# Dangers of the Specific?



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

I have been doing a study. When you breed for specific traits in a species, you shrink the available genepool. This is the best example I can come up with:

In dogs, we have taken the timber wolf, and created HUNDREDS of subspecies. Each of these "purebloods" came from the same basic stock. In dog shows, you breed for the standard, and if the pup doesnt meet the standard, it is neutered and given away. This yet AGAIN shrinks the genepool for this specific breed. Each time this happens, genetic code is replicated for specific desirable traits, but attatched to these genes, are EXTREMELY undesirable traits, like hip displasia, seizures, skin conditions, cancer, even horrid psychological problems.

The bull terrier is a perfect example, some are born with OCD, and will literally chase their tails till they pass out or vomit, then do it again.

Some breeders believe that careful outcrossing of mixed blood will help alleviate this. The fact also is, that the VAST majority of purebred dogs can only look forward to 8 to 10 years of life! While a mutt can live beyond 20.

So it comes to this, in the quest for "show quality" bettas, are we weakening the species? Most breeders recommend breeding straight from show class pairings.

But are fin bitting and egg eating genetic defects strengthened by this? Is weakness to disease? Is the issue of "Bad daddies" from this specific breeding? Ive been breeding VTs and a few of the more "refined" bettas, DT and HM. The VTs have yet to give me issues with spawning. They are energetic, and wonderful at mouthing their nests.

But the HM and DT have thrown loops such as hesitance to spawn, egg eating, lax mouthing of fry, and sometimes severe aggression.

I will continue to expand on my study in genetics. Please tell me your thoughts on this.


----------



## Shirleythebetta (Jan 9, 2012)

My personal opinion is that genetic diversity should be desired. I am a genealogist and I can tell you there is absolutly no such thing as a pure blood anything. Every living thing that is bred for quality (even people) have genetic diversity. I personally don't believe there is such a thing as pure blood with fish, dogs, cats or people.This is what makes me laugh about racism in my genealogical work. People I work for get a shock if they find out they have a different race in their backround than white, black or whatever. My genetics are large in number and come from everywhere. I am native american, german, english, irish, scottish, african, spanish... My husband is peacock proud though after my research in his lineage that he is European through and through (caucasian). He has yet to realize that white isn't just one thing. He is just as genetically diverse as me being German, irish, scottish, and english. 

There is also a human study going around that people who more racially diverse normally have a higher IQ and they say it is better for health reasons. It's just a study though. This is just a point of view from someone who studies human genetics in a unique way. All I can give is the human point of view  My own that is.


----------



## Shirleythebetta (Jan 9, 2012)

And to add, humans are a good example of what happens if you mix genetics too much! I am not joking about this because I have a friend who had an incest family. Her daughters had to be tested for deformity because her parents were first cousins. Incest causes so many problems in humans so why wouldn't it in other animals? Even though I will stick up for show breeders and say they do add a quality fish of other genetics every so often. I know this is how it is done but I personally prefer that mixing blood doesn't happen. 

In humans, royalty even did it a long time ago adding a person outside of the family every now and then. And I can say for a fact many families in the U.S. have this in their backround when the country first started getting Europeans. Many had children within their family to keep the area populated and raise their numbers because they were living in the middle of nowhere and there was no one but kin to marry.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

I think with any animal in the wild, any undesirable traits would be culled out fairly early on, probably a lot of them before those animals get a chance to reach adulthood. Those surviving animals would also most likely have a drastically shorter lifespan than domesticated animals no matter how 'fit' an individual they were. 

I don't think hybrid vigor is as great a thing as people make out to be. The worst dog we ever owned was a mutt who ended up with crippling arthritis, a fused spine and needing surgery on her cruciate. The main reason people seek out purebreds, is because there is consistency in type, and least some certainty in what the end product is going to be because you know what has come before it. 

