Uh, no - thousands of years of people selectively breeding (i.e. inbreeding) animals has resulted in the array of domestic animals (and fish) that we have today. Crossing back to a wolf or a carp or whatever wild animal would undo that work. Not to say that more than a single pair of fish wouldn't help.
There's a difference between indiscriminate breeding and breeding for selected traits. Not culling and starting with inferior quality WILD or F1 stock is a formula for inferior F2s and on. So is, of course, inbreeding for 20 generations with a single pair of fish to start.
But the idea that fish farther than, say, F3 from the wild are somehow automatically inferior and likely to be deformed is unfounded. So the obsession with only wild and F1 fish (...and getting them from different sources...etc... is a bunch of hogwash) is more about the owner than the fish...
20+ years ago people talked about how cichlids (livebearers, etc, etc.) back in the day were far superior to the ones we had back then. And probably 20 years before then. There was untold indiscriminate hybridization going on because people didn't know better (science hadn't identified the fish...or that, for example, "convicts" or "peacocks" from different variants shouldn't be crossed). And most hobbyists didn't document any better back then than they do now! We just didn't know that the mbuna we were buying were actually hybrids...
Finding pure lines of fish is simple enough if you deal with trustworthy folks... and don't include random fish (without provenance) in breeding projects.
I couldn't agree more that documentation of locations and provenance is key. For whatever reason, most folks can't be bothered...
Matt
There's a difference between indiscriminate breeding and breeding for selected traits. Not culling and starting with inferior quality WILD or F1 stock is a formula for inferior F2s and on. So is, of course, inbreeding for 20 generations with a single pair of fish to start.
But the idea that fish farther than, say, F3 from the wild are somehow automatically inferior and likely to be deformed is unfounded. So the obsession with only wild and F1 fish (...and getting them from different sources...etc... is a bunch of hogwash) is more about the owner than the fish...
20+ years ago people talked about how cichlids (livebearers, etc, etc.) back in the day were far superior to the ones we had back then. And probably 20 years before then. There was untold indiscriminate hybridization going on because people didn't know better (science hadn't identified the fish...or that, for example, "convicts" or "peacocks" from different variants shouldn't be crossed). And most hobbyists didn't document any better back then than they do now! We just didn't know that the mbuna we were buying were actually hybrids...
Finding pure lines of fish is simple enough if you deal with trustworthy folks... and don't include random fish (without provenance) in breeding projects.
I couldn't agree more that documentation of locations and provenance is key. For whatever reason, most folks can't be bothered...
Matt
So you're implying the hundreds and in some case thousands of years of work cat, dog, horse, rabbit, pig, goats, sheep...... and now cichlid, angelfish, koi, Asian arrowana...ect breeders are all wrong?
"douche-baggery" isn't the word I'de use for it. Ethical is the word i'de use for not intentionally creating weakness in genetic lines of animals destined for breeding stock... If it was easy then people wouldn't be genetically altering stuff.. they would just be "selective breeding"
You ever seen the results of mixing 2 bloodlines that both carry the same negative recessive trait? in the end it isn't just about not breeding relatives.. the whole point is to build a strong genetic make-up and NOT see those double negatives that even in human genomes = instant death or "abominations" It has nothing to do with inbreeding but more to do with genetic mapping at a more core level... animal breeders look for more then just a healthy animal... they look for certain traits...
The only "false" premise is by anyone who thinks breeding from a single pair for multiple generations wouldn't = negative effects to the genetic make-up of a species. particular if said species is "uncommon"
and Matt you are talking about unethical people selling false goods... cichlids 20+yrs ago are nothing like what you see today outside Documented wild caughts.. and why is that documentation so important to those people????... because they can't find pure lines, because not enough people where smart enough to keep records to begin with.
