View Full Version : Panda Ghost genetics
pav56
08-04-2015, 08:53 PM
I recently obtained angelfish pair, owner called them Panda Ghost 13A. They look exactly same as Panda Ghosts in gallery:
http://www.theangelfishsociety.org/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=172&title=pair-panda-ghost&cat=510
They already bred and raised babies (great parents!). Interesting, they produced 4 different color variations of the babies. I'm new in angelfish genetics and trying to figure out, what genetics have parents and babies. I searched about panda angelfish but was unable to find much. Could somebody tell me what a genetics code of the parents? Thanks.
Can you put up photos of your fish and photos of their progeny? I've not heard of Panda Angels before but from my limited snoop around it sounds as though there is some form of marble going on (these are what came up for me labelled Panda Angels: http://absolutelyfish.com/wp-content/gallery/freshwater-angelfish/panda-angel.jpg and they almost look like they are platinum based). It seems to be a trade name, not a genetics-based name, so it will be like any other breeding puzzle in that you'll need to carefully examine the phenotype of the parents, take good photos and get second and third opinions, raise some fry, and carefully assess the phenotypes and phenotype ratios and perform outcrosses with other angels to reveal gene interactions. I also found this: http://arofanatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=500218
catsma_97504
08-08-2015, 11:43 PM
Panda angelfish are a low color variety of Koi. Many breeders cull them for the lack of orange coloration needed to label them as true Koi, however, others raise them and call them Pandas as they are black and white koi types. Genetically they are the same as Koi (Gm/Gm or Gm/g or Gm/+ with S/S). Not sure if I have any photos, but I will dig around and see if I can find any from the days I bred Koi lines.
What's going on with the 'Pandas'in the second link then? The blotching kind of looks like it is due to something else. They are blushing, aren't they, but, what else??? They still have a clear eye-stripe and is that tail stripe due to Z which can't be if they are S/S *shrugs*???
Mugwump
08-09-2015, 04:30 AM
Looks a lot like a Philippine blue Koi pariaba.....the greenish splotches are classic pariaba coloring.....Gm/g S/S pb/pb....or possibly Gm/+ S/S pb/pb....'blue' blue koi pariaba??
Gm/+ makes a bit of sense given the 2007 phenotype library here states that the co-dominance of gm and + will often result in the stripes showing through. I think I can see how it could work now :)
catsma_97504
08-09-2015, 09:45 AM
I didn't see your photo last night? But I would think those are Platinum Marbles. Gm/g pb/pb
Mugwump
08-09-2015, 01:40 PM
I didn't see your photo last night? But I would think those are Platinum Marbles. Gm/g pb/pb
...and the blushing??
catsma_97504
08-09-2015, 02:47 PM
Having images of different phenotypes is leading to some confusion with this conversation. I am sure there are many who use some form of Panda in their labeling in an attempt to describe the fish they are selling when they don't know the genetics or the actual phenotype descriptions. This in fact was the key reason our founders began The Angelfish Society.
I was responding to this image:
238
The one in front appears to have a shortened gill plate, but otherwise looks like Platinum Marbles.
And I believe you are responding to the photos in the second link:
239
which I agree is a Paraiba type
Mugwump
08-09-2015, 04:56 PM
LOL....yeppers, it would appear so.........
terrapins
08-10-2015, 12:18 PM
Gm/+ makes a bit of sense given the 2007 phenotype library here states that the co-dominance of gm and + will often result in the stripes showing through..... :)
Bingo! The confusion is because of the premise - that the pair pictured at: http://www.theangelfishsociety.org/p...-ghost&cat=510 (http://www.theangelfishsociety.org/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=172&title=pair-panda-ghost&cat=510)are Goldmarbles. They're not; what they are are Silver Goldmarbles. Paired together, and assuming that they DO have a single copy each of the stripeless gene ("assuming" since the presence of striations are not a fool proof stripeless or double stripeless identifier) will not produce Goldmarble Blushings (Orange Kois) but instead, their offspring will be Silver Goldmarble Blushings, commonly known as "Blue" Kois or more formally - Blushing Goldmarbles whose genetic coding is Gm/+ - S/S.
I didn't see your photo last night? But I would think those are Platinum Marbles. Gm/g pb/pb
I think you meant to write Platinum Goldmarbles.
Having images of different phenotypes is leading to some confusion with this conversation.....
Though I am not vehemently opposed to re-using an existing descriptive in a phenotypic name, those that decide to do so MUST include the specific genotype since like-phenotypes can be produced by more than 1 genotype in many cases. For example: Paraiba Kois, Blushing Goldmarble Pandas, Paraiba Sunsets or in the case of the picture above, Goldmarble Platinum Panda.
......... This in fact was the key reason our founders began The Angelfish Society.
Amen to that, Dena!
ljatsoh
09-18-2015, 02:09 PM
We had this single specimen from over 200 koi angel fry. I've called it a Panda Koi based on other descriptions I've seen of similar fish. Both parents were koi as well. What is it genetically? Still trying to learn and absorb all the genetics.
catsma_97504
09-18-2015, 09:43 PM
We had this single specimen from over 200 koi angel fry. I've called it a Panda Koi based on other descriptions I've seen of similar fish. Both parents were koi as well. What is it genetically? Still trying to learn and absorb all the genetics.
In order for us to address your question about genetics in your fish we'd need to see a photo. There are multiple genetic combinations that can lead to a given phenotype.
terrapins
09-22-2015, 01:38 AM
We had this single specimen from over 200 koi angel fry. I've called it a Panda Koi based on other descriptions I've seen of similar fish. Both parents were koi as well. What is it genetically? Still trying to learn and absorb all the genetics.
It's a genetic Koi with either low carotenoid color (didn't inherit a lot of orange to red-orange colors) or its colors are yet to develop (sometimes a Koi's erythrophores and xanthophores take longer to mature).
catsma_97504
09-30-2015, 04:00 PM
I think you meant to write Platinum Goldmarbles.
No, I meant exactly what I said. Platinum Marbles. It takes Gold Marble with either Gold Marble or Gold as well as 2 copies of Philippine Blue to make a Platinum Marble. Gm/Gm pb/pb or Gm/g pb/pb.
Mugwump
10-02-2015, 06:43 AM
No, I meant exactly what I said. Platinum Marbles. It takes Gold Marble with either Gold Marble or Gold as well as 2 copies of Philippine Blue to make a Platinum Marble. Gm/Gm pb/pb or Gm/g pb/pb.
Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
catsma_97504
10-02-2015, 08:49 AM
Then I guess you don't recognize a Platinum Marble.
Mugwump
10-02-2015, 09:47 AM
Then I guess you don't recognize a Platinum Marble.
It has to be a Plat gold marble because just a plat marble is impossible. You must have the (g) in the Gm/gm or Gm/g...to get the Plat....
catsma_97504
10-02-2015, 10:48 AM
303
Mugwump
10-02-2015, 11:13 AM
303
That is wrong.....
Genetic Cross
----------------------
Fish1: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
Fish2: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
Results
----------------------
100.0% Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
............
Genetic Cross
----------------------
Fish1: Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
Fish2: Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
Results
----------------------
50.0% Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
25.0% Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
25.0% g/g - pb/pb - Platinum
catsma_97504
10-02-2015, 08:44 PM
Just because you have a different opinion doesn't make me wrong.
Pterophyllum
10-03-2015, 12:50 AM
g/g = gold
g/g - pb/pb = platinum
Gm/g = Gold Marble
and in the same way
Gm/g - pb/pb = platinum marble
similarly
Gm/Gm - pb/pb = platinum marble
The above is the naming convention that Ken Kennedy proposed, and most people adhere to. Apart from anything else, calling a Gm/g - pb/pb a blue gold marble would be confusing to anyone unfamiliar with angelfish genetics, since in general they're not gold, and have very little in the way of blue on them.
Gm/+ - pb/pb is a blue gold marble.
Mugwump
10-03-2015, 04:52 AM
Sorry Dena, wrong choice of words..
What I posted for the genetics and naming was from Paul Susi's calculator....he had worked with Ken too, I believe
We're talking genotype naming here and to be definitive..the gold marble should be mentioned....aka Blue gold marble....because that is what it is,,,,
Phenotype names on the other hand have been all over the place, whatever we try to name here, but Plat marble/Plat blue marble has seemed to have stuck....but the calculators should show the genotype names....
Mugwump
10-04-2015, 12:11 PM
Sorry Dena, wrong choice of words..
What I posted for the genetics and naming was from Paul Susi's calculator....he had worked with Ken too, I believe
We're talking genotype naming here and to be definitive..the gold marble should be mentioned....aka Blue gold marble....because that is what it is,,,,
Phenotype names on the other hand have been all over the place, whatever we try to name here, but Plat marble/Plat blue marble has seemed to have stuck....but the calculators should show the genotype names....
So are we to leave the TAS calculator with the phenotype name on this....??
Danburns
10-05-2015, 07:44 AM
So are we to leave the TAS calculator with the phenotype name on this....??
The TAS calculator has a two column output, one for "Phenotype Description" and one for "Genotype Code". Adding an output column for "Genotype Name" would be necessary, correct?
Mugwump
10-05-2015, 08:44 AM
The TAS calculator has a two column output, one for "Phenotype Description" and one for "Genotype Code". Adding an output column for "Genotype Name" would be necessary, correct?
No actually it should show the genotype name and genotype code.....The TAS calculator has always been a 'genetic calculator'... ..however, the preferred phenotype name could be added tho.....??.
When the std committee looks at crosses from a submitted new gene , we're looking at the genetics because phenotype naming should derive from them....not using a phenotype name to justify the genetics.....
Danburns
10-05-2015, 09:15 AM
No actually it should show the genotype name and genotype code....
So, under the column title "Phenotype Description", are you saying that the title should be "Genotype Name", or are you saying that all the entries under the column should be listed as the individual "Genotype Name" regardless of the title being "Phenotype Description" I'm thinking that you are asking for the calculator to be changed to reflect the Genotype and not the Phenotype? If that is correct and the calculator does require changing, why not have both listed? ie;,
Column 1 = Genotype Name
Column 2 = Phenotype Name
Column 3 = Genotype Code
Column 4 = Results (percentage)
Mugwump
10-05-2015, 12:28 PM
So, under the column title "Phenotype Description", are you saying that the title should be "Genotype Name", or are you saying that all the entries under the column should be listed as the individual "Genotype Name" regardless of the title being "Phenotype Description" I'm thinking that you are asking for the calculator to be changed to reflect the Genotype and not the Phenotype? If that is correct and the calculator does require changing, why not have both listed? ie;,
Column 1 = Genotype Name
Column 2 = Phenotype Name
Column 3 = Genotype Code
Column 4 = Results (percentage)
It's supposed to be a 'genetic' calculator....period....genotype names are required.
it doesn't need the phenotype names......if they're added on as a TAS suggested preference, fine....it's simple.....
terrapins
10-05-2015, 12:42 PM
No, I meant exactly what I said. Platinum Marbles. It takes Gold Marble with either Gold Marble or Gold as well as 2 copies of Philippine Blue to make a Platinum Marble. Gm/Gm pb/pb or Gm/g pb/pb.
We're talking genotype naming here and to be definitive..the gold marble should be mentioned....aka Blue gold marble....because that is what it is,,,,
Folks, our standard definition is:
Marble = "M"arble Gene
Goldmarble = "G"old"M"arble Gene.
The phenotype's name is derived in part from the genetics (genotype). Since it was decided at the time of our founding that we would not charter phenotypic naming, commonly used names at the time were "grandfathered" in.
In the event that we found it necessary to create a phenotypic name, it has been customary to derive it from its genotypic makeup. For example, if the name Koi did not exist and we had to "invent" one for a Gm/g - S/S, it has been practical to call it a Goldmarble Blushing. In the case of a M/Gm - S/S, the more dominant expressed trait is used - therefore it would be called a Marble Blushing. That also means that if it does not have the Marble Gene, it cannot be called a "Something" Marble.
Is the standard being changed or is our usage misunderstood?
terrapins
10-05-2015, 01:03 PM
..however, the preferred phenotype name could be added tho.....??.
So, under the column title "Phenotype Description", are you saying that the title should be "Genotype Name", or are you saying that all the entries under the column should be listed as the individual "Genotype Name" regardless of the title being "Phenotype Description" I'm thinking that you are asking for the calculator to be changed to reflect the Genotype and not the Phenotype? If that is correct and the calculator does require changing, why not have both listed? ie;,
Column 1 = Genotype Name
Column 2 = Phenotype Name
Column 3 = Genotype Code
Column 4 = Results (percentage)
.....so long as that "preferred" phenotypic name does not compromise our naming standards. If multiple names are in existence and widely used, a solution would be to include a column or footnote stating those. That was why Damon placed a lot of effort in defining what those additional names (when existent) were in his original spreadsheet. The genetic calculator would be an ideal tool to include them. Food for thought: inconsistencies of naming usage can be deemed as a negative within and/or outside of the organization because once we begin making exceptions, erroneously or purposely, we defeat our chartered purpose and summarily lose credibility as a standards organization unless those changes are clearly amended via Standards Comm. process.
terrapins
10-07-2015, 06:25 PM
That is wrong.....
Yes it is and it must be fixed. Probably an oversight.
Damonc
10-08-2015, 12:09 PM
Hmmmmmm ........
Just jumped in on this thread and everyone is making some valid points. With that being said there is a lot that we must consider in regards to names and the calculator. It was not that long ago that I was a newbie and did not understand genetics at all. I thought you crossed two clowns and you got a whole lot of clowns. When that first spawn happened and there were all these other fish I was like WTH. That was when I started to educate myself using an online calculator (Paul's I believe). If that calculator only had the gene code and genotype name I would have been totally lost because I did not know that a gold marble blushing was the same as a Koi. The calculator should be developed to help both the seasoned breeder and novice hobbyist. I am to the point now that all I want is the gene code, I can work out the phenotypes and percentages in my head for most crosses. So along that line I think it would be a bit redundant to have both the gene code and genotype name. Anyone who knows the genes doesnt need the genotype name. Taking all skill levels into consideration I think that showing the gene code, genotype name and known phenotype name/names would be best for everyone.
Now in regards to a Genotype of (Gm/g or Gm/Gm - pb/pb) I think the genotype name could be DD Gold marble Blue and a Phenotype name of Platinum Marble. With a phenotype name you should do your best to accurately describe what the eye sees, not regurgitate the genotpye name agian. In regards to this genotype the eye sees a platinum base color with black marbling (plat marble). If you add any other descriptors to the name you just create confusion. Blue Gold marble woud create confusion as there isnt any gold or much blue at all. When I was developing the spreadsheet that Ted refered to I was working closely with Ken Kennedy to indentify phenotype names and Platinum Marble was what he wanted. being the original discoverer of the gene he has this right in my opinion providedd it does not create confusion with exsisting geno/phenotype names.
We (standards committee) are taking up this effort again and I will be finishing my work with the spreadsheet. The ulimate goal is to create a database that anyone can follow and understand what the gene code, geneotype and phenotype names are for any given fish. Yes we will include phenotype names for educational purposes which is one of our goals.
Danburns
10-08-2015, 03:00 PM
Taking all skill levels into consideration I think that showing the gene code, genotype name and known phenotype name/names would be best for everyone.
I couldn't agree more. I see it as a huge benefit to the newcomer or novice breeder.
We (standards committee) are taking up this effort again and I will be finishing my work with the spreadsheet. The ulimate goal is to create a database that anyone can follow and understand what the gene code, geneotype and phenotype names are for any given fish. Yes we will include phenotype names for educational purposes which is one of our goals.
It sounds like it will be an exceptional educational tool for all.
Mugwump
10-08-2015, 05:57 PM
Hmmmmmm ........
Just jumped in on this thread and everyone is making some valid points. With that being said there is a lot that we must consider in regards to names and the calculator. It was not that long ago that I was a newbie and did not understand genetics at all. I thought you crossed two clowns and you got a whole lot of clowns. When that first spawn happened and there were all these other fish I was like WTH. That was when I started to educate myself using an online calculator (Paul's I believe). If that calculator only had the gene code and genotype name I would have been totally lost because I did not know that a gold marble blushing was the same as a Koi. The calculator should be developed to help both the seasoned breeder and novice hobbyist. I am to the point now that all I want is the gene code, I can work out the phenotypes and percentages in my head for most crosses. So along that line I think it would be a bit redundant to have both the gene code and genotype name. Anyone who knows the genes doesnt need the genotype name. Taking all skill levels into consideration I think that showing the gene code, genotype name and known phenotype name/names would be best for everyone.
Now in regards to a Genotype of (Gm/g or Gm/Gm - pb/pb) I think the genotype name could be DD Gold marble Blue and a Phenotype name of Platinum Marble. With a phenotype name you should do your best to accurately describe what the eye sees, not regurgitate the genotpye name agian. In regards to this genotype the eye sees a platinum base color with black marbling (plat marble). If you add any other descriptors to the name you just create confusion. Blue Gold marble woud create confusion as there isnt any gold or much blue at all. When I was developing the spreadsheet that Ted refered to I was working closely with Ken Kennedy to indentify phenotype names and Platinum Marble was what he wanted. being the original discoverer of the gene he has this right in my opinion providedd it does not create confusion with exsisting geno/phenotype names.
We (standards committee) are taking up this effort again and I will be finishing my work with the spreadsheet. The ulimate goal is to create a database that anyone can follow and understand what the gene code, geneotype and phenotype names are for any given fish. Yes we will include phenotype names for educational purposes which is one of our goals.
