Picasso and other rare fish color variants

[jmckdvm]

I'm relieved to know that these fish are produced as a result of the natural process, and not due to inbreeding.

BUT, Phil, this is NOT correct! They are NOT produced as a result of the natural process. I'm not sure if ORA will tell you how they are producing these fish, but I would suggest that if anyone believes that these fish are being produced "naturally", you can try asking them. IF they will tell you, you will see that the process is far from "natural".

I am stepping out of this thread because I see too many awkward situations developing. If you don't see me post on this thread again, it is not because I've changed my positions. I've spent way more time than I planned trying to make valid and accurate points. I've said what I have had to say....some people will "get it" and, unfortunately, some will not.

Dr. Jim

 

[JRWOHLER]

JR,

In the FOWLR forum there is a sticky for bad fish.

Here's the link it references:

http://www.aquariumpros.com/articles/badfishlist.shtml

A lot of the fish in there make the list because of aggressiveness or tough to keep in captivity, etc.

Yes I know that list, and I have seen the lists for food type fish, but not if there is one for fish, corals, inverts ect. Anyway I would like us to at least think about it when we buy fish and whatnot.

 

[Phyl]

CoralIdea & FishIdea can be downloaded onto your ipod to carry with you in case of an emergency (or borderline impulse buy, lol)

 

[jonathan.]

I actually really agree with Dr. Jim here regarding the gene pool. The Picasso gene is obviously a recessive gene. Flooding the pool with these genes basically means that every single clown, possibly, could have this recessive gene.

Though, they'd have the dominant gene as well that would mask the recessive gene.

If you have two normal clowns with the Picasso gene inside them mating, you'd likely get a number of Picasso clowns to go along with the regular Percula clowns. The heterozygote clowns, basically, are mutant clowns with faulty genes slowly but surely taking over the true Percula genetic make-up.

While it might not seem like a lot to some, the more I think about it the more Dr. Jim is 100% correct in this. If this recessive gene keeps being flooded into the market, we'll likely stop having true, natural Percula clowns (outside of wild-caught specimens). We'd have these heterozygote "mutants" that carry the recessive gene, thus destroying the true Percula clown lineage as we know it in the hobby.

I'm all for selling mutant clowns and mutant fish, as I think they are an oddity and fun (though I stop at things like Parrot cichlids and the like). But, as Dr. Jim put it, if the actual genetic make-up of the true Percula clownfish in the hobby is at stake, and over time it certainly will be, than this should at least be somewhat controlled. It's simply not a good thing to encourage the breeding of these clowns as it's true that the actual genetic make-up of the fish as we know it is at stake.

A simple biology Punnet square (something you all likely had to do in High School) would put that genetic "attack" in perspective.

 

[Phyl]

I'm sorry... so blue eyed blonde haired children are mutants? I'm not sure I follow. Who's to say that all of the clowns in the wild aren't carrying that gene as well (like most of us with the blue eye gene somewhere in our pool)?

 

[calaxa]

Dr. Jim did touch on the problems that the Picasso clowns present. I don't think he explained it enough though.

The "Picasso" gene does occur in nature. It is not a good trait to have as it reduces the fish natural camouflage so it is selected against in the wild. This is actually not relevant to our conversation as we are talking about breeding the clowns for the hobby, thus captivity.

There is not problem with responsible breeding of "Picassos" for the hobby. The key word here is responsible. What we see so often is greed gets the better of all people. He gives good examples with guppies and parakeets. These have been inbred so much that their survival rates are horrible. Look at all the purebred dogs and cats coming out of puppy/kitten mills. They all have numerous disorders resulting from their successive inbreeding. I do not know ORA's practices. I would think that they are responsible breeders as they have a very good reputation in this hobby. In their view, their responsibility ends there. However, we already see anecdotal references of hobbyists breeding Picassos. More than likely they are sibling mates. Successive lines would probably also be sibling mates or F1 backcrosses, creating a decline in the diversity of the genetic population in these fish. It is hard enough to trace genetic population in horses, dogs, cats, etc. More than likely, it will be impossible for fish and the outcome will be we are artificially selecting for this "good" Picasso gene with all the unknown "bad" genes that might go alongside it.

 

[Phyl]

The thing is ... that while the picassos may highlight this dilemma (hobbyist generated inbreeding), can I please see a show of hands of folks who bought their "pair" of [insert clown type here] from the same tank at an LFS? Guess what gang? Those were siblings. So who's breeding them? Well none of us intentionally though we all see the threads when so-n-so's clowns actually start to lay eggs and so-n-so starts learning how to raise the fry. Our maroons were born about 5 years apart so there's a better than even chance that our "pair" is not related, but many people end up getting them at the same time, from the same tank, from the same breeder, from the same fry, from the same parents.

Just like puppies, those of us who choose to breed our clowns need to be aware that we should make every attempt to pair unrelated offspring in order to best preserve the species. As we raise awareness to this we improve the chances that we will protect the hobby AND our oceans.

We as a hobby need to gear more towards breeding fish to save our oceans. In doing so we need to figure out how to get our pairs while protecting the species.

 

[ReeferNets]

Good Point on the tank bought clowns Pres. ;D Most people who have breeding clowns aren't raising their hatches anyways.

I can almost assure you 100 percent that ORA's breeding pairs are not brother and sisters.

I posted this in another thread ORA sold off breedding pairs of clowns to some major retailers to sell. DRFS got a couple and sold them last year. These fish were still producing eggs at the times but the hatches were lower then needed to maintain production. If you looked at the pairs they did not have the same exact coloration. My Great barrier reef clowns are not both dark brown, one is a honey color and one is milk chocolate color. Not collected in the same area or at least not the same parents.

Some may have been collected in the north part of the island and the other southern part. Different coloration but same fish. Most variants of clown fish depending on the five complexes laid out in joyce Wilkerson's book is slight to Nil in difference.Mostly in numbers of stripes or placement and darker or brighter body color. How many of us can tell the difference in percula and ocellaris with out counting spins.

Percula Complex - Ocellaris and Percula
Tomatoe Complex - Melanopus, prenatus, rubrocinctus, ephippium, mccullochi
Skunk Comples - akallopisos, perideraion, sandaracinos, nigrips, leucokranos, thiellei
Clarki Complex - clarki akindynos, allardi, bicinctus,chagosensis, chrysogaster,fuscoaudatus, tricinctus
Saddle Back Complex - Polymnus, latezonatus, sebae

 

[calaxa]

Phyl,

Agreed. The only problem with Picassos are:

Originally, they all came from same breeding pair. That is something ORA did admit to. As to sucessive spawns, I do not know.

If you buy CB percs from one tank, it's more than likely they are siblings. But if you buy from two dealers, chances are they are not related. With Picassos, chances are no matter where you buy from, they are closely related. That's the key difference.

 

[jonathan.]

I'm sorry... so blue eyed blonde haired children are mutants? I'm not sure I follow. Who's to say that all of the clowns in the wild aren't carrying that gene as well (like most of us with the blue eye gene somewhere in our pool)?

Actually, I'd consider all features somewhat of a mutation. Where do you think blonde hair came from? If you believe in evolution, you'd believe that it evolved sometime down the road from a mutation. It's a prominent enough of one that doesn't effect the life of the gene carrier to see it die out.

But you missed the overall point. That gene is a recessive gene that is found in maybe one in a million clowns out there. Otherwise, we'd see much, much more of these mutant clowns. It CLEARLY was a mutation at some point to cause this. There's no other way to possibly describe it.

The pure bred Percula clown likely does not posses that gene. But when you mix these Picasso clowns, you get the "pure" Perculas that are basically just heterozygote Perculas with that mutated gene depressed.

Slowly but surely (it may take a hundred years or more), we'll end up seeing the normal Percula line end up being these heterozygous clowns rather than the formerly homozygous clowns.

And Dr. Jim was right, earlier on. We are yet to know if these Picasso clowns have the same life expectancy and/or other problems that normally nature would've removed from the wild via natural selection. With this in house breeding, natural selection is vastly limited and nature can't exactly take it's course (at least yet, as, again, we don't know the consequences of breeding these fish).

 

[jonathan.]

Phyl,

Agreed. The only problem with Picassos are:

Originally, they all came from same breeding pair. That is something ORA did admit to. As to sucessive spawns, I do not know.

If you buy CB percs from one tank, it's more than likely they are siblings. But if you buy from two dealers, chances are they are not related. With Picassos, chances are no matter where you buy from, they are closely related. That's the key difference.

So if they DID originally come from the same breeding pair, than I'm surprised that there isn't more about this going around yet (IE the somewhat condemnation of these clowns).

If they are closely related there will surely be problems down the road, akin to the problems that we see today when closely related siblings interbreed (check out the Swedish royal family, if you want a good example today).

