Lightning Clownfish News

[mFrame]

Matt Pederson made some announcements at MACNA regarding his efforts at propagating the Lightning Maroon Clownfish that took the hobby by storm last year. It's amazing the success he's achieved with just the first generation, read more about it here. I know that Bud and Emily (ClarkiiCircus) spend some time talking to him at MACNA, so hit them up for some "behind the scenes" details.

I also thought I'd share some of Matt's words here regarding meeting them, "Mike, once again, Bud, Emily, great ambassadors for your club!!!!!! Hold onto those volunteers for a long time and thank them profusely."

I couldn't have said it better myself!

[victoly]

So whose going to be the first ARC'er to procure one?

[jestep]

These are really cool. I was expecting them to look more like the parents though. I really like the one with the thin stripes.

[ClarkiiCircus]

So whose going to be the first ARC'er to procure one?

watch me...

[victoly]

You better get behind the scenes and start making deals before he puts them up for auction, things might get crazy.

[Scutterborn]

It's already building....

- Ben -

[mFrame]

These are really cool. I was expecting them to look more like the parents though. I really like the one with the thin stripes.

Keep in mind they're not mature yet and will continue to morph as they get older. The expectation from these is that they will look very much like the mother at maturity. Here's hoping!

[victoly]

It's the beauty of genetics.

[Timfish]

watch me...

Are you taking deposits on you first hatching?!

[Sascha D.]

It's cool and all that he was successful, but what's the point? I mean what was created? I could see if someone managed to stem the aggression or reduce the size of a Maroon Clown as being beneficial, but not a color variation that is less attractive than the parents. Maybe it's just me.

[(Bio)³]

It's cool and all that he was successful, but what's the point? I mean what was created? I could see if someone managed to stem the aggression or reduce the size of a Maroon Clown as being beneficial, but not a color variation that is less attractive than the parents. Maybe it's just me.

Onyx. Picasso, black ice, platinum... There are only a few real clowns but tons of color options. I personally think his new morph is awesome and could easily see myself paying 400 for a known pair or 150 each for singles.

Maroons just seem neat to me. I love how their edges glow in my eyes.... Maybe I'm nuts.

[Robb in Austin]

It's cool and all that he was successful, but what's the point? I mean what was created? I could see if someone managed to stem the aggression or reduce the size of a Maroon Clown as being beneficial, but not a color variation that is less attractive than the parents. Maybe it's just me.

Onyx. Picasso, black ice, platinum... There are only a few real clowns but tons of color options. I personally think his new morph is awesome and could easily see myself paying 400 for a known pair or 150 each for singles.

Maroons just seem neat to me. I love how their edges glow in my eyes.... Maybe I'm nuts.

I fixed that for you.

I'm with Sascha though. I cant see paying that amount of money for a 'engineered' fish. They just don't do it for me.

[mFrame]

It's cool and all that he was successful, but what's the point? I mean what was created? I could see if someone managed to stem the aggression or reduce the size of a Maroon Clown as being beneficial, but not a color variation that is less attractive than the parents. Maybe it's just me.

The part that really interests me is the captive breeding aspect of it. A fish that is desirable to many people was found, is being kept safely in captivity, and selective breeding is being used to propagate it.

Given the current political climate around collecting from the oceans I can only see things getting more difficult and more expensive for our hobby in the future. Cousteau addressed this at MACNA as well as a speaker who talked about the Banggai Cardinal Project (http://www.banggai-rescue.com/banggai-blog/). When a fish is bought from the fisherman for 3 cents and then sold for $20 it's incredibly easy for the species to be over-fished. With the banggai the mortality rate from capture to point of departure is about 40%.

So in answer to "what was created", I'd say that knowledge of selective breeding for desired traits that can then be applied to other "hobby favorites" is the goal. I can't say how much "new ground" is truly being broken here but I believe that the directed effort and results are their own reward.

As for the offspring not being as attractive as the parent, the article states that they are still immature and are expected to continue to morph as they grow to ultimately look very close to if not exactly the same as the parent.

[victoly]

It's cool and all that he was successful, but what's the point? I mean what was created? I could see if someone managed to stem the aggression or reduce the size of a Maroon Clown as being beneficial, but not a color variation that is less attractive than the parents. Maybe it's just me.

I get where you're going, but to successfully fix the physical traits you cull very early on based off of pattern. To breed for behavior, you have to raise every batch to adulthood and then make a subjective judgement on how "nice" a fish is. You probably also risk losing hosting behavior like we see in captive bred clowns.

[jestep]

The Banggai Cardinal is definitely a in unique situation. It's a fish that's extremely easy to breed for a saltwater fish, and yet there is still a ton of wild collecting that goes on. I think that's a pretty irresponsible and inexcusable situation for the entire industry. Clowns are in the same boat. At this point, it should be near impossible to acquire a wild clown or banggai. Whatever it takes to get more captive bred species in the market, I am all for.

As for permanent behavior based selective breeding, I'm not sure how successful it can be long term while keeping the fish bloodlines healthy. Unfortunately for fishkeepers, the more aggressive and nasty individuals are the ones most likely to survive in the wild. When you start selectively going against those traits that keep the fish alive, you sustain all of the ones that would cause the fish to not make it. Just look at English bulldogs. Amazing companion dogs that are just about broken in every way due to inbreeding and reverse natural-selection.

[Sascha D.]

_{I can see everyone's point and perhaps I'm being a bit preemptive with my judgement. To see the results of the experiment will take time and generations of breeding. However, I do think it's irresponsible to do it for the sake of doing it. They engineer crops for functional purpose. They bred horses and donkeys to cull a trait and highlight qualities for a functional purpose. Even the everyday goldfish has a purpose. These hybrid clowns stem from the fact that they are easy to breed and cultivate in captivity. They aren't trying to save the reef or stop wild collection.}

[mFrame]

_{These hybrid clowns stem from the fact that they are easy to breed and cultivate in captivity. They aren't trying to save the reef or stop wild collection.}

I disagree with your statement about their motivations, take a look at the Marine Breeding Initiative and Matt Pederson's posts and involvement there to see the time, effort, and reasons that have gone into this project. (Note that Matt is now doing most of this on his own). MBI's mission statement:

The Marine Breeding Initiative was created as a tool to encourage marine aquaria hobbyists to get involved in the captive breeding of marine organisms. The MBI was designed with the help of leading experts in the breeding of marine ornamentals to be a standardized award system and database that can be easily adopted by aquarium societies and site owners to promote captive breeding amongst their members.

There are many pressures on todays tropical reef environments and the practice of captive breeding to reduce the need for wild caught specimens is one way we as hobbyists can reduce those pressures. The MBI creates a standardized model that uses a central database to share information between all MBI sites while rewarding and encouraging hobbyists to begin breeding and existing breeders to tackle more difficult species and try new techniques.

While I don't think we'll ever completely stop wild collection, having a large variety of tank-raised livestock will allow the collectors and hobbyists to sustainably collect species that are harder to propagate in captivity.

And yes, you're correct that successfully breeding clowns in captivity is nothing new, but establishing the market, distribution, and demand for captive bred fish is still in its infancy.

[Robb in Austin]

I'd agree with both of you.

I think Mike is correct in that there is some incentive to captive breed these animals. Experience, providing funding to captive breed more natural specimens, etc.

I think Sascha is correct in that the prime motivation for *these* particular animals isn't to save the reef but to cultivate a specific trait that someone found desirable. Similar to designer breed dogs. (I'd argue against the goldfish though: I doubt there is a natural niche for those giant brained or eyeballed versions. I suspect they were bred many year ago for those traits after a specific morph was discovered.)

Regardless, there is a space for both. And if breeding 'designer' fish helps fulfill a broader, more beneficial goal I'm all for it.

[ClarkiiCircus]

Honestly, everyone has a valid argument: firstly, this is NOT an "engineered" fish. It was CAUGHT from the WILD, and there have been more than 1 reported in captivity (although the other died shortly after transport). What is happening here is the intentional breeding of a fish that is desirable not only for its trait, but its rarity. At this point, breeders are the front runners as to figuring out how/why this fish exists (is it just a recessive trait, partially dominant, or could it become a new species?) In breeding for rarity, you would stop fishermen for intentionally stunning (which is unfortunately what most fishermen do to collect ornamentals), and capturing thousands of fish in order to find the single lightening maroon that bring in a $3k pricetag. The breeder Matt is also successful at breeding Maroons in general- for those of you who haven't tried, its a genuine pain in the %$#. So in that way that he demonstrates how to pair ANY maroons (lightening, goldstripe or otherwise), he IS looking out for the reefs and integral in teaching others how to do the same.

Behavior is an entirely different argument that you cannot "breed" for. You run into the ultimate paradox of "nature VS nurture" (is it how the clowns are RAISED that give them a personality, or is it the genes they contain?) That is why you have pitbulls who are the best family dogs you will ever meet, from an excellent lineage, and the same pup could easily be a fighting or dangerous dog.

