Interesting thread. Don told me his labs have been tested. I think he also said a fair # of his fish have been as well. I could be wrong on that piece though.
DNA Identification & Vendors
- Thread starter cchhcc
- Start date
To answer the question "what specimen is used as the starting point for that DNA?", there is a specimen or parts of a specimen preserved somewhere that is the base line for comparison. Though using DNA sequencing could eliminate much of the hybrid debate, I do not believe that this will happen. Too much time and effort would be needed to satisfy a very small population.
Nemesis;4054964; said:
Yes, but unfortunately a few guys acted like idiots and got it closed.
Feel free to offer your opinion.
NorCaliCichlids;4055004; said:
That should be easy to verify. Encourage him to post his data and explain the process if he'll be generous enough to take the time for a forum for of potential customers! Was it the fish from the farmer's pond that were tested?
On another note, whatever happened to the DNA testing of the La Ceiba freddies? I thought Rusty or someone was doing that.
FIN01;4055005; said:
Yes, but is that being used as a comparison to something now? Are the newly collected fish (above) being compared to sample "X?" And I doubt any remaining DNA is viable once in the presevation liquid (formalin, formaldehyde.).
I see a day when all aquarium fish will be DNA tested like on CSI (Cichlid Scene Investigators) and the world will be a better place.....
So I guess you don't care about the potential loss of a species. That's certainly your right.
Feel free to offer your opinion it that's not correct!
Feel free to offer your opinion it that's not correct!
Yes, but there were still plenty of responses, as well as a poll for your reference. I doubt that opinions have changed much since then.
Anywho, my opinion really doesn't matter, but if you want it here it is! While I wouldn't advocate illegal collecting, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase an illegally collected fish, so long as it's not illegal in the US and my home State. I guess in the end me purchasing the fish somewhat supports the collector in continuing what they are doing, but I try not to think so hard
Anywho, my opinion really doesn't matter, but if you want it here it is! While I wouldn't advocate illegal collecting, I wouldn't hesitate to purchase an illegally collected fish, so long as it's not illegal in the US and my home State. I guess in the end me purchasing the fish somewhat supports the collector in continuing what they are doing, but I try not to think so hard
Whether or not the ideal specimen is being compared to the fish in question, I do not know exactly. It sure can be if someone cared to do so. I'm sure they can get DNA from some sample, but any information needed from the DNA has already been taken and stored somewhere.
When was the Media Luna canal finished?
The labridens DNA was not sequenced when the paper was published (2004), it was done in 1997 (by Don Conkel actually! (Roe, K.J., Conkel, D., Lydeard, D.C., 1997. Molecular systematics of Middle American cichlid fishes and the evolution of trophic-types in Cichlasoma (Amphilophus) and C. (Thorichthys). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7, 366–376.)). And even then it was done with museum samples, so who knows when they were collected?
Both labridens types sampled are still grouped with like fish, and not with carpintis (which is what it is has become hybridized with, correct?)
The labridens DNA was not sequenced when the paper was published (2004), it was done in 1997 (by Don Conkel actually! (Roe, K.J., Conkel, D., Lydeard, D.C., 1997. Molecular systematics of Middle American cichlid fishes and the evolution of trophic-types in Cichlasoma (Amphilophus) and C. (Thorichthys). Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 7, 366–376.)). And even then it was done with museum samples, so who knows when they were collected?
Both labridens types sampled are still grouped with like fish, and not with carpintis (which is what it is has become hybridized with, correct?)
