# electric blue jack dempsey hybrids or not



## Mauro1

I was told that electric blue jack dempsey were hybrids ... *** read that they are not ...and one LFS owner said that he wouldn't carry them because they are hybrids and that they dont grow large at all and they die premature ! 
This does not make sense to me :-?


----------



## samnewb

I think its been proven they are not hybrids.


----------



## Joea

samnewb said:


> I think its been proven they are not hybrids.


On the contrary, Blue Dempsey's are not found in the wild and are most likely hybrids. This is another case of fish being line bred to achieve or enhance a particular trait. In theory, line breeding does not include hybridization, but there's really no way to prove or disprove that any cross was introduced somewhere along the process and the fish really should be regarded as a hybrid IMO.


----------



## Fogelhund

Joea said:


> On the contrary, Blue Dempsey's are not found in the wild and are most likely hybrids. This is another case of fish being line bred to achieve or enhance a particular trait. In theory, line breeding does not include hybridization, but there's really no way to prove or disprove that any cross was introduced somewhere along the process and the fish really should be regarded as a hybrid IMO.


Actually, they were genetically tested, and proven to not be hybrids.


----------



## Joea

Fogelhund said:


> Joea said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Blue Dempsey's are not found in the wild and are most likely hybrids. This is another case of fish being line bred to achieve or enhance a particular trait. In theory, line breeding does not include hybridization, but there's really no way to prove or disprove that any cross was introduced somewhere along the process and the fish really should be regarded as a hybrid IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they were genetically tested, and proven to not be hybrids.
Click to expand...

Really?... Interesting to know.


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn

Fogelhund said:


> Joea said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the contrary, Blue Dempsey's are not found in the wild and are most likely hybrids. This is another case of fish being line bred to achieve or enhance a particular trait. In theory, line breeding does not include hybridization, but there's really no way to prove or disprove that any cross was introduced somewhere along the process and the fish really should be regarded as a hybrid IMO.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, they were genetically tested, and proven to not be hybrids.
Click to expand...

of what I read on that it was only found that the maternal line was pure. (in the PFK article here ) so it is "possible"that its a hybrid on the male side, however I personally think its a natural colour morph

plus the argument on http://bluejax.co.uk/fof.aspx supports the recessive gene, more so than the hybrid argument.


----------



## Toby_H

To date no one has claimed or validated that any Blue Dempseys have been found in the wild...

Since they are slower growing and brighter colored this isn't surprising. But 'Blue Gene' Dempseys (regular looking but carry a recessive gene for the blue coloration) can live in the wild and cannot be distinguished from regulars. It is generally accepted that this is how the gene has survived. Two Blue Genes can spawn, 25% will be Blue and will die (in the wild) and 50% will be Blue Genes to spawn and continue the blue quality, even though only in a recessive state.

It's accepted that two of these Blue Genes were caught and spawned together. Some of the fry were Blue... they were babied... and now we have Blue Dempseys... there is a lot of information out there if you want to do your own research...

Jeff Rapps had some DNA work done which resulted in confirming they are not hybrids.

Naturally this DNA work was challenged and believed by many to be inconclusive.

Cole, a member here, has pushed to have further DNA research done. This has also come back to validate they are not hybrids.

Naturally that has been challenged too...

To do such thorough DNA research to prove 100% they are not hybrid is simply so extensive no one will donate the time or money to do it. So they've done valid, yet not 100% validating, DNA testing. Not one ounce of DNA testing has shown that they may be hybrids, it has all shown these fish are naturally occurring...

Yes they do have genetic weaknesses. I personally do not believe this is due to the Blue gene but due to the excess inbreeding they experienced in the earliest days of their discovery, and the lack of selective breeding for health. But we're working on this  I also do not think we should judge those who did this inbreeding. They had a new fish they didnâ€™t understand and only had one bloodline to work with. They had no other choice.

Yes juvis are weaker, slower growing and more prone to parasites, again I believe due to inbreeding.

You can try to tell my 7" male that he isn't 7"... but he is... at less than 2 years old (from birth not purchase).

You will also find pictures of many other full grown Blue Dempseys on the internet. Saying they do not reach full size is simply an ignorant statement.

People really should learn facts on a subject before rattling off their half *** opinions... it can really ruin the reputation of an amazing fish...


----------



## Number6

nc_nutcase... is that a cut and paste from another thread? It's just that there's a couple of points in there that nobody talked about... like adult size.

The one thing that caught my eye in your thread was about not blaming the EB gene for the weakness but assuming that it is another gene (I know you say "inbreeding" but really there must be a gene or genes truly at fault). 
Why do you think it can't be the EB gene at all at fault?


----------



## Over_Stocked

Number6 said:


> nc_nutcase... is that a cut and paste from another thread? It's just that there's a couple of points in there that nobody talked about... like adult size.
> 
> The one thing that caught my eye in your thread was about not blaming the EB gene for the weakness but assuming that it is another gene (I know you say "inbreeding" but really there must be a gene or genes truly at fault).
> Why do you think it can't be the EB gene at all at fault?


See the first post of this thread... He talks about size right there...


----------



## Number6

Ah, thanks... I see the connection now. LFS owner said they don't grow large... 
They do grow as large, but slower.

Some general thoughts on the EB breeding...

The part I'm fascinated in is how the genetics must work in order to have a fully recessive EB gene, but then have something else that is a factor since EB xEB is a lethal mix (or effectively lethal).

It makes me think that there must be some real oddball thing going on. The only scenario that pops to my mind that can explain this based on info to date would be that there is a EB recessive that must be present, PLUS some other gene that must be there in a heterozygous state to allow the EB phenotype. 
This "activator" must allow the EB gene to express, but be lethal in a Homozygous state...

If my imagination actually hit on the truth, then this is just so interesting...


----------



## BlackShark11k

Ah genetics, too much for me too understand. Proven to be a color morph, however it is possible some hybridization of the species forms a hybrid simalar to the EBJD


----------



## Toby_H

I have over a dozen Blue Dempseys, half a dozen Gold ones and half a dozen regular onesâ€¦ not including fryâ€¦

Iâ€™m toying with approaches to strengthen the current line of Blue Dempseys available along with a few other members here as well as the Blue Dempsey site. I wrote the post for this thread and unfortunately think way too much about their genetics all too oftenâ€¦

One of my theories is that since these fish were originally discovered they have been inbred far more than typical hobby fish. I donâ€™t â€˜blameâ€™ anyone for doing this as for some time no one even understood how they bred and there was only one pair to produce possible breeders. But I now think itâ€™s the hobbyâ€™s turn to put energy into removing those effects of inbreedingâ€¦

Yes everything is essentially traced back to a geneâ€¦ or genetic combinationâ€¦

I have personally bred Blue x Blue and with no extra care from me the fry lived 11 days, which is about the same age as my regular JD fry usually last without outside care. I do accept that Blue x Blue produces weaker offspring and a higher percentage of deformities. But is this because both parents are Blue, or because they are both the results of many generations of inbreeding. It could be eitherâ€¦ but letâ€™s not assume either way.

I believe that if we take great care to only spawn the strongest of the Blues with the strongest regulars, after enough generations they weaknesses associated with Blue Dempseys can be bred out. Both their delicacy in regards to parasites as juvenals and their weaknesses associated spawning.

The way I understand things, it is not very likely that a color gene would also contain ill effects on spawning, or parasitic immunity. This is why I believe there is a strong chance these are common traits, but based on different genes or genetic combinations. If we can capture the Blue Genetics from the absolute strongest fishâ€¦ and cut that fishâ€™s genes with the strongest regulars availableâ€¦ then it is possible to upgrade the health genes without loosing the Blue colorationâ€¦ if, and only if, my original thought of these being separate genes, holds trueâ€¦

It may also be a big fat waste of timeâ€¦ but you knowâ€¦ Iâ€™m enjoying my hobby now more than ever so itâ€™s worth it either way.

I do want to add that I am not a scientist, not a doctor, and not a fish breeder. Iâ€™m just some dude addicted to fish that fell in love with the Blue Dempseyâ€¦

Sorry if we got off topic a bit but really itâ€™s an elaboration of the topic. Iâ€™ve asked many others familiar with fish breeding and the Blue and Gold Dempseys seem to spawn out the same way color morphs spawn in other species such as Apistos or even convicts. This, to me, is further evidence that they are a natural color morph and not a hybrid. Hybrids tend to make fish that look like both parentsâ€¦ where Dempsey color morphs have a logical percentage of each, but no blends of bothâ€¦ Theyâ€™re either Blue or theyâ€™re not, not sort of Blueâ€¦ theyâ€™re either Gold or their not, not sort of Goldâ€¦ Hybridization will give a wide range of blends of the twoâ€¦


----------



## Shwaine

Something that might help conceptualize this better is to think about more common examples of this phenomena in other places. For example, certain breeds of dogs are prone to things like hip problems or certain populations of humans are more prone to things like sickle cell anemia. It has nothing to do with outwards appearance but instead has to do with the history of the population, which usually included a period of isolation that caused inbreeding. Not that all inbreeding is bad, but if there are negative recessive traits present in the original population, inbreeding will increase the frequency of that trait in the descendants of that population. There's actually a formula to calculate this.


----------



## cole

I love these threads! 



nc_nutcase said:


> Sorry if we got off topic a bit but really itâ€™s an elaboration of the topic. Iâ€™ve asked many others familiar with fish breeding and the Blue and Gold Dempseys seem to spawn out the same way color morphs spawn in other species such as Apistos or even convicts. This, to me, is further evidence that they are a natural color morph and not a hybrid. Hybrids tend to make fish that look like both parentsâ€¦ where Dempsey color morphs have a logical percentage of each, but no blends of bothâ€¦ Theyâ€™re either Blue or theyâ€™re not, not sort of Blueâ€¦ theyâ€™re either Gold or their not, not sort of Goldâ€¦ Hybridization will give a wide range of blends of the twoâ€¦


There is no clearer way to put it.



Mauro1 said:


> I was told that electric blue jack dempsey were hybrids ... I've read that they are not ...and one LFS owner said that he wouldn't carry them because they are hybrids and that they dont grow large at all and they die premature !
> This does not make sense to me :-?


Basically, people from around the world fall on both sides of the issue. Most the people who think they are hybrids would never own one. Most the people who own one do not think they are hybrids. Some stores wont carry them because they think they are hybrids. Jeff Rapps carries them, because he has done DNA work, and he thinks they are a color morph. Ask a scientist what they think, or a molecular biologist. Ask 100 of them, and 50 will say they are hybrids, and 50 will say they are not.

When asking the question are EBJDs hybrids or color morphs, you are basically asking, was the late Hector Luzardo intentially misleading people. Was the late Hector Luzardo a liar?

From all accounts, he was a hard working family man, who was a painter by trade. He claims his only merit was recognizing a few odd fry. Does someone like this become famous for lying, or do miracles just happen to good people?

Cole~


----------



## eric

In the latest issue of Cichlid News, there is an article on Dempseys by respected author on Central American cichlids, Juan Miguel Artigas Azas. Juan ads a paragraph to the end of his article. He mentions the respected Hector Luzardo as well as the Blue Dempsey. If I recall the paragraph correctly, I believe Juan Miguel is correct in his assessment, he doubts this is a legitimate pure bred fish.

Where is this DNA report that has been subject to peer review by the scientific community?? It seems someone did some work, but this mean nothing without review.

Have you ever noticed the biggest proponents of the Blue Dempsey are the ones who sell it or keep them? I suspect there is some bias here. I don't see this type of support from those who don't.

If you keep or sell the fish, that's your choice. We're glad you are here participating. 

I have some respected friends who are very serious and respected aquarists who have gone down to South America to check out these breeders. There were four serious breeders there at the time. I believe what they told me. The Blue Dempsey is a cross between three different fishes. They agreed not to release the information in turn for being able to view the operation at hand.

I don't blame you if you don't believe what I wrote above is true. It's good enough for me. In fact, the observations of this I have made and the behavior they exhibit is enough for me. Not to mention all of the "mystery" that surrounds them.

Don't worry about "inbreeding" in this fish. There are plenty of Blue Dempsey coming out of South America to satisfy the demand here. As time goes by, the secret wil become less of one and we will all know the truth. It's only a matter tof time.


----------



## Jake Jackson

eric said:


> I have some respected friends who are very serious and respected aquarists who have gone down to South America to check out these breeders. There were four serious breeders there at the time. I believe what they told me. The Blue Dempsey is a cross between three different fishes. They agreed not to release the information in turn for being able to view the operation at hand.


