Electric Blue Jack Dempsey Color change?

[duanes]

Since there are already amazing cichlids already evolved with natural, permament blue colors, and sans the complications and compromise to health that designer and man induced cichlids pose,
I find the creation of less than robust designer color morphs a bit of humanistic folly..
Nimbochromis livingstoni (below) Scianochromis fryeri, and Placidochromus (among others) already offer much healthier alternatives to those often sickly and iffy designer models

 

[Toby_H]

I'm not sure if I understand, or agree, with your terminology or suggestions Duane.

Blue Dempseys are not "man made". They are a naturally occurring color morph. Though one that appears to hamper early stage development. Therefore it's extremely rare for the fry to survive unless aided. A Blue Dempsey has never been observed in the wild. Though the first captive bred Blue Dempseys were offspring of Wild Caught Dempseys.
It's quite similar to albinism. It follows the exact same breeding pattern as albinism (Mendelian genetics).
Mendelian genetics does motivate breeders to inbreed, which when compounded can have negative effects. That said, with Blue Dempseys, their weaknesses do seem directly connected to the genetic allele itself, not the inbreeding that followed.
Blue x Blue is a lethal combination and the offspring will not survive. Blue x "Blue Gene" (recessive Blue) or "Blue Gene" (recessive Blue) x "Blue Gene" (recessive Blue) produce viable Blue offspring.
Blue offspring do have a lower survival rate than typical Cichlids. My experience is once they reach adolescence they are fine.

That's plenty enough reason to steer some people away. And I can't blame anyone who makes that choice.

 

[jjohnwm]

Blue Dempseys are not "man made". They are a naturally occurring color morph. Though one that appears to hamper early stage development. Therefore it's extremely rare for the fry to survive unless aided. A Blue Dempsey has never been observed in the wild.

Isn't this ^ pretty much the same thing as saying that such freaks of nature as two-headed turtles are not man-made but rather naturally occurring? Any living creature is "naturally" occurring, at least insofar as its creation came about as the result of the natural process of male and female gametes combining to create an embryo (even if we go so far as to artificially cause this to occur).

But if the embryo can't survive, either before or after hatching/birth, it seems like we're just playing semantic games, no? Why are such things never observed in the wild? Simple: they aren't equipped to survive in the wild. Creating artificial conditions that allows them to (maybe) continue living...sometimes just barely...doesn't change that fact.

Maybe these mutants are not technically man-made...but they certainly are man-enabled.
I think that we need a new descriptive category here. Naturalists observe and study and enjoy nature. But the aquarium hobby is, more and more, starting to be overrun by Artificialists.

 

[Toby_H]

Again, everyone is welcome to their opinions and preferences. If it's not your cup of tea, that's fine. There are different flavors so we can all enjoy.
My post was simply meant to help convey facts.

It was previously stated "designer fish, as opposed to a natural species"
Blue Dempseys can be considered "designer fish". But they are also "natural species". They are nothing but Jack Dempsey /Rocio Octofasciata.

It was further stated, "In the designer process, some individuals have lost the robustness that natural JDs have..." This is also somewhat true, and somewhat not. Blue Dempseys do have associated health problems. Though the evidence suggests it is a direct result of the allele that makes them Blue, not a result of the designer process. That may seem like splitting hairs, but I spent several years outcrossing Blue Dempseys trying to reduce what I suspected was Hybrid vigor. Which made no difference as again, the health issues seem to be attached to the gene that affected the color. Thus is simply can't be fixed.
My point here doesn't deny or argue that there are associated health problems. It simply helps to clarify the root cause.

And the embryos can and do survive. They're just out competed by their faster growing siblings. Remove them from those siblings and they survive.
In order for the Wild Caught recessive Blue Dempseys that were caught to introduce Blue Dempseys to our hobby to exist, there must have been a Blue Dempsey that not only was born in the wild, but survived to maturity and bred. We just didn't observe it.
Albino individuals in the wild also rarely survive. As it negates the naturally evolving camouflage. But across many species they are prized by some and bred into lines. In this example as well, it's not everyone's cup of tea.

I'm not here to ask anyone to accept my preference. Nor am I here to judge yours. I'm not even going to defend my preference as you judge it.
I was just cleaning up a couple of lines that seemed could have been taken in a misleading way. I also highly doubt Duanes meant them in a misleading way.

 

[Conchonius]

Perhaps Scottish fold cats are a good point of comparison here. They have a single, distinct mutation that has been fixed in the line, so they are not "designer" per se, but they do have health issues and many people avoid them for that reason. Same with EBJDs: they are not "unnatural" in the strict sense, but they are far enough away from the WT that the naturalists, to borrow John's term, take a dim view on them.

That said, "live and let live" is my own attitude in these matters. As long as the fish is not actively suffering, as is the case for e.g. pearlscales and shortbodies, I'd say the benefit of keeping them in a predator-free, food-rich (and thoroughly unnatural!) environment outweighs the harm.

 

[jjohnwm]

No offense or judgment intended, Toby_H and my apologies if it was taken that way; as you say, everyone's opinion is equally valid and requires no defense or explanation.

As a devout "naturalist", I chuckle a bit when I hear that, for example, these embryos and fry will survive...without competition, under thoroughly non-natural conditions. To some folks, that means they are natural...to others, it means the exact opposite. Again, semantics. We debate the two sides of the issue...and yet use the same evidence because of disagreement on the terminology.

Potato, potahto...

 

[duanes]

Although they may be naturally occurng, at times, just as other xanthic forms occur in many cichlids,, in nature, those redundant gene forms usually dont survive, because they stand out too easily to predators like king fishers, eagles, and loons, and other predatory birds

One never (at least I haven't seen EBJDs) in natue, and I've spent a lot of time with JDs in the Cenotes of Mexico.
Those that stand out, seldom make the guantlet of survival of the fittest.

I;m old enough to remember back in the 80s when a Uruguayan aquarist (sorry I forgot his name).
was developing the EBJD strain, by separating forms and those individuals before they were out competed, by their more robust siblings.