Broadening the whole scope of the calculator makes sense.....
but we must stay true to TAS and make sure the genotype names are there.......
While we can only state the preferred phenotype naming, aided by the gene submitter, the genetics are our primary mission.
plus you cannot have a 'Plat Marble'......the g/g needed for the plat eliminates any possibility of a 'marble' because they are both on the same loci.....
Damonc
10-09-2015, 12:23 PM
plus you cannot have a 'Plat Marble'......the g/g needed for the plat eliminates any possibility of a 'marble' because they are both on the same loci.....
Jon just to clarify, when a call it a Plat Marble I am referring to the Phenotype name, Genotype name is still open ended and something that the standards committe needs to work on.
Mugwump
10-09-2015, 01:35 PM
Jon just to clarify, when a call it a Plat Marble I am referring to the Phenotype name, Genotype name is still open ended and something that the standards committe needs to work on.
Damon, I understand, but calling it a 'Plat Marble' is a misnomer and can be confusing too......?? it just seems that we need to be more descriptive, creative??....somehow....
Pterophyllum
10-09-2015, 03:41 PM
I'm not a member of TAS, and I don't use genetics calculators,because, like Damon...
I can work out the phenotypes and percentages in my head for most crosses.
so to some extent my opinion is irrelevant, but the three most common questions the average angelfish owner asks are :-
1. What are the genetics of this fish?
2. What will these two produce?
3. How do I make a ______ (insert phenotype name)?
IMO the ideal genetics calculator would be able to answer those three questions. To that end, again IMO, inclusion of the phenotype name is vital if it's to be any use to someone with limited knowledge of angelfish genetics.
Mugwump
10-09-2015, 04:48 PM
I'm not a member of TAS, and I don't use genetics calculators,because, like Damon...
so to some extent my opinion is irrelevant, but the three most common questions the average angelfish owner asks are :-
1. What are the genetics of this fish?
2. What will these two produce?
3. How do I make a ______ (insert phenotype name)?
IMO the ideal genetics calculator would be able to answer those three questions. To that end, again IMO, inclusion of the phenotype name is vital if it's to be any use to someone with limited knowledge of angelfish genetics.
Yes, I can agree with that...but it must be an accurate descriptor....and the genotype name should be included also....
terrapins
10-09-2015, 08:07 PM
.....and Platinum Marble was what he wanted.
The word Marble is a noun that stands for a very specific trait and has been in use for more than three decades; as such, it cannot be used as an arbitrary phenotypic descriptor. Since phenotype names are descriptors that are either fully derived from a phenotype (what it looks like) or partially derived from its genotype in conjunction with its phenotypic configuration, if you want to include the word marble to describe it without the consequence of confusion, there are options - use its adjective form - "marbled" OR "marblized;" i.e. Marbled Platinum or Marblized Platinum. You may not use Platinum Marble since "Marble" is a reserved word that has a distinct genotypic meaning.
In analogy, if you have a very long veil tail, you cannot use the noun superveil in its phenotypic name if you know full well that its genetics does not include 2 doses of veil. Understanding angelfish genetics is difficult enough when you're new to it, we don't want to complicate it further by calling something by something it is not.
Case in point, we're having this discussion because someone decided to use a name that's inconsistent with the fish in the picture (Panda Ghost) and no one caught it until this thread came about. That picture or its name must be removed or renamed.
Lastly, I suggest moving further naming issues discussions to a new thread since it its full scope is outside that of this current thread.
BTW. Thank you Rob for you input; it is practical and very relevant.
Damonc
10-09-2015, 08:28 PM
I'm not a member of TAS, and I don't use genetics calculators,because, like Damon...
so to some extent my opinion is irrelevant, but the three most common questions the average angelfish owner asks are :-
1. What are the genetics of this fish?
2. What will these two produce?
3. How do I make a ______ (insert phenotype name)?
IMO the ideal genetics calculator would be able to answer those three questions. To that end, again IMO, inclusion of the phenotype name is vital if it's to be any use to someone with limited knowledge of angelfish genetics.
I couldn't agree more!
Damonc
10-09-2015, 08:30 PM
Damon, I understand, but calling it a 'Plat Marble' is a misnomer and can be confusing too......?? it just seems that we need to be more descriptive, creative??....somehow....
The word Marble is a noun that stands for a very specific trait and has been in use for more than three decades; as such, it cannot be used as an arbitrary phenotypic descriptor. Since phenotype names are descriptors that are either fully derived from a phenotype (what it looks like) or partially derived from its genotype in conjunction with its phenotypic configuration, if you want to include the word marble to describe it without the consequence of confusion, there are options - use its adjective form - "marbled" OR "marblized;" i.e. Marbled Platinum or Marblized Platinum. You may not use Platinum Marble since "Marble" is a reserved word that has a distinct genotypic meaning.
In analogy, if you have a very long veil tail, you cannot use the noun superveil to describe its phenotype if you know full well that its genetics does not include 2 doses of veil. Understanding angelfish genetics is difficult enough when you're new to it, we don't want to complicate it further by calling something by something it is not.
Case in point, we're having this discussion because someone decided to use a name that's inconsistent with the fish in the picture (Panda Ghost) and no one caught it until this thread came about. That picture or its name must be removed or renamed.
So then we should change Gold Marble to Marbled Gold too?
How is Platinum Marble any different than Gold Marble? It's the same fish with two doses of pb. One has a gold base and is marbled and one has a platinum base and is marbled.
terrapins
10-09-2015, 10:05 PM
Goldmarble is both the name of the singular gene and its singular phenotype, in the same way that Smokey is the name of the gene that causes the phenotype to occur. They're a 1 to 1 correspondence. Our current accepted model of angelfish genes has goldmarble distinct from gold and marble for a reason, they aren't one and the same; a gold x marble cross does not produce a goldmarble phenotype. Likewise, you can't produce a goldmarble by crossing a gold anglefish (g/g) with a marble (M/+ or M/M). Norton's article unfortunately is inconsistent in this regard since a goldmarble phenotype cannot be produced by crossing a gold and a marble angelfish.
That said, a Marbled Gold phenotype (which at the moment is known as a Marble) is not the same as a Goldmarble phenotype and therefore calling a Goldmarble phenotype a Marbled Gold is erroneous.
terrapins
10-09-2015, 11:31 PM
Sorry, some of the sentences are redundant. I was about to edit it again but that function is now locked out.
Damonc
10-10-2015, 07:19 AM
Goldmarble is both the name of the singular gene and its singular phenotype, in the same way that Smokey is the name of the gene that causes the phenotype to occur. They're a 1 to 1 correspondence. Our current accepted model of angelfish genes has goldmarble distinct from gold and marble for a reason, they aren't one and the same; a gold x marble cross does not produce a goldmarble phenotype. Likewise, you can't produce a goldmarble by crossing a gold anglefish (g/g) with a marble (M/+ or M/M). Norton's article unfortunately is inconsistent in this regard since a goldmarble phenotype cannot be produced by crossing a gold and a marble angelfish.
That said, a Marbled Gold phenotype (which at the moment is known as a Marble) is not the same as a Goldmarble phenotype and therefore calling a Goldmarble phenotype a Marbled Gold is erroneous.
Once again we are talking Phenotype here, not Genotype. The genes involved, the gene names or the number of genes needed to achieve a phenotypical look is irrelevant. What matters is what the eye sees and what the eye sees is a platinum fish with marbling. There is no confusion being created because we arent taking about the gene code. To the contrary I think more confusion would be created by calling it something other than a plaitum marble. We have gold and platinum already fully accepted so logically one would flow into gold marble and platinum marble. Why don't we call a platinum a gold double dose blue? Because thats not what you see ...........
We are naming a fish based on what the eye sees and at the same time trying to best describe the fish so most people can easliy identify it by look, not by the genetic code, that is what Genotype naming is for.
If I took a population of somewhat knowledgable beginning breeders who had never seen a gold marble or platinum marble and told them that fish number one is a gold marble there would be a lot of haeds nodding. If I then showed them a picture of a platinum marble and called it gold marble double dose blue I think it is fair to say I would get a bunch of dumb looks. If I then gave them the choice of calling it a gold marble double dose blue (regurgitating the gene code) or a platinum marble I think they would all go woth the later becuase you do not see gold much less a double dose of blue!
I would think if we put this to vote the majority of this population would also choose platinum marble as well.
Mugwump
10-10-2015, 10:41 AM
Once again we are talking Phenotype here, not Genotype. The genes involved, the gene names or the number of genes needed to achieve a phenotypical look is irrelevant. What matters is what the eye sees and what the eye sees is a platinum fish with marbling. There is no confusion being created because we arent taking about the gene code. To the contrary I think more confusion would be created by calling it something other than a plaitum marble. We have gold and platinum already fully accepted so logically one would flow into gold marble and platinum marble. Why don't we call a platinum a gold double dose blue? Because thats not what you see ...........
