"Perhaps my present goal should be breeding healthy double-tails; Make an attempt to lengthen bodies and straighten spines, as this deformity has not gotten the attention it needs in breeding."
I believe one problem many have is that you cannot breed two double tails without getting deformed fish. The gene is double recessive, and must be bred to a non-double-tail. All of those offspring will be single-tails, but with the recessive DT gene. Then, the fry are bred with other fish with single tails carrying the DT gene; the resulting fry will be about 25% ST/ST (with one tail), 50% ST/DT (with one tail), and 25% DT/DT (with TWO tails ). These 25% are the double-tails you see on the shelf with the straight spines and nice fins. As mentioned, it is important to research the genes involved and the tendencies of recessive genes to clash if bred improperly with poor results. That all being said, happy reading, and producing lovely healthy double-tails is a great goal! :)
What is the reason of breeding a no fin fish
How can it improve the line
Dt is use to balance the fin n improve the top fin
Pk is use to thicken body n ray n shorten the fin
Vt is to bring out length of the tail
That's y they are still being bred
Rt is just a heavy branch hm
Ct never really look into history of creation but my guess is that it was selective breeding from messy fin fish
Ee big ear it just a phase fish
Like the diamond eye
I'm not telling u not to breed her
It's your choice
No matter what tail type you are working with you will get some deformities that will vary from minor to extreme-The difference is that not all will have that deformity and will meet the standard set forth by the IBC....Like with the doubletails, I work with the doubletail and I will get 1:50 average with bent spines that vary in degree, however, if that was reversed and I only got 1:50 straight spine-then I would draw that line.....
I am a little more knowledgeable about genetics then you believe. I understand the concept of receive genes and cross breeding, so that is beside the point. In breeding DTs I would be focusing on spine length, because I almost never see DTs with acceptable spines. This, of course, would require a lot of culling or keeping a LOT of fry for myself. But this is a standard set by each breeder on his or her own. While some may opt to keep many imperfect fish, other breeders prefer to cull any fish that does not meet their standards. And, some people just can't handle culling half their fry. I understand the necessity for acting as mother nature. Of course, this relates to the next post;
Originally Posted by ChardFish
Okay, I do not believe the question was whether or not to breed for tail-less bettas, I think that animal was an example of a non-life-threatening deformity that can leave a fish still capable of enjoying life.
I obviously couldn't have said this better myself. No, I don't mean Tidbit exactly. But I am using her as a prime example.
Oldfishlady I don't believe others would love a tailess betta as much as I do, though the prospect of breeding her to see what her tail type truly is, or if she can produce offspring with interesting (safe) mutations is an interesting one.
What limit do you think is acceptable? When is it that you can attempt to breed a new mutation? I understand the genetics and the risks, I am looking for the reason it isn't done more often, I guess?
When it comes to breeding a tail-less betta, their quality of life is affected more than you'd think. For example, body language. Bettas use their caudals probably the most to express what they are feeling. If a female approaches her in a way she doesn't like, she can't span out her caudal and flare in response. This is a BIG handicap in breeding too- its precarious enough for the poor girls, but to be missing a way to communicate "I don't like that, stop approaching me!" could very easily result in a fight breakout, because they can't easily understand what they are saying to one another. It's like a horse's ears- perked generally means interested and outgoing, while pinned backwards means "stay away from me." If a horse didn't have ears, it'd be missing that way of communicating to other horses - and people- what they are trying to get across.
Also, just because she doesn't have a caudal doesn't mean she doesn't get bit on the caudal peduncle. IMHO it'd be less painful to be bit on the tail than the body. Not exactly an "edge," or step up if you ask me. IMO don't ever breed her. =/
That is a very good argument against breeding Tidbit specifically. She tends to do better in fights then her tank mates, as she uses her body for attack and can do more damage, but you are right that any bites would be to her body not her fins, meaning they may hurt more. But I honestly have no intention of breeding her. I am far too inexperienced. She is simply an example.
