Jump to content


hello


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
17 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_fishes2catch_*

Guest_fishes2catch_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 03:14 PM

Hello,

I would like to introduce myself to everyone. My name is Mark and I'm a self proclaimed fish geek. I work as an aquarist for a research lab at the University of Oregon keeping mainly threespine stickleback from Alaska and Oregon. Much of the work that we do is determining the genetic basis of bone evolution in many of the derived populations. I have recently built a fish room and am now breeding fish into the room from an existing room.

I'm also interested in non native fishes, mainly cichlids and livebearers, which I keep and breed in a fish room at home.

I'm also interested in working with pipefish as they are considered to be very closley related to stickleback. Can anyone help me in finding gulf pipefish, syngnathus scovelii? I'm new to NANFA and do not know if this is an appropriate place to ask such questions or if there is a trading post.

I look forward to many discussions about our native fishes,

Mark

post_181_1165436053.jpg

#2 Guest_teleost_*

Guest_teleost_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 03:38 PM

Welcome aboard fishes2catch.

Can anyone help me in finding gulf pipefish, syngnathus scovelii? I'm new to NANFA and do not know if this is an appropriate place to ask such questions or if there is a trading post.


You can start a new thread in the "trading dock" below. You might get more attention there.

Quite a mess of sticklebacks you have there. what on earth do you do with that many?

#3 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guest_Skipjack_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 03:41 PM

Welcome aboard fishes2catch.
You can start a new thread in the "trading dock" below. You might get more attention there.

Quite a mess of sticklebacks you have there. what on earth do you do with that many?


Maybe he tosses guppies in there and watches them get shredded. :)

WELCOME ABOARD!

#4 Guest_NateTessler13_*

Guest_NateTessler13_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 06:36 PM

no thanks on Sticklebacks, too aggressive. #-o

#5 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 06:40 PM

Quite a mess of sticklebacks you have there. what on earth do you do with that many?


Gettin' 'em ready for the stewpot? :P

#6 Guest_sandtiger_*

Guest_sandtiger_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2006 - 07:47 PM

Gettin' 'em ready for the stewpot? :P


Deep fry em. :D/

#7 Guest_fishes2catch_*

Guest_fishes2catch_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 12:20 PM

Deep fry em. :D/


You have to eat around the spines!

Welcome aboard fishes2catch.
You can start a new thread in the "trading dock" below. You might get more attention there.

Quite a mess of sticklebacks you have there. what on earth do you do with that many?


This image was taken during a collecting trip near Anchorage. Many of these fish were thrown back, while others were fixed, stained for bone, and disributed to intersted parties. These fish were found in a lake that is thought to have been accidently stocked 20 years ago with fully armored fish. Since that time these fish have lost their armor. This is a case of evolution on a short time scale. That is why some think they are interesting.

Maybe he tosses guppies in there and watches them get shredded. :)

WELCOME ABOARD!



Depends on the guppy.

#8 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 12:46 PM

You have to eat around the spines!
This image was taken during a collecting trip near Anchorage. Many of these fish were thrown back, while others were fixed, stained for bone, and disributed to intersted parties. These fish were found in a lake that is thought to have been accidently stocked 20 years ago with fully armored fish. Since that time these fish have lost their armor. This is a case of evolution on a short time scale. That is why some think they are interesting.
Depends on the guppy.

I think they're interesting for that kind of microevolutionary process. And you don't have to be Dolph Schluter to think so.....

#9 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 01:00 PM

This image was taken during a collecting trip near Anchorage.

You collect in Alaska? Got access to arctic char?


Since that time these fish have lost their armor. This is a case of evolution on a short time scale.

These fish LOST genetic information, specifically the information to grow armor. That is not evolution at all, it is inbreeding. If anything, it is de-evolution. It is kind of like taking your least hairy cats and breeding them together. Within a few generations, you have a Manx hairless cat. It is still a cat, just without the genetic information to make hair. Now if these fish had developed NEW genetic information, such as armor where before there was none, that would be evolution. But of course, there has never been a single documented, observed case of new genetic information arising anywhere. Just the loss or re-ordering of existing genetic information.

#10 Guest_fishes2catch_*

Guest_fishes2catch_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 01:35 PM

I think they're interesting for that kind of microevolutionary process. And you don't have to be Dolph Schluter to think so.....



I have met Dolph, intersting fellow.... Did you know that he did a bunch of work on the Galapagos finches with the Grants?

#11 Guest_fishes2catch_*

Guest_fishes2catch_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 02:13 PM

You collect in Alaska? Got access to arctic char?
These fish LOST genetic information, specifically the information to grow armor. That is not evolution at all, it is inbreeding. If anything, it is de-evolution. It is kind of like taking your least hairy cats and breeding them together. Within a few generations, you have a Manx hairless cat. It is still a cat, just without the genetic information to make hair. Now if these fish had developed NEW genetic information, such as armor where before there was none, that would be evolution. But of course, there has never been a single documented, observed case of new genetic information arising anywhere. Just the loss or re-ordering of existing genetic information.



I do not have access to arctic charr. They are very intersting though. There is a lake in Iceland that holds four different morphs from a single ancestor. Google lake Thingvallavatn and you can read all about them.

As far as the evolution argument....

First let's define evolution properly. It simply means change over time. In this case, molecular change over time. I agree that what i discribed about stickleback is a loss of characters, but would disagree that it is a loss of genetic information. The genetic information has not been lost but has changed and caused a phenotypic loss. This is evolution. If you do not think that character loss is evolution then you should ask a naked mole rat or a blind cave fish. These losses are adaptive. Evolution does not need to be progressive or have a destination.

As far as adding "genetic information" (which I'm not sure exactly how we are defining this), There is a growing amount of evidence that there have been numerous rounds of genome duplication throughout metazoans history. The latest being in teleost. I think that this would qualify as addition of genetic information.

#12 Guest_AndrewAcropora_*

Guest_AndrewAcropora_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 05:13 PM

Hi, and welcome to the boards :D

I was looking through a website today that our local reef keeping club is making a group order from and noticed that they often collect Syngnathus scovelli. You might want to try giving them a call.
Floridapets
Cheers!

#13 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 08:05 PM

I have met Dolph, intersting fellow.... Did you know that he did a bunch of work on the Galapagos finches with the Grants?

Yeah, I've both read his work work with them, and also about them in that one popular science account of the Grants' work. Their work is part of my inspiration for my own research, in particular their commitment to a project over decades and compiling the kind of data that only comes with time. I would imagine that working with many stickleback populations in boreal lakes would be similar, in terms of identifying trends in morphospecies as they apparently relate to environmental influences. When I was living in Boston I'd come across various sticklebacks on regular basis, including an armored morph that exists in one spring in the Fenway "greenbelt" of Boston. No sticklebacks in the Tennessee Valley, though.....

#14 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 09:44 PM

I do not have access to arctic charr. They are very intersting though. There is a lake in Iceland that holds four different morphs from a single ancestor. Google lake Thingvallavatn and you can read all about them.

Thanks for the tip. That has led to some very interesting reading about Iceland, which I will pursue further. There is apparently some fascinating history associated with that place, as well as geology and ecology.


I agree that what i discribed about stickleback is a loss of characters, but would disagree that it is a loss of genetic information. The genetic information has not been lost but has changed and caused a phenotypic loss. This is evolution. If you do not think that character loss is evolution then you should ask a naked mole rat or a blind cave fish. These losses are adaptive. Evolution does not need to be progressive or have a destination.

That is like saying that an albino has had his pigment information change. His pigment information has not changed, it has been lost. He cannot make pigment. Period. He never will make pigment. It did not change to a different color pigment; it is the absence of pigment. The blind cave fish did not have his eyes change to a different kind of eye, he simply has no eyes. He has lost the genetic information necessary to make eyes. The naked mole rat did not have his hair changed, he cannot grow hair. He has lost the genetic information necessary to grow hair. I have lost some hair too. I must be evolving :wink:


As far as adding "genetic information" (which I'm not sure exactly how we are defining this), There is a growing amount of evidence that there have been numerous rounds of genome duplication throughout metazoans history. The latest being in teleost. I think that this would qualify as addition of genetic information.

