Why breed albinos and other colour morphs ?

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 06 Dec 2003, 18:26

I just read yet another thread about albino catfish. This time Corydoras barbatus was the victim:

http://forum.planetcatfish.com/viewtopic.php?t=4292

I've never been able to understand this fascination with breeding types of catfish (or other kinds of fish) which would stand little chance of surviving in the wild. Why should this be any better than breeding parrotfish, ballon mollies or long finned variants ? If it was such a good idea, more of them would've survived in the wild, wouldn't they ? Why do we apparently think we can better a design which nature has spent thousands of years perfecting ?

Post by **Barbie** » 06 Dec 2003, 20:03

Albino morphs are a genetic that fish carry, and they do occur naturally, without any tinkering or engineering by man. They were highly sought after by many different cultures, when it came to albino buffalo, wolves, or others. The fact that you don't personally prefer the morph, does not make it a hybrid, nor mutated. Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but that does not make it wrong to not agree.

I personally find the practice of cross breeding species of fish deplorable, that's my opinion. I have kept a few different types of albino fish through the years though. They add contrast to my tanks, and I'm not terribly worried about someone judging whether or not my tanks are up to biotope standards. I keep my fish because they please me. I worked with and studied breeding genetics for years with the horses I kept. I personally feel that fish that are carefully spawned and culled from breeding programs to intensify the color strains (such as german blue rams, eureka red peacocks, pigeon blood discus among others) are simply refined, not "polluted".

Yet again, a discussion all about opinion. Noone's opinion is "right" for anyone else. It's all about forming your own preferences or ideals, or not bothering to at all and just buying the fish you like, for whatever reason.

Without all of those opinions, I don't think our hobby would be what it is today, both in the positive and negative ways.

Barbie

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 06 Dec 2003, 20:31

Barbie wrote:Albino morphs are a genetic that fish carry, and they do occur naturally, without any tinkering or engineering by man

I'm aware of that, but generally they don't stand the same chance of surviving in the wild, do they ?

Barbie wrote:Of course you are welcome to your opinion, but that does not make it wrong to not agree.

I wasn't looking for a pat on the back telling me I was right. I was looking for some arguments as to why things like that should be selectively bred.

Barbie wrote:I personally feel that fish that are carefully spawned and culled from breeding programs to intensify the color strains (such as german blue rams, eureka red peacocks, pigeon blood discus among others) are simply refined, not "polluted".

I would disagree there. When I breed fish, I use any fish without obvious defects as breeders in the next generation. I never go for larger fins, more intensive colour or things like that. Personally I don't consider selective breeding much better than cross breeding or genetic engineering, but as you say, that's a matter of opinion or preference..

Post by **Barbie** » 06 Dec 2003, 21:05

I have severe allergies. I wouldn't have "survived" in the wild either. Maybe that lends me more understanding. Who knows. I wasn't attempting to "pat you on the back" as you say, I was merely trying to politely point out that I don't agree with you, personally, and why.

Barbie

Post by **Coryman** » 06 Dec 2003, 22:42

I also do not agree with your argumant.

You say albino's do not survive in the wild, which is not exactly true, if they don't survive then how is it I among many others have found adult specimens of several species in wild shipments.

I can totaly agree with you when it comes to species where man has interfered to create thinsg like parots, baloon mollies baloon cory's and the recent long finned ancistrus and Cory's.

Would I be right in assuming that you only keep and breed pure wild fish.

Ian

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 06 Dec 2003, 23:23

Coryman wrote:You say albino's do not survive in the wild,

Actually I said that they don't stand the same chance of surviving - at least that's what I've always been told. They don't blend in as well as normally coloured specimens. This should make them more likely to be singled out as prey or reduce the odds that they manage to sneak up on potential prey ?

Coryman wrote:Would I be right in assuming that you only keep and breed pure wild fish.

I try. I stay away from all variants which obviously has been 'tampered with' - of course I know that a few might have slipped through over the years; it's impossible to be certain about this all the time.

flyinmike · Post by **flyinmike** » 07 Dec 2003, 03:32

I disagree up to the point where genes are being altered or added. That is just plain wrong. But as far as "selective breeding, I like my Betta's fins long and flowing , I like my goldfish to be fantail, and I just love my pink bristlenose plecos.
As far as in the wild, while it may be true that some forms of life find it hard to survive as an albino, I hardly think catfish fall in that category. At least the plecos anyway. They scavenge not hunt, and there is not much that will try to make a meal of an armored cat with sharp spines in its fins. I also know several avid fishermen who catch albino channel cats probably 3-4 times a year. Anyway, to each his own I guess..

RogerMcAllen · Post by **RogerMcAllen** » 07 Dec 2003, 07:02

I don't really have much to add to the debate, but the main reason I have albino channel cats is that they are much easier to see in my pond. The I have a black one, and all I ever seem to see of him is some whiskers breaking the surface tension near a piece of food sometimes.

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 07 Dec 2003, 10:49

flyinmike wrote:I like my Betta's fins long and flowing , I like my goldfish to be fantail, and I just love my pink bristlenose pl*cos.

Fair enough. Taste and preferences do differ. Personally I prefer a betta (or a guppy for that matter) which is able to swim without the extra effort nescessary due to the longer fins (and IMO the natural forms are actually rather nice in the first place). I'd never keep goldfish and I do think plecos are beautiful fish in their natural colours.

It just occured to me that I haven't yet had any albino fry in my fish. If I ever do, I'm sure I won't selectively breed for that trait, but as it is a naturally occuring colour morph, I guess I should give it an equal opportunity to breed in the next generation.

Some years ago I got a five-legged oriental fire-bellied toad from a batch of some 50 tadpoles. It was allowed to live on along with those of its brothers and sisters, which I kept. It wasn't however used for breeding purposes. I'm sure I wouldn't risk breeding a line of five-legged toads, but I saw it as a mutation - a step in an unnatural direction and kept it out of my breeding stock.

Ron · Post by **Ron** » 07 Dec 2003, 16:09

plesner wrote: I'm aware of that, but generally they don't stand the same chance of surviving in the wild, do they ?

Yes, natural selection selects against the albino individuals since predators are better able to see them.

I would disagree there. When I breed fish, I use any fish without obvious defects as breeders in the next generation. I never go for larger fins, more intensive colour or things like that. Personally I don't consider selective breeding much better than cross breeding or genetic engineering, but as you say, that's a matter of opinion or preference..

IMO, you seem slightly hypocritical here. You don't like the albino species since nature doesn't pick to produce those over other species (via natural selection). You seem to think therefore that hobbyiest should breed them or try to keep albino strains going (or at least that is what I pick up from your previous posts). However, you don't chooes the "best specimens" either when breeding. You just choose any fish that is without "obvious defects". But, in nature, the males with the better color, the better finage would be the ones passing on their genes more often since they are able to attract a mate more easily than other males that lack vigorous color or flowly finage.

IMO, when breeding fish, I think that breeders should select the best fish that carry the best naturally occuring traits according to the species standard.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 07 Dec 2003, 16:59

plesner wrote:Why should this be any better than breeding parrotfish, ballon mollies or long finned variants ?

See this infamous post. Again, I stick to my opinion that if a fishes vitality is impaired then that has to be bad, colour variations are a matter of personal taste but cannot be decried in ignorance of the commerical aspects of their existence.

plesner wrote:Why do we apparently think we can better a design which nature has spent thousands of years perfecting ?

Perfecting is the wrong word, improving or specialising would be more accurate. It is shortsighted to believe all around us is perfect (and, more importanly, static). Mother nature, as you refer to her, is not an idle lady.

Jools

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 07 Dec 2003, 17:01

Ron wrote:You seem to think therefore that hobbyiest should breed them or try to keep albino strains going

On the contrary. I don't advocate the breeding of color morphs.

Ron wrote:You just choose any fish that is without "obvious defects". But, in nature, the males with the better color, the better finage would be the ones passing on their genes more often since they are able to attract a mate more easily than other males that lack vigorous color or flowly finage.

