much knowledge and it would be very sad that people like Marc will leave because of rude behaviour from other members, specaly Vinman.
Sidguppy has aready left.

Correct me if I'm wrong but to me there should be stronger moderated against people that are acusing/insulting other members in public.

Phyllonemus wrote:To me I'll find it very sad that there where public accusations to Marc and Sidguppy.

I find it sadder when people don't take the time to read all the posts and think it useful to resurrect a topic which I had personally asked be finished with. Why jump in now? That is really unhelpful to me personally, I am try to improve this site and not write even more on this thread. Please!

Phyllonemus wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong but to me there should be stronger moderated against people that are acusing/insulting other members in public.

If I did this, sidguppy would have been banned in 2006 - I fought his corner for a long time. Amongst other things one his posts where he called me a mother*****g retard and wished I burn in Hell (over a DDoS attach on Amazon). He did not get a warning for this despite it being a clear, public and very aggressive because I decided not to issue a warning as that would have been a ban. There are lots of instances of this. I had always hoped he would stop being so aggressive on the forums. Sadly this didn't come to pass. It is a loss, but I think there was a bigger loss having all the hatred around.

I agree, and would urge all forum users to expand their views to it being sad when anyone gets to this level, be they friends or strangers. And, PLEASE, can we let this go now...

Jools

You're right Jools, but when you dont want anyone te react in a topic, why isn't it closed then ?

Phyllonemus wrote:You're right Jools, but when you dont want anyone te react in a topic, why isn't it closed then ?

Partly because I think locked threads are a bit draconian, partly because I had hope in Racoll's viewpoint above and partly because Marc, and only Marc, may wish to add something at some point in the future I guess.

Hope that makes sense.

Jools

It's over and done with, so lock it.

Locked at Marc's wish!