Well, I'm another supporter of the Blue Demps Color morph theory... I have 7 Blue Demps. And I hate to break it to you, your "respected" friends are full of ****, because we all know... Ormed, prolly the most prolific Blue Jack Breeder only uses 2 fish to get his blue demps...

So, the whole 3 fish theory cross should be thrown away along with the "respected" part of your friends visit to South America.

And as far as DNA... start here:

http://bluejax.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=537


----------



## sick_lids

Tell'm Jake!!! Haha!!!


----------



## Jake Jackson

HAHAHA...

Another thing, I'm not sure who actually knows the process of making Blue Jacks... Its pretty simple, just time consuming...

Take a normal and a electric... breed... then breed the offspring to another Blue Jack... So...... without the use of another type of fish at all, I think the hybrid theory is about as stupid as jumping out the 38th floor window to escape the fire. :thumb:


----------



## sick_lids

if you were to do what jake just stated, keep breeding the blues to other blues, then eventually the offspring would be all or mostly electric blues. its the same with dogs. pit bulls have been bread with mastiffs and curs all through history, however, they are still registered as american pit bull terriers. it would take time, but eventually it would happen!

oh and jake, if the building was on fire, im jumping, i hear burning to death hurts alot more than the sudden stop at the end of the 38 floor leap, just my opinion though! Haha!!!!


----------



## ia246

Number6 said:


> The one thing that caught my eye in your thread was about not blaming the EB gene for the weakness but assuming that it is another gene (I know you say "inbreeding" but really there must be a gene or genes truly at fault).
> Why do you think it can't be the EB gene at all at fault?


Just to clarify, the observed weakness in EB Dempseys is extremely unlikely to be a single gene trait (especially unlikely to be the very same recessive gene that is responsible for the blue colouration).

Whilst colour is often a single gene trait and is inherited in a Mendelian fashion, the virility of an organism is due to a complex set of interactions between several genes. It is easy to illustrate this through differing heights in humans - there is not a single 'tall' gene or 'short' gene.


----------



## thetim6

I'm not arguing that the EBJD is a hybrid, but Jake there is a serious flaw in your argument, hopefully you will understand and not think I'm making a personal attack.

*If * the EBJD is a hybrid, there is no doubt it was bred back to regular JD throughout several generations to get the JD look to be prominent.

So, you could eventually get a hybridized fish that is mostly JD and shows the desired characteristics (body shape of JD and bright blue colors) through selective culling.

Similar to how a lot of people think the german red and eureka red peacocks were made!

If bred with other JD's, this just increases the prominence of the JD look in the blue dempsey.

If the guy got fish from the wild, it wasn't a miracle, and there are more fish out there with the genes for being EBJD.

I'm not in a position to judge one way or the other whether or not they are hybrids, and I feel that honestly none of us are without the DNA evidence, or without another wild pair of fish having EBJD fry.

Taking the guy's character into account is valid, but how many accounts of his character do we actually have?? And how do we know the accounts aren't biased?

(Emotions/feelings have no place in a logical, imperical argument)


----------



## Jake Jackson

I disagree, I think if you have the emotion or feelings... COMBINED with the open mind to absorb whats being told then its all warranted. The only people who argue over things without feelings or emotions are getting paid in courtrooms.

By increasing the prominence of the original JD look, wouldn't eventually the blue be gone? I mean surely the only gense passed back and forth thru offspring wouldnt be just shape.

I'm a firm believer in the proof is in the pudding. Use common sense when approaching things... Lets see....

In order from most obvious I'd think... From a fish keeper's thinking, not all the science stuff...

1.) The most reputable breeder online, Rapps sells them. You can get all kinda stories about good and bad from Rapps, one thing always remains the same... The fish quality is consistent.

Then he gets the DNA test, proof.

2.) The bluejax site. Tells you how to do it... And then, there are a few guys on the bluejax site with pictures documenting the entire process, using only 2 fish.

3.) ANOTHER DNA test from a different source... Once again proves it.

By no means do I think I'm the smartest person in the world, **** I even had to look up what emperical argument was... I'm just saying, we are giving you all the information that you ask for....

Instead of saying this is a hybrid fish.... Show me how u came up with that conclusion. :thumb:


----------



## thetim6

Actually I don't have any emotion in the subject, I just love to apply what I learn, in this case logic, to what I experience in life. I've never kept EBJD, I might in the future.

No, breeding the blue gene back to JD will not completely wash out the blue genes. If you breed fish back to their parents, or breed a fish 4 generations crossed with jack dempseys back to an original hybrid fish, and then repeat this process 20 times.... You can easily line breed fish like this, but as you can see it could take 100 generations before you ever get a fish that breeds stable.

Another odd thing about them is some have deformed looking heads, and there is an incredible amount of diversity among EBJD color wise. Almost every one I see is unique!

I just like to hold off on making my own opinions on topics like this because I'm not satisfied with the evidence enough to do so. However, as of right I don't think they are hybrids.

The DNA test is pretty convincing. But I'm not educated enough to have a clue what it really means, so I still can't be sure one way or the other.


----------



## Toby_H

It does seem that most who support that the Blue Dempsey is not a Hybrid are those who keep them (or sell them)â€¦

These are also the people more likely to put the proper effort into investigating them for themselves.

Itâ€™s easy to say, â€œI donâ€™t want to keep them, theyâ€™re probably hybrids anyway.â€


----------



## thetim6

Line breeding a stable hybrid would also include a lot of inbreeding.

Not trying to argue with you, just thought I'd point that out. If the fish are truly a genetic mutation, than they wouldn't have needed to be line bred, would they? They could have simply kept adding fresh genes in as everyone is doing now.

So why did they line breed them anyways? To help draw out the coloration? And why was that necessary?


----------



## Jake Jackson

Who is they?

Maybe They figured if it aint broke don't fix it. Knew something worked and just kept on doing it.... Can't ask why they did it, if we dont even know who they are. :thumb:


----------



## thetim6

They, as in the people who created the fish in central/south America.

Supposedly one guy found some strange fry after studying a spawn from wild caught jack dempsey's.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'if it's not broke, don't fix it'. I understand the analogy, I just don't see how it applies to what I said.

People in this thread have said that they believe the EBJD strange features are due to inbreeding. I pointed out that if it was truly a genetic mutation, they wouldn't have needed to keep inbreeding them.

That doesn't mean they didn't inbreed them, it just means they didn't need to.

And I also pointed out, hybrids made into a stable line of fish require frequent inbreeding over several generations.

And, if it is really a recessive gene, there is no way that only two fish have the recessive gene. Maybe the gene resides in a segregated community of fish, but the chances of the guy getting two fish from the wild with a recessive gene mutation for the first time it occured is extremely unlikely. Anythings possible, but I can't just put faith in something like that without some kind of concrete evidence.


----------



## Rivermud

Just to throw my 2 cents in.. The most overly bred fish I know of is the fancy guppy. There are literally (not figuratively) hundreds of lines people have bred through lines breeeding with cross outs.

It's a fairly simple thing to find what you are looking for over time. Tkae two fish, breed. take notes.. select offsring that either exhibit the desired trait or the most healthy specimen.. use multiple pairs to test for possible recessive genes.. if none are found after the 3-5th generation use a cross-out with a known trait.. etc.. rinse repeat.. The beautiful thing about guppies is that they reach breeding maturity extremely fast and can be kept in very small places.. doing something similar with dempseys or any other fish just requires space, time, and science..


----------



## cole

thetim6 said:


> People in this thread have said that they believe the EBJD strange features are due to inbreeding. I pointed out that if it was truly a genetic mutation, they wouldn't have needed to keep inbreeding them.
> 
> That doesn't mean they didn't inbreed them, it just means they didn't need to.


They had no choice but to inbreed them at first because he only had one line to work with. When its the first known EBJDs in the world, where do you get another line to breed with? This has beed brought up by nutcase once already.

It took him years to figure out he had to breed back to JDs to get blue gened offspring for breeding to blues. I imagine he started with his blue x blue offspring, which failed to yeild. So he then most likely tried his blues with the regular fry from the same batch, to get his blue genes. He was in Argentina, and there was probably not many JD lines to work with way down there.

It has also been noted by several people that in the early part of the 80's, it was highly unlikely an individual in Argentina would have access to Herichthys carpintis or Nandopsis tetracanthis.

I do find it plausable though that indeed wild caught specimens carried/carry this rogue gene.



thetim6 said:


> And, if it is really a recessive gene, there is no way that only two fish have the recessive gene. Maybe the gene resides in a segregated community of fish, but the chances of the guy getting two fish from the wild with a recessive gene mutation for the first time it occured is extremely unlikely.


I don't think its extremely unlikely at all. Saying that is going a bit too far. All the guy had to do was acquire the fish from the same body of water, and the chances would be pretty good they had close to the same genetics...or atleast have the same rogue gene. This gene could ave been present in this specific population for thousands of years. Along comes Hectors friend, plucks a couple of them out and breeds them in isolation. In the wild, the blue fry, and most likey 90% of the regular fry parish through natural selection. These blue ones even had problems being raised to adulthood in tanks because parents would eat them in a naturally selective sort of way.

Its when we remove the factors of nature playing god, and we inject ourselves as playing god, that these blue fish are able to survive. Its really pretty simple to understand it that way for me. We have health issues in EBJDs not just because of inbreeding, but because the fish should never exist in the first place...they are weak. The parents knew it, but what we knew is that we liked the color...so we kept them.

Cole~


----------



## bignick383rd

i dont know, my opinion is that there is too much evidence swinging towards the fish NOT being a hybrid......

and for those thinking they are hybrids, take the three fish that you think will make a EBJD and commit some time trying to make them, send me the photos of what they look like as adults.... i may burst out laughing

but until somone wants to take the time to prove that they are hybrids im going to have to go with the research....... its easy to say they're hybrids, actions speak louder than words, even if its fish 8)

one time i got intoxicated and got in a verbal fight with a Mr. animal planet guy that said the origin of these fish are in africa and notorious for eating other fish's scales...... :thumb: right on :-?

in the end, these are fish, i like mine, its nice to look at them, will i ever spend money to test if a fish originates from 3 different kinds? no. people believe what they want to beleive im the open minded type, but if you tell me that my fish is a hybrid while im beligerant then ill be defending my boys...


----------



## cole

bignick383rd said:


> i dont know, my opinion is that there is too much evidence swinging towards the fish NOT being a hybrid......
> 
> and for those thinking they are hybrids, take the three fish that you think will make a EBJD and commit some time trying to make them, send me the photos of what they look like as adults.... i may burst out laughing
> 
> but until somone wants to take the time to prove that they are hybrids im going to have to go with the research....... its easy to say they're hybrids, actions speak louder than words, even if its fish 8)


I am playing my own devils advocate. I have a tank with 2 EBJDs, 2 JDs, 2 Herichthys carpintis Escondido and 2 Nandopsis tetracanthis. Looking at them everyday, I can tell you its going to be a task to get the tetracanthis to even live side by side my JDs. These things at under 3 inches are already lethal. The carpintis are also no spring chikens, but will likely spawn with a spring chickens leg...from what I have heard.

My goal is not to try JD x carpintis, or JD x tetracanthis to get something that resembles an EBJD. My plan is to use the breeding methods of EBJDs and substitute JDs with carpintis.

So I would do carpintis x EBJD, which would yeild blue gene carrying carpintis. Then breed them back to EBJDs to see what they look like. I can tell you now, people have bred JD x carpintis, and the results do not match an EBJD. The color, the fins, and even the way they swim, look nothing like an EBJD.

Check out this thread:
http://cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopi ... highlight=
And check out this guys JD x carpintis hybrids:
http://youtube.com/user/vuon3680 
Here are some pictures:









































Look like an EBJD to anyone? I didn't think so.

Cole~

Cole~


----------



## Jake Jackson

WoW Cole I didn't know you had all that good stuff. Looks like its got those trimac/flowerhorn spots. Awesome fish. :thumb:


----------



## thetim6

You have to read my post clearly, Cole.

I said that it was unlikely those two fish were the ONLY fish in the wild with the gene... And that it was unlikely he happened upon two fish that just randomly have the same genetic mutation for the first time the mutation had occured.

It's much more likely that there is a population of wild fish that carry the gene (if it is truly a full blooded JD.) So, if he told people where he got them from, we could get them again. Or we could sample every stock of JD in the wild. How spread out are JD in the wild?

Sorry for the confusion.

I'm playing the devil's advocate as well, Cole. I don't necessarily care or believe one way or the other.

