Wait a minute, folks.
Orandas, lionheads, black moors, long-finned livebearers (including male guppies), long-finned danios, long-finned plecos, and ANY color variety in ANY species that has been line-bred from the wild phenotype (including albinos) are all examples of deleterious mutations that would decrease the liklihood of the relevant species surviving in the wild. Betta splendens is the epitome of a fish in which mutations that would be deleterious in the wild are refined and selected for in captivity. Electric blue jack dempseys have a horrible survival rate among fry. With or without the horn, the angelfish in question wouldn't likely have survived long in the wild simply because of the lack of natural coloration. We aren't talking about a nearly extinct species in which genetic integrity needs to be maintained for preservation; this is a line-bred, tank-raised fish that is likely as far from it's ancestral phenotype and genotype as a chihuahua is from a wolf.
If I'm gonna condemn breeding to fix a mutation in fish, then I should apply the same logic to dogs. Pomeranians, greyhounds, dachsunds, bassets, etc., etc., etc. would have short lives in the wild. How 'bout parakeets? Horses? Shrimp? Cattle? Assumin' this is a mutation and not due to an injury, it appears the mutation is less harmful than the aforementioned varieties of "balloon" fish that keep croppin' up, which can cause major internal deformities and a shortened lifespan. I doubt that there is a person who's posted that has not kept one of the varieties of fish I've mentioned or at least one example of any of the other animals I mentioned and never had a single qualm about it. Even if the only benefit a human receives from the mutation is visual pleasure, there is no ethical reason NOT to attempt to fix the mutation as long as the resulting fish suffers no harm from the process.
WYite
