DO WILD CICHLIDS DISPLAY MORE VIBRANT COLORS THAN SECOND GENERATION FISH

[cchhcc]

lol your comparing a white one compared to a red one youve made no point

my one crap lighting shes probably a F300 knowing australia

Sorry. I'll have to be more literal next time.

My point was to show that a "wild Midas" could be ordered...... Excitement ensues.... Pointless "Guess what's coming Wednesday" posts follow.... Only to result in a rather drab looking fish.

Some fish are great looking and some aren't.

 

[dogofwar]

I voted "no" because many of my F1 and F2 (wild parent + F1 parent) fish (that I've bred from my wild fish) exhibit better color, size, condition and deportment than their wild parents.

As an example, I have both wild and F1 Lake Nicaragua "siquia" convicts. The parents are nice fish, with the female showing lots of red... but the F1s are much higher bodied (responding to an abundance of food) and the males have a lot more spangling and color. The females have more blue. Poor care of the offspring could have had just the opposite impact. But I feed them well and do lots of water changes...

Line bred or selectively bred fish can exhibit MUCH, MUCH more color and other aesthetically pleasing characteristics than any wild fish. That's the point and why people have been selectively breeding peacocks, discus, angelfish, koi, guppies, bettas, etc, etc. for years.

 

[oriqua]

Yes I believe wild caught fish can display better color and Look Nicer with thicker nuchal humps and longer finnage.I believe genes , enviroment , space ,s un can produce a better looking specimen....In most cases. I have experienced this when Umbeeking brought back wild jack dempseys from Belize and snooks and Mayans. Sure one can temper with color schemes and enhance color but for me I believe Mother nature does it best.

 

[oriqua]

I agree with you caribemob...umbeeking umbee look nice ..the potential is great

 

[cchhcc]

Anyone who thinks wild fish are inherently capable of having more color, a different shape, or more vigor than first generation fish needs to go back to genetics class. Short of mutation and envronmental influence, is it IMPOSSIBLE for a wild fish to express different genetics than first generation fish.

There are environmental factors (natural foods, water conditions, space, reduced stress, available sunlight, steady circadian rhythms, etc.) that are difficult but possible to reproduce in the aquarium which may result in a different looking wild fish. It's the environmental factors, not anything else, that makes any difference at all. And that "difference" often rapidly disappears once tanked for a while.

 

[caribemob]

Yes I believe wild caught fish can display better color and Look Nicer with thicker nuchal humps and longer finnage.I believe genes , enviroment , space ,s un can produce a better looking specimen.

I know buddy, I was talking in general when I said Wild fish have more vibrant colors, If you pull a Red Devil out of the wild a lot of them are Blood Red, I have yet to see a f1 blood colored red Devil in a aquarium, however I believe the natural habitat just can't be mimicked in a aquarium therefore certain colors of aquarium

 

[oriqua]

cchhcc I got a question for you are you like a scientist of some thing or a Phd in dna genetics ..who makes you the authority on genes ? Maybe you can show me your credentials Phd and tell me how you draw from your conclusions. If you have your opinion thats fine but maybe you should go back to oxford FISH MD....

 

[jgentry]

EVERYTHING spoken hear is speculation and theories and opinions so Stop being a smart ass...

Genetically the offspring will have shared genetics and traits as there wild parents. Wild conditions can lead more slender fish or slightly different colors, etc. This is an enviromental factor though, not an actual expression of a genetic trait. F1 fish will be genetically the same as there wild parents. That is not speculation. Tank factors verses wild factors can cause different looking fish though. You can easily see this by buying a wild caught juvy and growing it out and then comparing it to a wild caught adult. They will most likely look a good bit different.

Ask Peathenster, he is well versed in genetics and can give you those creditials that you ask for to prove what he says. I am no genetic expert, chemistry is my thing, biology never had enough structure for me.

 

[BigPic]

Can anyone tell me if this male Cryptoheros Cutteri is wild or not? He was one of the biggest most colorful that I have ever seen. . .

BTW - this topic is ludicrous, questioning the genetics of an "f1" fish is like saying you are genetically inferior to your parents

Take any fish, no matter how many generations from wild, put it outside and let it get a tan. . . IMHO, that's what this whole thing boils down to

Respectfully,

Ray

 

[buddha1200]

I think the only reason most breeders get wild fish is to introduce new blood back into a line of fish,I also believe that with the best of care all fish f0,f1,f2 will look the best they can look as far as genetics goes. In my opinion nothing can bring out colors that are not there to begin with . I have never had a problem with hiding from any wild fish I have owned but I have to agree getting them to eat does take some patience,but once they start eating they seem to out eat every f1 I have ever owned. That seems to make them look like they grow faster but in reality giving enough time the f1's will get the same size.(Just my observation)