Sarah88;3932415; said:
basic genetics, since the offspring numbers follow basic medelian ratios then that would mean its a basic recessive allele (and as far as i know no genetic testing has said they are hybrids), how would you explain them?
No genetic testing has proven they're pure either, as far as I'm aware. The fact regarding price is that they're a huge money maker, with people willing to pay 10x more because they believe it's a rarer fish, and then noticeably higher mortality rates mean more sales.
I've seen claims that the initial EBJD strain was found in wild fish (Blue Genes, regular appearance). Given the recessive nature of the gene, and the healthy/hardy nature of Blue Gene Jack Dempseys, would it be a stretch to imagine that this gene is incredibly thoroughly wild spread in nature - as you pointed out, wild EBJD's (if such a thing exists, I'm skeptical) would not make it past fry stage due to their colouration and predation, even though equally vivid fish such as these well argued Vontehillo Texas don't seem to have a problem.
Inbreeding is the usual excuse given for the high mortality rate, overall weakness, and common occurrence of deformities within EBJD's, but with Blue Gene JD's being a wild, naturally recessive gene, wouldn't that bring in the possibility of F1/F2 (I'll leave F0 out of that) EBJD's.
I'm a "natural is beautiful" kind of fishkeeper, so my view is skewed, but I guess what I've just said above brings up the following queries.
- Why the genetic weaknesses from what is essentially a recessive colour gene, when the same is not present in many albino/leucistic/xanthic/piebald variants?
- Why have EBJD keepers, who I believe the onus should be on to provide proof they are a natural species, not funded and performed DNA testing? The same loop of "You have no proof it's not a hybrid > You can't prove it is a hybrid" continues to run on. They certainly make enough money from the fish themselves.