 

[MadReefer]

I have to take Dr. Jim's side on this. I don't believe in inbreeding. I have been in the aquarium hobby for over 25 years mainly with fresh water. I can tell you that the following FW fish are affected by inbreeding because of articles I read and talking with dealers: Angels, Guppies and the Ballon mollies. Granted some are nice looking and some aren't but the mortality rate is extremely high because they don't have a good immune system. Chances are these wouldn't survive in the wild, especillay the Ballom mollie considering how awkard it swims.
I think Picassos are ugly and not worth the cash. My Percs were bought from 2 different hobbyists and one is 2x the size as the other. I doubt they are related but who knows.
I think the real point is not to encourage dealers to attempt these morphs. But beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Hawkeye]

I love great debates - and this one is shaping into an interesting discussion.

First off:

disclaimer: Neither I or anyone in my family work or receive benefits from ORA, Rod'sReef or any other purveyor of Picasso, Onyx, Naked, Black or other specialty clown.

I would like to point out that if being able to sell a pair of captive-bred clownfish variants means one less pair of wild-caught percs being caught - then I think that is great.

When was the last time anyone went into the store and demanded to know the parents of the clownfish being purchased? You could very well have a pair of wild-caught ones in your tank. With these variants - I know.

Just the other side of the coin. I already stated most of my 2 cents on the topic on another thread by inquisitive.

 

[jonathan.]

Hawk -- Granted, this is true, but removing clownfish from the wild hasn't really shown any decrease in population from what I understand.

Frankly, they are slightly overpopulated if anything as many of them can't find anemones and end up being fish food.

I would still encourage people to buy captive bred (if anything, they are supporting the US economy by purchasing ORA bred fish, anyway) if at all possible, though.

Captive bred is one thing. But captive bred by screwing mother nature and turning her upside down and throwing out all of natures rules is another, IMO.

 

[Hawkeye]

You make a great point (collection of wild anemones is another topic we could talk about)- but on this topic - I don't see people comparison shopping between percs and picassos. That's like comparing a lease of a toyota corolla versus a lease of new BMW hybrid that's like $835/month for a select 50,000 people in LA/NY.

More likely - It's deciding between a single Grade A picasso vs a single sargassum triggerfish. Or maybe a Trop/Absolutely Fish priced Achilles Tang before NJRC discount (wink).

 

[Phyl]

Jonathan and others, please don't be so quick to condemn the practices of any one organization/company without firsthand knowledge of exactly what those practices are.

Quite frankly none of us really know what's going on behind the scenes of any fish breeder.

Further talk like that without the facts to back it up may result in this thread being closed/pulled.

 

[jmckdvm]

I said I was not going to post again on this thread...but I have some interesting information to share:

A very reliable source has informed me that the original Picasso was a mutation from a pair of Perculas, (as I think we all assumed...but I don't know what kind of Perculas). The single Picasso offspring was then paired with an Onyx Percula. All the original offspring came from this pair. (I'm guessing that more pairs have since been set up). Of secondary interest is where the Onyx came from. Somebody can correct me on this if I am wrong, but my understanding is that the Onyx source is either: from the wild (Solomon Islands or P. New Guinea); or, from a genetic mutation propagated by C-Quest (the first commercial marine fish hatchery).


One might ask,"so what is the significance of all this?"

I believe it could be argued that the most significant harm that could come from introducing the Picasso gene into the percula gene pool, OR, even "just" in-breeding relatives of the "normal" percula, would be the danger of any of these fish being introduced back into the ocean. The devastation should be obvious if these "defective" genes get mixed into the "normal" gene-pool, with a cascading alteration of entire ecological niches of many species. Why would someone release fish in the wild? Its been done before...by naive pet owners who think their fish would be better off back in the ocean; or, someone might gain sick pleasure from disrupting nature, similar to those that gain enjoyment from inventing computer viruses. Granted, this is not extremely likely to happen, especially since someone (from the U.S.) would have to make a trip to the Pacific to release their fish.

OK....I know that all this sounds bizarre...but given enough time, anything is possible and, perhaps, probable.

What is more likely, however, is the almost certain destruction of the percula gene-pool in captivity. And this is not just because of the Picasso, but also from the in-breeding of relatives of the "normal" percula. (In fact, the latter will probably be of much greater significance due to the much larger numbers of them being in-bred compared to the scarce Picassos.) In both cases, however, we are destined to some day see the same thing happen to perculas (and other commonly bred/in-bred fish) that has happened to the guppy and parakeet. In our favor, however, is the fact that it will take a heck of a lot longer to happen since marine fish are not nearly as easy to breed as the guppy and parakeet. So, maybe it will take 250-500 years to see this damage, rather than the 25-50 years that it took for the latter species. I guess that should give us some relief, huh? ;D(that's suppose to be a sarcastic smile!)