This may be true in some species but it's just as wrong in other. If bright colours and larger fins were the deciding factor, most fish in the wild would have very bright colours and very large fins. As this isn't the case, I believe that the most succesful males are those finding the best balance between showing good colours, fins and so on and not being too visible for predators.

YouTube · Post by **Jools** » 07 Dec 2003, 17:03

plesner wrote:I wasn't looking for a pat on the back telling me I was right.

If you're going to post on such an emotive topic, you have to be a bit more thick skinned my friend.

Jools

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 07 Dec 2003, 17:14

Jools wrote:colour variations are a matter of personal taste but cannot be decried in ignorance of the commerical aspects of their existence.

True. When I help new members of our local club selecting fish, I do tell them about the commercial aspects behind some of the fish available in our shops. I spent some 20 years breeding labyrinths. It makes me kind of sad when I see that some species are hardly ever seen anymore in their natural forms. They've been almost completely replaced by color morphs.

Jools wrote:Perfecting is the wrong word, improving or specialising would be more accurate.... Mother nature, as you refer to her, is not an idle lady.

True again - wrong choise of words on my part. I actually did mean something like 'specializing'.

Post by **Coryman** » 07 Dec 2003, 18:37

Seeing as albino's, Cory's in particular started the topic I will go back to it and say that if you look at the substrate that most Cory's are found living over, you will find it to be a very light coloured sand, the colour of which can vary from white to a redish gold. This factor is probably why there are several species of ablino Cory's around. Far from being more noticable to preditors an albino Cory over sand is less noticable than any so called natural forms. There are however some forms of albinism that are actually man made, most if not all have come out of eastern Europe, the difficulty is detecting which is which, and quite honestly you can't.

Ian

general-sherman · Post by **general-sherman** » 07 Dec 2003, 19:37

I should point out that Pidgeon blood discus are a hybrid variety. Therefore not a good example...

Post by **Barbie** » 07 Dec 2003, 20:05

Hybrid how? Which two species were used to create them? Last I had heard, it was disputed whether the different color morphs (not including heckels) were separate species at all. Please tell us more!

Barbie

coelacanth · Post by **coelacanth** » 07 Dec 2003, 20:10

Barbie wrote:Last I had heard, it was disputed whether the different color morphs (not including heckels) were separate species at all. Please tell us more!
Barbie

This was what I understood. As far as I knew, the different 'sub-species' of S. aequifasciata were largely created to glorify some of Axelgrease's buddies (for further information, see the etymology behind Corydoras narcissus).

coelacanth · Post by **coelacanth** » 07 Dec 2003, 20:14

flyinmike wrote: I also know several avid fishermen who catch albino channel cats probably 3-4 times a year.

These are quite possibly released 'pets', or at least fish that have been introduced as fingerlings in stocking programmes.

coelacanth · Post by **coelacanth** » 07 Dec 2003, 20:29

plesner wrote:I've never been able to understand this fascination with breeding types of catfish (or other kinds of fish) which would stand little chance of surviving in the wild.

I think the simple answer is because they sell. Garden centres are filled with plants that would have a similarly poor chance of survival in the wild. Albinos are not to my personal taste either, but if they help get someone into the hobby, where their tastes can subsequently mature and develop to understand that wild-form fish are more beautiful than anything else, I am happy to look the other way. Compared to some of the monstrosities out there, they are pretty innocuous.
I'd be happier to see someone keeping albino fish in a correctly-proportioned aquarium with good husbandry standards than someone keeping a Phractocephalus, Pseudoplatystoma or Sorubimichthys etc. entombed in a 150 gallon aquarium.

general-sherman · Post by **general-sherman** » 07 Dec 2003, 22:34

Oh...I just read somewhere that they [pidgeon bloods] were hybrids. Can't remember where...didn't take a-lot of notice, I like catfish

Must say I agree with coelacanth's post above. I'd much rather see some properly housed albino Corydoras sp., then a giant species in a small tank. Its disgusting to see big cats or Arapaima etc. in a "standard" size tank. Eagles in a bird cage...

spiny · Post by **spiny** » 08 Dec 2003, 02:42

Why albino animals are popular? Albino forms are rare, and because of this easily drags attention. Through history there are loads of examples that albinos have been treated as holy/sacred, or given a high position in peoples minds. Here can be mentioned white elephants, peacocks, white cows (not albino), fishes, etc etc.
The world followed the story about the white gorilla recently, and everytime the see a white moose here in Scandinavia, you will see it in the newspapers. Thats the way it is.

Colormorphs like goldfish and similar, have long traditions of being cultivated and highly priced. Koi carps in Asia? Up through history emperors and royalty could show their position and refined way of living through perfectly built gardens, and goldfish that would not be easily available to most people. Take a look at such animals position in a highly sophisticated society so full of history and traditions as Japan.
Those traditions are still there, spread around the world in different forms.

All the new color morphs of today, satisfies more commercial powers; the masses/crowds lack of knowledge about fish and their habitats and needs, as they do not see the beauty of our belowed camouflaged bottomdwellers. A bright color (signal red), that immediately attracts the eye, or some long fluffy fins, that draws comments from people seeing just a nice swimming object, "a cute fishy", and do not have the knowledge to consider those fins to be a serious disadvantage for the fish.

You see, knowledge, are not easily obtained, because it requires time, and patience, and money. It is a lot easier to just just follow the stream, ABSORB tv, movies, fluorescent fishes, and the like, instead of sitting down, read, get yourself knowledged, and use your brain for independent thinking, standing up for what you believe in! (of course you can watch tv and still do all this good stuff

)..

Of course you also have these google-eye long finned slow moving goldfishes. They satisfy humanitys need to feel sorry for something, to care for these cute but clumsy small fishes. It is a good act to have these feelings for other living creatures, but I would not encourage the industry that takes advantage of this, just to sell these animals and gain profit.

otg · Post by **otg** » 08 Dec 2003, 03:59

plesner do you own a dog or a cat and if so what type...this is a relevant question so please answer

flyinmike · Post by **flyinmike** » 08 Dec 2003, 06:18

coelacanth wrote:These are quite possibly released 'pets', or at least fish that have been introduced as fingerlings in stocking programmes.

Released pets I seriously doubt. People around here are more into eating channel cat than keeping them as pets. It's possible some were introduced in stocking programs but, I guarantee you that albinos are not selectively bred for release. They just breed channel cats and if some are pink then so be it.

Post by **Coryman** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:03

I will shortly have documented evidance that there are at least three distinct populations of at least three species of Corydoras in the wild. This is from someone who is in central Brazil at tis moment in time. This should prove without doubt that albinism is something that has evolved naturaly and to breed them would be following a true natural strain.

There are of cource other natural albino fish such as some of the cave dwelling species of which there is at least one Catfish.

Ian

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 08 Dec 2003, 10:09

otg wrote:do you own a dog or a cat and if so what type...this is a relevant question so please answer

No I don't. As I see it, several breeds of both have problems which are at least as serious as those found in i.e. some variants of goldfish or balloon mollies.

spiny wrote:A bright color (signal red), that immediately attracts the eye, or some long fluffy fins, that draws comments from people seeing just a nice swimming object, "a cute fishy", and do not have the knowledge to consider those fins to be a serious disadvantage for the fish.

Excellent point spiny, but there are also a number of very knowledgable people who seem to prefer things like color morphs and other 'variants' even though I have no doubt they know as much as anybody about their fish. A major reason why I started this thread was that I wondered about that knowledgable part. As this threas has shown, it's very much a matter of taste and is next to impossible to discuss.

Post by **Coryman** » 08 Dec 2003, 17:06

Plesner,

With referance to the first part of your original post.

I've never been able to understand this fascination with breeding types of catfish (or other kinds of fish) which would stand little chance of surviving in the wild.

