Mutant clownfish!

[oranje]

With a visit to my LFS today, I was introduced to a rather unique clownfish. It is a tank-raised A. ocellaris, but it has rather distinct markings. A normal false clown anemonefish has three distinct stripes, or so is my understanding - I've never seen one otherwise. See if you can note the subtle difference with this bugger!

His name is "Emperor Demonicus the 666th."

And pardon the messy water, it's the new tank. I figured he'd be safer in a new tank than in a tank with a lionfish.

 

[Djm9288]

yeah its a bareless clown, theve been around a while, suprised u havent seen um by now.
Daniel

 

[oranje]

Booo!
I wanted a mutant.

It's still a cool little fish, though, and my current posse of clowns adopted him very quickly.

I'm still curious as to why it has a single dot on one side... is this just from selective breeding? Or cross breeding?

 

[liquid]

Those fish should have been culled from the beginning by whomever raised them as they do not display the natural striping of A.ocellaris or A.percula. Before you jump all over me for "killing defenseless babies," keep in mind that this is a perfectly normal facet of fish breeding. Frank Hoff, Martin Moe, and I believe Wilkerson all discuss this in their respective books.

Shane

 

[fishfarmer]

LiquidShaneo,

You bring up an interesting point. I saw a bunch of clowns with similar markings at a LFS recently and IMO the were BUTT UGLY INBREDS. They didn't just have the lack of striping, the front of their noses was caved in giving them an underbite type appearance. If I see trout with characteristics like that I think inbreeding and they usually get culled.

Now I understand these are aquarium fish and are being selected for certain traits much like goldfish. It's your money so buy what you want, but the way I see it, those inbred fish may have some other inherited health problems that you won't see.

 

[Anonymous]

Shane, wouldn't there be any interest in breeding "sports" like this seperately for the novelty of a different look etc.? Freshwater breeders seem to think in these terms, at least, leading to a bunch of strains that bear little resemblence to the original wild strains.

BTW I'm not saying that's necessarily a good thing, I prefer the natural coloration myself. I was just curious.

 

[oranje]

Well, if this fish came about through selective (in)breeding, I really have few problems with it. It was accepted quite quickly by the existing clown trio in my tank, and I just see it as the one that is easy to identify.

I personally am not against breeding fish to "enhance" certain characteristics. As mentioned, this has been done with freshwater fish very readily(such as goldfish), not to mention many other domestic animals and plants. It isn't natural, sure... but if if its ability to thrive isn't reduced by the breeding, more power to it.

From a fish-moral standpoint, I'm more comfortable owning a selectively-bred fish than a wild-caught fish.

 

[dizzy]

oranje,

All the inbreeding has trashed the hardiness of many freshwater species. Fancy guppies, swordtails, and the goldfish you mentioned die by the thousands. The barbs and tetras that are not color corrected do much better.

Mother Nature did a good job of painting the marine fish and I doubt man can improve on it. While the occasional accidental inbreeding may not do much harm, I hate to see it done intentionally. Crossbreeding is another no-no in my books, but it is already being done. Ever see what they call a "parrot fish" in the freshwater section? Just wait until the Far East gets into big time breeding of the marine fish.

 

[Luis]

I agree 100% with you Dizzy; Mother nature (God) is wiser than us, but we are so stubborn and we want to "create" our own fish but we don't know and maybe we are altering something else besides color. after many generations now we can see that pure breed dogs have "diseases" because of that "purity". Is better to let things the way they are because there is a reason for that even if we don't know the reason now, we will know it later. :wink:

 

[skylsdale]

It isn't natural, sure... but if if its ability to thrive isn't reduced by the breeding, more power to it.

It's ability to thrive is greatly reduced. Take any common, natural comet goldfish and pit it against one of its mutant-encouraged fancy goldfish cousins. Fancy goldfish are infamous for their ailments due to the abnormal physical traits that are encouraged within their breeding.

I have been largely turned off by FW aquaria largely due to the intense hybridization and mutant encouragement(albinoism, etc.) that is so intense right now. These fish will hardly ever outlive one of their wild counterparts.

I'm already a bit nervous to see hybrid tangs or albino strains of yellow tangs popping up at LFS's--do people really think these things look good?! Give me a break, people. If you want mutations, go watch the Elephant Man or something.

 

[Anonymous]

alot of the clowns that came in from cquest had 'mutant' color patterns, and the percentage of them seemed to increase with each succesive order, around '98-'99.they also shipped less vigorously-two of the reasons i stopped ordering from them...also came in smaller and smaller...

 

[Minh Nguyen]

Deformed fish should be culled. However, I do not agree with Shane that abnormal pattern fish, like the one above, should have being culled. I don't think he should be use in breeding. I don't think his marking are attractive but I have seen other fish with very beautiful abnormal marking. I have a wild A. percula that abnormal marking. He is very healthy and is doing very well at this time. He is the only wild clown fish that I have. I bought him because the marking is so interesting and unique.

 

[fishfarmer]

My biggest concern would be to a hobbist who would buy said selected fish, quarentine it, introduce it to aquarium, feed and care for fish only to have it die within a year because it had a heart condition, then come to the board and say,"I did everything right, why did my orange polka dotted clown die when my other clowns are healthy?"

Granted this would be an extreme case and JMO.

 

[Anonymous]

some food for thought:
the drive for 'mutant' species marketing is for the most part, consumer driven.
there is a difference between selecting for color, and selecting for body shape, or form.
color variants occur relatively more often in nature than body type variants.
color variation affects survivability in nature due more to a predation advantage(a white fish is more visible...)while body mutation affects survivability due more to difficulties of the individual in dealing with its environment(slower swimming, impaired body function, etc.)


most of the fancy varieties of goldfish are the result of MANY generations of selective breeding by the chinese-probably the first aquarists! their genetic manipulations of the carp are really no different than how we've arrived at most types of dogs,with the same results- the pug is more susceptible to breathing problems, and many types of dogs have issues like hip dysplasia, etc.

most dog varieties are less than 300 yrs. old

beauty is in the eyes of the beholder.

some of the most spectacular looking varieties of discus( my freshwater favorite) are selectively bred color variants- a potential already present in the species(and in many others)the potential is just accelerated and more pronounced by our manipulation.

having said that, i think that any mutation that affects a fish's health should be twice considered before pursuing, even regarding color, for some color influencing genes are linked to weaken physical characteristics, propensities for cancer, etc.

the only reason i stopped ordering clowns that were too oddly colored is that my customers preffered the 'natural' pattern.what if the 'mutant' in the picture was the original wild type and the barred was a recent 'manmade development'.would the reaction be the same?

beauty is in the eye of the beholder. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

I agree 100% with you Dizzy; Mother nature (God) is wiser than us, but we are so stubborn and we want to "create" our own fish but we don't know and maybe we are altering something else besides color. after many generations now we can see that pure breed dogs have "diseases" because of that "purity". Is better to let things the way they are because there is a reason for that even if we don't know the reason now, we will know it later. :wink:

We never 'let things the way they are'.
Anytime anything is domesticated it gets bred for certain traits. Chicken, cows, horses, fish, corn, peanuts, oranges, dogs (heck, the argument can be made for Afgahnis)...anything.
It is easy to say 'leave them as they are in nature' for the animals and plants we keep for non surrival reasons and at the same time rationalize the selective breeding we do to the food/work animals and plants. I don't think it is fair to have it both ways. Do you agree?

If we think it is OK to manipulate animals for food, why should it be any different for pets? Does it really matter if they have shorter lifespans than their relatives in nature?

RR :mrgreen:
calmly ignoring the 'God' part of the post...

 

[Anonymous]

I agree 100% with you Dizzy; Mother nature (God) is wiser than us, but we are so stubborn and we want to "create" our own fish but we don't know and maybe we are altering something else besides color. after many generations now we can see that pure breed dogs have "diseases" because of that "purity". Is better to let things the way they are because there is a reason for that even if we don't know the reason now, we will know it later. :wink:

We never 'let things the way they are'.
Anytime anything is domesticated it gets bred for certain traits. Chicken, cows, horses, fish, corn, peanuts, oranges, dogs (heck, the argument can be made for Afgahnis)...anything.
It is easy to say 'leave them as they are in nature' for the animals and plants we keep for non surrival reasons and at the same time rationalize the selective breeding we do to the food/work animals and plants. I don't think it is fair to have it both ways. Do you agree?

If we think it is OK to manipulate animals for food, why should it be any different for pets? Does it really matter if they have shorter lifespans than their relatives in nature?

RR :mrgreen:
calmly ignoring the 'God' part of the post...

nature carries out it's own selective breeding program all the time,from the constantly mutating disease organisms like the flu, to evolutionary dead ends.
it could be argued that when we domesticate a species, we help to select for it's survival, and increased lifespan, too.after all, how many wild dogs get to live 15+ yrs?-by selecting traits we value for companionship, the dog gains free meals, a home, and a longer lifespan-maybe dogs selected for certain people types, as well? :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

If it would encourage more tank bred fish on the market, I'd even be willing to embrace the marine equivelant of this creature.

:lol:

 

[Luis]

When we manipulate things just for caprice and we are not thinking in god reasons ( better crops to fight hunger for example) and we are thinking just to have something rare.... :roll: , I don't want to judge anybody but think twice... that's not right.

By the way I don't feel the same way when I see a deformed apple than a fish with deformed gills. We can manipulate species to help them to fight diseases, we should not manipulte animals just for a whim (from bad to worse if that is affecting the health or life expectancy of the species), I wish I could express my thoughts in a better way unfortunately English is not my mother tongue. I hope you get the idea.

 

[oranje]

Ah, what have I done!

Ok, I agree completely that breeding an animal for the explicit purpose of causing unique mutations is a very scary thing. If it causes detrimental effects towards the life of this fish, that makes it all the much worse.

However, upon seeing this fish, I just thought i was badass. Other than in coloring(and upon closer inspection, slight fin differences), it is a normal clownfish. He swims madly through the currents of the powerheads, eats very well, and is completely non-aggressive towards smaller tankmates. Leave my little fish alone

As this little guy doesn't seem to be having a difficult life at all, he'll just be another clown. He's easier to distinguish from the army of clones. Will he die in a year from a heart defect? Hopefully not. Will I die in a year from a heart defect? Hopefully not, but would you fault my parents for raising me despite this possibility?

No. So I shall raise my little clown to be a healthy little clown, and hopefully he'll be a fishy companion for many years to come.

 

[esmithiii]

When we manipulate things just for caprice and we are not thinking in god reasons ( better crops to fight hunger for example) and we are thinking just to have something rare.... , I don't want to judge anybody but think twice... that's not right

What is "not right" about it? I don't see anything wrong with breeding for certain traits at all. In fact, I used to breed cockateils, and I bought a pair that had so many recessive traits that the two could produce 15 different colorations. By breeding these birds, the public would rather buy the capive raised specimines rather than wild caught. This is a bad thing? Y Luis, me puedes contestar en Español si quieres.

Ok, I agree completely that breeding an animal for the explicit purpose of causing unique mutations is a very scary thing. If it causes detrimental effects towards the life of this fish, that makes it all the much worse.

Again I ask, what is wrong with it?


If selective breeding keeps people buying captive reared fish because the coloration is more stunning, so be it!

As for the clown above, I saw many of these in my visit to the C-Quest hatchery in Salinas, Puerto Rico. A couple of things going on here. The hatchery regularly culls these fish that don't have a complete stripe, or they sell them as inferior specimines to those who look for the trait. They also select the fish with the best coloration as brood for future generations. Since many of these traits like the partial stripes are recessive, they are difficult to remove from the brood-stock's gene pool.

I saw some very interesting fish when I was there. I saw some of the biggest ocelaris fish that I have ever seen! (I hope mine will get that size some day!) I even saw a pair of completely black ocelaris clownfish! Their progeny all had normal coloration though, spawning the question "are some of these traits due to environment versus genetics?"

I think that there will always be a market for strange coloration in fish. I think that selective breeding will help sustain the hobby too. Captive bred fish are anywhere from 20% to 150% more expensive (today) than their wild caught counterparts. Many aquarists are ignorant as to why we should buy captive raised fish, and will simply buy the cheaper fish unless there is a distinction between them. Better coloration is a big driver. If captive raised fish have better coloration (they generally do due to selective breeding) then the price difference is acceptable to most aquarists.

Most of us on this board are more educated than most hobbyists. What should we do? #1- always buy captive raised fish if they are available. #2- Ask our local retailers for captive raised fish. #3- help educate other hobbyists. #4- consider donating to causes that further captive propogation projects.

Just my $.02

Ernie