If you have a betta with a known pedigree for two or three generations before, you are going to have a much better idea of the genetics at play than if you just crossed two random bettas from Walmart. Out-crossing is important, but usually the most important goal for a breeder is consistency. You cannot fix a strain by continually out-crossing as you are then running the risk of introducing undesirable traits. This is also why a good breeder should cull any stock that does not meet their standard. That way you are at least eliminating some of the undesirable genetics from your line. 

I have wild bettas. Some are wild-caught, and so they are about as close to your wolf analogy as you can get. And I still get some terrible parents who will swallow their eggs or eat their fry or refuse to spawn for months at a time. As to severe aggression, I could not keep one of my pairs together as the male would continually try and kill his partner. This was not an uncommon theme amongst this species as I later found out and as such I never got a spawn from them. 

I wonder actually how large the genepool would be for wild bettas in some locations. If you have only a small population of fish and it is an isolated habitat that is unlikely to have new blood introduced, wouldn't that cause just as much of a genetic bottleneck? I believe it is cheetahs that have a very low genetic variation due to a bottleneck that occurred thousands of years ago, and yet they have survived in what is quite a harsh environment. 

I personally think it is the selecting for bigger and bigger fins on bettas that causes the most issues. Bettas are only small bodied fins and some of the more excessively large fins I have seen seems an awful lot of weight and drag for them to constantly have to cope with. I worry that eventually these bettas are just going to be like some of the more deformed strains of goldfish where the only thing they can really do is eat, and lay on the bottom of their tank.


----------



## Shirleythebetta (Jan 9, 2012)

LittleBettaFish said:


> I think with any animal in the wild, any undesirable traits would be culled out fairly early on, probably a lot of them before those animals get a chance to reach adulthood.


I think you make a great point with this. In the wild many species eliminate anything that is sick or disabled. I am sad to mention that people do this too. More often a hundred years ago but I think anyone reading this would get my point. 

My husband used to work with a man that believed that anyone (human) with a disability or disorder should be euthanized. Yes, human euthanasia... Until my husband made the point that the grandson the man loved dearly had a heart condition which would mean that he too would be euthanized. The man stopped talking really quickly. My husband is sensitive to that because he has a wife with mental issues, a schizophrenic uncle and a cousin with down syndrome. But back on topic. That was a good thought that is going to have me thinking for a while about natural selection versus human intervention for a little while.


----------



## Sena Hansler (Aug 24, 2011)

Personally I believe over-population of people is caused from keeping the very very sick alive. Not to offend anyone or anything!!! We defeated survival of the fittest.

Anyways, for my fish, if they do not survive well fine. They don't. That is one less weak sick betta made to suffer a possible bad life, or an owner struggling to keep a weak fish alive. I do have three baby bettas who swim off, their back end sinks. But, I basically said "you wanna live, live! You don't, survival of the fittest". Seems cruel, but it defeats a partial purpose for me to cull. A small fry got attacked by a bigger one... Which showed again, survival of the fittest. I intervene now and then (fry who ate java moss had to have it removed) but leave it up to the species itself to figure things out. 


I'm P'O'd thanks to the fact my halfmoon chews his fins. It's ridiculous. I think the fins are too long... I may breed my HMPK dumbo to a halfmoon female, and go for medium to short length of fins to make it better for the species, and for the owner too!


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

When I use the term "pureblood" I am talking about people that place pedigrees on their pets. Humans have expanded their gene pool by spreading like a plague and keeping alive those of our species that would otherwise be culled.

But in lesser species we cull out bad genes. Now, of course you dont want throw back genes if you are breeding to a point, but discouraging breeders from starting their own line from scratch seems counter intuitive, considering that by doing so you are shrinking the genepool between top breeders.

In everything, there is ALWAYS the exception tot he rule. A person from a "good family" turns out to be a timebomb for some disease. Or a Mutt will be more sickly than a schnouzer with a pedigree.

But I believe given time, the ratio of the bad outcropping in selectively bred species will far outstrip the good. People have already begun breeding for rosetails and a more competent feathertail, even though most of these fish may be too heavy.

