My Kamfa's Bred

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Correct, true GM were all sold by the creator many years ago, again this is why i say you need to judge visually to find traits of GM within fish, as with other breeds..
You may also be correct in saying there are no TanKing, because unless Mr tan from viet is still producing them, there will be no true TanKing..
As for believing what breeders tell you, id be careful taking peoples word for it, some people will sell ya a "king kamfa" for maximum price, when in reality you are buying a low grade fish..
Not everyone, but some will deceive for the extra money..

Anyway, im sure we could exchange information and theories for days..
My question to you BIG_ONE is: the female fish above, i see mostly ZZ traits,
Length of face, shape of lips, head flower, fins/tail , colouration/pearls..
Would you agree this fish should be called ZZ ?


Sorry for hijacking this thread..
Just let it be known that i think they are VERY nice fish, just mislabeled as kamfa..
Therefor i think education is the best thing possible, learning about FH is the best possible thing for the future of flowerhorn and the hobby..
 
As far calling that female a ZZ. I can see where your coming from about it being a ZZ. But I wouldn't call it a ZZ in my own opinion. And the reason why I wouldn't call it a ZZ because there is just too much pearls for that female to be a ZZ. Real true ZZ is not suppose to have that much pearls covering all over...specially the face/gill plate area.
 
yes original ZZ the likes of RD never had this much pearling, but this is a modern ZZ..
It lacks the tail/fins face and lips of a kamfa, and if we are talking older strains, kamfa also never had the head flower..
it is obviously not jinkang..
Nor is it a GM: again it lacks the fins/tail , face and lips of a GM (or what is classed as GM these days)
 
As far as the head flower goes, my Kamfamalau doesn't have any head flower at all. But then some of it's siblings have that head flower trait. Now does this make any of my fish legit or not? I don't know...but it is what it is. Not only does this goes for mine, but plenty of fish out there. We can't just call it being this type of strain because it has a flower head, or not possible for this strain because of the flower head not being there. Modern FH now a days ain't the same as back then. So we should never really look into the old traditional trait that it actually contain v.s. the newer modern FH now a days.
As far as trusting what is coming out from a breeder, you really have to pick the right breeder to really trust if he is selling you some legit fish. Mick Kamfa here is one of the most legit Kamfa and well known out there. If we still have all the original FH like back then, I can imagine we'll be having paper for every single one of them being registered as a legit fish and not a fake. Just like how they have kennels for dogs and it traces down the family tree line. That would be awesome though as it would take the hobby into a whole new level, but not possible now a days. :D
 
With the modern ZZ, I still see tons of modern ZZ that doesn't have that much pearling. I know a guy that work in an aquarium here(they specialize in FH and Discus), they came out 1st place overall back in 2002 on the International FH show. I had a few words exchanged with one of the guys and they told me that every ZZ fish that has that many pearls usually is once bred with a Kamfa or a Malau. They don't consider it as a new ZZ strain because a lot of ZZ can still be found with barely any pearls covering the face area. You can consider it as a ZZ because its what stands out the most, but you can't say it is a ZZ itself at all. Now a days, we just don't know what they are. Only base on what they look like compare to the old generation strains. But they are mixed up with all kinds of possibility. So a lot of breeders don't really care about keeping it pure, they only care about creating something that looks really good for a FH. And whatever comes out that seems to follow or abide by the old traditional FH strains then they will put it as that. This is one reason I would agree with as I see tons of them out there to be claimed this and that but mixed with like Titanium or a lot of other varieties. It is just what stands out that we can call it upon only.
 
if your kamfamalau has some traits of kamfa, and some of malau, it is a kamfamalau, head flower is just one trait that can occur, but is not necessary for it to be classed as kamfamalau..
agreed: having all the older strains would make it easy, but this is not the case, as there will always be new strains as the hobby progresses..

again i agree with you on most points of our conversation, but i stick to what i say with classing fish through visualization of said traits..
as each FH is different to the next, i find this is the only way to class them with any accuracy and fairness..
 
If I was to classy this female here, I would agree on with you that I do see ZZ traits definitely. But I will say that there is Kamfa in that female also due to the way how the pearling works around on that female. Now from what I know, GM pearls are usually thinner and more organized(not all of them are organized, but they should be thinner than Kamfa here).
 
I would have to disagree and say that i suspect the pearls came from GM..
Indomalau has thin pearls as they age, not all malau..
But this would be just educated guessing, as it may have come from a very pearly kamfa ( which would have got it pearls from Malau in the first place, but i doubt it )
Does anyone have pictures of this fish's parent to help with this discussion?
 
I agree with that also, not all Malau pearls gets thin. While Indo Malau pearls gets thinner as they aged out. But I'm talking about all Malau here in general in my experience and what I've learned from locals, experts, and breeders in overseas. GM pearls are usually thinner than of a Kamfa whether the Kamfa pearls were first bred from GM or not. Whether the GM pearls gets thinner as they age, or stays the same as they age. Still suppose to be thinner than of a Kamfa on average base here. Now we are talking about pearls here as some Kamfa has very light thin pearling and others have super thick pearling. It is not comparable with a thicker GM pearling v.s. a thinner Kamfa pearling. Which of course at this point you can say that a GM pearl is thicker here or about the same. But put a thick pearling GM with a thick pearling Kamfa. You should recognize the big difference here between the two. As for the original Kamfa when it was fresh comparing with the original GM, we don't know. Those are way beyond what we have now so it is pointless to bring those back out with our modern FH now a days.
 
You obviously have some good knowledge, and as such i don't like to argue,
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this one, as we both have different opinions that are both very valid..

To conclude, we both agree this fish has MOSTLY ZZ traits, although the amount of pearling is not part of original Zz and would have come from breeding with GM or Kamfa..?
In saying this, this fish should be classed as Modern ZZ as apposed to oldschool Zz..?

Would you agree ? :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom