Umm_fish?

Are you really going to tell me that ALL THREE of those things are the "same species"?  

What I can tell you is that morphology doesn't mean all that much. And, also, that it doesn't particularly matter how _we_ group them. What matters is how those individuals interact with the world, including pollinators and other individuals that are potential reproductive partners.

If morphology doesn't matter, does genetics?  What if the differences in morphology are attributable to genetics?  And what if all the specimens we lump in group a are similar, and yet significantly different than ll the specimens we've lumped into group b?

And the answer Andy is very simple and suprisingly, the very fact that you asked it leads full support to the initial definition of a "species" I proposed and what so much of this debate is hinging upon.  The three isolated individuals in my example simply do not interact "in the world", and in fact, the "offspring" in my example does not exist "in the world", assuming of course that you mean "in the world" to be not in a greenhouse, windowsill or laboratory.  In other words, the "natural world", the "wild", aka. "nature".

No, it requires man (and our technology) for all of this to happen, and if you take man out of the equation, it doesn't happen.

I'll throw this out there.  One big thing we are overlooking, and I myself am guilty of it.  There is a TIME component in the definition of a species.  Evolution, the application of time and selection, is what causes species to arise and fall.  Even if we take ourselves out of it, over enough time, it is possible that Ocellaris Clownfish as a population could all turn purple and become more squat in body shape.  If we looked at those two side by side, taking out the pesky component of "time", they may be fully incompatible and every definition of "species" would consider them unique.  But if we look at these two fish over the long term, the "continuum" of evolution may support Andy's premise that 'morphology' and even 'genetics' may be irrelevant.  The simple truth is that what is a species today may not be a species 1000 years from now.   But, to adopt that stance as just cause for ignoring the natural world as it is today is beyond egotistical and arrogant, and again, may largely serve only to excuse our actions and responsibility over the consequences.

The simple truth is that Man is no longer part of "nature" because we have separated ourselves from it at every chance we can get.  We do not abide by the laws of the natural world around us.  

Until the drought hits. Then we find out how far we are from the natural world. Birth, death, illness, reproduction, feeding, finding shelter, etc., all suggest that your statement is wrong. We strive to better our lives, but what are we struggling against, eh?

We are truly unique and atypical, and we continue to cheat the laws of nature again and again...whereas deer overpopulation is resolved by starvation and disease when predators are absent, we simply apply medicine and agriculture.  No other organism on the planet does what we do.

Ants have animal husbandry (aphid farms). Damselfish cultivate specific algae. Felines and other mammals chew on grass when their stomachs hurt.

just a few examples of technology that simply doesn't exist in the natural world.

But they _all_ exist in the natural world. Where else would it be?

--Andy

That's what I've been saying! Morphology and genetics don't apply to species because "species" is a made-up word used to lump individuals into groups, except according to how people frame the definition. The word "species" has meaning, of course. It has meaning to us as shorthand for the definition that we give the word. But it doesn't have meaning to the individual animals living their lives.

But, I think we are finally around to the second part of my argument that I promised to make above. What _does_ really make a difference to the individuals in the world? Ah, well the next best and easiest answer to this is: Animals are of a species when their DNA closely resemble each other enough to produce viable offspring that can, in turn, produce viable offspring. 

So the next question I have to ask is: How closely do the DNA of two different animals have to resemble each other so that they are "of the same kind"? The answer, of course, is that there's no easy answer to that. Very few animals have exactly the same DNA. In many cases, very little difference is necessary to fund enormous morphological changes (especially if we are talking about a mutation that affect early development). Even when walking the path of chemistry, taxonomy of animals turns out to be a huge gray area.

So, is that the fault of the animals? Or is that the fault of the people who are trying too hard to separate them into groups?

--Andy

mPedersen


I laughed at Andy's Palin reference as well, although for the record, she is kinda hot, if you take away her politics.  I mean, I want a wife who gets all outdoorsy and keeps an eye on the Russians..oh wait, I have that already, except we watch the Canadians, and I like Renee's politics better too!

 
lol... as a conservative, it's suprising how much I agree that her politics need work...  but I'll second the hot statement lol.

You may argue that technology is just the "natural extension" of our human species' unique abilities, yet every single person here discussing this topic is quick to condemn our actions and impact on the world as negative and at the minimum inappropriate.  I think that's very telling, and implies that the argument for man's behavior as "natural" is a way of "excusing" our behavior.  That goes against everything that notions such as conservation and preservation of "nature" in general, and frankly, to excuse our destructive ways as simply the extrapolated manifestation of our natural behaviors to a level simply not see, anywhere else, is to attempt to absolve ourselves from any responsibility of the consequences. 