If you have a line of show fish, and a spawn throws you some that ARENT quite standard, but have no major defects, would it be detrimental to continue that line? Just like bad throwbacks, there are good, so would there be NO good fish from this line? Or is it just that the lower probability of show fish is undesirable as compared to keeping the genetics open ended in this specific genepool?


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

Also, another thought, even though some fish may be from show quality, I've noticed that a lot of breeders dont give you the family history, at least you have to ask for it, at most, you have to find a breeder who will.

So it seems the only option you have is to buy a sibling pair to be assured that they BOTH have similar genetics if you find traits you like.

Junk DNA could be used as a treasure trove for new and wonderful colors or mutations. Create color patterns that eventually get their own class, or even new stable fin types.


----------



## Shirleythebetta (Jan 9, 2012)

I agree with you about the possibilty of breeding fins to heavy. I have a simple veil tail that gets pulled down by his fins because they have a large spread and are super long. I put him in a smaller tank because of it. He is old now and lays on the bottom more even though his color is bright and healthy. No heavy breathing. Just a lot of resting. 

I have seen some breeders who do not give out lineage but I have seen some who will give pics of parents and sometimes grandparents but as you said, most you have to ask. It seems to me to be based on who the breeder is. Chibreneydragon, do you have a degree? I have been reading your posts here and on other threads and you have that intellectual air about you. It's a compliment. You seem very educated. I haven't had my thoughts "provoked" in some time... This was a good idea for discussion.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

Yeah our puppy has great lines. Her grandmother was a national winner twice, her mother and siblings have done well, and everyone in her pedigree had passed their hips and elbows. She was doing really well in the show ring, until we took her in to get x-rayed at 12 months and they told us she had hip dysplasia with arthritic changes already happening. That's the trouble with genetics. There is no guarantee on what you are going to get. Even breeding the best to the best you can still end up with mediocre. 

However, that doesn't mean that you should breed mediocre to mediocre and hope for the best. You have to remember that even if an individual is excellent, if those standing behind it are lacking, these same genes are still going to be passed on. 

Selective breeding gives at least some idea as to the quality of offspring that is going to be produced from a particular crossing. If you have a line of fish that have been selectively bred for a few generations, you are going to have a basic idea as to what subsequent generations are going to turn out like. Sure there might be a few curveballs thrown in, but the goal of any breeder is generally consistency in quality and type. 

However, if you were to throw a random fish into the mix, who knows what that fish (either good or bad) could be introducing into your line. Just because it doesn't display any faults of its own, doesn't mean that it isn't carrying the gene for something like poor fins or a bumpy topline that are then passed onto its offspring.

I think most people like to fix their line so they are getting a consistent type generation after generation and _then_ outcross to maintain genetic diversity. I know there are issues with the quality and fertility of some killifish species in Australia because they are a difficult import and only very small populations of breeding fish are being maintained.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

Im currently in college. Im majoring in Psychology this time with my GI bill, and I have training in the science labs at University of Michigan...but genetics took a second seat to my fascination with human behavior.

I hate streamlined thought, and am constantly questioning things...and I love a good debate to make the brain THINK instead of saying, well this is the way its been, so this is the ONLY way it can be.

Bettas exhibit behaviors and traits less complex than Humans, but I've been studying how physical traits can be connected to psychological behaviors. And not only are they fast breeders, but they are gorgeous and expressive fish.

I contemplated breeding dogs, or birds, or cats, but besides the fact that this takes WAY more time... I LOVE these fish.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

LittleBettaFish said:


> Yeah our puppy has great lines. Her grandmother was a national winner twice, her mother and siblings have done well, and everyone in her pedigree had passed their hips and elbows. She was doing really well in the show ring, until we took her in to get x-rayed at 12 months and they told us she had hip dysplasia with arthritic changes already happening. That's the trouble with genetics. There is no guarantee on what you are going to get. Even breeding the best to the best you can still end up with mediocre.
> 
> However, that doesn't mean that you should breed mediocre to mediocre and hope for the best. You have to remember that even if an individual is excellent, if those standing behind it are lacking, these same genes are still going to be passed on.
> 
> ...