In your opinion do you think that the species of fish you breed or have bred, past say three generations would actually survive if re-introduced back into the wild. Or would they in fact still resemble their wild cousins, personally I think there would be some degeneration and think the survival rate would be very low.

Ian

plesner · Post by **plesner** » 08 Dec 2003, 18:24

Coryman wrote:In your opinion do you think that the species of fish you breed or have bred, past say three generations would actually survive if re-introduced back into the wild.

I've been thinking about the same. I think they would stand a better chance of surviving than if I chose to re-introduce a long-finned variant or one with less cryptic colours than their natural 'cousins'.

Coryman wrote:Or would they in fact still resemble their wild cousins, personally I think there would be some degeneration and think the survival rate would be very low.

If I breed any of my fish for several generations, there will inevitably be a higher degree of inbreeding because I have access to a smaller gene pool than is available in the wild. I think this problem varies with the species of fish we're talking about. Some species naturally live in VERY small bodies of waters where the degree of inbreeding consequently is rather high (certain populations of livebearers, anabantoids and killies come to mind). Apparently they don't show signs of inbreeding.

Post by **Barbie** » 08 Dec 2003, 19:03

But honestly, isn't that just an assumption on your part? Yellow Labidochromis caeruleus are a hobby staple in the cichlid industry, and I've seen some very poorly colored ones, and also some intensely yellow, with very little excess barring or other "dark" shades on them. ALL of these fish in our hobby, until very recently, were descended from one single pair that was removed from the lake more than 10 years ago. The variations were in the different preferences and breeding practices used on the fish received, not the original gene pool, yes the original fish were that same intense yellow.

People that breed long finned or intensely colored variants aren't trying to repopulate water ways where the ancestors were originally collected, they are refining the species to their own preference, and hopefully to make the fish more marketable, in most cases.

You personally said you cull your breeding stock, but by doing so, you also are playing god, and directing the outcome to what you personally feel is ideal. If your ideal more closely matches what you feel would be naturally collected, than say the albinos in the trade, that gives you a sense of satisfaction. That same sense of satisfaction can be felt by people that are breeding fish closer to their own ideal. It doesn't make either of the methods correct, it makes them correct for them. (People that hybridize fish for purely economic reasons regularly pollute the gene pool for serious breeders of many types of fish, and are an entirely separate argument, IMO).

It's much like so many other topics in the world that could be argued endlessly. You don't like them, so don't keep them. That's your right. Judging other people harshly for not doing it the way you would, is unfair and unrealistic.

Barbie

Katman · Post by **Katman** » 08 Dec 2003, 19:20

If you look around you you will find that there very few things that man has spent
any time with that hasn't been changed in one way or another. Be it Fish, Mammal,
Bird, Plant or what ever. If it doesn't fit our needs modify it to what pleases us.
Problem is most people don't stop to think about it ,every domestic anamal we have
has been changed to the point they no longer look like their wild kin.The same goes
for pets, plants and so on. If you are trying to breed true to wild stock you are kind of
the odd guy.
There is a movement to stop all breeding of all animals, not because of hybrids
but because of inbreeding,this the latest attempt to shut down the pet trade.
They are going on the idea that if one of your fish ever ends up back in the Amazon it will contaminate the gene pool . I know this sounds far fetched but some people think no one should keep any kind pet ,and want to stop it altogether.
How many of you are keeping track of your fish. and not inbreeding?Are you breeding
Brother to sister. Are you sure your fish are not related. If they are this causes
mutations. Very few people know or even care where their fish come from.
It is not easy to keep the gene pool straight, locating stock that is not related can
be a challenge in it's self. To keep track of your fish ( if you Have any amount) you use
fin clips (I find this works well if you handle your fish often) Tags, or implants. To keep a line of fish true to form this needs to be done. If you stack the gene pool you lose.

Why breed albinos and other colour morphs ?

Why breed albinos and other colour morphs ?

Re: Why breed albinos and other colour morphs ?

Pidgeon blood discus.

Re: Why breed albinos and other colour morphs ?

Discus

albinos and color morphs