Page 5 of 8 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 75

Thread: Panda Ghost genetics

  1. #41
    Standard Committee Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO. USA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Mugwump View Post
    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....
    Quote Originally Posted by terrapins View Post


    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.
    Last edited by Damonc; 10-09-2015 at 08:33 PM.

  2. #42
    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.
    Last edited by terrapins; 10-09-2015 at 10:35 PM.

  3. #43
    Sorry, some of the sentences are redundant. I was about to edit it again but that function is now locked out.

  4. #44
    Standard Committee Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO. USA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by terrapins View Post
    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.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Damonc View Post
    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..
    Jon
    He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
    - Douglas Adams

    http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Damonc View Post
    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.
    Last edited by terrapins; 10-10-2015 at 07:40 PM.

  7. #47
    Standard Committee Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO. USA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by terrapins View Post
    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?

  8. #48
    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.

  9. #49
    Standard Committee Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO. USA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by terrapins View Post
    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.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Damonc View Post
    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......
    Jon
    He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which.
    - Douglas Adams

    http://www.mugwump-fish-world.com/index.php

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •