Peacock Interbreeding Question
- Thread starter Habaceeba
- Start date
Well... Faramir said
"the danger of ending up with a homogenous captive population, where they all look the same."
The DANGER... is that they will all LOOK THE SAME...
Whats wrong with that? So what... they all look the same... congradulations... your a success... you win!
Ummmmmm...
Yeah... I got a bit carried away with that one... heh, heh, heh.
"the danger of ending up with a homogenous captive population, where they all look the same."
The DANGER... is that they will all LOOK THE SAME...
Whats wrong with that? So what... they all look the same... congradulations... your a success... you win!
Ummmmmm...
Yeah... I got a bit carried away with that one... heh, heh, heh.I'm not sure I should dignify this bull$#!+ with a reply, but I will.
People are people. Fish are fish. Aquarium fish are kept for various reasons; one is the interest generated by the endless variety. This variety will be lost if the individual strains are not kept seperate. From the hobbiest's viewpoint, this is a danger. Simple as that.
People are not kept as pets, and doing so would be unthinkable. The value of people is not their value as inhabitants of an aquarium, but is intrinsic in their humanity. Their racial origin does not effect this.
People are people. Fish are fish. Aquarium fish are kept for various reasons; one is the interest generated by the endless variety. This variety will be lost if the individual strains are not kept seperate. From the hobbiest's viewpoint, this is a danger. Simple as that.
People are not kept as pets, and doing so would be unthinkable. The value of people is not their value as inhabitants of an aquarium, but is intrinsic in their humanity. Their racial origin does not effect this.
As a moderator, I am always torn as to how best to deal with situations like this. On the one hand, I can just go in and delete all the offending posts, but if I do that no lessons will be learned.
So instead I will just say KNOCK IT OFF. Arguing against interbreeding (and thus destroying) color variants of a species is NOT the same as advocating racial separation in humans, and to suggest that is emotionally charged, logically false, and a cheap shot to boot. If you can't see that the cases of fish and humans are different, both ethically and physiologically, you need to get some glasses.
Having said that, any further cracks in that vein in this thread will be summarily edited.
So instead I will just say KNOCK IT OFF. Arguing against interbreeding (and thus destroying) color variants of a species is NOT the same as advocating racial separation in humans, and to suggest that is emotionally charged, logically false, and a cheap shot to boot. If you can't see that the cases of fish and humans are different, both ethically and physiologically, you need to get some glasses.
Having said that, any further cracks in that vein in this thread will be summarily edited.
Harry...you are certainly correct in what you say...and I didn't really mean for the subject to go beyond genetics. What brought those two subjects together is something I'm going to reiterate and stand by.
Humans are an excellent example of what happens when there is no restriction to mass interbreeding. Having 4 children, it never ceases to amaze me at how much each child has some parts of them that are easily identified as coming from their parents. However, each of them is so genetically unique (well...I guess aside from having a set of identical twins). Genetics in fish as well as humans is way to complicated to sum up that every fish would end up brown over time. The neat thing about genetics is that mutations occur frequently enough, that the odds of losing a genetic trait are just as good as developing a new one.
For those of you who want to keep your family lines pure...have fun, but I don't find it nearly as interesting as finding out what happens when you let nature take it's course. I hate to say it, but putting to geographically separated but same species of fish is no different than when north america was settled and intebreeding with native americans took place (just as an example).
Now you can argue ethics or anything else, but this is a discussion of genetics...and I don't think you can rule out the fact that humans of many different genetic backgrounds have been interbreeding for a very long time...and looking around, it doesn't appear as if we're all drifting to some sort of limited gene pool.
Humans are an excellent example of what happens when there is no restriction to mass interbreeding. Having 4 children, it never ceases to amaze me at how much each child has some parts of them that are easily identified as coming from their parents. However, each of them is so genetically unique (well...I guess aside from having a set of identical twins). Genetics in fish as well as humans is way to complicated to sum up that every fish would end up brown over time. The neat thing about genetics is that mutations occur frequently enough, that the odds of losing a genetic trait are just as good as developing a new one.
For those of you who want to keep your family lines pure...have fun, but I don't find it nearly as interesting as finding out what happens when you let nature take it's course. I hate to say it, but putting to geographically separated but same species of fish is no different than when north america was settled and intebreeding with native americans took place (just as an example).
Now you can argue ethics or anything else, but this is a discussion of genetics...and I don't think you can rule out the fact that humans of many different genetic backgrounds have been interbreeding for a very long time...and looking around, it doesn't appear as if we're all drifting to some sort of limited gene pool.
Geez... where's your sense of humor?
I just find it funny, how folks completely disturb nature by taking the fish from the wild in the 1st place, and then... attempt to subdue their own internal guilt for doing so by trying some half-assed, and completely impossible method of "keeping it natural". That's all. Nature is like an Atom, you cant observe it without disturbing it. But, to each his own I always say.
I just find it funny, how folks completely disturb nature by taking the fish from the wild in the 1st place, and then... attempt to subdue their own internal guilt for doing so by trying some half-assed, and completely impossible method of "keeping it natural". That's all. Nature is like an Atom, you cant observe it without disturbing it. But, to each his own I always say.
I feel no internal guilt for keeping fish. If you do, well, thats your buisness. And the reasons for not letting geographical variantes interbreed is not half assed, nor impossible. Basically, your post made no sense. Cross breeding of Aulonocara species and variantes is not a huge problem at the moment (as far as I know). But if measures are not taken to prevent it, later on in the future, there will be serious problems. This again is comparable to Red Devils and Midas. They were allowed to crossbreed freely when they were first imported. And now you cannot be garanteed a Labiatus or Citrinellus unless you buy wild or F1. This is not a desirable situation, but it is one that Peacock enusiasts will be faced with later on if people let their fish cross freely now.
No matter what you do, there will be differences between fish bred in the wild, and those bred in captivity. It is unavoidable. Your method of not interbreeding will NOT lead to the complete preservation of the the species traits you desire to achieve. You... are only dealing with the appearances of the fish, not the total fish. A fish (or any living creature for that matter) is far, far more than its "Appearances". Just because it LOOKS right doesn't mean it ACTS right. That's why I said that what you are attempting to do is impossible. You may be able to keep them LOOKING correct, but what about the subtleness of behavior, attitude, etc.? Guaranteed... your correct LOOKING peacock will stick out like a sore thumb to a real, wild peacock if placed in the wild after spending a couple of years in your tank, maybe not by looks, but by the simple fact that YOUR peacock expects to be fed. So hence... you are changing the species anyway, if not by looks, then by other means.
Thats just my opinion though... I could be wrong.
Thats just my opinion though... I could be wrong.
