Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 45678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 75

Thread: Panda Ghost genetics

  1. #51
    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.

  2. #52
    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 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.

  3. #53
    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.

  4. #54
    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/f...rble-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/f...lvet-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) :-



    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?
    Blessed are the cheesemakers!

  5. #55
    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


    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. #56
    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.
    Last edited by Carol Francis; 10-11-2015 at 04:57 PM.

  7. #57
    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 :-





    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!
    Blessed are the cheesemakers!

  8. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol Francis View Post
    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.........
    Last edited by Mugwump; 10-11-2015 at 05:51 PM.
    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

  9. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol Francis View Post
    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?
    Last edited by terrapins; 10-11-2015 at 06:22 PM.

  10. #60
    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.

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
  •