Hmmm... thats an amazingly blunt and enlightening statement.  While it may not be true for some, it's definately true for others.  I'll have to put some thought wrapper on that for a bit, toss it on my dash in the sun and see what it looks like when I have time to chew on it.

Because it's all about the plankton!
~J      

Migration patterns and Beaver Dams are part of the natural world and are not the product of conscious thinking..they are instinctual, without precognition or forethought.  These behaviors are completely dissimilar to our own intelligence and the application of it onto other species.

I sincerely doubt it. In the long history of the evolution of brain development, you think that "thought" and "planning" didn't show up until humans? You want to know what really sets humans apart? IMO, it's the fact that we have figured out a way to teach things to other humans without the teacher having to be physically present in front of the student. Lots of other animals learn from each other (dolphins teaching novel ways to hunt to younger members of the pod, etc.). As far as I know, we are the only species that's figured out how to do it without the teacher being present physically or temporally (i.e., you can learn from dead people). But that's just an elaboration on what other animals do. It's not different in kind.

You may argue that technology is just the "natural extension" of our human species' unique abilities, yet every single person here discussing this topic is quick to condemn our actions and impact on the world as negative and at the minimum inappropriate.  I think that's very telling, and implies that the argument for man's behavior as "natural" is a way of "excusing" our behavior.  That goes against everything that notions such as conservation and preservation of "nature" in general, and frankly, to excuse our destructive ways as simply the extrapolated manifestation of our natural behaviors to a level simply not see, anywhere else, is to attempt to absolve ourselves from any responsibility of the consequences.

BTW, exactly the opposite has been the case in the longish history of Western ethics. The assumption has always been that other animals and the rest of the world are "not human" and therefore have no standing in human ethical concerns. This assumption has funded enormous abuses of every sort of animals other than humans. It is exactly the worry over this approach that is one of the reasons that I'm so vigorous in my defense of humans as a part of nature. By ensuring that we are the same as everything else it also ensures that everything else has standing when taking up ethical considerations.


----------------------------


Okay, let's have a thought problem (and eliminate the humans):


There's a large island, the two ends are higher (old volcanos?), connected to each other via lower ground in the middle. On this island lives a happy population of SNERTs. But, the ice age ends and the ocean level rises and the low ground in the middle vanishes (maybe we could call the two land masses "Siberia" and "Alaska," in honor of the fairly frightening Ms. Palin?) leaving the SNERTs divided into two populations: SNERTa and SNERTb. Over the course of time, SNERTa and b begin to drift apart genetically through mutations and following environmental and sexual selection. But, another ice age comes and the water level again drops. The populations of SNERTa and SNERTb begin to mingle. Low and behold, it's discovered that the genetic drift of a and b hasn't been far enough to preclude successful reproduction, despite the fact that there are some definite morphological differences between the two. SNERTa and b _will_ begin to comingle, because those animals that can reproduce and have opportunity to do so will do so. But are you saying that it is somehow wrong for them to do so? I wouldn't even know how to evaluate what "wrong" means in this context.

--Andy

Umm_fish?

I sincerely doubt it. In the long history of the evolution of brain development, you think that "thought" and "planning" didn't show up until humans? You want to know what really sets humans apart? IMO, it's the fact that we have figured out a way to teach things to other humans without the teacher having to be physically present in front of the student. Lots of other animals learn from each other (dolphins teaching novel ways to hunt to younger members of the pod, etc.). As far as I know, we are the only species that's figured out how to do it without the teacher being present physically or temporally (i.e., you can learn from dead people). But that's just an elaboration on what other animals do. It's not different in kind.

Wouldnt it be more accurate to state that we have figured out methods to document??  When it comes to the term "Teach" I have obvious quams... dealing mostly with what we as a "species" have evolved into.  An organism can teach all it wants but if another organism is not receptive, it becomes futile.  Since we're on the subject of hybridization and evolution lets examine the negatives of this (yeah steering way off topic here but this is the garbage that bangs around in my head while I wait for the earlier posted "chocolate" to mold on my dashboard).
 
1.  If we accept one side of one of the arguments in debate here... that the actions of humans are in fact "natural" can we not assume that our own evolution has changed the curvature of nature?  Yes to a negative degree, but given the thought that evolution is meant to improve a species... have we really? or are we incompetent enough as a species to screw something so simple as that up? (consider this in context of 2 please).
 
2.  Is it possible that through our evolution as a species we as humans have become so dependant on the prior generation to provide and yes "teach" that we have become complacent in the realm of natural instincts?  That is to say, have we lost much of our original hard wired survival skills and can no longer survive without proper help?  This is more of a philisophical thought but ponder what percentage of us could actually survive at this point in conditions that existed 50 years ago?  A century? 
 