And as far as your trying to breed hybrids to falsify the possibility that EBJD are hybrids, that is well beyond your capabilities in my opinion (unless you have 10,000 gallons of water and are prepared to spend a few years on it...).

You would need out door ponds, and you would need to raise 10,000's of fish.... You can't make a 1, 2, or even 10 generation cross and expect to get a stable fish, or even something that looks like a EBJD. Especially if you have never selective bred before.

Keep taking your hybrids, breed the bluest, JD body shaped fish back to their JD parent. And then cross them back to another blue bodied JD. If you do it right, you could easily get a blue looking dempsey fish.

However, There is NO way you are going to be able to try and line breed a stable hybrid fish in a few generations, it's just not possible. And, while interesting, it doesn't prove anything as far as EBJD being a hybrid or not...


----------



## thetim6

And what about how the original flowerhorns were made. They don't get fish to breed, I think in the beginning they were splicing genes and had test tube babies.

Is it possible to splice a blue gene into the fish?

I'm just expanding every possibility. We should not overlook anything.


----------



## eric

*Jake*, I tired your link and it didn't work for me, maybe there is another link? I appreciate your replies. :thumb:

I'm glad that some of you have found enough proof to make yourselves satisfied that the fish you keep is not a hybrid.

What I haven't seen is enough proof for *me*. It may be out there, but I have not seen it. The DNA analysis that *includes peer review* is what I'm looking for. I am not qualified to confirm or debunk a DNA analysis. If there were qualified persons who can stake their education and reputation that the DNA analysis is sound, then I'm on board with it.

I have asked for this, but no one has been able to supply this with me. Not a single publisher nor a single ichthyologist has (to the best of my knowledge) used this information in any published papers.

The burden of proof clearly lies with the believers that this hybrid is a true Dempsey. It's not the other way around.


----------



## thetim6

thetim6 said:


> Keep taking your hybrids, breed the bluest, JD body shaped fish back to their JD parent. And then cross them back to another blue bodied JD hybrid. If you do it over and over, you could easily get a blue fish with a prominently jack dempsey body shape.
> 
> However, There is NO way you are going to be able to line breed a stable hybrid fish in a few generations, it's just not possible. And, while interesting, it doesn't prove anything as far as EBJD being a hybrid or not...


I changed the wording so it would be more coherent, I was in a rush this morning before class. You can't edit post, Sorry about the confusing wording in the earlier post.


----------



## GoDSMiLe

eric said:


> *Jake*, I tired your link and it didn't work for me, maybe there is another link? I appreciate your replies. :thumb:
> 
> I'm glad that some of you have found enough proof to make yourselves satisfied that the fish you keep is not a hybrid.
> 
> What I haven't seen is enough proof for *me*. It may be out there, but I have not seen it. The DNA analysis that *includes peer review* is what I'm looking for. I am not qualified to confirm or debunk a DNA analysis. If there were qualified persons who can stake their education and reputation that the DNA analysis is sound, then I'm on board with it.
> 
> I have asked for this, but no one has been able to supply this with me. Not a single publisher nor a single ichthyologist has (to the best of my knowledge) used this information in any published papers.
> 
> The burden of proof clearly lies with the believers that this hybrid is a true Dempsey. It's not the other way around.


To add my two cents, which may be a little helpful as I have some background with genetics (I'm in med school).

I would be surprised if you get your wish of a peer reviewed paper for several reasons:

1) peer review is normally done for scientific papers for publication, and the origins of the EBJD does not (to me) seem to warrant efforts of the scientific community as its more of a hobbyist problem

2) most ichthyologists seem to differentiate species based on physical differences in skeletal and other morphological features rather than genetics bases. Thus, those that would be most likely to care don't have the relevant expertise to put their reputation on the line for peer review.

3) I don't know how thoroughly the DNA of South and Central American cichlids has been studied. Since cichlids seem to be able to hybridize and create fertile offspring (which goes against the classical definition of speciation taught in most undergrad biology courses), then the similarity between the genomes of different new world cichlids might be very close to begin with. This would lead to difficulty finding differences between species, let alone hybrids. Differences used in DNA testing are based on cutting of specific sequences that are defined by the genetic tools used and not the genes being looked for. Thus, DNA does not separate on gene by gene basis ands its not as simple as looking for dempsey genes and carpitis genes. Factor in the fact that there are variations within any given population and you can see how it'd be tricky.

Not to say that it won't happen, but I would be surprised. Also, I don't believe "the burden of proof clearly lies with the believers that this hybrid is a true Dempsey". It may be for you, but it is not by any means clearly defined. Its your bias that makes it clear for you, not the nature of the argument.

As for arguments that the identification of the collection point would validate the nature of the EBJD, that would seem to be a moot point. If you're skeptical of the EBJD as a purebreed, you'll be skeptical of fish from the collection site. Arguments like the release of EBJD carriers into the native population, falsification of collection and the like will pop up if the collection point is validated, and the cycle will continue.

The nature of the weakness of the genes of EBJD seems pretty well covered previously. To just summarize, genes although classically presented as inheriting independently, will sometimes be inherited together, based on the distance between the genes. This seems like a likely explanation for how the blue gene also shows decreased survivability while still being a purebred species.

This can be the same reason for any of the deformities seen across the whole subpopulation of EBJD. I'm not saying this is the case, but ruling out the possibility of EBJD being a purebred species because of that logic is not accurate.

HTH, and I look forward to any responses continuing on this topic.

Mike


----------



## MacFish

> The DNA analysis that includes peer review is what I'm looking for. I am not qualified to confirm or debunk a DNA analysis. If there were qualified persons who can stake their education and reputation that the DNA analysis is sound, then I'm on board with it.


Cole has done some amazing work to get us a little closer to this. Here is the link to the other forum that explains what his contacts have proven. An article is in the works but I don't think it is done yet. The thread is many pages but if you have the time, it's well worth it. Hopefully the forum is up. It has been a little flakey lately.

http://bluejax.14.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?t=537

Your argument is a valid one and your posts are great. Personally, I am not 100% convinced in either direction. If I had to choose a side right now, it would be color morph. The DNA evidence (while not conclusive) combined with the procedure required to produce EBJD's, is a lot of proof to the morph theory. Similar to albinism and the procedure to produce other morphs like certain Angel fish.


----------



## thetim6

If the gene came from wild fish, then why wouldn't there be more fish with the gene in the wild? I'm assuming there are. Does anyone not agree with that?

As far as the collection point, If the fish that carry the blue gene are from a segregated community (it could explain why we have never seen them in the hobby even though people have been tank breedings jacks for probably 20 years or more) than yes it would be wonderful to know where they came from. Because we could go back there and try to get 20 or so adults and breed them in tanks/ponds and see if we get any EBJD or something that even looks remotely similar. How is that a moot point, exactly? :?


----------



## MacFish

> If the gene came from wild fish, then why wouldn't there be more fish with the gene in the wild? I'm assuming there are. Does anyone not agree with that?


Definitely agree with you.


----------



## GoDSMiLe

thetim6 said:


> If the gene came from wild fish, then why wouldn't there be more fish with the gene in the wild? I'm assuming there are. Does anyone not agree with that?
> 
> As far as the collection point, If the fish that carry the blue gene are from a segregated community (it could explain why we have never seen them in the hobby even though people have been tank breedings jacks for probably 20 years or more) than yes it would be wonderful to know where they came from. Because we could go back there and try to get 20 or so adults and breed them in tanks/ponds and see if we get any EBJD or something that even looks remotely similar. How is that a moot point, exactly? :?


I would have to agree if indeed this is a color morph.

My comment on it being moot is best illustrated with a hypothetical situation. Lets say that tomorrow someone comes on and says they contacted the estate of Hector Luzardo, and for an undisclosed amount of money, they were given the collection location of his EBJD genes and a promise to reveal the information to no one else. He went down to the collection spot and collected them, and has since been breeding them in his fishroom in the hopes of turning his investment into a profit. Unfortunately, because he had to pay for the privilege of knowing the collection spot, he cannot afford to give you the name of the spot. Instead however, he is willing to provide pictures of his fish and tours of his fishroom. The pictures look like any other pair of JDs with the EBJD gene. Do you believe him?

I would assume not. What if his friend, who he says went collecting with him, vouches for the accuracy of the statements provided? A whole group of friends?

What if he agreed to tell you under the the legally binding condition that you tell no one else? Are you in a position to check? Keep in mind that this seems to be an autosomal recessive allele, and could therefore be quite rare in the population. You would probably need to bring back a lot of fish in order to prove with any real scientific accuracy that the gene is not present in the population. What if he tells someone else on this forum, who then says the guy is legitimate?

I doubt anyone who knows the commercial value of the location of collection would be willing to freely release the information on the internet for all to test. The cost of vindication for his true breeding morph would be the profit he would of made as the sole person knowledgeable on the wild fish's location.

In the end, I believe that people who doubted before would continue to doubt after, and those who believed before would continue to believe. If you're not in the position to directly test yourself, than the name means nothing in terms of dispelling the hybrid rumor. If the argument is made that you would trust so and so the expert, than as soon as that person was able to validate the color morph theory through breeding, that person would be in the same financially beneficial position as Jeff Rapps, and would therefore be just as suspect.

Hence why I thought the whole argument was moot.

Mike


----------



## Rivermud

I suppose people need to have a basic understanding of genetics to understand how a color morph works. I'll use guppies as an example because they are highly polymorphic and I have some experience with line breeding them.

There are hundreds of isolated guppy strains in the wild, each has unique evolutionary history based on predation, habitat, food, weather.. etc.. A simple example: Guppies in one pool have to deal with heavy cichlid predation. The cichlids mainly eat the mature larger fish that are easier to spot and catch.. as they can't hide as well as the smaller fish. These fish tnd to breed fast, have larger broods, and be much smaller with duller colors. Group two has little to worry about with predation, they have abundant food.. they grow larger, show more color to attract partners.. etc..

Guppies have 46 chromosomes paired in 23 sets of two, one coming from the father and one coming from the mother. Now with this, there are alleles which are alternate forms of a gene found at the same location on the chromosome. So blue may be an allele from a isolated strain.

Now some genes are sex linked and others are autosomal which means they can be a part of either sex. Some are Dominant and others Recessive. A dempsey with the blue allele would be what we call heterozygous for blue, meaning they have the dominant color phase gene and the recessive allele for blue. Now since dempseys are not very polymorphic at all, (this means they breed true and the offspring will look like their parents) and since 99% or more of dempseys do not have the blue allele (just a guess) it would be very unlikely to ever see the blue strain. Also, if the blue coloration is a compound of multiple chromosomes that could be sex linked it may be very unlikely to ever see the blue in any dempsey ever.

Now, to illustrate even further. "The Law of Independent Assortment, also known as "Inheritance Law" or Mendel's Second Law, states that the inheritance pattern of one trait will not affect the inheritance pattern of another. While his experiments with mixing one trait always resulted in a 3:1 ratio (Fig. 1) between dominant and recessive phenotypes, his experiments with mixing two traits (dihybrid cross) showed 9:3:3:1 ratios (Fig. 2). But the 9:3:3:1 table shows that each of the two genes are independently inherited with a 3:1 ratio. Mendel concluded that different traits are inherited independently of each other, so that there is no relation, for example, between a cat's color and tail length. This is actually only true for genes that are not linked to each other." 
(quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendelian_inheritance)
So, if the genes that cause the color morph of blue are linked then the possibility of finding that one throw out from breeding in random would be astronomical. Just to give an idea of the total possible genetic throws whilst not linked take 2 to the 23rd power (2 parents each with 23 random chromsomes they can give to the offspring) and you get 8,400,000 possible variations.

So in closing the idea that this should be something recreatable or it should appear in the wild is insane. The chromosome may only be found in one strain and may not even show itself unless combined with another unique strain it may also be linked to another gene and the color throw would be even less likely. I would theorize the link is deadly in the wild as the young are generally not as healthy as the originals. The captive breeding of a few survivors combined with cross-outs have made the fish viable in the industry but could not have happened in the wild. It's called selective breeding.. not hybridization.


----------



## Number6

Rivermud... selective breeding doesn't affect the question of hybridization at all... if a hybridization event introduced the allele that causes the deformities and EB look (or a few alleles) then selective breeding was employed, the end result could be identical to the result of this being some mutation found in a pure Dempsey...

I don't think the fish is a hybrid, but not because of the linebreeding of the breed...

if I misunderstood the last part of your post... no worries... the "not hybridization" reference threw me...


----------



## Rivermud

It is true that a hybridization could throw the alleles that cause the color morph we are seeing in the dempsey. My point was that many people are arguing that the EB must be a hybrid because the color morph has not been found in any other breeding. The allele could be linked to another gene. I find this highly likely since the color throw is also linked to many deformities and health issues. If the color were due to a "simple" cross-out with another cichlid where both chromosomes were not linked only heterozygous then we would not see the deformities and health issues we do with the EB. However if the cross-out did provide a link gene and in the 3rd generation we saw a color morph I could accept the theory of a hybrid. I find it unlikely since the offspring would have had health issues in the 1st and 2nd generation.

See, linked chromosomes often cause unknown effects. While some may be bad openly they may have other benefits.. while a linked chromosome causes anemia it may also provide a cure for a disease or a resistance to a disease.. It's very convoluted and the odds are astronomical in any case. The health issues tell me there is a high likelyhood of linked chromosomes and they are most likely sex linked. I say this because the color morph has not been reproduced and sex linked chromosomes that cause a genetic change in an extended generation after inbreeding, random germ throws etc.. also generally are fatal to the offspring.. I hypothesize that a few chromosome mutations during birth allowed a few to survive.. crossing back from parent to offspring allowed the color to stay and crossing into a heterozygous "cousin" in another generation gave one set of good chromosomes and another set of the color morph.. Thus allowing the color to breed true. Continuous cross outs must be made to extended cousins from other generations in order to preserve the health of the fish. I also would guess this color morph to get more defined over time.

This is all just guessing. I make the assumptions based on the known history or line breeding guppies which are highly polymorphic due to many isolated genetic strains to draw from and the extremely fast evolution of the separate strains. I mean **** look at a wild guppy and tell me it looks like these fancy guppies we have now.


----------



## Number6

Ah, gotcha... thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Rivermud

Editted the above post for more clarity.


----------



## GoDSMiLe

Rivermud-

I think you contradict yourself a little bit in your post. Your guppy example cleverly shows how different populations of a given species can show different traits due to isolation and different environmental factors. Yet, you did not apply this same reasoning to the JD, where the EBJD gene, as you estimate makes up less than 1% in the entire species, but could very well be much larger in an isolated population, like how the guppies work. This would allow for an EBJD to be seen in the wild (ignoring the concept of how fit it is).

Also, I'm not sure how you are using the term "linked genes". Linked genes are simply genes that reside close to each other on any given chromosome, and therefore are more likely to be seen together than accounted for in a Mendelian cross. Gene linkage would account for the decreased viability of the EBJD if a deleterious gene was linked to the desired EBJD gene (in essence they are inherited together as if they were one gene).

Also, I'm not sure about your idea of sex linkage. In humans, females are XX and males are XY. Some genes reside on the X chromosome and a few reside on the Y. Since males have only 1 of each, any allele they get on their single X is expressed (there is no second allele to "cover it up" since there is not another X chromosome). To murky the water a bit more, fish sex determination is all over the place. Some use the XX/XY system, some use the WZ/ZZ system (where the males are ZZ), some are hermaphroditic, some species change between systems and so on. Crazy stuff!

I hope this helps to dispel some confusion, though I fear I may have failed.

Mike


----------



## kaseahutch

GoDSMiLe said:


> Rivermud-
> 
> I think you contradict yourself a little bit in your post. Your guppy example cleverly shows how different populations of a given species can show different traits due to isolation and different environmental factors. Yet, you did not apply this same reasoning to the JD, where the EBJD gene, as you estimate makes up less than 1% in the entire species, but could very well be much larger in an isolated population, like how the guppies work. This would allow for an EBJD to be seen in the wild (ignoring the concept of how fit it is).
> 
> Also, I'm not sure how you are using the term "linked genes". Linked genes are simply genes that reside close to each other on any given chromosome, and therefore are more likely to be seen together than accounted for in a Mendelian cross. Gene linkage would account for the decreased viability of the EBJD if a deleterious gene was linked to the desired EBJD gene (in essence they are inherited together as if they were one gene).
> 
> Also, I'm not sure about your idea of sex linkage. In humans, females are XX and males are XY. Some genes reside on the X chromosome and a few reside on the Y. Since males have only 1 of each, any allele they get on their single X is expressed (there is no second allele to "cover it up" since there is not another X chromosome). To murky the water a bit more, fish sex determination is all over the place. Some use the XX/XY system, some use the WZ/ZZ system (where the males are ZZ), some are hermaphroditic, some species change between systems and so on. Crazy stuff!
> 
> I hope this helps to dispel some confusion, though I fear I may have failed.
> 
> Mike


We can get into individuals that have XXY or how the Y-chromosome doesn't 100% of the time really mean male, but I think that this is asking for trouble :wink:


----------



## Rivermud

I brought up the secluded populations and environmental factors to show certain individuals who have been posting on here that there is a viable and quite reasonable reason we do not see the EB in any other instances. I wasn't actually going to try to point out that there could be a population of EB's in the wild because IMO since we see that there are health issues and deformities seen in the EB line that it would not be a feesable morph in the wild.. ie they would get eaten or die.. just an opinion.. I'm sure it's possible .. I was simply pointing out the most logical course the EB took.. again IMO. I also wanted to show the hows and why's.

Also as you stated the linked gene IMO would likely be deleterious gene.. assuming the issues previously stated. I am also assuming that there is more than one chromosome responsible for the color morph.

And just for clarification certain guppy strains have been created using what is known to be a sex linked gene. The mutation that allows a "new" specimen is often fatal because of the issues inherent in not recieving the correct chromosomes. Many guppy breeders have had issues with strain that are not viable and will not breed true because of this exact thing. However, every once in awhile there is a mutation that's viable and by crossing back and using know heterozygous cousins they make the morph stick.


----------



## Toby_H

I understand for several reasons fish can be infertileâ€¦ yet the Blue Dempseys are not infertile, they just have reproduction complicationsâ€¦ so is it logical to believe that selective breeding for strong breeders could reduce this effect? I would think so but would like to here the â€˜geneticistsâ€™ response.

As many have mentionedâ€¦ I agree that it is likely that the Blue color morph is kept alive in the wild in regular looking fish with the recessive geneâ€¦ and that any Blue fry born in the wild would never make it past the fry stage. This would also make it likely that the BG would be more prominent in isolated areas. Yet the story is told that the Blue producing pair were a gift and itâ€™s probable that their exact natural location could not be determined.

I feel for anyone to honestly review the logic presented by those showing how they could be a natural occurring color morph and claim itâ€™s not possibleâ€¦ simply hasnâ€™t allowed themselves to honestly understand the logicâ€¦

At the same time for anyone to review the same information and say they must be a natural occurring color morphâ€¦ is illogically ruling out a logical possibility.

So the most logical result is to be undecidedâ€¦ as fact has not proven either way and logical supports of each can be presented.

There is also enough information available for many of us to formulate an opinionâ€¦ but I just wish that when we pose our opinions, we would all do so while respecting the logic of those who disagree. No need to make conclusive statements on an inconclusive subjectâ€¦


----------



## cole

I can tell you that a paper has been submitted, to two seperate major publications. The original draft was over 8,000 words and over 50,000 characters. This lengthy report is too long for any publication I have been in touch with. Martin and I have tried several times to create concise versions of this paper to be published. The concise version is lacking in information simply because we had to lose 4,500 words. One of the publishers has still yet to reply with whether or not they are going to run with it. The other publication has since replied and has asked me to make some changes, which includes shortening it. I honestly feel that this subject is due 16,000 words, and anything less will leave a gap in the information. Martin Brammah has entertained the idea of throwing together a book with all of this info.

I have decided to go ahead and release the full version of this article here today, so that some of you can read over it and make this conversion everything it deserves to be. Before you read it, you should know that it has been a few months since it was written, and some things have changed since then that will shed more light on the subject. Also, you should know that peer review was done within it. We decided to not take an approach from one side of the spectrum...it just would not be fair to the general public to write a biased article. Instead, we used some examples from a moderator here by the name of Dave, who most clearly explained to us how these recent DNA results do not prove they are a color morph.

The results do indeed match with 100% clarity, the genes of a Jack Dempsey. The problem as he points out, is that the section of genes tested, was only roughly a 500bp sequence, with upwards of 20,000bps available. So while he says the test is a match for JDs, its only a match for that gene region. Other regions that have yet to be tested could indeed pan out to show something different. But the possibility of it showing through after 20+ years of back crossing to wild type JDs, is highly unlikely.

Now what this means, is that indeed any DNA test, whether it be mitachondrial or nuclear, will most likely always pan out to be a match of octofasciata, regardless of if we had a hybridization event or not. This is a thorn in the side of hybridization theorists, because this means no matter how much DNA testing is done, it will most likely always come out JD. This means even if we do take a close look at the entire genome, it most likely will show all JD DNA, no matter if it is a hybrid or color morph. Until science advances, and gives us a cheaper, faster and more accurate way to look into this, we will never know the real truth.

I say, that if the truth can't be had, then our opinions are all we got. It doesn't matter if you are a molecular biologist or not here, because all of our opinions are equal, and none of the evidence is conclusive...in fact most of it, is one big anomoly. You have many peices of evidence that could sway things in either direction.

Without prolonging this any longer, here is the article I have been holding back for months now. I want to first give credit for Martin Brammahs help, and for Daves input. I also want to thank those at the bluejax forum who banded together to help me foot the bill for the DNA testing. You guys at bluejax are really wonderful to work with. I should also note, this version was not the revised version. This is the more detailed version:
_______________________________________________________________________________
Just what we have all been waiting for, the results from the samples I have submitted for DNA comparison:

Cole, August 23, 2007

I have finished the experiment and I see no evidence for the EB being a hybrid.

I find exactly the same single sequence from each of the four samples you sent. This sequence exactly matches the JD sequence in Genbank. There is no hint in the EB samples of a second sequence that could have come from another species.

I will prepare you a written report with the sequence data.

Dave Price
FishDNA ID

Sample submissions:

EBF8 = electric blue female 
EBM8 = electric blue male 
JDF8 = jack dempsey female 
JDM8 = jack dempsey male

SEQ EBF8-20-07-10-41 AM: 504 bp; 
Composition 109 A; 109 C; 133 G; 153 T; 0 OTHER 
Percentage: 21.6% A; 21.6% C; 26.4% G; 30.4% T; 0.0%OTHER 
Molecular Weight (kDa): ssDNA: 155.89 dsDNA: 310.71 
ORIGIN 
1 TTTTACACTG GACTGGCTTT TCTGTTTTAA AATGTACTTT AATTGTGTTT AATGGCAAAA 
61 TTTACACACA GTAAGGCATG TGAAGACTGT GATTCGTTAG ATTATGTGAG TTGCAGCACC 
121 GGATGGCTCA TTTTTACGGC TAAGTAAGGC GTAGTAGAGC AGCTCCGGTC AATGAGTTTG 
181 GGTTAGCGGG TAGCTAGCAG CAAGCAGCAG GCCGTGCATG TGTTCAGCTA GCCGCCACAG 
241 AAGCGAGAAA AGGAGACCTT AAGTTCACTT TCAGGGCCGG AGGTTCAGAT TTTTTCATTG 
301 TTGCTTATAT AGTTGTTTTG TAAGTTCCGC TATATGTCCA TGGTGCTGTT ATATCCATCT 
361 GCTCAGCGCC TGTGAGCTAG CGCGGTGAGC TCTGGTGCTG CCCCTTTAGG TTAGCGCCGC 
421 TCGCCCCGCA GCTCCTGGCT TTCAGTGAAG GATGGACGTT AAAGATGCTC CGCTGCCCTT 
481 CAGCGGTTCT AACCCACATG TCTT

SEQ EBM8-20-07-9-44 AM: 503 bp; 
Composition 109 A; 109 C; 133 G; 152 T; 0 OTHER 
Percentage: 21.7% A; 21.7% C; 26.4% G; 30.2% T; 0.0%OTHER 
Molecular Weight (kDa): ssDNA: 155.58 dsDNA: 310.09 
ORIGIN 
1 TTTTACACTG GACTGGCTTT TCTGTTTTAA AATGTACTTT AATTGTGTTT AATGGCAAAA 
61 TTTACACACA GTAAGGCATG TGAAGACTGT GATTCGTTAG ATTATGTGAG TTGCAGCACC 
121 GGATGGCTCA TTTTTACGGC TAAGTAAGGC GTAGTAGAGC AGCTCCGGTC AATGAGTTTG 
181 GGTTAGCGGG TAGCTAGCAG CAAGCAGCAG GCCGTGCATG TGTTCAGCTA GCCGCCACAG 
241 AAGCGAGAAA AGGAGACCTT AAGTTCACTT TCAGGGCCGG AGGTTCAGAT TTTTTCATTG 
301 TTGCTTATAT AGTTGTTTTG TAAGTTCCGC TATATGTCCA TGGTGCTGTT ATATCCATCT 
361 GCTCAGCGCC TGTGAGCTAG CGCGGTGAGC TCTGGTGCTG CCCCTTTAGG TTAGCGCCGC 
421 TCGCCCCGCA GCTCCTGGCT TTCAGTGAAG GATGGACGTT AAAGATGCTC CGCTGCCCTT 
481 CAGCGGTTCT AACCCACATG TCT

SEQ JDF8-20-07-8-47 AM: 500 bp; 
Composition 109 A; 108 C; 133 G; 150 T; 0 OTHER 
Percentage: 21.8% A; 21.6% C; 26.6% G; 30.0% T; 0.0%OTHER 
Molecular Weight (kDa): ssDNA: 154.69 dsDNA: 308.24 
ORIGIN 
1 TTTTACACTG GACTGGCTTT TCTGTTTTAA AATGTACTTT AATTGTGTTT AATGGCAAAA 
61 TTTACACACA GTAAGGCATG TGAAGACTGT GATTCGTTAG ATTATGTGAG TTGCAGCACC 
121 GGATGGCTCA TTTTTACGGC TAAGTAAGGC GTAGTAGAGC AGCTCCGGTC AATGAGTTTG 
181 GGTTAGCGGG TAGCTAGCAG CAAGCAGCAG GCCGTGCATG TGTTCAGCTA GCCGCCACAG 
241 AAGCGAGAAA AGGAGACCTT AAGTTCACTT TCAGGGCCGG AGGTTCAGAT TTTTTCATTG 
301 TTGCTTATAT AGTTGTTTTG TAAGTTCCGC TATATGTCCA TGGTGCTGTT ATATCCATCT 
361 GCTCAGCGCC TGTGAGCTAG CGCGGTGAGC TCTGGTGCTG CCCCTTTAGG TTAGCGCCGC 
421 TCGCCCCGCA GCTCCTGGCT TTCAGTGAAG GATGGACGTT AAAGATGCTC CGCTGCCCTT 
481 CAGCGGTTCT AACCCACATG

SEQ JDM8-20-07-7-41 AM: 489 bp; 
Composition 105 A; 104 C; 131 G; 148 T; 1 OTHER 
Percentage: 21.5% A; 21.3% C; 26.8% G; 30.3% T; 0.2%OTHER 
Molecular Weight (kDa): ssDNA: 151.32 dsDNA: 301.46 
ORIGIN 
1 TTTTACACTG GACTGGCTTT TCTGTTTTAA AATGTACTTT AATTGTGTTT AATGGCAAAA 
61 TTTACACACA GTAAGGCATG TGAAGACTGT GATTCGTTAG ATTATGTGAS TTGCAGCACC 
121 GGATGGCTCA TTTTTACGGC TAAGTAAGGC GTAGTAGAGC AGCTCCGGTC AATGAGTTTG 
181 GGTTAGCGGG TAGCTAGCAG CAAGCAGCAG GCCGTGCATG TGTTCAGCTA GCCGCCACAG 
241 AAGCGAGAAA AGGAGACCTT AAGTTCACTT TCAGGGCCGG AGGTTCAGAT TTTTTCATTG 
301 TTGCTTATAT AGTTGTTTTG TAAGTTCCGC TATATGTCCA TGGTGCTGTT ATATCCATCT 
361 GCTCAGCGCC TGTGAGCTAG CGCGGTGAGC TCTGGTGCTG CCCCTTTAGG TTAGCGCCGC 
421 TCGCCCCGCA GCTCCTGGCT TTCAGTGAAG GATGGACGTT AAAGATGCTC CGCTGCCCTT 
481 CAGCGGTTC

Alignment of the four sequences with the two JD sequences from Genbank (bottom two rows):

JDM-8-20-07 TTTTACACTGGACTGGCTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
JDF8-20-07 TTTTACACTGGACTGGCTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
EBM8-20-07 TTTTACACTGGACTGGCTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
EBF8-20-07 TTTTACACTGGACTGGCTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
DQ119255 TTTTACACTGGACTGGCTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
DQ836808 ----------------CTTTTCTGTTTTAAAATGTACTTTAATTGTGTTTAATGGCAAAA 
********************************************

JDM-8-20-07 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGASTTGCAGCACC 
JDF8-20-07 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGAGTTGCAGCACC 
EBM8-20-07 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGAGTTGCAGCACC 
EBF8-20-07 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGAGTTGCAGCACC 
DQ119255 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGAGTTGCAGCACC 
DQ836808 TTTACACACAGTAAGGCATGTGAAGACTGTGATTCGTTAGATTATGTGACTTGCAGCACC 
************************************************* **********

JDM-8-20-07 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
JDF8-20-07 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
EBM8-20-07 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
EBF8-20-07 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
DQ119255 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
DQ836808 GGATGGCTCATTTTTACGGCTAAGTAAGGCGTAGTAGAGCAGCTCCGGTCAATGAGTTTG 
************************************************************

JDM-8-20-07 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
JDF8-20-07 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
EBM8-20-07 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
EBF8-20-07 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
DQ119255 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
DQ836808 GGTTAGCGGGTAGCTAGCAGCAAGCAGCAGGCCGTGCATGTGTTCAGCTAGCCGCCACAG 
************************************************************

JDM-8-20-07 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
JDF8-20-07 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
EBM8-20-07 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
EBF8-20-07 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
DQ119255 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
DQ836808 AAGCGAGAAAAGGAGACCTTAAGTTCACTTTCAGGGCCGGAGGTTCAGATTTTTTCATTG 
************************************************************

JDM-8-20-07 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
JDF8-20-07 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
EBM8-20-07 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
EBF8-20-07 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
DQ119255 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
DQ836808 TTGCTTATATAGTTGTTTTGTAAGTTCCGCTATATGTCCATGGTGCTGTTATATCCATCT 
************************************************************

JDM-8-20-07 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
JDF8-20-07 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
EBM8-20-07 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
EBF8-20-07 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
DQ119255 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
DQ836808 GCTCAGCGCCTGTGAGCTAGCGCGGTGAGCTCTGGTGCTGCCCCTTTAGGTTAGCGCCGC 
************************************************************

JDM-8-20-07 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGCTCCGCTGCCCTT 
JDF8-20-07 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGCTCCGCTGCCCTT 
EBM8-20-07 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGCTCCGCTGCCCTT 
EBF8-20-07 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGCTCCGCTGCCCTT 
DQ119255 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGCTCCGCTGCCCTT 
DQ836808 TCGCCCCGCAGCTCCTGGCTTTCAGTGAAGGATGGACGTTAAAGATGGTCCGCTGCCCTT 
*********************************************** ************

JDM-8-20-07 CAGCGGTTC--------------------------------------------------- 
JDF8-20-07 CAGCGGTTCTAACCCACATG---------------------------------------- 
EBM8-20-07 CAGCGGTTCTAACCCACATGTCT------------------------------------- 
EBF8-20-07 CAGCGGTTCTAACCCACATGTCTT------------------------------------ 
DQ119255 CAGCGGTTCTAACCCACATGTCTTTATTTCGCCGTGCAGAGACAAAGGCCATGTTCAGTA 
DQ836808 CGGCGGTTCTAACCCACATGTCTTTA---------------------------------- 
* *******

JDM-8-20-07 --- 
JDF8-20-07 --- 
EBM8-20-07 --- 
EBF8-20-07 --- 
DQ119255 CCA 
DQ836808 ---

You might think a PhD in molecular biology would be necessary to understand the information provided in this article, but I have managed, and I am nothing more then your average night auditor at a luxury seaside hotel! It is true however that I have an above average interest in the truth behind whether this beautiful fish is a hybrid or color-morph. I want to get to the bottom of how the Electric Blue Jack Dempsey (EBJD) came to be, and I am willing to go to the extremes to get as much factual information on the subject as possible.

This new round of DNA testing many had hoped would be the nail in the coffin ending the long standing debate over whether or not the EBJD is of hybrid origin, but this information has only given rise to many more questions that are certainly in need of answers. Why exactly does this test not prove 100% conclusively that EBJD is a color-morph? What can be done to find a solid answer on the question that has seemed to leave so many perplexed for so long? While we can answer those two questions, unfortunately the one major question still remains: Is an EBJD a color-morph or a hybrid?

The first time I saw an EBJD was in the early part of 2006 in some pictures on the Cichlid-forum. I believe the famous thread was titled â€˜Ormedâ€™s breeding experienceâ€™. The journal he kept contained pictures of his beautiful EBJD pairing up with a standard Jack Dempsey (Rocio octofasciata). I continued to look through the article and was reading about the complicated breeding procedures used to produce these fish when I stumbled across some photos of Ormedâ€™s tanks filled with juvenile Electric Blues. This was the most outstanding blue color and pattern combination I surely had ever seen. I had been keeping Jack Dempseyâ€™s for many years, and had never seen anything like this before. I remember coming home from a hard nights work, looking at my fish tanks and thinking to myself, â€œIâ€™ve got to acquire one of those EBJDs.â€


----------



## Rivermud

Fantastic information Cole. I also feel it is a color morph. Your closing statement is spot on IMO in that there is no way to conclusively prove this one way or another. It's highly enlightening reading and I appreciate the post.

Thanks for your compliment, I am though, only a hobbyist with a lot of self education.. little bit of classroom learning and a lot of personal research. I originally began to work on learning genetics when I decided to try to work 3 lines of guppies.

Guppies are fantastic critters to learn genetics with. If anyone is interested there is probably more information on guppy genetics online than you can shake a stick at. It provides education about how line breeding works, cross-out, cross-back.. etc there is a wealth of information out there.


----------



## cole

I have bred guppies, but just as food for my EBJDs. I never really had an interest in genetics until recently, but like yourself I am also a self educated artist. I graduated high school, and at the age of 17 I moved by myself to Venice beach, California, and attended Otis College of Art & Design. I spent a little time there and quickly realised an education in art was not worth $10,000 a year. Its pretty simple, all they wanted to teach us was how better to understand yourself so you can express yourself through your art more clearly. I was not willing to pay 10 grand a year to have someone teach me how to become more individualistic. I was already, and still am in touch with my artistic abilities.

So I quickly found a job working at a hotel on the Sunset Strip, and I stayed in Hollywood for over year just learning about life, and how to pay the bills. When I returned to Delaware, I went to the book store and thoroughly educated myself on topics that I felt I had an interest in. I read books about the inner workings of the brain, physics, astronomy and the most intriquing to me, ancient science. I read Plato and Aristotle, then later moved to Einstein and many others. When I wanted to pick up books, I never picked up romance novels or fiction. I like to read about truth, and history.

Surely none of this has much to do with EBJDs. But all my life I have been keeping fish, and many various animals in tanks and cages. Biology, and genetics are surely topics of interest for me. When I got into EBJDs, I had no choice but shove genetics down my own throat. I still don't claim to be a wizard in the feild, but I can say that I have learned a lot, and am willing to learn more.

Your example of guppies is a fine one. Examples like this are needed to better understand the genetics of EBJDs. Even scientists them selves said, that if we can better understand which genes are coded for color in other more well known (genetically) species, then we should have a better idea of how to pinpoint the color gene being expressed in EBJDs. Once we find this gene, apparently we can have more luck tracing it, but I seriously doubt its that simple.

From what I am being told by experts in the feild, to gain a full look into the complete genome of an EBJD will take many years, and tens of thousands of dollars. And even then, after all the time and effort has been spent, the project must be re-run in an effort to show that the results are indeed repeatable. This is a project of enormous proportions, and surely noone in their right mind has the time or money to devote to this venture.

I have a wife, and someday I want to have kids. Its more important to me that they get my attention, then to waste it away on a project that may never pan out.

Cole~


----------



## Rivermud

I think that the most limiting factor in this scenario is the fact that cichlids in general are not very polymorphic. The reason guppies have such a wealth of information published about them is the fact that they are.

It would be easy to argue color morph vs hybridization if there were a few examples of color throws to compare it with. Apistos may offer a good place to start as they have been selectively bred to show unique color morphs.. ie triple reds. Other morphs may happen that go entirely unnoticed in the cichlid world; things such as longer dorsal fins that may be barely perceptible but still bred out or expanded tail rays to produce a wider tail fin similar to half moon and full moon fancy guppies.

The truly hardest part of selectively breeding a line of cichlids is time. Guppies mature fast, can produce new offspring every 26-28 days. Tthey reach sexual maturity at 6-8 months of age and readilly breed at the drop of a hat. Cichlids take forever to grow to maturity, they require very large ammounts of space and they pair up rather than breed openly. An effective line breeding setup for EBJD's or more likely BGJD's would require possibly dozens of tanks and effective pairing rather than the accepted process for guppies which simply keeps each generation of males and females in separate tanks with growout tanks and secluded breeding tanks; an effective line setup for guppies has only 13 tanks and only one of those is a 50.


----------



## thetim6

D*mn!

I have a lot reading to catch up on after class. :lol:


----------



## Number6

cole said:


> From what I am being told by experts in the feild, to gain a full look into the complete genome of an EBJD will take many years, and tens of thousands of dollars. And even then, after all the time and effort has been spent, the project must be re-run in an effort to show that the results are indeed repeatable. This is a project of enormous proportions, and surely noone in their right mind has the time or money to devote to this venture.


Cole, I've read the info before, but I appreciated the additions you've made since I first read that info (and thanks to Dave here on CF of course).

A few things worth mentioning though... there seems to be a focus on this fish being a possible color morph... generally speaking, color morphs are still regular versions of a fish. 
The EBJD is not a regular JD in form or function.

I tend to think of the EB gene as more akin to albinism... it acts like a defect in something that affects multiple areas of development. It's for this reason that I doubt that even linebreeding a healthier EBJD will ever do much for the breed. But that is just me using my crystal ball 

Here's a cute tidbit for you as a EBJD fanatic... did you know that the EBJD was almost called the Jack Blue when it was about to hit the US market?

A few fishie fans really thought that was a terrible name and so the name was changed to the Blue Dempsey... the Electric part came shortly afterwards... 

Marcos Avila was one of the first to suggest that the name Jack Blue needed changing...

Hows that for a useless fact of the day!


----------



## sick_lids

man o man, i just like fish, this conversation has completely flew smooth over my head! all you guys have done your homework! and i thought i liked fish, you guys oughta go to college! haha! good posts guys learned alot, didnt understand alot, but did learn, thats why im here! i love this forum!!!!! :lol: :roll: :thumb:


----------



## GoDSMiLe

Its a good article, and appreciate the time and money you put into it. It seems a little too narrative to be published scientifically IMO, but would make quite the article for a hobbyist magazine like TFH or the article section here on our very own forum. Have you considered trying to get it published where it will reach those most keyed into the issue, i.e. the hobbyists?

Mike


----------



## cole

GoDSMiLe said:


> Its a good article, and appreciate the time and money you put into it. It seems a little too narrative to be published scientifically IMO, but would make quite the article for a hobbyist magazine like TFH or the article section here on our very own forum. Have you considered trying to get it published where it will reach those most keyed into the issue, i.e. the hobbyists?
> 
> Mike


TFH actually has the article now, and I simply refuse to narrow it down. I surely understand that an dediting process must take place, and that is unavoidable no matter where you publish. My problem is, while I agree with editing and proof reading, I don't agree with cutting an article in half, or even into thirds. Taking an article such as this and reducing it by word count, simply kills it. The other problem is that these fish, and what we learn about them, is continually evolving. The information since It was written has changed, in the fact that I have produced viable offspring with a female EBJD, and the fry are gorgeous. Also, someone has come forward who has produced EBJD from EBJD x EBJD. This gentleman has made it very clear, that while they are a viable cross, the greater majority of the fry have deformities. While the cross is mostly detrimental, it is not lethal. I also believe, that I have produced some deformed, runt EBJDs from a EBJD x JD pairing. The majority of my second batch of BGs from the female EBJD are doing terrific. But a small percentage of them never got off the ground. 2 weeks into free swimming for most, I still had odd looking wrigglers on the bottom of the tank. 5 weeks went by, and these lil blue fry were still dragging their faces across the bottom, but still clearly filling their bellies. They have since been culled during water changes in the fry tank, but I almost 100% positive I produced EBJDs from a female EBJD x male JD spawn.

There are just so many new things coming out almost daily about these fish. While we do see deformities in EBJD x EBJD crosses, the fish still live. I have a feeling the lines people are working with during these types of pairings, may be part of the issue. I feel perhaps someday in the near future, someone will achieve this cross(EBJD x EBJD) with a healthier pair(possibly produced by BG X BG) and I feel the fry will have a much smaller percentage of deformities.

Some say that the genes of EBs are laid out in such a fasion, that no matter how much you tweak with line breeding, you may never be able to wash out the bad blood. I disagree. People are actively searching for wild caught specimens to use in their projects, in an effort to inject more wild type genes into them. Doing this, and staying away from inbreeding will most assuredly enhance peoples lines, and I am hoping for a better future for EBJDs. I know I am doing my part.

So you see, there is just a ton of info out there on them now, and a lot of it is evolving constantly. It makes it very complicated to write an accurate article on the topic, unless you can get it published immediatley. And in all honesty, I am really not interested in publishing at this time. I have spoken directly with Dr. Prosanta Chakrabarty on many of occasions and he has encouraged me often to write for The Buntbarsche...I just find it difficult to comply with them. Also, very recently, Marcelo Casacuberta has told me explicitely, after I forwarded him this article, that I should publish in the TFH. And while I did send it over to them to entertain the idea, I have no interest in shortening my writtings to accomodate requirements of a magazine. I would much rather be fair and put it out here for all of you to read, and not have you pay for it. When I decide to publish something, it will be a book if Martin Brammah has not gotten around to it yet. But I can't see me having the time to throw a book together anytime soon. Martin has my blessings though, and I have given him permission to use my photos and words anywhere he choses. Not to go off topic too much, but I would like to congratulate Dr. Bluejax, on his successfull completion of his PhD.

What I am most interested in right now, are my breeding projects. I have a lot going on for myself. I have 7 EBJDs, 5 JDs, 3 gold JDs, 2 carpintis Escondido, 2 tetracanthus, 2 HRPs + 1 leucistic, 2 nanoluteus, and am looking to breed all of them...not to mention my 1000+ BG grow outs and I have an EBJD x JD pair that should have some eggs for me by the morning.

I am just a bit too overwhelmed at the moment to worry about how best to squeeze a lot of info into a short publication. The topic deserves more, and one day it will get it. I am making plans for 2008, to do more investigation into getting more DNA testing done. I am searching for someone to perform karyotypes for me, and possibly even a university professor who may be willing to throw this mammoth project onto their students. When its all said and done however, we need to do a complete genome makeup on 5 fish to get everything sorted out fairly. We need JDs, BGs, EBs, tetracanthis and carpinitis Escondido. I think though, the longer we wait, the further technology will advance, and we will be able to get this done much cheaper and quicker. Already I am seeing home paternity tests hit the market. Surely advances in techonolgy will soon bring us to a place where we can take deeper looks, and in less time. I would hate to spend the years and thousands of dollars it takes, to get my results, only to find out that it can now be done in a couple days for $20. I want to avoid that all costs.

In the meantime, I am moving forward currently with other investigative leads. Dr. Prosanta Chakrabarty, who did the initial EBJD DNA test, has said he was going to perform a second round of testing. I am not sure if he has followed through on this or not, but I will soon have some answers.

I have also been talking with Marcelo Casacuberta(the man who interviewed Hector several times, and the man who wrote the famous article about him for TFH)and he has since invited me to his home town to chat, view some artistic destinations like CasaPueblo, and also to go on a collection trip(no wild JDs included unfortunately). He lives in Uruguay.

He has said also that he will be sending me some slides from the interviews he had with Hector. I have explained elsewhere, and want to explain here, why a lot of this EBJD origination was never documented. The fact of the mater is, in the early part of the 80's, not too many people, if any at all, were on the internet...surely digital cameras were few and far between. The problem we run into, with trying to verify what the original EBJDs look like, is that pictures are not online of them. Well, if they didn't have digital cameras, the internet, and got photos devoloped on slides...this makes it a bit difficult doesn't it. So I have asked Marcelo to look at pictures of my fish, to see if they resemble somewhat, or exactly the fish he was looking at some 20 years ago. I wanted to find out if these fish were changing in appearance through the years. He verified for me, that indeed the photos of the juvies I got from HOLLYWOOD, were indeed identical to the ones he saw in Hectors tanks.

This tells me, that no matter how much back crossing to JDs they took over the years...they still look the same, and many take this as significant evidence. I will hopefully have the slides in the mail from Marcelo soon.

Marcelo also discussed with me, the fact that Hecotr Luzardos son has indeed taken over the business and is still producing EBJDs to this day from the same line. He said he does not believe Hectors son is producing them for export outside of south america however. I asked about the possibility of going down to Argentina and doing another interview with him. He said Hectors family will roll out the red carpet for him anytime he wants to visit...but he is not so sure about other visitors. I don't want to be pushy Marcelo, as I do have the very best intentions.

I want to go down and spend some time with Marcelo, so that he can gauge better what I am after. I realize south americans for the most part dont appreciate outsiders, so I want to prove to him that I don't care about the money.

The reason I think it would be significant to go interview Hectors son, is to put some value on their family in general, and to help put Hector the person into perspective. If we cannot go about this in a genetic sort of way, I would like to use all leads possible, to try and find out what sort of man he really was. From all accounts, he was a great individual, who could have made a lot of money from this miracle that occured. Instead, he only really cared about his trade in painting and his family, and those 2 things apparently came first. I feel if we can get down there, get some photos they may have taken and not published, get an interview directly with family members, we may better be able to gauge what type of guy he really was.

I believe there is a burden of proof in the scientific community. I don't want the burden on me to prove anything to those who think its a hybrid. I just want those who own them to be satisfied that they have the information they deserve after spending the money they did for them. He claimed it to be just two standard jack dempseys that made the blue fry. That means the EBJD are only JD blood, and looking for something else could take forever if there is nothing there in the genetics. So I believe the burden of proof really lies on hybridization theorists. They think something else is in there, and they should have to prove it. How can I prove nothing is there?

Cole~


----------



## Jake Jackson

COLE YOU ROCK!!! AWESOME!!! :thumb: :lol:


----------



## cole

Thanks dude. Apparently I wear my heart on the outside.  Sometimes I write long posts like that and they seemingly scare people away from the conversation instead of drawing them into it. I appologize for that. I am sure people saw the long post again and said,"I'm not reading all that BS again."

:lol: 
Cole~


----------



## eric

*Cole*, this has to be one of the most well thought out posts I have read here. Although it is also one of the longest, it's a very good read. Thank you for taking the time. 

I should mention that the EBJD is listed in the profiles section. www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2323 The Flowerhorn and other hybrid cichlids are not. This site has not made any decisions either way with the EBJD.



cole said:


> I have decided to go ahead and release the full version of this article here today, so that some of you can read over it and make this conversion everything it deserves to be.


 Thank you for letting us have the privilege. It's good reading.



cole said:


> This is a thorn in the side of hybridization theorists, because this means no matter how much DNA testing is done, it will most likely always come out JD. This means even if we do take a close look at the entire genome, it most likely will show all JD DNA, no matter if it is a hybrid or color morph. Until science advances, and gives us a cheaper, faster and more accurate way to look into this, we will never know the real truth.


 I don't believe there are any hybridization theorists. The word _theory_ is a scientific word that has a very different meaning in our common conversations. "Skeptics" may be a better word. Put me in the skeptic category. Personally, I don't need to see EBJD mapped out to have my mind changed. As I stated before, publication followed by peer review and then acceptance by the scientific community would be enough for me. When I stated "publication", what I meant was publication in a scientific journal, which can only be done (best of my knowledge) by one who has the educational credentials.

It is not your admirable efforts that need to be questioned, you are a hobbyist, like me. It's the PhD's who are running the tests that should be publishing the papers. Certainly this fish should capture the attention of more than the cichlid community. If it's indeed a pure bred JD, than it deserves more attention than is has so far.



cole said:


> I say, that if the truth can't be had, then our opinions are all we got. It doesn't matter if you are a molecular biologist or not here, because all of our opinions are equal, and none of the evidence is conclusive...in fact most of it, is one big anomoly. You have many peices of evidence that could sway things in either direction.


 Healthy attitude, but I think there's a point where you can let another person who has the qualifications and reputation help you form your opinion. You did a lot of that with your prior post in citing the PhD's. Who am I to doubt them?



cole said:


> I want to get to the bottom of how the Electric Blue Jack Dempsey (EBJD) came to be, and I am willing to go to the extremes to get as much factual information on the subject as possible.