I'm sure Teleost will be glad to hear this. Anyway, what does "duplication" mean? It means copying. It does not mean the creation of anything new. Show me, for example, where the genetic information to make an eye came about, when it was not there before. And tell me who was there to observe it and document it. An eyeless animal never laid an egg to have an animal with an eye hatch. No one ever observed it, and no one ever will. To believe that this ever happened is pure speculation, making the interpretation of fossils etc. fit the world view of the interpreter. You may choose to believe that birds are descended from dinosaurs, but nobody ever observed a dinosaur lay an egg and a bird hatch out. And nobody ever will.

I agree that things change over time. Wolves, due to isolation caused by a combination of geography and the will of human breeders, have become hundreds (maybe thousands) of very diverse breeds of dogs. This was done by selecting certain traits to be passed on and others not to be passed on. Genetic information was lost to make this happen. And yet they are all still dogs, and can interbreed. If feral dogs of different breeds hybridize, their genetic information will recombine and their descendants will revert to wild dogs.

When inbred fancy goldfish are released into streams and lakes, they interbreed and are known to revert through successive generations to their wild state.

There has been extensive talk on this forum about hybridization in sunfish. They can hybridize because they are essentially the same kind of fish. Different isolated breeding populations of the ancestral sunfish lost different genetic information, making the various kinds we see today. When they hybridize, they mix genetic information, restoring some of the diversity of genetic information and making them closer to the ancestral sunfish. It might be interesting to breed them all together to see what results.

Well, I better come down off the soapbox now. There are too many other new topics to read. I'll catch up with you later.

#15 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guest_Skipjack_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 09:59 PM

Guys, this is the welcome forum, we are getting a little off track here. Please continue this discussion in an appropriate subforum. General discussion maybe.

#16 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 December 2006 - 10:03 PM

Guys, this is the welcome forum.


And a hearty welcome I extend to fishes2catch! Rabbit trails happen all the time. They can be fun. Nothing personal here.

#17 Guest_edbihary_*

Guest_edbihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2006 - 12:19 AM

I do not have access to arctic charr. They are very intersting though. There is a lake in Iceland that holds four different morphs from a single ancestor. Google Lake Thingvallavatn and you can read all about them.


Okay, here it is:
http://www.thingvell...sh/arcticcharr/

There is even a dwarf variety that gets no bigger than five inches! Now I've got to have one of those. The next person who goes to Iceland, please...

As a side note, it is cool seeing it spelled "Žingvallavatn" on that web page, with the thorn (captial Ž, small ž) instead of "th". The thorn used to be an English letter as well as Icelandic. Its use was discontinued when Gutenberg invented the printing press. It was not used in the German language, so Gutenberg did not put one on the printing press. So the English replaced it with "th". To their credit, the Icelanders retained it, as well as the eth (capital Š, small š). They say you learn something new every day. So here it is for you. :lol:

#18 Guest_nativecajun_*

Guest_nativecajun_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 December 2006 - 08:17 AM

I am no geneious, and you can tell by my spelling and grammer at times. Well lets say all the time. But on the evolution thingamoboby talk I have to side with edbihary. Why you ask? I don't know just sounds more logica. And may have something to do with me not believing in evaloution. If eveloution is supposed to make us better and better as it progresses why is man so deginerate? Look around and think, did all these diseases exist four hundred years ago. I don't think so. Any way like I said I am no genious but I side with edbihary. Sounds like common sense to me and I loves common sense.

And I am also with edbihary on this crazy software. What is guided mode? And what is full edit and quick edit? An edit is an edit common what gives. Now remember my simple mind next time choosing software will you. :D/




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users