3.  Have we not through documentation and teaching to "improve" weakened our core survival traits in many circumstances?  Looking at people of separate ages, at what point does the survival instinct change? 
 
4.  Even more interesting, the thought that we have evolved to document and teach I beleive is an older trait.  Have we not now evolved to simply entertain?  How many of our methods of documenting and teaching have now become primarily means of entertainment?  Even the theory of a linked or markup language was originally considered by John Lilly with intention of linking microfische for educational purposes, the theory and idea has now grown into much of the internet as we know it.  What percentage of the internet is utilized for teaching verses entertainment at this point?  The same evolutionary results I use now to type this is also utilized by millions to obtain access to music, movies, porn, recipes, time wasting games, and the most recent news of what lindsay lohan has written on her fingernails.  Andy, perhaps your argument would have made sense prior to generation X, now I think it too must evolve and adapt (much like the linnaeus system) to properly classify what we have accomplished.

Okay, let's have a thought problem (and eliminate the humans)

 
Perhaps it is in fact for the greater good....

Because it's all about the plankton!
~J      

Umm_fish?
There's a large island, the two ends are higher (old volcanos?), connected to each other via lower ground in the middle. On this island lives a happy population of SNERTs. But, the ice age ends and the ocean level rises and the low ground in the middle vanishes (maybe we could call the two land masses "Siberia" and "Alaska," in honor of the fairly frightening Ms. Palin?) leaving the SNERTs divided into two populations: SNERTa and SNERTb. Over the course of time, SNERTa and b begin to drift apart genetically through mutations and following environmental and sexual selection. But, another ice age comes and the water level again drops. The populations of SNERTa and SNERTb begin to mingle. Low and behold, it's discovered that the genetic drift of a and b hasn't been far enough to preclude successful reproduction, despite the fact that there are some definite morphological differences between the two. SNERTa and b _will_ begin to comingle, because those animals that can reproduce and have opportunity to do so will do so. But are you saying that it is somehow wrong for them to do so? I wouldn't even know how to evaluate what "wrong" means in this context.

Ah, but everything you just described is in a natural timetable and is part of the evolutionary forces of our natural world around us.  It is all "natural".  And it also directly demonstrates the last argument I piled onto the notion of a species, which is the notion of "time", and that the scientific notion of a "species" does not take into account "time", or rather it is specifically and inextricably tied to "time", a "snapshot" if you will.  14000 years ago there was ONE "species" of Cichlid in Lake Victoria.  100 years ago there we easily 500, all "decsendents" and derivations of one, easily representing possibly 30,000 generations of reproduction if not more.  This is "natural".  It happens at a natural pace and is the result of non-man-made natural forces.

I understand your argument about the ethical mention of binding us to nature rather than separating us from it.  But as much as I just harped on conservation issues in earlier arguments, I cannot seem to separate the notion that the end of an ice age rising sea levels is NOT ON PAR with man digging out a canal or building a bridge.  Or in the case of Lake Victoria, man introducing a species that had NO OTHER WAY TO GET THERE, and thus, fundamentally changing the entire ecosystem.

The crux of the conservation / preservation / biodiversity issue is simple.  No one is arguing against evolution and extinction.  These are afterall, the natural way.  What we as an intelligent species take issue with is our own destructive influence on nature, and the ramifications of it.  We look at what we did, thinking it was a "good idea" in Lake Victoria, and we realize it was "not good".   Left unable to truly fix it, we may find ourselves ethically (or morally) bound to attempt whatever it is we CAN now do to minimize the damage in whatever way we can.  You could argue that it is our ability and capacity for compassion that drives people to do things like run a "species survival program".  It is out of respect for the creatures, what they are now, but also what they arguably could have been in the future, which drives some people to say "we will do whatever we can to ensure that your lineage does survive, because it was our fault, not nature, and it wasn't our place".

Of course, that line of thinking leads us into many other questions of morality and dare I touch on the religious implications?  I'm no scholar of old texts, but I thought we were charged to have domain/dominion over the earth and all its creatures?  Some may take that to mean "rape the land", but as we become more aware as a society and culture, we realize that older cultures may have had it right with notions of protecting and honoring the natural world around us.

But none of this really ties into the fundamental question of "what is a species".  It only attempts to further demonstrate that man's influence is atypical in every sense of the word, and that some of the standard definitions of what is a species (or subspecies, hybrid, race, morph etc...) hold plenty of weight when you take man out of the equation.  And that's really what it's all about. 

I see most of this drawn out discussion as simply playing devil's advocate against something we likely innately know to be true.  Our impact on the natural world may very well not only cause our own downfall,but that of countless others along the way.  Do we really all want to be collectively responsible for the next global extinction event?  Of course not.  So when it comes to looking at what is or is not a species, we are currently at a time where being "splitters" is in our best interests.  Why?

I think the biggest part of all this is acknowledging that there is a lot we don't know.  At this point in time, we must look around and assess the natural world that we're destroying.  We simply don't know what is and is not important.  I believe most of us already have some inherent belief or value in biodiversity, so I don't think I need to preach the merits of it here. 

But here's a small example.  Tropheus duboisi.  It has 3 "subgroups" that we tie to geographic locations (Maswa, Karilani and Kigoma).  Each one of these subgroups has its own distinctive outward appearance that generally conforms across each group/location, and could be used to differentiate each group from the other group.  These groups each perpetuate their unique traits, and currently, in the natural world, they do not interbreed, at least, not as far as we know (and it is part of this lack of interbreeding that has some people calling them subspecies, but ultimately, they might even be distinct species???).  The bottom line to me is WHO CARES WHAT WE CALL IT?  We all can recognize these groups for what they are, distinct populations with their own unique traits. 

If we aim to preserve our natural biodiversity, we have to be respectful and mindful of how things work without our influence.  And the simple truth is my three Tropheus variants are distinct.  Blending them together removes what makes them distinct in their natural form.  They may all be the same "species" under the box of a "species" but that doesn't mean that the distinctive nature of each original form didn't have merit.  And in fact, from a more immediate aspect, these forms are quiet different, i.e. the MASWA being the one that I like because it has a big blue head and yellow stripe, whereas some of the other forms may have a thin or thick white stripe, and more black head.  If I go out and just buy "Tropheus duboisi", what is my fish going to look like?  If I want the form that has the yellow stripe, how can I get it if we don't keep it separate?  And to make matters worse, what if I am sold this "species" as the "Maswa" variant and it all ends up looking different?

Now, it need not be morphology that draws the distinction and demonstrates the value of diversity within "subspecies" or "races" or variants.  A great example are the salmonids of the west coast, each river having its own unique population with its own unique spawning season...having evolved to meet the specific conditions of each river.  It means that should we destroy one population, we may not simply be able to reintroduce salmon from another river even if they are the "same species", because they may not be adapted to the specifics of a different river, having not been given the normal "evolutionary time" to adapt at a geological pace.

So when it comes to "species", just because we can say the bucket is "flawed" does not mean we have a better bucket available to us.  It is a tool and label to help us categorize the natural world and provide a better understanding of it.  It allows us to communicate about it.  It provides a framework and understanding that, again, when you take man out of the equation, largely (but not always) actually makes sense.

And the beauty is that in the here and now, my orchid example truly illustrates that even though the "fertility" aspects of a "species" notwithstanding, there is no way to recreate the "hybrid" without the parental "species".  So truly, we can always "recreate" the man-made "hybrid" if we preserve the parental "species", but we cannot restore the parental species from the "hybrid", nor can we recreate the "hybrid" if we lose either parental "species".  They hybrid, a symbol of our self-imposed will to overcome the natural order of things, would be lost if we didn't preserve the natural order of things.

Joe: 1. Evolution isn't "meant" to do anything, much less improve anything. In fact, once sexual selection gets involved, survival skills often go downhill fast. Look, for example, to peacocks who can't really fly or some of the antlered mammals whose horns have become so big that they can barely lift their heads.

2 & 3. Our "teachings" are part of our survival skills in the world and, as such, are just as much a part of our evolutionary heritage as, say, our eyesight or our fingernails. More so, I'd say.

4. We haven't evolved to "do" anything, other than survive and reproduce.

And remember, evolution isn't actually a force of its own per se. It's really just a description of what happens when you put a bunch of animals in a closed (-ish) system with limited resources.

Matt! Exactly! What we are talking about are ethical issues and personal preferences, NOT science! That doesn't make the issues any less important. In fact, it makes them far more important IMO. (Science is just descriptive, after all. Ethics is presciptive.) If you say, "We should preserve these bloodlines for science," I shrug and say, "Neither science nor nature cares." Ah, but if you say, "We have an ethical obligation to preserve these bloodlines," I'm all on board. I may still disagree with you in the end, but that's the right argument to make.

(But I'm still going to disagree with you last bit. Species hybridize all the time. It's what the world does.)