We are naming a fish based on what the eye sees and at the same time trying to best describe the fish so most people can easliy identify it by look, not by the genetic code, that is what Genotype naming is for.
If I took a population of somewhat knowledgable beginning breeders who had never seen a gold marble or platinum marble and told them that fish number one is a gold marble there would be a lot of haeds nodding. If I then showed them a picture of a platinum marble and called it gold marble double dose blue I think it is fair to say I would get a bunch of dumb looks. If I then gave them the choice of calling it a gold marble double dose blue (regurgitating the gene code) or a platinum marble I think they would all go woth the later becuase you do not see gold much less a double dose of blue!
I would think if we put this to vote the majority of this population would also choose platinum marble as well.
...then how about using the genetic calculator to show the genotype names, and the phenotype names....if you're wanting to appeal to both new, and old angelfish keepers, it's imperative to show how that phenotype was developed.... a newer breeder/keeper can be easily led astray by a picture and just the phenotype name....we cannot assume that everyone knows that the plat is g/g pb/pb...and that the plat marble has to be Gm/g pb/pb.....
... ""If I then gave them the choice of calling it a gold marble double dose blue (regurgitating the gene code) or a platinum marble I think they would all go with the later because you do not see gold much less a double dose of blue!""
......you mean dble gold marble, double dose blue, right?.....or marble gold, gold, dble dose blue??.. jk'n....and no, that's ridiculous....simply stating both solves the problem..
terrapins
10-10-2015, 07:16 PM
Once again we are talking Phenotype here, not Genotype. The genes involved, the gene names or the number of genes needed to achieve a phenotypical look is irrelevant. What matters is what the eye sees and what the eye sees is a platinum fish with marbling. There is no confusion being created because we arent taking about the gene code. To the contrary I think more confusion would be created by calling it something other than a plaitum marble. We have gold and platinum already fully accepted so logically one would flow into gold marble and platinum marble. Why don't we call a platinum a gold double dose blue? Because thats not what you see ...........
We are naming a fish based on what the eye sees and at the same time trying to best describe the fish so most people can easliy identify it by look, not by the genetic code, that is what Genotype naming is for.
If I took a population of somewhat knowledgable beginning breeders who had never seen a gold marble or platinum marble and told them that fish number one is a gold marble there would be a lot of haeds nodding. If I then showed them a picture of a platinum marble and called it gold marble double dose blue I think it is fair to say I would get a bunch of dumb looks. If I then gave them the choice of calling it a gold marble double dose blue (regurgitating the gene code) or a platinum marble I think they would all go woth the later becuase you do not see gold much less a double dose of blue!
I would think if we put this to vote the majority of this population would also choose platinum marble as well.
Damon, the phenotype matters a lot in phenotypic nomenclature. But by the same token, there's a big difference between a fish with Marble and a fish with goldmarble. The former will have dense marbling while the latter way less. On the otherhand, you can breed for a Marble based fish with lesser marbling by means of selection. Likewise, you can breed for a goldmarble with heavy marbling, again via selection. It is for this very reason and this specific genotype why the phenotypic name must reflect which type of genetic marbling the individual has. This is why you cannot append "Marble" to a fish without the marble gene or append "Goldmarble" to a fish whose genetics does not have goldmarble. In short, a phenotype can be produced by several genetic combinations and it is responsible to ensure that the phenotypic name reflects the correct one. If there were only one type of marbling, then yes, by all means call it marble. But the fact is, there are 2 and so the phenotypic name must reflect which one it has.
I am for simplification but without neglecting the fact that it is OUR responsibility to teach newcomers that there is a difference between the marble gene and the goldmarble gene and it is the reason why such and such a fish is called by such and such a name. This becomes key when you have strains that are multi-gened because a singular phenotype can possibly be produced by multiple genotypes and its phenotypic name must be the "tie-breaker" or a clue to its genetics.
Lastly, the prior TAS calculator should be the model - it has all the ingredients that Rob enumerated. This new calculator was supposed to be an extension of the old one and in that sense consistent with all its aspects. You can't go wrong if you follow that model and if you do, this whole marble/goldmarble issue would not be an issue.
Damonc
10-10-2015, 07:35 PM
Damon, the phenotype matters a lot in phenotypic nomenclature. But by the same token, there's a big difference between a fish with Marble and a fish with goldmarble. The former will have dense marbling while the latter way less. On the otherhand, you can breed for a Marble based fish with lesser marbling by means of selection. Likewise, you can breed for a goldmarble with heavy marbling, again via selection. It is for this very reason and this specific genotype why the phenotypic name must reflect which type of genetic marbling the individual has. This is why you cannot append "Marble" to a fish without the marble gene or append "Goldmarble" to a fish whose genetics does not have goldmarble. In short, a phenotype can be produced by several genetic combinations and it is responsible to ensure that the phenotypic name reflects the correct one. If there were only one type of marbling, then yes, by all means call it marble. But the fact is, there are 2 and so the phenotypic name must reflect which one it has.
I am for simplification but without neglecting the fact that it is OUR responsibility to teach newcomers that there is a difference between the marble gene and the goldmarble gene.
I disagree, when it comes to Phenotype naming it is not necassary to describe what gene the marbling comes from or use the gene in the name at all, thats what the Genotype name is for.
It is more important to accuratley describe what you see. In that case Marble is Marble regardless of where it comes from. The education comes in play when you teach the novice to also look at the genotype name and gene code. Using your logic how does Clown, Ghost, Koi, German Blue Blusher or Leopard tell me what genes are in them?
terrapins
10-10-2015, 10:17 PM
None of the names you mentioned include an existing and universally accepted gene name with a specific meaning as part of its phenotypic name and so they do not conflict. Platinum Marble does.
Damonc
10-11-2015, 08:21 AM
None of the names you mentioned include an existing and universally accepted gene name with a specific meaning as part of its phenotypic name and so they do not conflict. Platinum Marble does.
This is going nowhere and we each have a different view. Let's just agree to disagree. When the time comes we will let the majority speak.
Mugwump
10-11-2015, 09:35 AM
This is going nowhere and we each have a different view. Let's just agree to disagree. When the time comes we will let the majority speak.
The stds committee should make the decision first tho......
terrapins
10-11-2015, 11:12 AM
It's all about precedences. To-date all phenotypic names, with a Marble descriptor means it has the Marble gene. If you ask someone with an understanding of angelfish genetics what the genetics of a Smokey Marble, Albino Marble, Orange Marble, Leopard Marble, or Marble has in its genotype, I bet 99% would say it has Marble. Throw in a newbie and tell them that all the above have the marble gene and then ask them what a Platinum Marble has, what do you think their answer would be? My point is that the precedence is too global and deeply set to the point where it cannot be ignored.
Carol Francis
10-11-2015, 02:15 PM
Damon, the phenotype matters a lot in phenotypic nomenclature. But by the same token, there's a big difference between a fish with Marble and a fish with goldmarble. The former will have dense marbling while the latter way less. On the otherhand, you can breed for a Marble based fish with lesser marbling by means of selection. Likewise, you can breed for a goldmarble with heavy marbling, again via selection. It is for this very reason and this specific genotype why the phenotypic name must reflect which type of genetic marbling the individual has. This is why you cannot append "Marble" to a fish without the marble gene or append "Goldmarble" to a fish whose genetics does not have goldmarble. In short, a phenotype can be produced by several genetic combinations and it is responsible to ensure that the phenotypic name reflects the correct one. If there were only one type of marbling, then yes, by all means call it marble. But the fact is, there are 2 and so the phenotypic name must reflect which one it has.
I am for simplification but without neglecting the fact that it is OUR responsibility to teach newcomers that there is a difference between the marble gene and the goldmarble gene and it is the reason why such and such a fish is called by such and such a name. This becomes key when you have strains that are multi-gened because a singular phenotype can possibly be produced by multiple genotypes and its phenotypic name must be the "tie-breaker" or a clue to its genetics.
Lastly, the prior TAS calculator should be the model - it has all the ingredients that Rob enumerated. This new calculator was supposed to be an extension of the old one and in that sense consistent with all its aspects. You can't go wrong if you follow that model and if you do, this whole marble/goldmarble issue would not be an issue.
There is a big difference with a fish that is gm/g pb/pb or gm/gm pb/pb and a fish that is gm/m/pb/pb or m/pb/pb, one is a plat marble and one is a blue marble.
I don't quite get what all the discussion or confusion on this topic is.
on gm/gm/s/s/ is a koi as is the gm/g/s/s, we do not have a name to define one genetic code koi(gm/gm) from the other one (gm/g) both are a koi.
To me it is the same if you relate this to adding pb/pb to it. Same goes through all the accepted code names. This is probably the simpliest example for me to relate. Now with plat marble being single or double gm, I really don't remember anywhere in the regular genetic calculator that there is a different name for the two examples of gold marble, gm/gm or gm/g.
When it comes to g/m or gm/+. it is a blue marble as it does not have a base of 2 gold genes in the mix, the color is blue and so is the name.
Carol Francis
10-11-2015, 02:28 PM
and I looked up the name of a gm/m in the TAS calculator and it is called a marble, so if it is a good enough phenotype name for TAS all these years, I don't see why it needs a new one if you add pb/pb to it. gm/m pb/pb is correctly called blue marble in my books unless someone has changed something in the mean time.
a +/m is also called phenotype marble in the TAS calculator, so +/m/pb/pb is or should be a blue marble phenotype
I may be missing something here, some point that is trying to be made for some need of modification somewhere.
Pterophyllum
10-11-2015, 04:02 PM
In one respect Ted you are right, it is all about precedence, but probably not the precedents you have in mind.
It's true that Marble appeared before Gold Marble and it's true that this confuses many people. However the first precedence to consider is that Gold Marbles have been called such since the early 1980's when they first appeared. Joanne Norton named the gene "Gold Marble" and use the name as a phenotype name a quarter of a century ago http://www.theangelfishsociety.org/forum/content.php/60-Dr-Norton-Article-Gold-Marble-Angelfish that is precedence.
An even earlier precedent that goes right back to Mendel, is that recessive genes are indicated with a lower case letter, whilst dominants and incomplete dominants are indicated with upper case. So M = marble, g = gold and in the case of gold marble Gm (with the first letter capitalised). Provided everyone understands and adheres to this convention, there can never be confusion between a gold marble (Gm) and a marble with a gold gene (M/g). Unfortunately, not everyone understands, fewer adhere, and even those that do, occasionally slip up.
But then we come to the precedent of precedence, "namers rights".
Ken was the person who identified the Philippine blue gene, and as such, IMO, he has the right to specify the names that he considers appropriate for both the gene and the associated phenotypes. Admittedly, ultimately, acceptance of a name depends upon popular use; that's why the Guppy is called a guppy, despite the fact that the Reverend Guppy got there second (but that's another story). However in Ken's case, he put a lot of effort & consideration into both the genotype and phenotype names he chose, and since most people do adhere to them it's worth restating them here :-
1. The Gene is called "Philippine Blue", with the exception of the cases listed below, the Phenotype name is "Blue". So a Marble becomes a blue marble with two copies of the Philippine Blue Gene, a Smokey becomes a blue Smokey, etc., etc.
As an aside, it's worth noting that, having re-read this thread, part of the confusion occurred at post 20 when Mugwump said :-
That is wrong.....
Genetic Cross
----------------------
Fish1: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
......
25.0% g/g - pb/pb - Platinum
because he used the name blue (which is the phenotype name) rather than Philippine blue (which is the genotype name) when he was talking about Genotype.
Originally Ken used the name "Platinum Blue" for the gene, he only changed to Philippine Blue because he realised the potential for confusion.
So what are the exceptions?.....
1 Pinoy, any fish with at least one dark gene and two Philippine blue genes, why? Because of precedent, because in 1984 Dr Norton used the name "blue" as the phenotypic name for a blushing black lace (D/+ - S/S) and he wanted to avoid confusion with existing phenotype names. http://www.theangelfishsociety.org/forum/content.php/53-Dr-Norton-Article-Black-Velvet-Angelfish
2. Paraiba, any blushing fish with Philippine blue genes, why? Because of precedent, because of the existing phenotype names "German Blue Blushing" and "Blue koi"
so this fish is a Smokey Paraiba blue koi (Gm/+ - S/S - pb/pb) :-
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/IMG_4560_zps2ny5q5pq.jpg
3. Platinum, why? Because of precedent, the Phenotype existed and was named, before the genotype was understood. True, he could have suggested renaming it "blue gold" but since they're neither blue nor gold in appearance, that would have been a futile & pointless task.
...so people have to learn that platinum is a gold with two Philippine blue genes, like they have to learn that a Koi is a blushing gold marble, that a sunset is a blushing gold and that a chocolate is a homozygous smokey. True it's not a perfect system, but it's not that difficult, if you're interested in the genetics, it's easy enough to learn an exception, and if you're not, it's a platinum.
Similarly, for any fish that's a "gold" if it's got two pb genes, it's a platinum. so gold marble + two pb genes = platinum marble, simple.
4. and a blushing gold marble with two pb's? Well without them it's called a Koi, so with them it's a Paraiba koi (see point 2), similarly a sunset becomes a paraiba sunset.
So finally, why not just call a fish that's Gm/g - pb/pb a blue gold marble? well, firstly there's very little in the way of gold or blue in such a fish, and secondly because, if you use Ken's naming system a fish that's Gm/+ - pb/pb is a blue gold marble, what would you call it if you used the name for a fish that's Gm/g - pb/pb?
Mugwump
10-11-2015, 04:24 PM
Actually, below is what I posted was from Paul's calculator......not just the exert from above.....'Plat marble' by it's name does not imply that the Gm is present....and 'plat marble' can't be 'Plat' without the Gm...so a novice will not know to assume that it is indeed Gm/g pb/pb.......Plat 'blue' marble, or Blue Gold marble would describe the angel tho...... and Paul was correct...
That is wrong.....
Genetic Cross
----------------------
Fish1: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
Fish2: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
Results
----------------------
100.0% Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
............
Genetic Cross
----------------------
Fish1: Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
Fish2: Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
Results
----------------------
50.0% Gm/g - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble
25.0% Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Blue Gold Marble(dd)
25.0% g/g - pb/pb - Platinum
Carol Francis
10-11-2015, 04:52 PM
Paul did use some incorrect names in his calculator, or should I say some names that were not updated from when Ken and the group finalized the phenotype names. He started the calculator when the process was going on and needless to say no one requested his correcting the calculator. Heck Azul blue koi pariaba, for blue koi I think is still in there. That was Enrique's pet name which ended up not being the accepted name of blue koi pariaba.
Gosh we were all so grateful to have something that worked way back then.
And yes I am sure it does confuse folks not having the proper names, but until the new calculator is fully functional for all to use and totally updated, these things happen.
Pterophyllum
10-11-2015, 05:29 PM
I put the dots in to indicate that I'd truncated what you originally posted.
The key point is that if you're worried about the genotype name. The genotype is Philippine Blue, not Blue so in the example above: Fish1: Gm/Gm - pb/pb - Philippine Blue Gold Marble(dd)
If you're worried about the phenotype name. Whilst I agree that the name "Platinum marble" does not directly imply the presence of the gold marble gene, if you understand the naming convention, then it's there; and it implies it just as much as "platinum" implies the presence of gold.
For that matter how does the Phenotype name "Koi" imply the presence of Gold Marble and/or stripeless, or the name "Sunset" imply gold and stripeless, or the name "chocolate" imply the presence of smokey, or the name clown, imply the presence of stripeless & zebra, or leopard imply zebra & smokey.
If you're arguing that all phenotype names should imply the the presence of the genes involved, then I'm sorry, but I simply disagree.
'plat marble' can't be 'Plat' without the Gm
IMO, the phenotype name should describe what the eye sees.
Again, IMO, a good phenotype name should enable someone with no knowledge or previous experience to identify the fish concerned from a group of other similar fish.
Given a tank with these four angels :-
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/IMG_2976_zpsb2ac3089.jpg
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/IMG_1625_zps36001748.jpg
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/Large%20angelfish%20photos/IMG_0947.jpg
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/IMG_7583.jpg
and told that there's a Marble, a Platinum, a Platinum Marble & a Blue Marble, I would expect most people to be able to sort out which was which, even if they didn't know that one had a gold marble gene!
Mugwump
10-11-2015, 05:37 PM
Paul did use some incorrect names in his calculator, or should I say some names that were not updated from when Ken and the group finalized the phenotype names. He started the calculator when the process was going on and needless to say no one requested his correcting the calculator. Heck Azul blue koi pariaba, for blue koi I think is still in there. That was Enrique's pet name which ended up not being the accepted name of blue koi pariaba.
Gosh we were all so grateful to have something that worked way back then.
And yes I am sure it does confuse folks not having the proper names, but until the new calculator is fully functional for all to use and totally updated, these things happen.
Yes they do happen, and will happen... and if we're updating the phenotype library, it's important that the calculator should align it's naming to match it.....best to iron it all out now...regardless of the various opinions....there's been a lot of banter in this thread, and I feel that it will be best to keep it civil.....and not make it a range war....
nice pics....and no, not necessarily, the phenotype name is what you see.....my point...the calculator should express the genotype naming.....if you, and others feel it necessary to add the phenotype naming...fine...but it's a 'Genetic Calculator'...not a Phenotype calculator......at one time I remember there were both available....
The phenotype library and descriptions are not, and have not been what I have been talking about....but somehow became the wrongful interpretation of my comments.......again...it's a Genetic Calculator....not a phenotype calculator........and Plat marble doesn't fly...........