 You should be applauded for your efforts! :thumb:



cole said:


> The first time I saw an EBJD was in the early part of 2006 in some pictures on the Cichlid-forum.


 And Pandora's box was opened. :lol: :wink:



cole said:


> Lots of people were speculating about genetic weaknesses and about intestinal disorders possibly caused by Hexamita.


 Just a side note, I have been told, and have read here that Hexamita is not found in tropical fishes, perhaps not even in any fishes. Spironucleus is a better fit.

Your story on Genbank was ironic. Small world!



cole said:


> The shape of the fins is without doubt the result of selective breeding, a fact confirmed to me by Jeff Rapps, who initially imported selectively bred long-finned EBJDs for South America before switching to a shorter-finned strain, which proved to be much hardier after shipping.


 This was very informative. This happens to be one of the issues that was bothering me about the EBJD. In other words, why the long fins? Seems to be a plausible answer. My next question, is it me or does the jaw structure also look different?



cole said:


> The way I feel about this issue, is that nothing needs to be proven to the hybrid theorists.


 That's the way you feel and it is neither right nor wrong. I do like that you are aware of how others feel and you have been able to keep passion from tainting your quest for knowledge.



cole said:


> they are extremely beautiful,


 They are, to the point of gaudy. 

I do recall the story of Jack Wattley seeing his first pigeon blood discus. (If I have this story wrong, please correct me) I believe he was at a show in S.E. Asia when he saw the fish for the first time. I believe he quickly drew the conclusion that it was a hybrid, only later changing his mind.

Since the Discus is highly variable and it did not exhibit the morphological differences seen (longer fins, etc) in wild strains of Discus, it quickly became adopted by the public as a pure species. It also helped to have the support of the Discus big wigs. There are some other differences between the pigeon blood and the EBJD, but I will not muddy the waters here. 



Jake Jackson said:


> COLE YOU ROCK!!! AWESOME!!! :thumb: :lol:


 I agree.


----------



## cole

eric said:


> *Cole*, this has to be one of the most well thought out posts I have read here. Although it is also one of the longest, it's a very good read. Thank you for taking the time.


I appreciate the kind words.



eric said:


> I should mention that the EBJD is listed in the profiles section. www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=2323 The Flowerhorn and other hybrid cichlids are not. This site has not made any decisions either way with the EBJD.


That is a very interesting note, and surely I have never put that into perspective like you have.



eric said:


> I don't believe there are any hybridization theorists. The word _theory_ is a scientific word that has a very different meaning in our common conversations. "Skeptics" may be a better word.


Point taken. :thumb: Your wording makes a bit more sense.



eric said:


> And Pandora's box was opened. :lol: :wink:


 :lol: 



eric said:


> Just a side note, I have been told, and have read here that Hexamita is not found in tropical fishes, perhaps not even in any fishes. Spironucleus is a better fit.


Just out of curiousity, have you read this article? http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/VM053
I have been looking for someone with a good microscope for some time now. I have actually been looking at purchasing a microscope that I can attach my camera to. It seems none of the labs in my area are open to the public, and none of the vetinarians know anything about fish. I guess perhaps I could contact a national aqaurium or something.



eric said:


> My next question, is it me or does the jaw structure also look different?


I think there could be an easy explanation for this, as well as a complicated one. An easy one would be to say that many many JDs take on different appearances, and JDs can look different depending on the location they are found. Some JDs have this irregular jaw shape, some do not. I think there is a population of EBJDs out there that look almost identical to JDs, and some that do not. A complicated answer to this question, would be that genetically the color gene and body shape gene are on the same string, and when one chages, the both change to a degree. This explaination has been out there a while, and I am in no position to validate it. I guess the other possibility is that you are looking at hybrid genes showing through. But why on earth this wouldn't be phased out with the back crossing to JDs, is beyond me...but I guess the blue never got phased out either, which if you ask me is even more evidence its not a hybrid. The blue gene remains the same no matter how much new JD blood is introduced. Perhaps both conitions are just recessive and can never be phased out.



eric said:


> I do recall the story of Jack Wattley seeing his first pigeon blood discus. (If I have this story wrong, please correct me) I believe he was at a show in S.E. Asia when he saw the fish for the first time. I believe he quickly drew the conclusion that it was a hybrid, only later changing his mind.
> 
> Since the Discus is highly variable and it did not exhibit the morphological differences seen (longer fins, etc) in wild strains of Discus, it quickly became adopted by the public as a pure species. It also helped to have the support of the Discus big wigs. There are some other differences between the pigeon blood and the EBJD, but I will not muddy the waters here.


This is an interesting story, and I deffinately would like to hear more about it. perhaps I will search the net for this topic.

Thanks for the post Eric. :thumb:

Cole~


----------



## eric

I appreciate your replies Cole. 

The article on Hexamita seems more like a summary, not a primary source. Try...

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/d ... tozoan.php
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/spironucleus.php

Terry Fairfiled, author of A Commonsense Guide To Fish Health discusses spironucleus and hexamita. He runs some interesting tests and does a postmorteum with a microscope. Fish under stress were "swarming" with spironucleus in the intestinal tract when subject to stress. Unstressed fish had minimal spironucleus, but they were there. I'm lucky enough to know Terry and he told me that the fish he chose was Angelfish and the test he used subjected the Angels to a condition that simulated shipping in a styro box. I believe Terry also told me that it is spironucleus, not hexamita that is found in cichlids.

Another more interesting side note. I have not been able to find a single source of evidence that hexamita causes "Hole in the Head". Scroll down 2/3 of the way down this article http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/oscar_cichlid.php

The differing jaw structures and the different finnage seems all too suspect to me. I can accept the explanation of the finnage, but the jaw seems to be a bit of a reach.

I know we agree that the jury is still out on this one, we just lean to different directions. That allows us to save face if either one is proven! 

I think the Wattley story was in an old TFH. Let me know if you find it so my memory can be refreshed.


----------



## GoDSMiLe

cole said:


> Some JDs have this irregular jaw shape, some do not. I think there is a population of EBJDs out there that look almost identical to JDs, and some that do not. A complicated answer to this question, would be that genetically the color gene and body shape gene are on the same string, and when one chages, the both change to a degree. This explaination has been out there a while, and I am in no position to validate it. I guess the other possibility is that you are looking at hybrid genes showing through. But why on earth this wouldn't be phased out with the back crossing to JDs, is beyond me...but I guess the blue never got phased out either, which if you ask me is even more evidence its not a hybrid. The blue gene remains the same no matter how much new JD blood is introduced. Perhaps both conitions are just recessive and can never be phased out.


I like the analogy of the genes on a string. When cells divide, the complimentary chromosomes line up together and have the opportunity to cross, where they exchange genes with one another. This is the basis for "random assortment" of genes in classic genetics.

The chances of this happening between any two genes on the same chromosome is dependent on the distance between the two genes (the more length between two given genes, the greater the amount of area for a cross to occur).

The idea with the jaw structure, poor fitness, and other noticeable traits seen in EBJDs and not in JDs is that these unique features are found on genes really close to the EB gene, and therefore ones where there is not much chance of cross to occur between them.

If there is no crossing between them, then the genes are inherited together, so that an EBJD gene will come with the gene(s) for the jaw structure and the gene(s) for reduced fitness.

Mating EBJDs with wild stock is used so that when crossing does occur between the chromosome from the wild parent and the one with the EBJD, the genes taken from the wild parent replace those of less fitness from the EBJD parent and the next generation of EBJD is stronger for it.

Hopefully with enough attempts, crossing will occur between the EBJD and those deleterious genes associated with it, and people will be able to enjoy an EBJD with the same fitness as a normal JD but less color. Thats the idea at least.

While it may seem alittle far fetched to have all these bad genes really close to the EBJD, it could in reality be one single gene with multiple symptoms. If, for example, this "bad gene" lead to a disruption in the normal formation of the jaw bones of the fish, it could result simultaneously in the distinct appearance of the jaw as well as say a malformed throat due to the weird jaw structure around it, reducing its fitness for example. I'm not saying this is what occurs, but rather posing a possibility to what could be occurring.

And as an aside, I would be surprised if the EBJD ever gets any attention from a peer reviewed scientific journal, as there are too many new species being proposed/discovered for much effort to be placed on what is essentially a hobbyist's concern. Though hybridization is obviously a serious scientific concern, I can't see an ichthyology scientific journal dedicating space to the EBJD discussion over that of classification, reclassification, or new species discoveries. Think of all the L# plecos, Apistogramma sp."", etc. that need to be classified and then compare it to what would essentially at its best be the verification of a color morph of a well known cichlid. It just doesn't have the same draw.

Mike


----------



## Shwaine

eric said:


> The burden of proof clearly lies with the believers that this hybrid is a true Dempsey. It's not the other way around.


Actually, what you are asking for is a logical falacy: proving a negative. From a purely logical standpoint, one cannot prove a negative because there are infinite possibilities one has to disprove. From a practical standpoint, it is easy to prove something is a hybrid; just find a gene that does not exist in one species but does exist in another. It is quite another thing to prove something isn't a hybrid since you would have to check that every single sequence of DNA exists somewhere in the parent species and that there is no sequence that is unique to another species. It is an exhaustive search that is not feasible with the current technology. You can provide evidence that a fish is not a hybrid by showing that certain DNA segments match the JD population, but nothing more than that. There will always be naysayers with such evidence because you can't prove a negative.


----------



## Rivermud

Shwaine.. that was awesome.. please be my Mr Spock. You can call me Jim if you wanna..  j/k


----------



## cole

cole said:


> So I believe the burden of proof really lies on hybrid theorists. They think something else is in there, and they should have to prove it. How can I prove nothing is there?


Thats how I feel Shwaine. They don't believe the mans claim, they should prove him wrong. I surely can't find something, if its not there. If they believe there is other species involved, i believe they should work toward finding it. If they don't agree our DNA sequences are enough evidence, they should supply some evidence of their own...which noone has taken the effort to do. That I know of.

At any rate like I said, eventually technology will advance far enough where we can get clearer answers in a shorter amount of time and in a more precise manner. We just need to wait it out, and in the meantime improve on the line.

I think the most important issue with EBJDs right now is not declaring it hybrid or color morph. The most important issue to me right now is working to make it a healthier fish so we can enjoy them and not have to worry about sudden and premature deaths. I am interested in working together with people to make progress for this species regardless of what the findings eventually are.

Cole~


----------



## Shwaine

cole said:


> I have been looking for someone with a good microscope for some time now. I have actually been looking at purchasing a microscope that I can attach my camera to.


Somewhat off-topic, but for those interested in acquiring scientific level equipment without sticker shock, check the universities in your area. Some will sell their old equipment to the public. Sometimes it's auctions and other times it's a direct sell. I still wish I had picked up a good microscope when I was in graduate school at UC Davis since they had a great used equipment setup (the Bargain Barn for any in the area). Somewhat on topic, I even remember seeing an old DNA sequencer for sale there once. Buying old equipment from a university is a great way to get laboratory grade equipment for a decent price.


----------



## SeriousCichlids

so most sites say that EBJD are breed this way:

Female JD and Male EBJD

grow out fry then pick out females from this set of fry

then take the female fry and breed back with the dad Male BJD

But could this be possible too?

Female EBJD and Male EBJD

grow out fry then pick out females from this set of fry

then take the female fry and breed back with the dad Male BJD

Just curious?? Are they both similar? Which would be more successful? Which would have less deformities?

Thanks


----------



## auratum

SeriousCichlids said:


> so most sites say that EBJD are breed this way:
> 
> Female JD and Male EBJD
> 
> grow out fry then pick out females from this set of fry
> 
> then take the female fry and breed back with the dad Male BJD
> 
> But could this be possible too?
> 
> Female EBJD and Male EBJD
> 
> grow out fry then pick out females from this set of fry
> 
> then take the female fry and breed back with the dad Male BJD
> 
> Just curious?? Are they both similar? Which would be more successful? Which would have less deformities?
> 
> Thanks


The problem with Female EBJD x Male EBJD is that the fry are very week and only a few have ever produced living fry from this type of cross. Even those who have done this, have lost all the fry at a very early age (2 weeks old). There are lots of theories why this is, but at this point no one has produced quality EBJD's from an EB x EB. There are many who believe that if we continue to improve the quality and vigor through out-crossing to diverse and wild JD's that at some point in the future this kind of cross could be successful.

Hope this helps...