--------------------------- Tangent alert:
Can I give you the true motivation underlying my position? Humans evolved through evolutionary time into several subgroups with very different morphologies (Africans versus Scandinavians versus Peruvians, etc.). None of these subgroups got to the point that they could no longer interbreed. Do I think it's right to demand that _those_ bloodlines be kept pure? Hell, no. And the people who make that argument creep me out. So all of this comes from an effort to be consistent with that stance.

--Andy

BTW, Matt, I give you no argument against the destructiveness of humans. We are a walking, talking extinction event, yes. But we aren't the only extinction event there has ever been. We are just a different one. It doesn't make us special, just different.

--Andy

Umm_fish?

--------------------------- Tangent alert:

Is it really tangential to talk about something tangential to an originally tangential side conversation?   Although I started off right at the first post hitting on this topic.  So moreover, full circle....!

Umm_fish?
Humans evolved through evolutionary time into several subgroups with very different morphologies (Africans versus Scandinavians versus Peruvians, etc.). None of these subgroups got to the point that they could no longer interbreed.

I assume when you say "the could no longer interbreed" you are speaking from a genetic compatibility standpoint.  However, per the definitions of species, and before we had "technology" that took us beyond our natural abilities, these groups all fit into the natural world just as you described.  Some taxonomists may have called us different species, others different subspecies, still others races of variants. 

Umm_fish?
Do I think it's right to demand that _those_ bloodlines be kept pure? Hell, no. And the people who make that argument creep me out. So all of this comes from an effort to be consistent with that stance.

But we're not the ones that are in danger of eradication here.  And we're also atypical of anything else in the natural world because we've made the conscious decision to affect our own evolution by taking a moral / ethical stance on whether we should or should not "interbreed".  This is simply not on par with any other species we are examining, so it's foolish to use us as the example for how everything else should be modeled or treated. 

On a more theoretical standpoint to change our viewpoint...what if WE are the ones in need of "preserving" and it is not us, but some extraterrestrial alien race that looks at our planet and says "we need to preserve the human species on that planet".  If they look across the whole continuum of our human species, what would you want them to do in the name of "preservation"?  Should they simply select 50 people from China?  Or 100 people from Brazil?  Or 2 dozen people from Iceland?  Is that truly representative of our entire species and the diversity of our species?  Has our species been truly "preserved"?  How would you feel about that tactic as a preservation strategy, ESPECIALLY if there was a capacity to do something different or more extensive?  What if our entire civilization was the result of their accidental impact on US, that perhaps somehow caused us to develop in the unnatural way we have to this point in time?  If their goal was to preserve or restore what was there BEFORE their mistakes and the resulting consequences, would arking 50 people from Canada be the proper way to go about that?

Just have to say that I love this discussion! One of the best threads in a long time.

Save a Reef... Frag Your Own! Save a Fish... Breed Your Own! www.fishtalpropagations.com

Umm_fish?

We are a walking, talking extinction event, yes. But we aren't the only extinction event there has ever been. We are just a different one. It doesn't make us special, just different.

I would argue that since "we" ARE in fact a special and unique "extinction event" in that we are not caused by geographic or planetary forces, but are in fact one driven solely by biology.  That alone may not be "enough", but in truth, the "extinction event" we represent is one that we know is happening and we know can be avoided if we were willing to do what it took.  We are completely and totally in control of the outcome of this event, which is 100% atypical of all the extinction events we presume to know about in the past.

Since it appears we may NOT be willing and able to stop our impact, we are now stuck with the responsibility of not simply saying "too bad for them".  I know there are many people in the world who do not share such a viewpoint..but it's that selfish stance that got us here as a species in the first place, so I'd argue that 'plan a' of screw every other species isn't working, and thus, we now need to work on a more appropriate 'plan b'...

I would argue that since "we" ARE in fact a special and unique "extinction event" in that we are not caused by geographic or planetary forces, but are in fact one driven solely by biology.

I'd say that "different" does not equal "special." 


I mean, sure, we'd all like to avoid exhausting resources to the point that we destroy civilization and start another dark ages, even if you take the most selfish possible take on it (self-interest and interest for immediate family only will get you there, IMO). So far as I can tell, we'd all like to have food to eat and jobs and, I'd imagine, people are pretty against destroying ecosystems willy-nilly, where they have the time and energy to think about it. What are we going to do? Well, if the entire planet would limit themselves to one child per family for the next four or five generations then we'd have a good start. Can you imagine a planet with half or less of the current population? Now, talking people into doing that is another matter. I mean, we talk about all of the issues that need to be taken care of to pull the planet back from the brink, but simply reducing the shear numbers of our "herd" would go a long way toward giving the rest of the planet a breather from the pressure that we're putting on it. In that way, you are exactly right, Matt. We are different. Every other animal population can only limit itself by crashing. We have the opportunity to limit our numbers voluntarily.