We have no way to govern phenotype names, even after stating the preferred naming in our library.....despite the gene presenters preference....our job is to verify the new submissions by reviewing the crosses made and present the angel genetically.......the Genetic Calculator should reflect the gene make up of the variations, and the genotype names......period.........
terrapins
10-11-2015, 06:03 PM
and I looked up the name of a gm/m in the TAS calculator and it is called a marble, so if it is a good enough phenotype name for TAS all these years, I don't see why it needs a new one if you add pb/pb to it. gm/m pb/pb is correctly called blue marble in my books unless someone has changed something in the mean time.
a +/m is also called phenotype marble in the TAS calculator, so +/m/pb/pb is or should be a blue marble phenotype
I may be missing something here, some point that is trying to be made for some need of modification somewhere.
What I understand from your post are the following:
All combinations with the M gene appropriately merits appending the word Marble to its phenotypic name. (this is both logically sound and phenotypically self-evident).
Those without the M gene does not merit appending Marble to the phenotypic name (logically sound and phenotypically self-evident).
If both the marble gene AND goldmarble gene are present, it still merits appending "Marble" to its phenotypic name because it will still phenotypically express black-markings density typical of individuals known to carry the "M"arble gene (i.e. heavy marbling)
Absent the Marble gene it is it is both logically un- sound (if you punnet square the genes or use a genetics calculator you won't find the word "Marble") and phenotypically incongruent to append "Marble" to its phenotypic name (since the marbling density will be considerably lighter and therefore inconsistent with the black marbling density expected of a fish known to have goldmarble gene but without the "M"arble gene in its genetics (i.e. it will considerably have less black marking density without the Marble gene).
Why fix something that isn't broken.
Did I understand what you wrote correctly?
Carol Francis
10-11-2015, 08:44 PM
Yes Ted if TAS calculator has the correct genotype and phenotype names already in the program, there should be no major changes to address addition to the pb/pb addition. If we follow that original set with the modifications with a few key additions which are part of the pb/pb additions, Like pariaba, plat, blue and pinoy in the appropriate places, there is less confusion.
I guess I just don't understand again where the problem is.
Jon I guess I don't see what you think the plat marble should be called either. I don't deal with the genetics in words much, mostly just the symbols when I write the easier understood phenotype name if I feel I need to show clearer definition of a particular type. Most fishkeepers use the phenotype in their descriptions of there fish.
If you want the genotype name of the plat marble I guess it would be phillipine blue gold marble, but that may confuse everyone just as most get confused with the difference of the blushing gold marble versus the gold marble blushing, aka blue koi and koi, I always forget which is which.
Are you guys trying to work on both setting up the genotype names at the same time as you are setting the phenotype names??
Either way, if you follow the TAS genetics and add the gene name phillipine blue to all the existing genotypes along with the other key changes that pb brings like pinoy and pariaba modifications I would think the genetic part is pretty straight forward. Just not something that is used by laymen much, but yes as an organization I would think the correct gene name should be in the mix as well. It may make it a bit more difficult to program the calculator as I have heard it is a bit of a challenge, those type of technical computer program things are way over my head. But if possible yes it would be a good thing to have both genotype and phenotype names in the calculator.
If you are discussing changing original TAS accepted names for genes for certain types then I guess that is something else altogether.
I think I am just missing the point of all the banter here.
Mugwump
10-12-2015, 04:23 AM
Yes Ted if TAS calculator has the correct genotype and phenotype names already in the program, there should be no major changes to address addition to the pb/pb addition. If we follow that original set with the modifications with a few key additions which are part of the pb/pb additions, Like pariaba, plat, blue and pinoy in the appropriate places, there is less confusion.
I guess I just don't understand again where the problem is.
Jon I guess I don't see what you think the plat marble should be called either. I don't deal with the genetics in words much, mostly just the symbols when I write the easier understood phenotype name if I feel I need to show clearer definition of a particular type. Most fishkeepers use the phenotype in their descriptions of there fish.
If you want the genotype name of the plat marble I guess it would be phillipine blue gold marble, but that may confuse everyone just as most get confused with the difference of the blushing gold marble versus the gold marble blushing, aka blue koi and koi, I always forget which is which.
Are you guys trying to work on both setting up the genotype names at the same time as you are setting the phenotype names??
Either way, if you follow the TAS genetics and add the gene name phillipine blue to all the existing genotypes along with the other key changes that pb brings like pinoy and pariaba modifications I would think the genetic part is pretty straight forward. Just not something that is used by laymen much, but yes as an organization I would think the correct gene name should be in the mix as well. It may make it a bit more difficult to program the calculator as I have heard it is a bit of a challenge, those type of technical computer program things are way over my head. But if possible yes it would be a good thing to have both genotype and phenotype names in the calculator.
If you are discussing changing original TAS accepted names for genes for certain types then I guess that is something else altogether.
I think I am just missing the point of all the banter here.
The discussion does seem to waffle back and forth between phenotype naming and genotype naming doesn't it? My concern is TAS staying true to the genetic naming and not getting a mix of phenotype descriptors involved.
Phenotype naming should support our preferred name, but we all know that phenotype names take on a life of there own in the outside fish community. While we should be as accurate as possible, we have no way of governing the phenotype names. While the genotype name is what an angelfish has been proven to be....and static.
Carol Francis
10-12-2015, 09:05 AM
well we have three classifications of names, sales names which have no value other then to promote someone fish, then we have phenotype and genotype names which do need to conform the best they can to accepted names already set. There are some modifications to the accepted names of some phenotypes because of the acceptance of pariaba/plat/blue/ pinoy.
Now that I have chatted with a couple people about the sticking point, I think I finally get where the glitch so to speak is.
I am going to explain without using countless examples, but just 4.
gm/+ existing phenotype name silver gold marble
gm/g or gm/gm phenotype namegold marble
m/gm phenotype type name marble
m/+ marble
to keep this from getting confusing, I am just going to discus phenotype in this example.
all pb/pb non blushing fish with some form of 2 gold based genes (gm/g, g/g, gm/gm) are to be called Plat or plat marble in phenotype description <<<<<<<<<it is a white based fish
all fish that have no gold gene or one gold gene in pb/pb will be called blue in the phenotype description.
If you look at the TAS calculator in phenotype descriptions this all works out exactly the same name in pb/pb based fish with the exception of the gm/+ in a purist sense. That one fish does carry the phenotype name of silver gold marble and if I understand the discussion, this one fish may end up being the exception to the TAS calculator.
By the acceptance of the fact we currently use and accepted all blue based fish being called blue and not adding the verbage plat to this ONE type, this one fish is not keeping with the exact accepted name of the TAS phenotype calculator. But obviously this fish is blue and not white, so by definition and in keeping with the split between plat and blue descriptors, I think some are wanting this to be corrected to reflect the term plat to exchange for the gold gene in the (one type) silver gold marble.
With the blue koi (gold marble blushing/blushing gold marble) and koi in pb/pb we have modified the calculator to accept the adjusted names per Kens suggestions and work of the committee at that time. blue koi pariaba and koi pariaba. In the spirit of these adjustments, I do not feel personally that we need to deal any differently with the silver gold marble types in pb/pb.
But that is my opinion and really this is up to the standards committee to tackle. Again, we should not overly complicate this process. You can have a total nightmare of confusing sir names that would not make sense.
Am I getting the jist of this discussions sticking point now??
Carol Francis
10-12-2015, 10:18 AM
Now when it comes to the name koi, that is a widely accepted "sales" name, probably the only one that is so set in stone to be considered a true phenotype name though it is not reflected totally in the TAS calculator. But it is noted in the calculator.
If that name or names are fully accepted per Kens naming system, then you do have a president to how to handle the gold marble/+ in pb/pb non blushing. It is a matter to decide for consistency throughout the calculator how to handle the gm gene in single dose and non blushing when it comes to phenotype.
Originally Ken realized that when it came to genetic names some adjustments may need to be made to correctly reflect the genes.
Kens main concern was to please accept the phenotype names.
Everyone I am sure has pariaba koi and pariaba blue koi as totally accepted names for a gm/g/ss/pb/pb and gm/gm/ss/pb/pb for koi with pb/pb and gm/ss/pb/pb for blue koi. This is an exception to the TAS calculator which was requested to be made to have this type of fish recognized in a readily accepted name. Granted it is not TAS
Mugwump
10-12-2015, 10:26 AM
well we have three classifications of names, sales names which have no value other then to promote someone fish, then we have phenotype and genotype names which do need to conform the best they can to accepted names already set. There are some modifications to the accepted names of some phenotypes because of the acceptance of pariaba/plat/blue/ pinoy.
Now that I have chatted with a couple people about the sticking point, I think I finally get where the glitch so to speak is.
I am going to explain without using countless examples, but just 4.
gm/+ existing phenotype name silver gold marble
gm/g or gm/gm phenotype namegold marble
m/gm phenotype type name marble
m/+ marble
to keep this from getting confusing, I am just going to discus phenotype in this example.
all pb/pb non blushing fish with some form of 2 gold based genes (gm/g, g/g, gm/gm) are to be called Plat or plat marble in phenotype description <<<<<<<<<it is a white based fish
all fish that have no gold gene or one gold gene in pb/pb will be called blue in the phenotype description.