Sorry, didnt see this post till after.

I understand that mediocre will begat mediocre, but what defines mediocre? A LOT of what is in the standard has to do with symmetry and what HUMANS desire to see in the fish. Taking junk fish, and breeding with a few show quality to improve them, should expand the genepool, and gives a breeder leeway to start paring down for traits they specifically want.

The worry is is that there are some breeders who think a fish that is up to standard, but not from a lineage should STILL not be bred, this creates the insular breeding between experienced show breeders, so down the line the fish become closer and closer in their DNA.

Perhaps these pond dwelling fish developed genetic mutations to deal with the naturally small selection of breeding partners, but this is something I want to study in depth.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

The thing is when you are talking about humans selectively breeding animals the human standard is the only one that matters. Our fish will never have to fight off competitors or avoid predators, they will never have to cope with the ups and downs of seasonal changes or spend all their time trying to fill their stomach. 

Humans can only cull what we perceive to be the faulty. Sometimes in the case of a fry with a severely deformed spine that is an easy choice to make. But for other issues that might not be so visible it is next to impossible for a human to pick out the affected fish. With that said, even the healthiest fish in the wild can sometimes draw the short straw and end up dying before their time. If that fish is a dominant male, then you may have the less fit males reproducing which could diminish the fitness of that population as a whole. 

I personally detest dog showing as a means to an end. I believe that to be breeding worthy a working dog should have to prove that not only does it meet the standard of conformation, but also that it has the mental and physical sturdiness to stand up to the job it was originally bred for. 

With bettas it becomes harder. They were basically bred first to fight and then for appearance. So do we go back to the tough as boots fighting fish that were not pretty but appeared to be physically robust? Or do we continue breeding fish where really the only standard it is judged against is beauty and symmetry? Does it matter then that by selectively breeding generation after generation that we are weakening the species as a whole if the only purpose of the fish is to be beautiful? 

I personally hate rosetails and feathertails. I feel that the bad genes that appear to be linked to these traits are not something that should be perpetuated. Yet people like the appearance of these fish, and so don't seem to care that these genes are possibly being spread around to fish that don't even possess these characteristics because of breeding only for a physical trait. 

It's an interesting discussion and I think it would be very interesting indeed if there were some way of mapping just how genetically similar bettas from different sources actually are.


----------



## Hallyx (Jun 11, 2011)

This is one of the most interesting and intelligent discussions going on here recently. I have nothing to add, but would like to sign on for further notification.


----------



## ChoclateBetta (Jul 22, 2012)

Are pure blood labs lived 13 and 14. But I outcrossed my guppies and got some beatiful ones.


----------



## Sena Hansler (Aug 24, 2011)

I heard rosetail is a major deformity...a mutation... And cannot be bred safely without massive culling, causing you to have MAYBE 10% of the spawn left.

As for the background of the fish... Mine will actually go with the known background with them. A card with the information (includes diseases, sickness, deformities, parents, cross type, color(s), etc) because I feel people aught to know what they are getting. If the further genetics are unknown, I will note it.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

On the human standard being the only standard that matters, THAT is the thinking I am trying to discuss.

LBF, you put it succinctly, With Breeders breeding only for beauty and Best Of Show in mind, are we weakening our beloved bettas?

Some OHM have severe difficulty breeding, just as the majority of English or american bulldogs have to be ARTIFICIALLY inseminated to get a litter! What will this be like for Bettas who are trying to be bred into something insane like FULL moon? Or tritails?

In the wild, it is survival of the fittest, and yes, sometimes a specimen in its prime meets an unfortunate end, but the repercussions of human interference in the direction of the species is generally ignored.

Ten years ago, there were not as many cases of psychological behavior in these fish... perhaps it is more apparent due to the expanding popularity, Or perhaps it is stashed away in the repeating genetic codes beneath extensive branching, or the 180 spread?

I've also read about horrifying issues with prolific fin rot, or a scale rot that takes the entire fish in 24 hours.

So my quest, is basically this, breed a few culls from show quality fish, breed pet fish with no background but a sound form and coloration, and perhaps breed a show pair, and compare the quality of their activity and nesting behavior.

Having a lineage for your fish is good, but I want to know if...lets say...by avoiding a malformed ventral or head hunch, you compound excessive fin biting, or a weakness to velvet?


----------



## Sena Hansler (Aug 24, 2011)

It's true. Focusing on the unwanted genetics, to get rid of them we make room for other problems... Since comparing to dogs... Dogs were our best friends, they worked with us, protected us. Now they are so over bred there are even more problems than there were. Give me a odd sized German shepherd over a "perfect" German shepherd any day if I can be told be DOES NOT have a tumor. But we can't get everything we want...


----------



## ChoclateBetta (Jul 22, 2012)

Genetic Hitch hiking.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

They actually have a documentary on this in dogs. We have been selectively breeding dogs for HUNDREDS of years. What will happen to our fish? Our beloved beauties who spawn ten times faster than any Pup, thus possibly accelerating these issues.

How do we avoid this? CAN it be avoided with the intensive competition between breeders? And the general stigma of breeding LPS fish?


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

It's funny. Here in Australia we seem a lot more relaxed about breeding LFS bettas. Heck, one of my favourite spawns ever was done by someone with a VT female and DTVT male. That spawn produced a lot of healthy fish who might not have been show quality but made for beautiful pets. 

I wonder if it is because it is rather expensive to get in decent stock here and that most stores really don't carry the quality you guys seem to get from your Petsmart and Petcos that there is less stigma involved. I mean to import a betta from AB you have to pay for the betta and then pay I think $22-$27 *a fish* to get it into the country. Then they have to stay in quarantine for seven days. After which they are released and you pay for the shipping if you do not live near the store. Only one store here in Australia actually offers the service of importing AB fish in. She almost stopped doing it for a while because some doofus imported like a hundred guppies in without realising they had to pay per fish. 

Honestly, I see no problem with spawning pet store fish as long as you have a goal in mind. Just wanting to get some fry or have a go at spawning really isn't a goal when the end result could very well be over a hundred adult fish needing to find homes. Also, because of the unknown element with spawning pet store fish you do have to be willing to be a little more ruthless with the culling until the consistency there. 

I have noticed a lot of people never get past their first spawn. The ultimate goal for me with my wild bettas is to get a sibling pair that I can continue a line with. I never really see people on here (excluding some of the more serious breeders) going any further than a mating between the original pair. I love watching people develop their own unique line of fish as to me that is the whole aim of breeding. It's not just about breeding two fish you purchased from someone else, but rather continuing that line using your own eye and standard of quality.


----------



## Sena Hansler (Aug 24, 2011)

I agree, we all have to start somewhere. Pet store fish or not, learning is key. Though I do feel rosetails aught to be left as a "do not breed" line.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

A lot of new hobbiests dont realize how much space that one spawn will take up, or the fact that you need somewhere for all of them to GO. When I started as a kid, my mother didnt realize that my room would turn into a tank bedecked hot house!

But I did my research, so all of my fish had places to go, whether I was selling at school, or fish store, or donating to the science labs.

The stigma here over breeding for show quality is high, even though it DOES cost a lot for shipping and the fish, even WITHIN american borders. I bought one female dalmation..and she was nearly 60 dollars! And most of that was in shipping!

I dont even have and IBC chapter near me, so if I ever want to buy a fish from a well established breeder, I either need to go on a road trip, or crack out the wallet.