Now, do I think it'll happen? On my most optimistic of days, maybe. The rest of the time, well, umm.... Having the infrastructure crash and massive die-offs from starvation, lack of water, and disease (due to the new lack of medicine with the loss of the infrastructure) will do it, too. Is that the future that I want for my kid or maybe hers? No. But that's looking like maybe the other option. One way or another, human population growth can't continue without an outside influx of resources. It's like a fish tank. 

--Andy

So, y'all, should we try to work through the ethical issues, or do we all need a break on this one?

I guess one question to ask is: Who or what benefits from keeping fish lines from mixing? Obviously the fish breeder does, but that's a selfish motivation and, while we should keep it in mind, it shouldn't be the motivator of action. 

Who or what gets hurt from keeping lines from mixing?

--Andy

Mixing lines makes things difficult from the perspective of the MBI that's for sure. The way the whole thing works you can only get points once per event per species. If you are allowed to mix species how would points work?

That gets really messy!

I personally don't have a problem with mixing species in cases where hybridization occurs already in nature. There are several species that we know mix on a regular basis already.

Chad Penney - MASM President
My Build Journal
Agis quod Adis

I'd suggest reading Wittenrich's new article on "Designer Clownfish".  I know he's terribly busy these days.  His article attempts to remain neutral but honestly does largely argue the case FOR "designer" fish (which would include hybrids).  None of the arguments he raised are things I haven't heard before in the "pro ornamentalism" camp, but I think there's always the weight of "a publication" getting behind something and being willing to print it that adds a level of legitimacy to the opinions being offered.

That said, here's what it all boils down to. PRESERVATION and NATURAL BIODIVERISTY.  The simple truth is that we are playing out the same scenarios again and again on the Marine Side of the hobby when in fact the Freshwater side of the hobby already has ALL of this worked out.  Of course, we DID break from your typical FW BAP on multiple levels, so the conversation should still happen even if on this one, I think we should already know the answer.

When it comes to variants, races, color morphs, we look to the "species" they are assigned to.  However, the simple truth is that even the common guppy is not really Poecillia reticulata ,but a mutt of multiple species now.  EVEN IN THE WILD, finding the original true species is almost a virtual impossibility because hybridization has occured on such a broad level as the result of man's influence.

There are fish like the "Flower Horn" and the "Blood Parrot Cichlid" who are all the rave among certain groups of hobbyists and yet the scourge of other hobbyists?  Who are these two camps?  Well, to be blunt, one camp is largely concerned with how something looks, the aesthetic value of it.  The other camp is more concerned with how things are in nature, often with a strong sense of natural conservation and preservation.

When it comes down to it, the FW hobby by and large takes the route of conservation and science, whereas a large part of the FW commercial propagators are happy to embrace ornamentalism.  Sadly, what that means is that it is STILL often the hobbyists who are first to breed a new species in captivity...i.e. it was not a massive fish farm that finally "broke the code" and figured out how to get Clown Loaches to spawn.  This is just "wrong" and very "sad" to me, and speaks volumes about the industry that I wish it didn't.  So for me, I'll continue to make very simple counter arguments.  I believe that it CAN be profitable to produce the RIGHT new species vs. simply chasing down the next color variant of clownfish.  I've called the pursuit of ornamentalism "lazy innovation" in the past because it really doesn't innovate / break down barriers in culture, nor does it directly add to our ability to conserve.  The simple truth is that the strongest arguments being made in the "pro-ornamental' camp are fundamentally economic, and truthfully, in that respect, we have nothing but collectively ourselves to blame for that.  It is because people WANT these ornamental fish, and are willing to pay a premium for them over a rare natural species, that the species falls out of favor vs. the next ornamental variant.  In a for-profit model, I cannot really argue with the notion that you have to pay your bills, and you have to sell what people want to buy.  But I don't have to take those realities as a form of "leadership by example" either.

Because of all this, it is truly the species, the FOUNDATION of our hobby and the natural forms present in the natural world, that need protection and promotion.  I've said it countless times - when wild caught fish are no longer available to us, THEN is the time that it would be OK in my book to go "hog wild" on the ornamentals.  But now is not that time.  NOW is the time that we need to work our asses off to ARK the natural biodiversity we have available to us.  We do this not only for the merits of conservation and preservation, but with the foreknowledge that these species, these natural forms, are the building blocks on which all the new man-made forms are dependent.  You simply cannot make "Indigo Dottybacks" unless you have the parental species, and if you don't take the time to preserve the parental species, you eventually not only lose the parental species ,but the resultant man made form as well.

