jaloreef
Socio AIC
Ho letto con grande interesse questo articolo di Pete Barnes riportato recentemente su un gruppo FB.
Ebbene non ho difficoltà a dire che mi ha aperto una bella finestra mentale sull'uso distorto ormai comunemente affermato sia fra i venditori che fra gli acquirenti del Fx.
E' in inglese ma credo si capisca abbastanza bene il significato.
In sostanza Pete sostenendo la tesi scientifica di Mendel dice che un individuo F1 non necessariamente deriva da una coppia di genitori Wild, come comunemente ormai tutti accettiamo.
Nessuno puo infatti garantire che i due genitori selvatici non siano imparentati, geneticamente collegati.Per F1 si deve invece sonsiderare la prole derivante semplicemente da due genitori geneticamente non collegati, non consanguinei, siano essi selvatici, provenienti da un laghetto o da una vasca.
Se io ho un maschio proveniente dalla Germania isolato e trovo una femmina a Reggio Calabria e li faccio riprodurre, la prima riproduzione sarà di F1.
Ma leggete e poi se vi va scrivete le vostre impressioni, poi magari proveremo a capire quali ripercussioni avrebbe sul mercato degli spacciatori di wild l'affermazione di questa nuova impostazione.
I know of biologists who are also fishkeepers and the way the hobby uses the filial system goes against their professional training and use. They use the term “f”1 begrudgingly just to make it clear what they have or are selling.
Below is a post I did for a forum a few years ago.
The Filial System
Who gives an F?
The way the hobby “uses” the filial system, is not how it was designed to be used, or is used the world over by biologists, livestock breeders, plant breeders and geneticists.
It was invented by 19th Century scientist and Friar, Gregor Mendel. His primary study was on the genetics of peas, showing the relationship of generations from the parental stock. He did this in a very precise way; there were no ifs, buts or maybes.
In Mendel’s system, F1 fish are the offspring from unrelated parents, no matter if they are wild, pond raised or tank bred.
“That’s not what it means in fish keeping” is the usual reply
Why?
Who decided this?
It means precisely that in every other line of breeding, so why should fish keeping be any different?
There are neither “Rules” nor “Regulations” stating this, and no Body or Committee to adjudicate.
It is just one of the many ways that Mendel’s system has been “Bastardised” to suit the hobby.
Why use F in the first place? Why not W to signify from wild?
How would people new to fish keeping know the way the system is “used” in the hobby, when hobbyists can’t even agree what to terminology to use.
F0, WC and P are all used for wild caught fish.
Almost everyone agrees that F1 are the offspring of wild caught parents.
But why just wild caught and not unrelated parents?
Wild caught does not mean they are unrelated. When collecting, do the divers select one fish from an area, then move on and pick another 30m away to minimise the chance of collecting siblings? Even collecting a mix of adults and juveniles does not rule out the chance of parents and offspring being collected together.
Filial system.
F1= from unrelated parents.
F2= from two unrelated F1’s.
F3= from two unrelated F2’s.
As soon as there is an outcross, e.g. F1 x F11, unrelated or not, it’s back to F1.
Fish keeping usage.
WC x WC
F1 = from wild caught parents.
F1w = from wild caught parents.
F2 = from related F1.
But wait. What about line breeding?
The Germans have developed many colourful strains of Aulonocara, and they use the following.
F0 = Parental stock. Not necessarily wild.
F1 = Offspring of F0.
F2 = Offspring of unrelated F1.
Any outcross and its back to F0.
Another scenario to consider.
What to call a wild caught x F2.
Is it F1, F2, F3 or tank bred?
What are the offspring of two unrelated F1s’? F1, F2 or tank bred?
So many variables.
So next time you’re interested in a for sale ad, ask the seller what the parents are, because those fish could be F1, F2 or F all.
Ebbene non ho difficoltà a dire che mi ha aperto una bella finestra mentale sull'uso distorto ormai comunemente affermato sia fra i venditori che fra gli acquirenti del Fx.
E' in inglese ma credo si capisca abbastanza bene il significato.
In sostanza Pete sostenendo la tesi scientifica di Mendel dice che un individuo F1 non necessariamente deriva da una coppia di genitori Wild, come comunemente ormai tutti accettiamo.
Nessuno puo infatti garantire che i due genitori selvatici non siano imparentati, geneticamente collegati.Per F1 si deve invece sonsiderare la prole derivante semplicemente da due genitori geneticamente non collegati, non consanguinei, siano essi selvatici, provenienti da un laghetto o da una vasca.
Se io ho un maschio proveniente dalla Germania isolato e trovo una femmina a Reggio Calabria e li faccio riprodurre, la prima riproduzione sarà di F1.
Ma leggete e poi se vi va scrivete le vostre impressioni, poi magari proveremo a capire quali ripercussioni avrebbe sul mercato degli spacciatori di wild l'affermazione di questa nuova impostazione.
I know of biologists who are also fishkeepers and the way the hobby uses the filial system goes against their professional training and use. They use the term “f”1 begrudgingly just to make it clear what they have or are selling.
Below is a post I did for a forum a few years ago.
The Filial System
Who gives an F?
The way the hobby “uses” the filial system, is not how it was designed to be used, or is used the world over by biologists, livestock breeders, plant breeders and geneticists.
It was invented by 19th Century scientist and Friar, Gregor Mendel. His primary study was on the genetics of peas, showing the relationship of generations from the parental stock. He did this in a very precise way; there were no ifs, buts or maybes.
In Mendel’s system, F1 fish are the offspring from unrelated parents, no matter if they are wild, pond raised or tank bred.
“That’s not what it means in fish keeping” is the usual reply
Why?
Who decided this?
It means precisely that in every other line of breeding, so why should fish keeping be any different?
There are neither “Rules” nor “Regulations” stating this, and no Body or Committee to adjudicate.
It is just one of the many ways that Mendel’s system has been “Bastardised” to suit the hobby.
Why use F in the first place? Why not W to signify from wild?
How would people new to fish keeping know the way the system is “used” in the hobby, when hobbyists can’t even agree what to terminology to use.
F0, WC and P are all used for wild caught fish.
Almost everyone agrees that F1 are the offspring of wild caught parents.
But why just wild caught and not unrelated parents?
Wild caught does not mean they are unrelated. When collecting, do the divers select one fish from an area, then move on and pick another 30m away to minimise the chance of collecting siblings? Even collecting a mix of adults and juveniles does not rule out the chance of parents and offspring being collected together.
Filial system.
F1= from unrelated parents.
F2= from two unrelated F1’s.
F3= from two unrelated F2’s.
As soon as there is an outcross, e.g. F1 x F11, unrelated or not, it’s back to F1.
Fish keeping usage.
WC x WC
F1 = from wild caught parents.
F1w = from wild caught parents.
F2 = from related F1.
But wait. What about line breeding?
The Germans have developed many colourful strains of Aulonocara, and they use the following.
F0 = Parental stock. Not necessarily wild.
F1 = Offspring of F0.
F2 = Offspring of unrelated F1.
Any outcross and its back to F0.
Another scenario to consider.
What to call a wild caught x F2.
Is it F1, F2, F3 or tank bred?
What are the offspring of two unrelated F1s’? F1, F2 or tank bred?
So many variables.
So next time you’re interested in a for sale ad, ask the seller what the parents are, because those fish could be F1, F2 or F all.