Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 5678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 75

Thread: Panda Ghost genetics

  1. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol Francis View Post
    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.
    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

  2. #62
    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??
    Last edited by Carol Francis; 10-12-2015 at 09:07 AM.

  3. #63
    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

  4. #64
    Quote Originally Posted by Carol Francis View Post
    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...
    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

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Pterophyllum View Post

    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.


    Quote Originally Posted by Pterophyllum View Post
    .......
    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

    Quote Originally Posted by Pterophyllum View Post
    ........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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Pterophyllum View Post
    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.
    Last edited by catsma_97504; 10-13-2015 at 05:11 PM. Reason: Changed font color to be visible on all templates. Please use the default/automatic color option.

  6. #66
    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.

  7. #67
    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 :-



    ....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)
    Blessed are the cheesemakers!

  8. #68
    Standard Committee Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    St. Louis, MO. USA
    Posts
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Pterophyllum View Post
    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.

  9. #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Damonc View Post
    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....
    Last edited by Mugwump; 10-14-2015 at 08:02 AM.
    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

  10. #70
    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

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
  •