As far as the "engineered" clowns go (Wyoming whites, maine blizzard, onyx, etc), THEY ARE keeping fish from being taken off of the reef: people who LOVE those species, and would otherwise buy a plain perc or oscellaris, support breeders when they pay prime money for the genetic anomalies, that while are naturally occurring, are rare but desired- thus the desire to breed and perpetuate this genetic phenotypic morph. The groups that breed them (proaquatix, sustainable aquatics, etc) work hard to ensure lineages are kept clean, and the species remains a species, not a "HYBRID" so please stop using the word incorrectly- hybrid would imply a mix between a percula and an oscellaris, however, most of the popular breeders ensure this NEVER happens in their fish and would NEVER appear in their bloodlines.

Trust me (I can relate), breeders work hard for these fish, and would never do it out of selfish reasons- it is to promote science and sustainability, which I am 100% behind. If you are too, reconsider your purchases and ask LFS to buy from breeders, and show proof, of captive bred fish.

[mpedersen]

Morning all! This thread popped up in my news feed for Lightning Maroon mentions Glad to see there's so much enthusiasm and debate. I am guessing no one on this thread was at my talk at MACNA, and I see there's a lot of "misinformation" posted about the Lightning Maroon etc. Much of that was cleared up already by other posters, which is great to see!

I'll gladly answer any questions folks have, but I wanted to actually address seomthing that ClarkiiCircus said - that is, calling "Wyoming Whites, Maine Blizzard, Onyx" all "engineered" fish. None of these are "engineered"...certainly not in the "genetic engineering" sense. From a breeding standpoint, one of the fish mentioned, the Onyx Perc, is actually a naturally occurring form of Percula (although some lines of Onyx Percs have been highly selectively bred and I contend could potentialy have ocellaris blood in them). That said, it isn't difficult to get a wild Onyx Pair...and anyone could start a new, fresh line of Onyx percula breeding with fish of known provenence (particularly fish from PNG or the Solomon Islands, where Onyx seems to be more prevalent).

Now, the "Maine Blizzard" mentioned? Well first, that's actually the same thing as a Platinum Perc; it's a name Soren Hansen gave his line of Platinum breeding (I've met Soren, a very nice guy, but on this front, I have big issues...breeders shouldn't be renaming things just to give the illusion of it being unique. One aspect of my MACNA talk was the standardization of names..most producers now recognize and are starting to follow a communally accepted naming covention where we add a possessive breeder brand/id in front of a name, such as "Rod's Onyx" or "SA Onyx" or "ORA Onyx".

Ok, tangent aside...Platinum perculas were not "engineered" in any way. They are actually a "Double-Dose" phenotype caused by two doses of the Picasso Gene. And here's the kicker - the Picasso, a fish I used to love to hate, is actually not a fish that originated in someone's tanks - the original ORA broodstock picasso was a wild caught fish. And get this - there have since been MANY other Picasso-type wild percula caught and sold into the trade. Now, ORA's original fish were Solomon Islands, and I *think* they've kept that SI provenence on THEIR breeding (can't say for other lines). Regardless, the breeding works like this. Mate Picasso to Wild Type Perc, get a 50/50 split. Mate PIcasso to Picasso, get 25% Platinum (the double doze homozygous form), 50% Picasso (the heterozygous form) and 25% normal percs (the homozygous wild type form). Mate two platinums together you get 100% platinums. While it's highly UNLIKELY, it is actually theoretically possible that two picassos could one day find themselves in the wild mated up, and start throwing out wild spawned Platinum percs. Granted, the odds of the pairing are beyond slim, and it's only further compounded by the fact that you now have a bright white baby clownfish in the ocean...easy pickings.

On the subject of Wyoming Whites, the true way they came about may never be known, but as told to me by Matt Carberry, they may actually represent a double-dose of a partially dominant trait; eg. equivalent to "platinum", but in the ocellaris species. The single does is purported to be the fancy with extra barring that they produce. I have no reason not to trust Matt on this matter. It's a fine line of distinction, but I consider the Wyoming White a "man-made" fish in so much as the original variation showed up in captive breeding, not in the wild. But honestly, it COULD have shown up in the wild in the single-dose form. Why not?

So, these revelations made, "designer breeding" actually need not present a *problem* in the face of conservation-minded breeding so long as a few things are in place (and this happens through community acceptance).

1. Hybrids are a separate issue, and hybrids CANNOT be undone. We should not pursue hybrid breeding at this point because we lack the appropriate framework for officially recording them and they can be very damaging to species conservation if they get into a breeding program as a misidentified fish (eg. a "Black Photon" Percularis being sold on as an Onyx Percula to a breeder)

2. We must keep our lines of provenance clean, particularly in clownfish because there IS a fair amount of geographic diversity, and at times, these forms have been elevated to independent species status (Amphiprion barberi for example). In breeding circles, behavioral and other characteristics have some people believing that the Black Ocellaris from Darwin is in fact a distinct species, and so to, the Goldstripe Maroon from Sumatra is fundamentally different from White Stripe Maroons (and has even had a distinct scientific name applied to it at one point in time, Premnas epigramma).