If you look at the TAS calculator in phenotype descriptions this all works out exactly the same name in pb/pb based fish with the exception of the gm/+ in a purist sense. That one fish does carry the phenotype name of silver gold marble and if I understand the discussion, this one fish may end up being the exception to the TAS calculator.
By the acceptance of the fact we currently use and accepted all blue based fish being called blue and not adding the verbage plat to this ONE type, this one fish is not keeping with the exact accepted name of the TAS phenotype calculator. But obviously this fish is blue and not white, so by definition and in keeping with the split between plat and blue descriptors, I think some are wanting this to be corrected to reflect the term plat to exchange for the gold gene in the (one type) silver gold marble.
With the blue koi (gold marble blushing/blushing gold marble) and koi in pb/pb we have modified the calculator to accept the adjusted names per Kens suggestions and work of the committee at that time. blue koi pariaba and koi pariaba. In the spirit of these adjustments, I do not feel personally that we need to deal any differently with the silver gold marble types in pb/pb.
But that is my opinion and really this is up to the standards committee to tackle. Again, we should not overly complicate this process. You can have a total nightmare of confusing sir names that would not make sense.
Am I getting the jist of this discussions sticking point now??
It seems everyone still wants to rehash the phenotype names.....
I simply stated....
""Phenotype naming should support our preferred name, but we all know that phenotype names take on a life of there own in the outside fish community. While we should be as accurate as possible, we have no way of governing the phenotype names. While the genotype name is what an angelfish has been proven to be....and static. ""
The phentotype names I can agree with mostly....again, the calculator genotype naming is my concern that it be just that....genotype names....it is the area we have control over...
""Now that I have chatted with a couple people about the sticking point, I think I finally get where the glitch so to speak is."" I hope that they see my point now??....and separate it from Ted's issue...tho he has a point also...
terrapins
10-12-2015, 06:05 PM
But then we come to the precedent of precedence, "namers rights".
And TAS capitulated. The value of the argument isn't lost in me. I know exactly where Damon's coming from and think it has merit. He wants to keep phenotype naming strictly based on phenotype going forward for pb applications. Sure, I'll buy into that, and I have no problem with adapting to it provided that we make a global change to include ALL genotypes with marbled phenotypes are marbled. We cannot have a double standard.
That also implies that not only does the change occur in practice but also on paper. That means that the Standards people better be ready to scrap the word "Goldmarble" in a phenotypic name from ALL areas on our website, foremost our Phenotype Library and rename those using a generic - "Marble". So all are on the same page, we'll also need a migration schedule to make the global change. Issue solved.
I'm not trying to be an ass towards anyone, but simply put, you cannot have 2 distinct naming conventions (1 for pb and one for the rest) - that would be a management nightmare let alone a learning curve nightmare if you're learning from scratch. Standards can't be standardized if we keep making exceptions all over the place, it is highly impractical let alone confusing.
Now if we can't accommodate this there's a very simple solution - have Ken rename the phenotype with marbling whose genotype has Gm but devoid of Marble. From what I understand, there's just one contentious name. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm damn mighty proud of my fellow countryman Ken and his accomplishments, and have always spoken about him in sincere and very positive terms. Not meaning to sound blunt but the truth is, I don't know about everyone else but I paid to receive the right to a TAS membership, knowing full well that it is an organization with fairly rigid rules by nature of why the organization exists, I did not purchase a Ken membership and so if follows that my loyalties naturally belong to TAS, its charter, and its tenets, first and foremost. As a standards organization, we are here to impose governance in every respect on our members, it doesn't go the otherway around especially not in an ad hoc manner.
Does this have to do with my wanting to revoke naming rights? Absolutely not and that never even crossed my mind. Am I suggesting an attempt to force a name down Ken's throat? Absolutely, not. We are not in the business of naming phenotypes.
Then how how do we go about it? Easy - someone from the Standards Committee should approach him and have him rename it. Honestly, is this so unreasonable? To remind those who already forgot about how TAS got to where we're at now, we bent over backwards ten fold for Ken, so far as I know we haven't breached his "naming rights." In fact, the move to accommodate Ken's nomenclature came at a very steep price - we sacrificed several highly talented members without even the slightest twitch when they walked out. So please do not attempt to lecture me on someone's naming rights since that isn't what this is all about.
I don't know how it works in the UK but if I recall correctly, here in the States, we risk our not-for-profit organizational designation if we do not accomplish what we wrote that we'd practice and accomplish and we therefore don't have the luxury of manipulating the rules to fit the occassion every time someone sneezes.
.......
1. The Gene is called "Philippine Blue", with the exception of the cases listed below, the Phenotype name is "Blue". So a Marble becomes a blue marble with two copies of the Philippine Blue Gene, a Smokey becomes a blue Smokey, etc., etc.
Agreed - this is crystal clear
........4.
So finally, why not just call a fish that's Gm/g - pb/pb a blue gold marble? well, firstly there's very little in the way of gold or blue in such a fish, and secondly because, if you use Ken's naming system a fish that's Gm/+ - pb/pb is a blue gold marble, what would you call it if you used the name for a fish that's Gm/g - pb/pb?
See above.
IMO, the phenotype name should describe what the eye sees.
I agree whole heartedly, but am very confused why you appended the word Marble to the phenotypic name of the fish below when clearly, its sparse black markings is not a characteristic of the Marble gene.
The point is, you cannot have double standards or make exceptions here and there without confusing the hell out of people who have no understanding of genetics and are attempting to understand it. That's tantamount to adopting a "confuse now, goodluck, I'll explain it later if you don't leave the hobby in frustration by the time I get to you" approach. Learning genetics is complex as it is, and I sure as hell will not sit complacently and let the sticks fall where it will if I know that it can be helped.http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/IMG_1625_zps36001748.jpg
terrapins
10-12-2015, 09:54 PM
I think that what needed to be said has been said during which - we've explored a bit of history, present practices, issues and recommendations - certainly a boatload of valuable information and more than enough fodder to hand off to Leslie's team to pore upon. I know I don't have anything else to contribute. If I stepped on anyone's toes or bruised anyone's ego please accept my apologies, it was unintentional.
Pterophyllum
10-13-2015, 04:04 AM
Hi Ted,
First off for the purposes of absolute clarity
My comments in post #54 relate to Phenotype names and not Genotype names.
To be honest, when it comes to Genotype names, I rarely, if ever, use them. In the case of the platinum marble in my previous post, when it comes to his Genotype, I type :- Gm/g - S/Z - Sm/Sm - +/p - pb/pb, IMO, that's all the information I, and anyone who knows there's such a thing as genotype to worry about, needs to know.
So, continuing to talk only about Phenotype :-
agree whole heartedly, but am very confused why you appended the word Marble to the phenotypic name of the fish below when clearly, its sparse black markings is not a characteristic of the Marble gene. I call it a platinum marble because it's a silvery white colour which is generally recognised as "platinum" in angelfish, and it has random black patches on it's body which results from the presence of the gold marble gene. True it is very lightly marbled, but it's still marbled.
To take a step back, if this fish didn't have the Philippine blue genes present, like this one :-
http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/cc464/Pscalare/Large%20angelfish%20photos/IMG_0889.jpg
....I'd call it a gold marble. I call it gold marble, because it has a gold marble gene, as identified & named by Dr Norton and because Gold Marble is the almost universally accepted phenotypic name for a fish with a gold marble gene and having random black blotching on it's body.
As you pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's possible to selectively breed gold marbles (and indeed marble) angels to have more or fewer black patches, and clearly this fish falls into the latter category.
If you wanted to be more precise about the marbling then we could have :-
"Very lightly marbled gold marble" (which I would suggest is less potentially confusing than "very lightly marbled gold" as this latter name could be taken to imply marble rather than gold marble)
"Lightly marbled gold marble"
"Gold marble"
"Quite heavily marbled gold marble"
"Very heavily marbled gold marble"
and then go on to do the same for marble.
However such classification would be inherently subjective, there would always be fish at the border line, and it implies a genotypical distinction between the groups which if it exists, isn't yet understood. So for me I'm happy to call it a gold marble; and when it comes to pb :-
Gold becomes platinum
Gold marble become platinum marble
Marble become blue marble (even if it's M/Gm - pb/pb which, IMO are so distinctively different from M/+ - pb/pb, that they probably could do with a distinctive name)
Damonc
10-13-2015, 07:14 PM
Hi Ted,
First off for the purposes of absolute clarity
My comments in post #54 relate to Phenotype names and not Genotype names.
