>On Sun, 2 Jun 1996, Cary Hostrawser wrote:
>> I have the ANC breeding guidelines.
>Hopefully we don't have any Africans on here or they may come after us
>for our ANC breeding guidelines... :-) (sorry, couldn't resist going
>after that typo)
I guess I should of had another cup of coffee before writing that:-)
At least this isn't a political mail list.
>I think that the thing with an
>individual keeping 10 tanks for a given species is over the top for an
>individual (but not an institution specializing in captive breeding).
>Those ten tanks could easily be spread across a fish club as long as good
>records are kept and fish get exchanged regularly. Imagine, if each club
>takes on 10 species, and each species was only replicated by three other
>clubs how many species could we maintain? Many, at least in the USA.
>Personally though, I don't think many rainbows qualify for a conservation
>orientated breeding program of this intensisty although again, there are
>some exceptions to this of course.
I do agree that the ideas offered in the guideline are excellent. But
the recourses available to aquarist just aren't there. Each club
taking on 10 species at 10 tanks would require 100 tanks. I really
don't know many clubs that could get up that kind of enthusiasm or
numbers. I think the ACN (I got it right this time) would do well to
get an average of two to three species by the average club.
>FWIIW I have written a book review on the ACN guidelines. I can post it
>if people think it worth doing so. Probably not as much use though if
>one hasn't read the book.
I wouldn't mind seeing it. If you don't post it here, e-mail me a copy
direct.
>I don't think anyone knows for 'bows or most fish. There are some things
>that are postulated, but not really known.
>
>> back to M pygmaea, now that there is a new captive population will it
>> begin to suffer the same viablity problems as the early collection?
>> Will crossing the two collections hurt the captive specimens or help
>
>It may have been that just one of the parents had a rare flaw that
>effected those offspring. The genetic characteristics of the founders is
>very important and it is a matter of luck in getting all "normal" fish to
>found a population from.
I guess one collection doesn't really tell the whole tale. It would be
interesting to see what would happen if the newest collection were
crossed into the old collection. Would it improve it or in a couple of
generations would we see even more problems. It also brings out the
point that we need to start putting more info on these bows than just
say M. trig Goyder River. Maybe add a collection number after the
locator. At present I know mine come from an earlier collection but in
a couple of years who knows where their offspring will show up. If we
also had a number on the fish M tri Goyder River collection 2, we
would know what we're dealing with in a couple of years, if the person
they were obtained from is no longer around to ask.
>I think here it depends upon if the crossing within the species is with
>individuals from the same locality or different locality. Either way,
>this is not likely to be outbreeding depression so much as a loss or
>dilution of alleles in a population that may have allowed it to adapt to
>local conditions (which sounds like the same thing as outbreeding
>depression, and may be but I'll keep them separate just incase as I'm
>not sure of the exact definitions genetically). If it is from the same
>population it shouldn't matter
>at all. If it is a different locality you may be outbreeding depression
>or a dilution of locally adapted alleles. ie, some populations of trout
>can survive higher temps than others. If you cross two pops, one from a
>cool spot and one from a warm spot, even if
>they are the same species or subspecies or whatever it is likely that
>fewer fish in the warm population will tolerate as higher temperature (I
>guess though it could be advantagous to the cold stream population if
>temperature was likely to be limiting in any way). Over
>many generations or a good drought some fish may survive and restore the
>local adaptation if it hasn't been too diluted and the whole lot get killed.
Part of my point is if we were to cross Goyder Rivers from the newer
collection to an older collection would we be messing the fish up. Or
would we be reinvigorating the line. I'm not really advocating taking
fish from another river. But how alike are the fish genetically. This
is a long river by my maps. Would a couple of hundred miles make a big
difference or not. I guess there really isn't much data on how far
bows travel in a river environment.
>Just on a technical point, it is not the genes that get brought in, it is
>the alleles for a given gene. Genes don't get lost or formed so much,
>alleles do.
I had a problem with initials and you wanted me to remember alleles on
an early Sunday morning:-)
>(Roy Boys credentials right here too!) :-) Call 1-800-ROYBOYS for details.
First a web page and now an 800 number. Roy really must be producing
them bows lately;-)
Cary Hostrawser
()
/||\ Rainbowfish Study Group
|||| <))))<< http://home.earthlink.net/~sbuckel/index.html
|||| <))))<<
|||| Minnesota Aquarium Society
/||||\ http://www.mn-aquarium.org/