3. We must embrace genetic transparency and avoid "dead ends". Because we understand how something works genetically, we can actually "breed it out". Eg. you can bring a Picasso line of breeding back to the standard 3 bar form because we know how the genetics work. However, if all we have are double-dose Platinums, the only thing they produce is more platinums...they become a genetic dead end.

To these ends, the PNG Lightning Maroon has only been mated to other PNG White Stripe Maroons. The offspring counts suggest that the genetics that drive the stripe patterning for lightning is either a recessive or partially dominant trait (if it was dominant, 100% of the offspring would have been lightnings). If it's partially dominant, what that means is that we have yet to see what two doses of the "Lightning" trait will do. Impossible to say until we make it.

One of my huge requests from breeders everywhere who get the Lightning Maroons it to resist the temptation to cross them to the Gold Stripe Maroon to create "gold lightning maroons" because in reality, you are likely hybridizing the line and can really screw up other breeders who are trying to keep the PNG bloodline pure. I will strongly condemn folks for creating these hybrids. Furthermore, the cross of a Gold Stripe X White Stripe maroon is not terribly attractive...you won't have bright yellow lightning lines like you want..you'll get pale yellow at best, and only through generations of selective breeding could you push it back towards a more yellow form. NOT WORTH IT, particularly since ORA is now releasing their really unique "Goldflake" maroons which do have a genetic basis (but we don't know what just yet). Keep the lines distinct.

Anyways, that's enough rambling for me guys - I hope you find the insights interesting.

[mFrame]

I just have to say, I LOVE that you found this thread Matt. Thanks for participating! Straight from the horse's mouth folks...

[+etannert]

That was a really cool contribution, Matt. Thanks for stopping by!

P.S. Sorry, the teacher in me has to jump in. I teach music, but I can totally see a module based on the Lightning Maroon breeding program being taught in Environmental Science and Marine Science high school classes. Crossing genetics with environmental components and applying to real life situations is a great classroom model and would really engage kids. Have you ever thought about creating something that teachers can use? I bet you could get funding to create something like that. It would be great publicity for your project, too.

[ClarkiiCircus]

I'll gladly answer any questions folks have, but I wanted to actually address seomthing that ClarkiiCircus said - that is, calling "Wyoming Whites, Maine Blizzard, Onyx" all "engineered" fish.

While no, they are not engineered in a genetic engineering standpoint (I don't believe anyone here thinks actual cloning of recombinant clownfish DNA is occurring anywhere) I would argue that because we have located the trait, and exploited it, it is technically engineered. "The modification of characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material". Just because we haven't isolated the gene completely at its loci, and injected it into clownfish embryo doesnt mean that we havent intentionally given a "double dose" of a gene to an offspring. Once you take a wild lineage and begin to increase the frequency of a trait that is otherwise rare in a species, (I would argue) is technically engineering.

I'm not in any way saying that it is a bad thing, I quite in fact love most of the "designer" clowns. While there ARE those "designer" phenotypes in the wild, the offspring are engineered to exactly resemble the parents' desired phenotypic quality under controlled breeding settings, as truly random mating would not produce the same results.

[(Bio)³]

I'll gladly answer any questions folks have, but I wanted to actually address seomthing that ClarkiiCircus said - that is, calling "Wyoming Whites, Maine Blizzard, Onyx" all "engineered" fish.

While no, they are not engineered in a genetic engineering standpoint (I don't believe anyone here thinks actual cloning of recombinant clownfish DNA is occurring anywhere) I would argue that because we have located the trait, and exploited it, it is technically engineered. "The modification of characteristics of an organism by manipulating its genetic material". Just because we haven't isolated the gene completely at its loci, and injected it into clownfish embryo doesnt mean that we havent intentionally given a "double dose" of a gene to an offspring. Once you take a wild lineage and begin to increase the frequency of a trait that is otherwise rare in a species, (I would argue) is technically engineering.

I'm not in any way saying that it is a bad thing, I quite in fact love most of the "designer" clowns. While there ARE those "designer" phenotypes in the wild, the offspring are engineered to exactly resemble the parents' desired phenotypic quality under controlled breeding settings, as truly random mating would not produce the same results.

I think the term "selective breeding" is better than "engineered" since like you said, we aren't injecting embryos. Just my opinion, but I agree with both the posts.

[jestep]

@mpedersen

Awesome info. I had no idea the lineage was that close to wild specimens on many of the "designer" strains, nor that the platinum strain was a genetic dead-end.