To be honest, when it comes to Genotype names, I rarely, if ever, use them. In the case of the platinum marble in my previous post, when it comes to his Genotype, I type :- Gm/g - S/Z - Sm/Sm - +/p - pb/pb, IMO, that's all the information I, and anyone who knows there's such a thing as genotype to worry about, needs to know.
I totally agree with this! This is the point I was trying to make. The genotyoe name in most cases is just a simple regurgitation of the gene code and I don't know anyone that uses it. The majority of fish poeple I know use the common or Phenotype name all the time. I was breeding Koi for 2 years before I ever heard the term Gold Marble Blushing. Having the calculator only give the genotype name is redundant and would only appeal to the minority. I consider myself a pretty good breeder with a very strong grasp on the genetics and I never use the genotype name because you are talking a foriegn language to most hobbyists.
Mugwump
10-14-2015, 07:57 AM
I totally agree with this! This is the point I was trying to make. The genotyoe name in most cases is just a simple regurgitation of the gene code and I don't know anyone that uses it. The majority of fish poeple I know use the common or Phenotype name all the time. I was breeding Koi for 2 years before I ever heard the term Gold Marble Blushing. Having the calculator only give the genotype name is redundant and would only appeal to the minority. I consider myself a pretty good breeder with a very strong grasp on the genetics and I never use the genotype name because you are talking a foriegn language to most hobbyists.
Yes, the phenotype name is more commonly used. The genotype name however belongs in the 'Genetic Calculator'......I'm not in agreement to dumbing it down for the majority. If anyone wants to just use the phenotype name(s) in their conversations....fine.....but the genotype name is what it is, and we need a source where it can be readily available to those that seek it.
When we do crosses of new gene submitted, we are after the genetics..........the phenotype names comes later....right?
Damon, as an example....when you were first learning about angelfish genetics....where did you start?.....the 'genetic calculator' is one of the first tools that hobbyists turn to for guidance.....then you associate the phenotype names to what the angel actually is genetically........these associations are a major part of the learning experience....
Carol Francis
10-14-2015, 04:16 PM
I agree that all the previous calculators had both the genetic and phenotype shown, you just clicked over, there was a tab on the top to be able to switch from phenotype to genotype. If anyone has the old calculator you can see how it is set up. I still use the old TAS calculator on occasion. I know the names of the phenotypes anyways and it is no biggy just to add the pb/pb prefix or suffix to the phenotype that pops up.
I know lots of work has been done to make a new calculator and don't know all the challenges that could prevent this from being done to the new one.
I have not seen the final new TAS calculator. I assumed it would do the same in the final product
Damonc
10-15-2015, 06:51 PM
Yes, the phenotype name is more commonly used. The genotype name however belongs in the 'Genetic Calculator'......I'm not in agreement to dumbing it down for the majority. If anyone wants to just use the phenotype name(s) in their conversations....fine.....but the genotype name is what it is, and we need a source where it can be readily available to those that seek it.
When we do crosses of new gene submitted, we are after the genetics..........the phenotype names comes later....right?
Damon, as an example....when you were first learning about angelfish genetics....where did you start?.....the 'genetic calculator' is one of the first tools that hobbyists turn to for guidance.....then you associate the phenotype names to what the angel actually is genetically........these associations are a major part of the learning experience....
I used a calculator that is no longer available online and there were only two things I looked at. That being the gene code and phenotype name because thats what everyone used, not the genotype name. I bought a lot of new Philippine Blues and Pinoys from Carol. She didnt call them by there genotype name. I loved the Pinoy Clowns and wanted to make a bunch of them so I paired two of them thinking I would get a bunch of Pinoy Clowns and when all these other fish popped out my journey to understand the genetics began. When asking questions to all the good breeders at that time none of them used the genotype name, they always used common phenotype names. Because of this I only looked at the gene code D/+ -S/Z - pb/pb and phenotype expected results. Honestly I really don't know one person who uses the genotype names in conversation, forums or face book groups.
Just to clarify I am in support of having all three (code, genotype and phenotype) in a calculator to appeal to everyone.
SATROPICS
10-15-2015, 07:02 PM
there was a breeder over 25 years ago producing panda a type of gold marble or gold marble Koi blushing I think he was in Mich they were advertised in in the tropical fish hobbyists in the classifieds I have a picture of them in storage. Time frame was about 1990. Same time Frame Steve Rybicki was getting into the wild crosses. thats why I asked was it a new strain as I know I have seen the blushing type before.
Danburns
10-15-2015, 09:02 PM
Just to clarify I am in support of having all three (code, genotype and phenotype) in a calculator to appeal to everyone.
Ditto. The calculator would then be a learning/reference tool that would benefit a greater number of users. jmho
terrapins
10-16-2015, 12:06 AM
Just to clarify I am in support of having all three (code, genotype and phenotype) in a calculator to appeal to everyone.
Great! So there's just one issue left - uniformity of usage. Your group needs to decide on the use of the word MARBLE in phenotype. Whichever route you take, it has to be applied uniformly to all strains where applicable. This is all I'm after. To review just in case it got lost in translation (I may have added to the confusion by not having been specific with the gene combinations; my apologies for that):
Will MARBLE in a phenotype name be used to indicate a marblized appearance regardless of the gene combination causing it or will it stand only for the gene combination causing the expression and thus only in the presence of M/+, M/M, or M/Gm (conversely, in their absence, marbling phenotypes caused by Gm/+, Gm/g, Gm/Gm will therefore not merit MARBLE)?
This is key because of its significant precedent usage in our phenotype library where genotype and phenotype names are one and the same and in use since our founding a decade and a half ago and even goes further back beyond the boundaries of TAS to the time Norton wrote her article on the topic in 1988. It is also in keeping with one of your group's new/revised rules on naming which states:
"b. A major or significant mutation will be given the name used by the person who originally discovered the new gene so long as the name does not cause confusion with the existing names of freshwater angelfish genotypes and phenotypes."
I agree that all the previous calculators had both the genetic and phenotype shown, you just clicked over, there was a tab on the top to be able to switch from phenotype to genotype. If anyone has the old calculator you can see how it is set up. I still use the old TAS calculator on occasion. I know the names of the phenotypes anyways and it is no biggy just to add the pb/pb prefix or suffix to the phenotype that pops up.
I know lots of work has been done to make a new calculator and don't know all the challenges that could prevent this from being done to the new one.
I have not seen the final new TAS calculator. I assumed it would do the same in the final product
I use the old one too and just substitute a gene whose characteristics are the same. Since I'm fairly new to pb, I use our website version to check phenotype names. I look forward to the day when I won't have to use both!
Damonc
10-16-2015, 09:01 PM
Great! So there's just one issue left - uniformity of usage. Your group needs to decide on the use of the word MARBLE in phenotype. Whichever route you take, it has to be applied uniformly to all strains where applicable. This is all I'm after. To review just in case it got lost in translation (I may have added to the confusion by not having been specific with the gene combinations; my apologies for that):
Will MARBLE in a phenotype name be used to indicate a marblized appearance regardless of the gene combination causing it or will it stand only for the gene combination causing the expression and thus only in the presence of M/+, M/M, or M/Gm (conversely, in their absence, marbling phenotypes caused by Gm/+, Gm/g, Gm/Gm will therefore not merit MARBLE)?
This is key because of its significant precedent usage in our phenotype library where genotype and phenotype names are one and the same and in use since our founding a decade and a half ago and even goes further back beyond the boundaries of TAS to the time Norton wrote her article on the topic in 1988. It is also in keeping with one of your group's new/revised rules on naming which states:
"b. A major or significant mutation will be given the name used by the person who originally discovered the new gene so long as the name does not cause confusion with the existing names of freshwater angelfish genotypes and phenotypes."
In my opinion...... YES!
in regards to "Phenotype" naming the term Marble should be used to describe what te eye sees regardless if it comes from M or Gm. What the eye sees is a random marble pattern that varies from fish to fish. It is important to remember that TAS does not govern phenotype names. We simply supply known common or phenotype names for educational purposes. Now in regards to the genotype name it is very important to use the proper source of the marbling, that being M or Gm.
Example
Phenotype = Platinum Marble
Genotype name = Philippine Blue Gold Marble Gold or Philippine Blue Gold Marble DD
Phenotype = Blue Marble
Genotype name = Philippine Blue Marble
This whole thing started over the platinum marble I believe. This phenotype name in my opinion is exactly what the eye sees. If we are going to say that we can't call it a platinum marble because it doesnt get the marble from the M gene but rather the Gm gene thats just crazy. That logic would then dictate that we go back and change the name of a regular gold marble to something else as well. Now we can't very well go back and change the name thats been in use for all these years now can we?! So since we can't go backwards we move forward from where we are today.
We take a Gold and add a double dose of blue and you get a platinum.
We take a Gold Marble and add a double dose of blue and you get a platinum marble.
All very good phenotype names and very discriptive of what the eye sees, more so than a clown or a leopard. In my opinion a clown looks more like a leopard due to the spots and I would have called a leopard a lace because thats what the eye sees.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.