Imperial Line Festae
- Thread starter oriqua
- Start date
- Status
Wait..were you the one that said something about bringing in new blood and breeding wild caughts is counterproductive and that inbreeding guarantees better results??
Yeah you be quiet now, you're no longer allowed to post anything about breeding cichlids. Ever again. Anywhere. Under no circumstances. Nope nope nope..
I still don't understand why I'm being called Stan the hand? Does it mean something that I don't get? Or is it just the op's infatuation with silly made up names?
I think you just twisted everything dogofwar actually said.He happens to be right in what he was saying.Not the reinterpretation you just came up with.
I was half joking about the umbees because, and I quote, "its like a powder keg when people talk about strains and locations when it comes to umbees"Imperial festae? Sounds like some "gorillus" umbee mumbo jumbo
Gorillus seems to identified now! Did any of you mfk people know what they where? To the simple hobbyist there a blindness. I love the Gorillus, how would you identify there short faces , red freckles oh that's right the location way. Many breeder of dogs have line names so .....again if it's Mumbo Jumbo..what have you contributed?
However if you talk to experts (e.g. Don Conkel) they will tell you that the name gorillus lacks meaning. It seems to be some mix of location and color, but these colors can be found in other locations as well. It was just a hot topic a few years ago here. Especially since the guy who brought them in kept referring to them as a subspecies.
But I'm having trouble understanding what you're trying to say. Dog breeds have been selectively bred for years. They are not a natural, wild dog. Imperial festae is just like saying that your fish are pretty (and they are), but it's not enough to warrant a new title. There is nothing different! Names get thrown around a lot but unless something is really different about the lineage then it's not really worth it.
And what have I contributed? That's quite a snarky question for someone who thinks owning a festae is an accomplishment. I have bred numerous species of fish and produced thousands of tons of fish. I am a fish biologist. I dedicated my life to this stuff. Care to compare?
How? Read and listen...
Combining fish with unrelated bloodlines doesn't only mean the resulting offspring will be better and stronger.... It pretty much guarantees it. Any undesirable traits and flaws would be picked up in the culling process...that's just how it works. Any serious breeder knows that working with the same bloodlines and using the same formula long term is a recipe for failure. It's actually almost the complete opposite to this guy's explanation of how breeding bloodlines work. No new genes= no new improvements.
Normally only a hand full out of the thoudsands of fry even make it past a few days and or weeks, and in most cases very few ever even survive to adulthood. So I'm not sure how much weight his whole generations of inbreeding in the wild bit holds.. but the chances would be slim at best under most circumstances. In captivity however, sure they inbreed like heck it's been happening for ever which has led to some of worse monstrosities in some species ever seen. Why defend that? Why uphold regression?
The notion that inbreeding a species in captivity for generations assures the best results as opposed to using new blood is just plain baffling.
If what you're saying is correct (and it's not), then, for example, a wild betta x a fancy one would have "better" fins and color than continuing to line breed fancy bettas x fancy bettas (from the same line) for desired characteristics.
Out-crossing to a wild fish would basically require starting from scratch in terms of selecting for a stabilizing the desired characteristics for that line of fish.
The foundation of your confusion seems to be the notion that the characteristics that wild fish exhibit are the ones that aquarists also seek - That wild fish are necessarily "better and stronger." Decades of "fancy" angelfish (discus, livebearer, etc, etc.) line breeding would argue otherwise, as aquarists seek fish lines that look nothing like wild fish.
Bright orange discus and platies with Mickey Mouse patterned tails have goofy made up names too
Out-crossing to a wild fish would basically require starting from scratch in terms of selecting for a stabilizing the desired characteristics for that line of fish.
The foundation of your confusion seems to be the notion that the characteristics that wild fish exhibit are the ones that aquarists also seek - That wild fish are necessarily "better and stronger." Decades of "fancy" angelfish (discus, livebearer, etc, etc.) line breeding would argue otherwise, as aquarists seek fish lines that look nothing like wild fish.
Bright orange discus and platies with Mickey Mouse patterned tails have goofy made up names too
Sof your saying mother nature doesn't produce desirable traits? Then why is wild a desired commodity? Have you seen wild caught Festae? Have you seen wild caught Umbee? Location points vary on specific traits but you can't tell me what Mother nature produces isn't quality? Isn't there a demand for wild caught blood? Also have you tested your theory dog if war? I have pictures....do you
- Status