----------



## SeriousCichlids

auratum...thank you for your response....just one question

just to clarify, you say that if you breed EBxEB, you will not get a quality EB set of fry, that they die off early and that it is really hard to grow them out....

but I thought if you take an EB X EB, grow out those fry....even if it is small numbers....then take the females from that fry and breed them back with the original (dad) EB.....would that work??

Not saying that it wouldnt take a long time....or even that a lot of fry would survive, but lets just say that if we were in a perfect world, and the fry survived....would it work this way.....

Let me know....also, do you know any sites that have explained how they bred and the results they found....

Thanks


----------



## auratum

SeriousCichlids said:


> just to clarify, you say that if you breed EBxEB, you will not get a quality EB set of fry, that they die off early and that it is really hard to grow them out....


Correct - sort of any way. Maybe I wasn't clear enough - no one that I am aware of has raised EB x EB fry beyond about 2 weeks much less to breeding size.



SeriousCichlids said:


> but I thought if you take an EB X EB, grow out those fry....even if it is small numbers....then take the females from that fry and breed them back with the original (dad) EB.....would that work??


 All this accomplishes is more inbreeding. Most people believe the main issue with EB is that they are too inbred. Not sure why you would want to do this? The recommended breeding pattern is to breed a JD x EB and these fry would be Blue Gene's or BG's. You would then cross a BG x EB with the EB preferably being different than the original father EB. The purpose of this is to bring as diverse of genetics as possible. A better option yet is to cross BG's from unrelated parent to each other - the percentage of EB would be lower (25% vs. 50%) but they would be stronger growing fry.



SeriousCichlids said:


> Not saying that it wouldnt take a long time....or even that a lot of fry would survive, but lets just say that if we were in a perfect world, and the fry survived....would it work this way.....


 It could work, but the fish created would be so weak that you couldn't keep them alive...



SeriousCichlids said:


> Let me know....also, do you know any sites that have explained how they bred and the results they found....


Two sites I frequent where all this information can be found:
http://AllThingsDempsey.com & http://bluejax.14.forumer.com


----------



## SeriousCichlids

ok I understand, but what about if the EB female and the EB male are from different groups = they are not related?

would that be better?


----------



## auratum

SeriousCichlids said:


> ok I understand, but what about if the EB female and the EB male are from different groups = they are not related?
> 
> would that be better?


Yes that would be better, but from my understanding it has been tried unsuccessfully - even by the original breeder in SA. Background on these guys can be found here http://bluejax.co.uk/colourmorph.aspx


----------



## Toby_H

I've bred Blue (from Ormed's first pair) x Blue (from Rapps) which are about as 'unrelated' as we can get with Blue Dempseys and the fry were weak and did not survive...

In my opinion... breeding Blue x Blue has been attempted sufficiently to determine it will result in an unsuccessful brood...


----------



## mr limpet

Great to see you again Toby.Found another 5 inch male EBJD(got him off of ebay from some guy in the Bronx)to try and pair up with my(I was told when I bought her)Blue Gene female.They are in my 90 gallon,and my original 6 inch EBJD male is in my 46 bow with another (I was told when I bought him)Blue Gene male.Looking for another female to pair up with one of them.Waiting for the female in the 90 to go through her cycle(lol but I believe it's true too).You had told me that months ago when I was trying to pair up another 2 JDs.


----------



## Jake Levi

Whether hybrid or morph, is for all practical purposes moot, the evidence is that its a weak variety genetically with low hardiness, so the only real productive method is to max out cross. Breeding back to a parent increases inbreeding, is inbreeding.

To effectively breed EBs will in my opinion require a number of lines and combinations.

Evidence so far indicates the EB female is not as hardy as a BG or standard JD, so the use of male EBs is more productive.

The mode that seems to be the productive one from the experienced breeders who have posted is to breed a male EB to a female JD to produce BGs, and then select a female BG to breed to a non related EB, along the way do a lot of selection and culling to select the hardiest of the EBs and BGs and add in regular JD stock every couple of generations.

I believe that successfully making a line of hardy EBs is going to take a lot of tanks and time dedicated to them. But it would be rewarding.


----------



## dogofwar

I agree, Jake.

Whether EBJDs are technically the result of hybridization or the result of mutations / deformations in wild-type JDs is a moot point.

It's kind of like caring if a bright orange balloon molly has blood from more than one species of molly in it...



Jake Levi said:


> Whether hybrid or morph, is for all practical purposes moot, the evidence is that its a weak variety genetically with low hardiness, so the only real productive method is to max out cross. Breeding back to a parent increases inbreeding, is inbreeding.


----------



## Jake Levi

Hi 'Dog'

My next brood of EB fry will be my first, but, I have bred a LOT of regular JDs over the years, 
the first ones back around 1964 I think. In the meantime my grad degree was in fisheries science, and I've been reading everything I find on EBs on the forums. There is ample good reports by folks who have been breeding them and have been writing good reports on their results, no real reason to reinvent the wheel on this.

Select the best standard JDs you can find, find a very good EB female, pair them and breed them in time and sort and cull the fry strictly, while looking for a very good, strong EB male to breed to, repeat, and alternate each generation with a strong and hardy BG on a carefully selected EB male.

By breeding back to the standard JD/EB cross you will keep on reintroducing the standard mitochondrial DNA while maintaining the EB color.

Eventually you should develop a good hardy aquarium strain.


----------



## illy-d

So I was just talking to my wife (who is a Genome Scientist with a masters degree in molecular biology) and telling her about the breeding and development of EBJD and how you use the punnet square to figure out your percentage of EBJD fry and BGJD fry and she brought up a good point that I don't has been considered yet...

Most fish are Polyploidal which means that they have more then two sets of homologous chromosones... This means that the punnet square that is used for Mandelian Genetics (dominant & recessive traits) becomes much more complicated as you could have double the variables (if they have 4 sets of chromosomes for example)... She mentioned she's worked with salmon and they have 4 sets opposed to our two but she doesn't know how many sets of chromosomes cichlids or jack dempseys specifically have...

When the genetic testing was done did they look into if JD's were polyploidal?

Knowing if they are could help with the breeding of EBJD's and possibly increase the percentage of EBJD fry....

For the record I lean toward the colour morph argument for these fish.


----------



## auratum

illy-d said:


> Most fish are Polyploidal which means that they have more then two sets of homologous chromosones...


Are you sure "most" fish are? I am not a geneticist, but I have studief polyploidy due to my interest in flower breeding. From my reading, I understood polyploidy to be fairly common in the plant kingdom, but exceptionally uncommon in the animal kingdom.

The details to the genetic testing can be found in a thread on AllThingsDempsey.com...


----------



## ken kennedy

There are two other fish species with blue variants similar to the EBJD. The blue Rainbow Trout (BRT) ( http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/co ... ll/97/1/89 ) and the Platinumblue Angelfish. It was a surprise for me to find out that the genetics for all three fish species are similar; pleiotropic recessive with deleterious effects. With the Blue Rainbow trout though, three different blue variants have been discovered in three different countries; Japan, USA and France. The Japanese BRT has the most deleterious blue gene variant. It had the distinctive feature of being associated with severe reproductive abnormalities inducing complete sterility in both sexes because of the lack of a large part of the pituitary gland. the French variant however is the least deleterious and both sexes are fertile.

The Blue coloration in the EBJD, is likely the result of a mutation, similar that in the BRT and Platinum blue angelfish and not hybridization. As for the change in some physical features, genes that are pleiotropic can have multiple effects on the phenotype. The Japanese BRT gene not only affects coloration but development of some organ systems as well. With humans having autism, there are physical traits associated with autism.


----------



## Toby_H

Very good information Ken... thanks a ton!

The only similar example I had prior to your post was a Blue Tegu... which is a reptile not a fish...

Good to know that although uncommon... such mutations aren't unheard of in fish...


----------



## illy-d

auratum said:


> illy-d said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most fish are Polyploidal which means that they have more then two sets of homologous chromosones...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you sure "most" fish are? I am not a geneticist, but I have studief polyploidy due to my interest in flower breeding. From my reading, I understood polyploidy to be fairly common in the plant kingdom, but exceptionally uncommon in the animal kingdom.
> 
> The details to the genetic testing can be found in a thread on AllThingsDempsey.com...
Click to expand...

I'd have to verify that - 'most' may have been my word not hers... I do recall her saying that Salmon are for sure polyploidal as she has worked with them...


----------



## SteelFist

Shwaine said:


> Something that might help conceptualize this better is to think about more common examples of this phenomena in other places. For example, certain breeds of dogs are prone to things like hip problems or certain populations of humans are more prone to things like sickle cell anemia. It has nothing to do with outwards appearance but instead has to do with the history of the population, which usually included a period of isolation that caused inbreeding. Not that all inbreeding is bad, but if there are negative recessive traits present in the original population, inbreeding will increase the frequency of that trait in the descendants of that population. There's actually a formula to calculate this.


I agree, outwards appearance may have nothing to do with it. In the case of sickle cell anemia, two people have to harbor the sickle cell trait then there is a 70% chance that their child can get the anemia. Having said that, I can understand where you're coming from.

I personally will not purchase an EBJD again as I have had deaths due to bloat while every other tankmates strived. Clearly these fish are more prone to illness as previously mentioned and many of you have had much success, but I have not so I'm done.


----------



## heller08

My understanding, without getting too scientific, is that they are a recessive gene trait. Breeding electric blues with electric blues will not give you more electric blues. To get the electric blues you have to breed a regular baby with the recesive gene to a male electric blue. Foe some breeders that means daughters and dads being bred together. This type of line-breeding is what causes them to be less hardy than their counterpart. With the right amount of genetic material you should be able to get a stronger strain, but we are still dealing with a recessive gene trait and will alway have some difficulties. Be careful to pick a strong looking individual fish when and if you decide to try them


----------



## Lancerlot

heller08 said:


> My understanding, without getting too scientific, is that they are a recessive gene trait. Breeding electric blues with electric blues will not give you more electric blues. To get the electric blues you have to breed a regular baby with the recesive gene to a male electric blue. Foe some breeders that means daughters and dads being bred together. This type of line-breeding is what causes them to be less hardy than their counterpart. With the right amount of genetic material you should be able to get a stronger strain, but we are still dealing with a recessive gene trait and will alway have some difficulties. Be careful to pick a strong looking individual fish when and if you decide to try them


I like the Artical I read of a guy breading Wild caught jack demspey Femal with a EBJD and no fry had the gene.


----------



## Toby_H

Blue Dempseys pass their coloration the same way Albinos do... the same way Leucistics do...

Tons of misinformation and speculation have been passed around the hobbyists by people repeating what they've "heard"...

Do a quick search on Mendelian genetics and you will find that scientists have thoroughly explored, documented and understand the way that their coloration is passed...


----------



## Electrophyste

Why all the focus on EBJD, if it is a hybrid, why is everyone making such a fuss over it and have a problem with it when there i clearly other SA/CA hybrids out there that dont get "frowned apon" by the community, why cant ppl just leave it at it a truly remarkable looking fish as well as most other hybrids. If they hybridize in a tank then it most likely could happen in the wild IMO.

I personally think its a color morph though, really what would you breed a JD with to make such a bright fish.


----------



## Lancerlot

Electrophyste said:


> Why all the focus on EBJD, if it is a hybrid, why is everyone making such a fuss over it and have a problem with it when there i clearly other SA/CA hybrids out there that dont get "frowned apon" by the community, why cant ppl just leave it at it a truly remarkable looking fish as well as most other hybrids. If they hybridize in a tank then it most likely could happen in the wild IMO.
> 
> I personally think its a color morph though, really what would you breed a JD with to make such a bright fish.


its just a color morph. Like I said I read a article of a guy breeding a EBJD to a wild caught JD Male. The Wild JD genes were much stronger and none of the fry showed any Blue like the EBJD even at 3". So if it was a hybrid it would have come out way different.

Sadly if this happened in the wild. The fry would be killed by the other fry almost soon as they were big enough. Nothing that is weak lives. Natural selection. Which makes me wonder what other things will happen as we continue to breed cichlids in captivity. What new colors will we see? how many other species of cichlids has this happened to in the wild/ lol I love Evolution,


----------



## ClearMud

they are just weak links that normally die.

that is why they aren't as aggressive as normals.


----------



## stizos

Interesting topic! An interesting fish! :thumb: There is new information on this subject?


----------



## stizos

Another question: Are there any known cases of produce offspring in pairs with a female electric blue Jack Dempsey


----------



## stizos

Thank you all for the quick response)))) Checked. Female Blue Dempsey gives valuable offspring










Now fry two weeks.


----------