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

Commenting on the original question;
I personally believe that breeding for "specifics" will weaken some aspects. In the past, I seldom if ever, experienced tail biting nor egg eating. ALL VT and PK I've bred were very easy and produced lots of fry - whether in big tanks or in a small containers. Today, there are too many "behavioral disorders" and breeding bettas can sometimes be a real challenge. . . . even frustrating. There has been too many inbreeding to get the desired traits fixed so it would breed true. But breeders are learning and are trying to make them "healthy" as best they can.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

indjo said:


> Commenting on the original question;
> I personally believe that breeding for "specifics" will weaken some aspects. In the past, I seldom if ever, experienced tail biting nor egg eating. ALL VT and PK I've bred were very easy and produced lots of fry - whether in big tanks or in a small containers. Today, there are too many "behavioral disorders" and breeding bettas can sometimes be a real challenge. . . . even frustrating. There has been too many inbreeding to get the desired traits fixed so it would breed true. But breeders are learning and are trying to make them "healthy" as best they can.


This is why I feel there should be a group or IBC chapter that is dedicated to breeding show standard fish from "scratch". Basically taking the steps that the founders of the HM and CT bettas took so that "fresh" genetics can be reintroduced into the show circuit instead of the elite being bred to eachother repeatedly until spawning becomes nigh impossible due to complications.


----------



## ChoclateBetta (Jul 22, 2012)

There is such thing as healthy Purebreds. Like Kadie.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

ChoclateBetta said:


> There is such thing as healthy Purebreds. Like Kadie.


There are PLENTY of healthy purebreds! But as they are bred together over and over... That plenty becomes a minority.


----------



## ChoclateBetta (Jul 22, 2012)

Kadie is healthy, fast and active. Guppies are so Inbred. That Petstore ones cannot live in Brackish to Marine or atleast not many.


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

ChibreneyDragon said:


> This is why I feel there should be a group or IBC chapter that is dedicated to breeding show standard fish from "scratch". Basically taking the steps that the founders of the HM and CT bettas took so that "fresh" genetics can be reintroduced into the show circuit instead of the elite being bred to eachother repeatedly until spawning becomes nigh impossible due to complications.


I'm not 100% sure about the history, it's been years since I read about it. I think the first HM were results of specific mutation (my opinion). Yes they were results from selective breeding from VT - delta - HM. But without the "mutation" they can't become HM (IME). 

The logical crossing would be VT x DT - you need more ray branching. This will produce VT version of DT and the genos, VT and VT with wider spread (delta). These deltas must then be crossed to DT to make their rays branch more - eventually making HM. It will take lots of generations . . . not worth while working on. Oh getting the caudal "pointy" is very difficult. TBH I don't know how to make a rounded edged caudal become pointy.

Question; wouldn't breeding HM to VT or PK expand the gene pool? Further crossing to other species like smaragdina, mahachai, and imbillis (some believe the former to be the same species as splendens) - wouldn't this improve the gene pool? 

IMO the problem is not a limited gene pool but rather the excessive inbreeding which is often inevitable when perfecting certain traits.


----------



## MattsBettas (Dec 18, 2012)

Kind of like what Sena said, I believe that our society has defeated survival of the fittest and thus slowed our evolution no offence anybody. For fish, we only pay attention to color and fins and not behavior or susceptibility to disease.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

That's why it's great to be at the top of the food chain and to have the consciousness to not have to depend on 'survival of the fittest' for the continuation of your species. No other animal has this same luxury so their populations are always going to be governed by things such as competition, predation, natural phenomena etc. 

This is why within the Betta genus there are dozens of unique species, each one having evolved to suit a particular environment. If you are different to the norm you usually end up dead. An albino betta swimming around out in the wild would be picked off pretty easy by a predator. This helps to eliminate any individuals outside the standard from the genepool and so you end up with an essentially cookie cutter look. Generally serious health defects fall under the banner of being outside the norm and the individual is picked off pretty early on. 

Too bad we can't really do health tests on bettas like we do with other animals. For example, it would be great if you could find what fish are going to throw offspring that may be ten times more likely to develop tumors in their lifetime. I can tell you tumors have been a big problem with all the dragon scale bettas I have had, and I know tumors seem to be a lot more prevalent in the bettas with thicker scaling. 

So once again by selectively breeding for a particular trait we have ended up causing a defect in the health and hardiness of the betta. 

I always get a bit meh about outcrossing splendens onto pure imbellis, smaragdina etc. There are so few true pure fish of these species out there anymore that I feel it is a waste to go and cross them onto domesticated splendens. That's why they are in trouble in the first place. 

Also, my question is, how do we even know how genetically diverse our bettas are? For all we know there could be only a tiny amount of genetic variation between a wild-caught imbellis and a domesticated splendens from Walmart. Then not only have you not really done much to offset the damage done by selective breeding, but you will also have to work hard by once again selectively breeding to get your consistently producing line back again.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

indjo said:


> I'm not 100% sure about the history, it's been years since I read about it. I think the first HM were results of specific mutation (my opinion). Yes they were results from selective breeding from VT - delta - HM. But without the "mutation" they can't become HM (IME).
> 
> The logical crossing would be VT x DT - you need more ray branching. This will produce VT version of DT and the genos, VT and VT with wider spread (delta). These deltas must then be crossed to DT to make their rays branch more - eventually making HM. It will take lots of generations . . . not worth while working on. Oh getting the caudal "pointy" is very difficult. TBH I don't know how to make a rounded edged caudal become pointy.
> 
> ...


Im on the fence about cross breeding with other species, I havent really looked into it, but I do love dragonscale bettas.

But to be fair, I dont suggest breeding HM from wild caught upwards, or even VT to HM, but instead use culls that are imperfect, but otherwise perfectly healthy. I understand that going from VT to HM was nearly a 10 year process, and no one has that much time on their hands.

But as to the limited gene pool, I have to disagree, because the excessive inbreeding in showfish lines between serious breeders has a DIRECT connection to limiting the genepool for the specific HMs that are the "Elite"

I've watched and followed several well established breeders, and nearly all of them avoid breeding fish that are not "perfect" And some cull a HUGE majority of their spawns.

I've begun a project in which I will be breeding the culls of spawned show fish and petstore fish. Down the line, as I get closer to IBC standards, I will probably outcross to some actual show standard fish. I will follow each genetic line, and see how many generations it takes from sub par, to achieve the quality demanded in todays shows.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

LittleBettaFish said:


> That's why it's great to be at the top of the food chain and to have the consciousness to not have to depend on 'survival of the fittest' for the continuation of your species. No other animal has this same luxury so their populations are always going to be governed by things such as competition, predation, natural phenomena etc.
> 
> This is why within the Betta genus there are dozens of unique species, each one having evolved to suit a particular environment. If you are different to the norm you usually end up dead. An albino betta swimming around out in the wild would be picked off pretty easy by a predator. This helps to eliminate any individuals outside the standard from the genepool and so you end up with an essentially cookie cutter look. Generally serious health defects fall under the banner of being outside the norm and the individual is picked off pretty early on.
> 
> ...


I was un aware of tumors for Dragonscales, that is a physical ailment that I will have to research.

But a lot of the issues I have seen pop up in forums and spawn logs have been along the lines of over aggression, bad spawning habits, fin biting, ect, ect. Psychological issues dont usually mean failure in the case of "survival of the fittest". But in domestication, we have taken that ability for nature to weed out detrimental traits.

Over aggression is more apparent, even in females. When I first started, I was 13, this was over ten years ago. My local fish store kept females in a tiny 10 gallon sorority tank, and rarely did they fight. I had my own ten gallon with four females, then three, then five, and never had a problem. 

I go to start back up, and everyone on this forum was HORRIFIED that I had a few females together. I was told that females were just as aggressive as the males, and every store I go to sells female bettas separately. NO sorority tanks, not a one. Even the books I owned seemed out of date, the information changed.

Part of this is probably the growth of the hobby, but some seems a bit more... like the fact that I never had issues with breeding...but now there are so many pitfalls and difficulties... It is uncanny.


----------



## LittleBettaFish (Oct 2, 2010)

I believe tumors in dragonscale bettas are quite common. I have had several develop tumors in the past, and have seen the issue crop up on Australian forum I am a member of. 

It's funny you say that females have become more aggressive. I never had any issue with my females in a sorority environment. These were females from AB, pet stores, local breeders etc. and out of around 50 odd females only three or four couldn't live with the others. 

I have noticed that on this forum if a few vocal members voice something it starts to get picked up and passed around by other members until it seems to become fact. All it usually takes is for someone to rationally present a contradictory argument and then you have several other members pop up out of the woodwork to support them instead. This seems to be a common theme in threads relating to sororities, tank sizes and appropriate tank mates. 

You have to consider that many people who post in the spawn section of this board are generally first time breeders. Therefore, a failure to spawn by their pair may not necessarily be due to any fault of the fish. I think you'd have to look at more experienced breeders to get a better idea as to whether or not there are more issues nowadays with splendens in regards to spawning, aggression and general behaviour.


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

> But to be fair, I dont suggest breeding HM from wild caught upwards, or even VT to HM, but instead use culls that are imperfect, but otherwise perfectly healthy.


That's what I used to do. Knowing the source of bettas in LFS, I was sure that they were the rejects from a good pair. So all I had to do was get the best looking pair and breed. I didn't produce SQ bettas (I never wanted SQ) but they were good enough. Nowadays I try to buy and breed bettas from two different islands - hoping they aren't related.



> But as to the limited gene pool, I have to disagree, because the excessive inbreeding in showfish lines between serious breeders has a DIRECT connection to limiting the genepool for the specific HMs that are the "Elite"
> I've watched and followed several well established breeders, and nearly all of them avoid breeding fish that are not "perfect" And some cull a HUGE majority of their spawns.


This is very true. Further known breeders often "exchange" their bettas. This makes the gene pool smaller - eventually all of the bettas from an "elite" group of breeders become related.



> I was un aware of tumors for Dragonscales, that is a physical ailment that I will have to research.


I wasn't aware of this either. I've never had a dragon with tumor, nor . . . (don't know what to call them) blind(?). I've seen blind dragons but never had any. I had a betta with tumor once and culled all of her offspring and siblings (including the healthy looking ones), but she wasn't a dragon.


----------



## ChoclateBetta (Jul 22, 2012)

Fruit Flies have 10 times more genetic diversity than humans.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

LBF, the only issue with that snowballing effect is that some of this advice is ALSO given by renowned breeders. People with YEARS under their belts. Where is the fact? Where is the Fiction? It is hard to say, especially since some are affected by biases that occurred during their own beginnings. 

Indjo, I also ask after what breeders LFS buy from. I also felt that those over seas who WERE breeding were working toward a goal, keeping the jewels, and selling their culls. This is why I am caught by surprise by the bias towards breeding for show fish from good looking fish from a pet store...who are also from the same islands that those gorgeous show fish are from.

But the question I have... is if someone takes the time to breed IBC standard fish from a LPS, would they have a stigma on them? Would other breeders not be interested in fish from these breeders JUST because they took the time to take mediocre fish and beget exemplar fish?


----------



## indjo (Jun 6, 2010)

It doesn't mater where they came from, if they meet all the required criteria, then they will be accepted. And if that breeder produces lots of quality bettas, his line will be sought after.

Not all breed for quality. I know lots that breed for quantity - to meet the quota. It's always a good idea to know who bred them. Then we'd know the probable genes they carry. Never the less, IMO, a good formed and colored specimen in an LFS is always worth breeding - as long as you know what (form and color) to pair it with.


----------



## ChibreneyDragon (Feb 20, 2012)

I also noticed that some thailand breeders are breeding specifically for color, not form. But sadly, I havent seen many of these bizarre and beautiful fish outside of aqua bid.


----------

