Ben Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I was asked the other day if I had heard the theory that when an F0 (wild caught specimen) breeds with a F1 (first generation, young from wild caught parents) the fry are still to be considered as F0. I hadn’t, has anyone else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 um, wouldn't they be F2 if such a thing exists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Some say that yes, but others say different. We here at ACE/SCP have always said F0 x F1 = F2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
orcy Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 i have seen this discussed ad nauseum on other sites, and the general consensus is that they are neither F0, F1 or F2 in the strictest genetics stakes, they should be listed as simply F0 x F1 personally, if the F0 is a different bloodline to the F1, i think they are F1, if they are the same bloodline (father/daughter, mother/son), then at the minimum they are still F1. F2 results from two F1 from the same brood (sister/brother) breeding. I found this to be an excellent brief discussion on the topic http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/cich...eding_terms.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Good article, I had made the incorrect assumption that Fx denoted generations from the wild, not generations inbred. So I guess fry from two wild caughts from slightly different locations (but same varient) could be termed F0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Nice question Ben My take on it is this If the fry of wildcaughts grow and breed back to te group then they group would stay a wild caught group, for name sake and not genetically speaking. Fry removed would be F1. My reason being that how do I know when my group of wildcaught tropheus becomes a group of F1's? So I guess the fry from the group of F0/F1's would be F1's. I know it makes no sense, but I dont know how to keep track of it any other way. Josh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E4G13M4N Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 From what i have read in the past F1 does not always mean first generation from wildcaught. The term has also been used by some importers/breeders as first generation from unrelated parents. So you could have F what ever as the parents. I have never personally liked the so called F0 - F1 system, as you really have to trust the source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
burgoid Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 the filial system is'nt just used for fish breeding. it is used widley throughout biology to define the, genetics of or relating to a generation or the sequence of generations following the parental generation. meaning it is not the number of generation removed from the wild as most poeple bieleve but how far a particular generation is removed from their parents assuming inbreeding ( brother x sister ). this is how many of the "GI" foods have come about, by "line" breeding from selected parents that have the desired characteristics, ( either dominant or reccesive ). Gregor Mendel ( regarded as "the Father of Genetics" ) pioneering work invovlved experiments concerning inheritance patterns ( genes). mendal observed that characteristics could be masked in one generation of peas. ( not fish but close enough )but could re apear in latter generations. these being the recessive genes, which dont show up until both of the parents are homozygote ( meaning they both have the same recessive genes.) haha sorry about the big biology lecture but i tend to find this real interesting, i guess most of you that are into breeding would be cheers Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 i have seen this discussed ad nauseum on other sites, and the general consensus is that they are neither F0, F1 or F2 in the strictest genetics stakes, they should be listed as simply F0 x F1 personally, if the F0 is a different bloodline to the F1, i think they are F1, if they are the same bloodline (father/daughter, mother/son), then at the minimum they are still F1. F2 results from two F1 from the same brood (sister/brother) breeding. I found this to be an excellent brief discussion on the topic http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/cich...eding_terms.php ← In the strictest genetic sense, your paper would be used as kindling if you used the term F0. There is no such thing. (Technically the chances are they would probably be F1 because their parents are unlikely to be related, but they may not be) 'F2 results from two F1 from the same brood (sister/brother) breeding.' this part is semi correct, however it applies to brother/sisters from seperate spawns/births. However, F1 is the correct term for offspring of any mating of unrelated parents. They could be a million generations from wildcaught but unless the parents are direct relations, their fry are the F1 generation. That's talking in the strictest scientific sense, not really in fish hobbiest speak, but I thought it needed to be said. Good article, I had made the incorrect assumption that Fx denoted generations from the wild, not generations inbred. So I guess fry from two wild caughts from slightly different locations (but same varient) could be termed F0? ← No Ash, they would be F1. What we do with new bloodlines/wildcaught fish is assume they are unrelated and call their fry F1 (which is entirely correct assuming the wild parents aren't siblings etc). If those fry are then bred back to local stock from another source or fry from a seperate group of imports for instance, then as a hobbiest we would loosely use the term F2, when in actual fact they are F1 by being bred back to unrelated fish. Personally I agree with Josh. To keep track of them as best you can in this kind of hobby is fine. Give as much info as you can on the heritage of the fish to people who want them for breeding and everybody wins. I also should add I personally have no problem with the generic term F0 being used for wildcaughts in a non-scientific hobby. Just so long as it's not passed off as scientific information/terminology. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ash Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Doh! brain fart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cobaltcraig Posted January 15, 2006 Share Posted January 15, 2006 Maybe they could be called f1 1/2s just kidding Cheers Craig Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
couchy Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 i was with Ash? and agree with Ducksta on that it may not be scientific but I am happy with the F0 denoting wild and F1 their offspring F2 = 2nd generation from wild etc. But as for F0 x F1 also being F1???? My opinion would be that the idea of new blood was that the species deteriorates with each generation or imbreed. therefore the fry from any parent would be the next generation of the latest number. Or if my mum was my dads mum i wouldn't call my dad bro but in the x'ing of different generations i'd prefer to see 'F0xF1' than just 'F1' on the other hand, unfortunately, how would you know???? Cheers Couchy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AzFish Posted January 16, 2006 Share Posted January 16, 2006 have to agree F0 x F1 you get F2... or how about we make a new one F1 and 1/2?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.