A clan of blue people? You haven't been hitting the pipe recently, have you?
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Is the electric blue gene a man made trait?
- Thread starter FluffySackson
- Start date
I believe there is some truth to this actually. Do some googling.
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Fugates
Most color morphs we see in tank bred fish came from the selective breeding of fish born with color mutations. These mutations are naturally occurring and most often would attract predators in the wild, making their chances of survival slim, but in an aquarium it can be encouraged and bred for. There are lots of examples of color mutations even in wild populations of animals. Look at all the geographical variants of cichlids. There are white orca whales, pink bottlenose dolphins, etc.
Unless fish are juiced with hormones or injected with dyes, it's likely the color morphs are naturally occurring. This is backed up by the fact that a lot of fish (electric blue rams and acaras, blue diamond discus, gold severums, etc.) breed true and throw offspring of the same color. A "man-made" color morph that's influenced by outside, non-genetic factors would not be capable of that.
Naturally occurring, yes, but that does not necessarily equate to naturally occuring within the species in question. Numerous man made hybrid strains of fish breed true, and throw offspring of the same color. Those fish are not dyed, nor are they hormoned, but they aren't naturally occuring species either.
A lot of people, some of them fairly expert, have spent a lot of time trying to get to the bottom of this question, including doing dna analysis-- and there doesn't appear to be a 100% certain answer.
The genetic evidence, at least as late as anything I've found or read, favors EBJD not being a hybrid, but a hybridization event apparently can't be ruled out beyond question according to some familiar with genetics. Or, to put it another way, I've yet to see a report of genetic evidence of any substance for hybridization, only explanations of why it can't be 100% ruled out. If there was a hybridization event, there's no evidence of when or where it occurred. In other words, hybridization can occur naturally in the wild and IF there was a hybridization event, of which there isn't any positive evidence of substance, it may have occurred in a tank somewhere in South America 30 some odd years ago or may have occurred in a stream, lake, pond or drainage ditch somewhere in the field.
The basic story of how they came into the hobby has been reported by various sources, the basic story here. Example of one of the more sophisticated and technical discussion of the genetics is here, a molecular biology forum, not a fish forum.
The genetic provenance of the fish is (apparently) not beyond all trace of doubt. So there's some license for personal interpretation. But if you start splitting hairs with too much bias incited by prejudice against "man made" fish, no matter of what degree, you have to consider the interpretive or potentially arbitrary degree at which you're delineating the term, considering the very act of setting up an artificial environment (fish tank) with an artificially limited population already produces increasingly "man made" fish with each succeeding generation. Even if it's random and without design (you're not line breeding to select for a particular trait), as soon as you pick out the fish to go in your tank or someone else picks them out to ship to you, human intervention has 'selected' the potential breeding individuals to produce future generations of what arguably, however imperceptibly, become man made fish.
In other words, when it comes to EBJD, it's in the eyes of the beholder...
google image fugate clan of kentucky then you can apologize if you want
EBJD's are NOT hybrids.
Can they occur in nature? YES- but it's not a survival trait so it's not something that would be nurtured except in a man made environment. So technically they're not man made but technically they are. I hope this clears up any confusion lol.
Once again, there has never been any definitive evidence that proves that the "electric blue" gene naturally occurs in this species. (JD) People can speculate all they want, but please don't speak in a factual manner unless you have some solid facts to support your view.
The only thing that the facts at present support is that they are most likely not hybrids, but to be definitive via indepth DNA work would take a lot of time, and a lot of money to prove, hence there will probably always be specualtion from both sides as to their true origin. Those are the facts. lol
I always forget about the semantic police. Blue genes occur in nature. Electric Blue Genes probably do not.
-However Electric Blue genes probably came from a natural blue strain. You have absolutely NO facts to disprove it either and those are the facts as well LOL
-However Electric Blue genes probably came from a natural blue strain. You have absolutely NO facts to disprove it either and those are the facts as well LOL
This has nothing to do with semantics. Everyone understands that blue genes occur in nature, but that doesn't equate to every blue fish found in this hobby originating from a natural breeding of two fish of the same species. I'm not attempting to disprove anything, I'm simply stating that there is no definitive evidence to date that proves that the blue color morph of JD's is naturally occuring. Some people in this discussion seem to feel otherwise, and are stating things as absolute facts, when no such facts exist.