Many people may not see or understand the fundamental line I currently draw in the sand.  It's a line that says a fish like the Lighting Maroon or the Picasso is "OK", but the Platinum and Naked is not.  Perhaps it's a very semantic line, but it's based on one highly critical view - Lightning Maroons and Picasso Percs occur in the wild.  They ARE part of the natural biodiversity, and therefore deserve our conservation and preservation efforts.  So too, I have no objection to people trying to recreate the "Tigerpyge" (Centropyge eibilii X C . flavissimus) because once again, that hybrid is naturally occuring.  By the same token, working with Leucocranos and Theillie offers potentially valuabe insights into what is currently technically only a "hypothesis" of hybrid origins, and again, they occur in the wild.  HOWEVER, again, back to square one - the only way you "preserve" the "Tigerpyge" or really learn if Leukocranos is a hybrid is if you have the natural species to work with.

It is these simple truths that advocates of ornamentalism fail to understand.  It is also these simple truths that lead me to believe that every man-made designer fish in a tank is taking a spot that could be used to preserve some other natural species, and thus, causes me to not hold the "designer fish" in the same regard as I would for some natural species.  And it is the LONG TERM reality, not the short term profits, that have me arguing that advocates of ornamentalism need to remember that the raw materials of their craft is the natural biodiversity we currently have.  There is a time and place for hybrids and designer fish.  Given our current race, NOW is not that time.

How the MBI committee ultimately decides to weigh in on this is up to the full committee.  I will simply argue that if hybrids are allowed to start entering the database, that the rules and methodologies set forth by the Royal Horticultural Society for the registration of Orchid Hybrids be adopted in full - I say that, because at this point the number of Orchid Hybrids probably outnumbers the natural species 10 to 1, and yet they can still keep it all straight.  Of course, the only way for these rules to be set in place and have any meaning is for the entire world to accept them and recognize them.  A bit of a catch 22 in that respect.  At least for now, there IS an advantage to permitting the reporting of hybrids...it creates a true record and lineage of such fish vs. the crazy concoctions coming out of Florida and Taiwan...

Still, I would hope that the MBI can follow the lead from the FW world and realize that species preservation is more important than creating new man-made forms, especially since, at the hobbyist level, "profit" is not the number one requirement of the endeavor.  Promoting this ethic might have the intrinsic side benefit of rubbing off on the general consumer who IS a bit more "green minded" these days, and thus, may help ease the reliance on fancy clownfish or hybrid gobies in favor of natural forms so we can get it all archived before it's locked up, out of reach, or dead and gone.

It's a line that says a fish like the Lighting Maroon or the Picasso is "OK", but the Platinum and Naked is not.  Perhaps it's a very semantic line, but it's based on one highly critical view - Lightning Maroons and Picasso Percs occur in the wild.

Question... Do we know for sure that Platinums don't exist in the wild? I'm getting a fair amount of Platinum offspring from my Picasso pair without any effort to do so. 


It would seem to me that if I'm getting Platinums without any effort that they are possible in the wild but just don't survive to the point where they are noticed. Nakeds, on the other hand, have been selectively bred to be "naked" from my understanding so I would agree with your point about them. If I'm missing something, please let me know.  

Save a Reef... Frag Your Own! Save a Fish... Breed Your Own! www.fishtalpropagations.com

Fishtal
Question... Do we know for sure that Platinums don't exist in the wild? I'm getting a fair amount of Platinum offspring from my Picasso pair without any effort to do so.

Now again, here's the "line".  We cannot say they don't with any 100% certainty and all it takes is the one to show up.  However, the logic / odds go against it, because the way people are getting Platinums seems to be by breeding 2 Picassos together, and even so, I don't think every Picasso Pairing puts off Platinums, only some.  Knowing how rare "Picassos" are i the wild, conceivably you'd have to have two of them pairing up in the wild, and THEN all the offspring having a chance of making it, to maybe get a few "wild Platinums".  Arguably due to rarity we might infer that the Picasso variation is not a beneficial mutation, but it does occasionally pop up. 

Fishtal
It would seem to me that if I'm getting Platinums without any effort that they are possible in the wild but just don't survive to the point where they are noticed.

Hence the term "natural selection"

Fishtal
Nakeds, on the other hand, have been selectively bred to be "naked" from my understanding so I would agree with your point about them. If I'm missing something, please let me know.  