So what are the "morals" of this story?

1) Never take a trip to the Pacific to release your pet percula.

2) If you are going to breed fish, start with wild-caught fish.

3) There is nothing wrong with buying Picassos as long as you don't plan to breed them. (Of course, one could argue, as I did earlier, that buying them just encourages further breeding. But, they're going to be bred anyway...so it is probably best that "non-breeders" scoop them up so their genes are headed for a dead-end.




Dr. Jim

 

[jmckdvm]

Slight correction: There is at least one Picasso x Picasso pair (original origin unknown), and at least one Picasso x Onyx pair (which is probably where the semi-picassos come from).

 

[calaxa]

Phyl,

Agreed. The only problem with Picassos are:

Originally, they all came from same breeding pair. That is something ORA did admit to. As to sucessive spawns, I do not know.

If you buy CB percs from one tank, it's more than likely they are siblings. But if you buy from two dealers, chances are they are not related. With Picassos, chances are no matter where you buy from, they are closely related. That's the key difference.

So if they DID originally come from the same breeding pair, than I'm surprised that there isn't more about this going around yet (IE the somewhat condemnation of these clowns).

If they are closely related there will surely be problems down the road, akin to the problems that we see today when closely related siblings interbreed (check out the Swedish royal family, if you want a good example today).

Jonathan,

The Picasso "breed" is relatively new. I believe it is only 5 years old at most (someone correct if they know for sure). Early attempts were unsuccessful by hobbyists and people assumed they were sterilized deliberately by ORA (I think these pairs just didn't want to mate or they were indeed sterile by accident). I have only read two accounts of a hobbyist successfully breeding them. Both instances, there was greater than the 5% expected that ORA reports so it does stand to reason that the gene has been selected for.

Phyl/Dr. Jim,

I think this case is somewhat different from other captive bred clowns in that the gene pool is much more constricted. I don't know the long term consequences but if the trend continues, it will mimic what we see with other inbred species. The especially high price tag will ensure there will be greedy people not being responsible. As to them being reintroduced to the wild, it does happen. If I recall, there was a lone lionfish that was accidentally released near Florida that is/was wrecking havoc in the area. The lionfish had no natural predator so he was destroying large populations of the original fauna. I believe he was introduced accidentally because the hobbyist' home was affected by a hurricane.

I'm not pointing fingers at ORA. In general I think that they are great and have a good reputation in the hobby. I understand that it is hard for them to educate hobbyist in the area of responsible breeding. They are a business like any other but there is the ethical and moral issue of whether or not they should be breeding this particular fish in the first place. It is the age old question when dealing with genetics. Because they can breed these fish, no one there is asking whether they should.

 

[ReeferNets]

Lets please stop beating a dead horse. (sorry for the expressions equine lovers)

Calaxa and Dr. Jim, there is only a handful of people successfully raising and selling these fish that they have bred from ORA pairs. Most of the people who get these clowns aren't going to breed them or raise the fry. It cost too much and its painstaking to cull.

Most of the clowns that have been bought are brother and sister but most people are not breeding them. Rod Buehlers Onyx clowns i believe are from a wild caught pair and so are ORA. So if no one is really breeding ORA fish then no one is getting a third generation Picasso or onyx.

The population will weed itsself out. How many of those clowns unfortunately pass away before they reach the age. Whomever has purchased these clowns has found something they liked. Lets respect that and move on. If we want to get into responsible breeding practices and stuff of that nature maybe we need a breeder or breeding forum.

Personally they are cool looking fish, for the price not so much. In the wild nature would take its course but in our fish tanks we have the ability to control our experiment.

Also by the way Dr. Jim Amphiprion Leukranos from the Solomon islands and theilli are natural occuring hybrids that produce viable offspring. It is thought that the Leukranos is to be a mix between a clown in the skunk complex and a clown in the clarki complex. Natural selection in this case produces a new class of clowns that produce viable offsping that look the like a combo.

ALSO LETS REMEMBER CLOWNS CAN CHANGE THEIR GENETIC MAKEUP FROM MALE TO FEMALE. That a pretty major thing to do and has got to also lead to more changes genetically.

In the wild the chance of relation is quite high especially if only a few clowns grow large enough they will join their mothers and father harem of clowns in the anemone. These fish dont move far from their anemones that you see so many in one anemone in the wild.