Other deformities I have seen are tails that have an extra mass of fin on each side of the body, making them look more like fancy goldfish. This is no more dangerous then excessive fins in a half-moon or delta. Half-moon is, itself, a deformity, one that has been bred into the species, and it has it's own drawbacks for the fish; Betta with large tails are more prone to injury, have a harder time moving and can suffer fin rot if the water conditions are wrong. They are much more sensitive to their environment then, say, plakets. Big ear fish are another example. So why is this acceptable and something like Tidbit, or another equal mutation, unacceptable?
I am beginning to believe it is simply a matter of personal morals more then anything.
I agree with OldFishLady, in the wild, the fish with deformities are culled. However I feel like experimenting is totally fine if there is a goal that the person wants to fulfill. The only reason I understand why someone would not breed a finless female is because such a deformity, based on my genetics background as I have a BS in biology, Would lead me to believe she has alot of other bad traits that are just WAITING to come out. Deformities usually come in pairs or more, so even if the phenotype ( what you see for example no tail) only shows one problem or deformity. I guarantee that she has alot of extra health issues that will come through later on in the line because of what lies in the genotype (what we don't see) .
I have an interesting perspective as I keep both wild bettas and domesticated splendens. In my experience splendens are so much more delicate than wild bettas. They seem much more prone to disease and neurotic behaviors such as glass surfing and tail biting. This is probably due in part to the massive and rather indiscriminate overbreeding of them by wholesalers.
Personally, I would never breed for something that is of further detriment to the fish. This means I would not breed for oversized pectorals (I found them are prone to tearing and slow to heal), short or 'balloon' type bodies or overly excessive finnage. I also do not like the breeding of RT fish or fish with actual physical deformities such as your female with no tail.
I cannot see the point in spawning a fish with no tail. You don't know what kind of genes are at play to cause that kind of issue, and whether these same genes will be expressed in any future generations. Also, I think it needs to be a specific type of mutation (germ-line?) to actually be passed on.
I also cannot see the aesthetics in breeding for a lack of caudal fin. The ideal betta tends towards perfect or near perfect symmetry, and a betta with no tail throws the whole image off.
That is just my opinion on the matter. I personally lean towards keeping the form and shape of my fish as natural as possible. Therefore, I have more females and HMPKs than I do any other tail type. I just hope that bettas do not eventually go the way of the goldfish. I feel that sometimes certain attributes we breed into these fish border on cruelty.
The British Bulldog. It was once a BULL dog, ie, it was used for bull-baiting, and thus was a very nimble and hardy breed of dog.
Now they cannot see well, cannot walk or breathe well, don't live long, have joint issues and many males cannot mount a female without human help.
This is what 'refining' the breed for show has done to this dog. It is now a pathetic example of its species that cannot exist at all if humans aren't there to help it cope with its genetic deformities.
When I was showing my cats, I learned there was an actual rule passed that a Persian cat's nose cannot be higher than its eyes.
What? Imagine a cat with a nose so pushed in it looks like a bellybutton and barely permits the animal to breathe (ie, the nose of what passes for a 'normal' Persian these days) -- but in the middle of its forehead. That it was deemed -necessary at all- to make this rule (in the interest of the cats, who could not breathe at all) tells me a lot about the selfishness and lack of care for animals many breeders of Persian cats must possess.
But I bet those same breeders just wuv their fwuffy kitties to pieces!!! And would be horrified at the suggestion they do not care for their cats. It's IMO quite insane.
Breeding fish that cannot swim well, fish that cannot effectively live according to the instincts of their species due to mutation... I just think it's the same kind of self-justified selfishness and lack of care shown by the breeders of the unfortunate animals above.
If there is a goal to breeding that includes fish which cannot function well as living beings in general (fins too long to allow ease of motion, constitution too delicate to permit good health, deformed spine, inherent risks of blindness..etc) then it is a selfish goal and not one that I, personally, can see any value in at all for the species, nor the animal itself.
But playing god with genetics to find the next most fashionable mutation is never really about the animal, is it?