Well here's the thing.  In order for me to 'preserve' the Lightning Mutation (assuming it IS a mutation), I will have to undergo the process of selective breeding as well.  Here's a wonderful term directly from Wittenrich - "Artificial Selection".  Because that's what we are really talking about doing anytime we impose our will on the captive species. 

I hinted at this earlier when I alluded to the notion that with enough time in captivity, animals may become adapted / changed even despite our best attempts to prevent such change.  A great example are some of the African Cichlids that have "big lips" in nature.  These "big lips" are a result of their natural feeding mechanism.  Take away this natural feeding mechanism in captivity, and the lips go away.  But apparently, if you provide the appropriate analogous feeding strategy, this trait is restored.  On some levels, it's really like "calloused hands", but there is a genetic basis for this over-development.  On a far more subtle level, I could cite a similar situation where the type and shape of teeth in the mouth of certain Victorian Cichlid species in the LVSSP is known to CHANGE due to captive diet.  Once again, we get into a discussion of "epigenetic" traits, morphology with a genetic basis for the possibility and an environmental "cause".  Still, NONE of these examples anywhere approach the level of morphological variation that some of the earlier "what is a species' arguments suggested might be "OK" (i.e. the unspoken proposition that 2 orchids from different genera were in fact the same species).

So as this all boils down to the Nakeds, again, I'm taking a line that if mother nature produced it, then I'm OK with working to preserve it.  It could simply be that Nakeds and Picassos represent two extremes on a continuum, and perhaps both of these extremes render the fish too vulnerable to predation in the wild.  An interesting side hypothesis, it could very well be that we seem to be seeing more variability in wild caught clownfish today than in years past because they are more common in the wild.  They could be more prevalent because of Man's overfishing of predators that ordinarily would have taken out these abberrant fish.  Truly impossible to say.  Of course, 2010 has been a big year for me "eating my words" on "guppified" clownfish.  Afterall, besides the Lightning Maroon, there was that recent slew of funky Solomon Island Perculas that flew through the Blue Zoo Website - http://reefbuilders.com/2...-at-blue-zoo-aquatics/

So clearly, for all you know Tal, I may have to eat my words yet again on the Platinums someday too.  Today isn't going to be that day though.  And importantly, from a conservation and preservation standpoint, the directive and the line is still quiet clear.  Preserve nature first.  Perserve the building blocks and the foundation.  If we do that, we can always enjoy whatever ornamental varieties man wishes to create beyond what already exists.  I implore ever ornamental breeder, every person who loves Platinum percs more than anything else, to realize that without your standard Percula 101, there would be no Platinum Percs.  And of course, the reality is that if all the guppies in Venezuela went extinct, we couldn't go repopulating them with "Red Delta Tails".  Nor could we ethically repopulate the Solomon Islands with Picasso Perculas and Platinums - this flies in the face of conservation and at least we learned a LONG time ago that this type of action doesn't lead to many benefits (take a lesson from the Great Lakes).

I agree with you Matt, I was just trying to see where the Plats fit in. (On a side note, I don't even really like them that much, I just ended up with them. )

Thanks for the link, I missed that one. It's funny, but most of the WC SI fish in the pics look like my Picasso offspring, except the one with a large amount of black... although, mine are still juveniles and haven't developed their full adult coloration yet. Have to wait and see.  

Save a Reef... Frag Your Own! Save a Fish... Breed Your Own! www.fishtalpropagations.com

Here's a wonderful term directly from Wittenrich - "Artificial Selection".  Because that's what we are really talking about doing anytime we impose our will on the captive species.

See, Matt, I still have to disagree with you here. How is humans doing this with fish or dogs or whatever any different from ants doing this with aphids? I don't know whether the ants have produced an entirely new aphid species yet, but they are certainly line breeding them, selecting for those that are better adjusted to living in a mutualistic relationship, and will eventually create a new species if given enough time.


You are acting like "Selection" is a force of nature, like Newtonian gravity, and that people are somehow stepping outside of the force. "Natural Selection" is just a short-hand, descriptive term that means "all the crap that happens to animals in their lives that might cause them to die before reproducing." Some of that can certainly be human in origin.


-----------------------------------


My problem is that I was looking for us to talk about the ethics of preserving lines. What you have given me is a decidedly unethical argument: The natural hybrid lines are the building blocks for future breeding, therefore we should preserve them. That is just using animals for their DNA and for their value to future human endeavors, something that you have expressly told me that you are against multiple times in this thread.


I mean, it's fine if we want to just couch this in pragmatic terms: We as breeders need the pure genetics for future breeding projects and we aren't likely going to be able to keep dipping into the oceans for them. If that's your argument, fine. Just don't try to tell me that it's the ethical thing to do.

--Andy