id maybe jd hybrid???

[Jillfishie]

In my experience, there is absolutely no visual difference between BGJD's and regular JD's. The reason for the purple/red tone is that they are just better quality specimens. I have owned/seen plenty of regular JD's that have a red/purple tone and plenty of BGJD's that don't.

Unless purchased from a reputable source, then there is no way to know. Unless of course you breed it and it produces blues

Nice looking JD

Come on people. There is absolutely no way to tell a regular "wild-type" jack dempsey from a jack dempsey that carries the recessive blue gene trait. Not a chance in hell.

Can you look at someone with brown eyes and determine if they're carriers for the recessive blue eye trait? No. Same thing...

Quit spreading bad information.

Dilema & Modest_Man
I'm sorry that you disagree with me on this, but I breed, bred many types of JD's & was taught to look for this colouration in Split Gene JD's. I can tell you that in my experience I've never seen that colouration on any WTJD's, but I have seen it in BGJD's & BGGG's. It's true that sometimes the colour isn't visible on all Split genes, but you won't ever see it in WTJD's like (Dilema) says. The colour isn't because of better water conditions either & I know because I've moved my split genes from tank to tank with different variables & the colour is always there.
As for (Modest_Man) comparing fish genetics with human genetics. It's laughable ... You can't compare fish/humans.
(Modest_Man) It's O.k. to disagree with this, but bring your info to the table when claiming it to be false.

Thank You

Jill

 

[dreysthename]

Congratulations Jill! It is nice that you are pioneering a way to distinguish these blue genes from regular types, you should publish a paper with your findings, i would love to give it a read. Unfortunately until it is proven wrong...soon, and hopefully by Jill... I will have to agree with modest man. the reason genes are called recessive is basically because they do not manifest any physical or distinguishable traits in the carrier. That definition/ explanation happens to be already proven science

 

[Dilema]

Dilema & Modest_Man
I'm sorry that you disagree with me on this, but I breed, bred many types of JD's & was taught to look for this colouration in Split Gene JD's. I can tell you that in my experience I've never seen that colouration on any WTJD's, but I have seen it in BGJD's & BGGG's. It's true that sometimes the colour isn't visible on all Split genes, but you won't ever see it in WTJD's like (Dilema) says. The colour isn't because of better water conditions either & I know because I've moved my split genes from tank to tank with different variables & the colour is always there.
As for (Modest_Man) comparing fish genetics with human genetics. It's laughable ... You can't compare fish/humans.
(Modest_Man) It's O.k. to disagree with this, but bring your info to the table when claiming it to be false.

Thank You

Jill

Better water quality most definitely help with colouration in my opinion, but that's not what i said. What i said was, that the reason for the purple/red was because they were better quality specimens.

I would guess that quite a high percentage of cichlid owners have owned or bred them at some point in their time in the hobby. Myself included, if you have any definitive proof that only the BGJD will display these colours and that is a way to distinguish BGJD i'm all ears, because i don't know anyone else that can identify them by looks alone

 

[Modest_Man]

Dilema & Modest_Man
I'm sorry that you disagree with me on this, but I breed, bred many types of JD's & was taught to look for this colouration in Split Gene JD's. I can tell you that in my experience I've never seen that colouration on any WTJD's, but I have seen it in BGJD's & BGGG's. It's true that sometimes the colour isn't visible on all Split genes, but you won't ever see it in WTJD's like (Dilema) says. The colour isn't because of better water conditions either & I know because I've moved my split genes from tank to tank with different variables & the colour is always there.
As for (Modest_Man) comparing fish genetics with human genetics. It's laughable ... You can't compare fish/humans.
(Modest_Man) It's O.k. to disagree with this, but bring your info to the table when claiming it to be false.

Thank You

Jill

This post just helps to prove how ignorant you are in regards to genetics. Quit spreading falsifications. You cannot distinguish a homozygous dominant genotype from a heterozygous genotype by looking at the phenotype (look up those definitions).

 

[Jillfishie]

Congratulations Jill! It is nice that you are pioneering a way to distinguish these blue genes from regular types, you should publish a paper with your findings, i would love to give it a read. Unfortunately until it is proven wrong...soon, and hopefully by Jill... I will have to agree with modest man. the reason genes are called recessive is basically because they do not manifest any physical or distinguishable traits in the carrier. That definition/ explanation happens to be already proven science

dreysthename
Hi... I'm not here to prove anything to anyone (including yourself). I'm simply answering a question that was asked & I answered it from my experience with them. You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want (modest man), but before questioning my findings you should work on them & see what kind of results you get.

As for this being proven science - Show me/us where it says No traits will be visible for recessive genes.

Thank You
Jill

 

[Modest_Man]

For a co-dominant or incomplete dominant relationship you do get some expression of the recessive allele. This in not the case in jack dempsey color morphs.

If you want we can put this to the test. I'll gather up 20 photos of jack dempseys, and you can tell me which are homozgyous and which are heterozygous. You'll have a 50% shot at each one if you just randomly guess, so I'll say ahead of time that you'll correctly determine the alleles of half the photos (10). If what you say is true, then you should be able to correctly determine the alleles of all 20. Sound fun? If so, let me know and I'll make a new topic.

 

[Jillfishie]

This post just helps to prove how ignorant you are in regards to genetics. Quit spreading falsifications. You cannot distinguish a homozygous dominant genotype from a heterozygous genotype by looking at the phenotype (look up those definitions).

You're funny calling me ignorant Specially with your post history.
I know a lot more about the genotypes you mentioned than you do hun (homozygous & heterozygous).
Using them to defend yourself doesn't make you smart.
I actually understand both genotypes & have breeding projects working with my projected results being proven correct. What can you tell me about these genotypes that I don't already know? (NOTHING)wned:
It's O.k. if you disagree with me, but don't judge my findings by trying to look smart because you're (NOT)
I answered the question asked with my best intentions. You're just looking for an argument & I don't appreciate it. Go do some research & read a little more on the genotypes you think you know so much about.
Now quit trolling & do something useful with your time.
Thank You Jill
PS I'm done wasting my time with you... go bother someone else

 

[cichlidfish]

Yeah ok. Well thanks for the extra info. I'll just keep my fingers crossed that I actually bought BGJD's and not normal JD's. Time will tell if any electric blues show up.

Oh and how could I be so rude as to not mention that the fish in the first post is a fine looking speciman. You must be very happy with how he's turned out

Well its marketing 101. So many LFS make up common names to sell their product.

 

[dreysthename]

dreysthename
Hi... I'm not here to prove anything to anyone (including yourself). I'm simply answering a question that was asked & I answered it from my experience with them. You're more than welcome to believe whatever you want (modest man), but before questioning my findings you should work on them & see what kind of results you get.

As for this being proven science - Show me/us where it says No traits will be visible for recessive genes.

Thank You
Jill

I am sorry you took my response in the wrong light, you do not have to validate your beliefs to me or anyone else. i just meant to ask if you can publish your findings so i can read them as a whole myself also nothing is absolute especially in areas where research and knowledge is limited. sorry for derailing thread OP, you have a very nice JD

 

[steffano2]

In my experience, there is absolutely no visual difference between BGJD's and regular JD's. The reason for the purple/red tone is that they are just better quality specimens. I have owned/seen plenty of regular JD's that have a red/purple tone and plenty of BGJD's that don't.

Unless purchased from a reputable source, then there is no way to know. Unless of course you breed it and it produces blues

Nice looking JD

+1, no way to tell the difference between EBJD & BGJD! I think this "fallacy" came around by people who want to sell more JD at a possible higher price.