Heckels?

[ShinShin]

I am willing to conceed that there are many more people who know more about Heckels than I, however, I have seen what I have seen, that being a tankful of 2.5" Asian bred Heckel x Heckel juveniles (like I said, at least 75 pieces). These were not crosses, either. All looked like a clone of each other, and that being the physical characteristics of Heckel discus including very pronounced bars 1, 5. and 9, brown base body color, and very even horizontal blue striations. These were Heckel discus.

I have also seen Ray Kosaka's Heckle crosses he imported from Singapore and have a friend who has successfully spawned them. Like I said, you can read about this right here on Simply. Dennis Hardenburger is the man who spawned them. He also was the first to report the successful spawning of wild Curiepera's on any of the forums.This, plus all the photos that were posted on breeder sites of the many Heckel crosses. As I have already stated, there was even pics of a golden discus with the black 5th bar resembling an Ica Red discus. A man in Austarlia (teddyJ was his web name) also crossed a Heckel male to a solid orange pigeionblood female attempting to produce a solid orange discus with the pronounced 5th bar. To his disappointment, all fry resulted in no bars at all. Photos were posted on Discus Page Holland beginning with the actual spawning through the free swimming stage.

I don't know what else a person has to do to prove that these spawnings have taken place. Am I to believe that all these web site posting were frauds? That the discus I have seen were really not there? That my friend lied? Ray Kosaka and Yeng are full of BS? And what about all the pics of Heckel x Heckel, Heckel x wild blue, and Heckel x domestic in the book Asian Discus? That book has to be at least 7-8 years old now. Korean breeder Kim Young Gat had already bred Heckels to F3's at the time the book was published. Degen and Schmidt-Focke show their Heckel offspring in books published in '87 & '89.

Mat

[Apistomaster]

Hi Mat,
The burden of proof does not fall on you but rather the breeders. If they wanted to they could reveal the steps they took to produce those "Heckels" you have seen.
Schmidt-Focke was able to demonstrate that Hybrids were no longer viable beyond F4 at most. The same thing applies to true green X other discus hybrids.

There is also the issue of mistaken identiy to take into consideration. There are wild discus that appear to be Heckels but are not in fact Heckels.
The plasticity of artificially bred discus has been proven obvious and a Heckel look alikes could be easily be selectively bred from haraldi stock. Phenotypes are not genotypes.(An intriging possibility on it's own merits.)

I do no doubt about what you have seen or heard. I do think there is a lack of proof that stands up to scientific rigor but that certainly is no reflection on you or your contacts. There is a distinct possibility that they got results that appear to pass the test but none that proves their fishes genotype. Phenotypically they could be dead ringers for Heckels yet they may be genotypically haraldi.

It will take years more to sort this out. More breeding experiments with fish of known genotypes carried out over time accompanied with solid documentation.

A very similar controversy is presently on going with regard to the breeding of P. altum angels. Specifically the Linke tank raised Altums. We hear that altums are also regularly bred in the FarEast but the details are just as sketchy. All the same issues and all the same lack of rigorous proofs. So please do not feel anyone, especially me, doubts what you have knowledge of within the limits of the information you have had privy to.

I respect and value you contributions and in no way doubt your sincerity.
I only think that there is more to this than first appears. Discus have a long record of mistaken identification and incomplete disclosure of "proprietary" information. We are all having to deal with this issue.

Larry Waybright

[ShinShin]

Come on, Larry. Why is it when someone else achieves something that others have not, the "have nots" always casts suspicion on the "have's " accomplishments (this is a general statement reflected here and other forums for years)? Isn't Kim Young Gat's write up (with photographs) in "Asian Discus" enough? Why does he have to reveal his success secrets to anyone (although he does mention some water parameters he used)? Why is it up to the breeder in the first place to provide anything more than a write-up and photos? I have "read" and "seen". I have not seen you disprove anything. All I see and hear is opinion from your side of the arguement (arguement as used from a logic point of view, not a fight). Show us some facts supporting your arguement.

I am aware of the difference between genotype and phenotype, as I am sure all the major Asian breeders do as well. We know Schmidt-Focke did. Degen often caught his own Heckels on his trips. So, there can be no doubt there. Those that he didn't, I am sure came from professional sources. Also, I doubt very much that there are that many blue discus masquerading as Heckels in the wild.The fact that it is proven that RSG and Heckel hybrids lose viabilty at F4 generations, is irrevelant, and does not take away from the fact that the Heckels have been spawned at least to that point. The F3 Heckels Kim spawnwd were not to domestics, so I would believe they are quite viable. Top Asian beeders have an uncanny knack to produce what they have set out to produce. Many of the domestic strains of today (some beautiful, others butt ugly) are the result of well thought out pairings, not the haphazard pairings that many novices are throwing together in their basement fishrooms hoping for that million dollar hybrid. It is ridiculous to even think that this would ever happen when millions of fry are spawned monthly by professional breeders in SE Asia that have a well defined goal in mind from the beginning.

So, while you doubt that Asians have attained success in this area, I'll accept the word of a professional importer who exclusively imported Asian bred discus and a top Malaysian breeder (and author of an excellant discus book) who have told me that there is little interest in Heckel discus, making them a nonprofitable venture. Spots are where its at in domestics, not obtrusive 5th bars, so that is where the breeders concentrate their efforts.

Mat

[Apistomaster]

Hi Mat,
I am not being unreasonable to expect claims to withstand rigorous scientific proof. It is something that does not even warrant a justification on my part.
It is science that I care about not apocrypha.

Larry W.

[ShinShin]

I understand that, Larry. However, there is documentation on the subject, going back to the supposed first Heckel spawn in 1949, to Degen and Schimdt-Focke's success to the modern Asian accomplishments that for some reason you and Heiko seem to doubt have taken place. Three books off the top of my head that at least show pics with some anecdotal insight are Penang Discus 2nd edition, Asian Discus, and Asian Discus 2. The big advantage SE Asian breeders have attained succes easily (yes, with out much problem) is that the outside farms that exist there with the approimate photo period, temp, and water conditions mimic closely with Amozonia. There are pics in the books with Heckel discus up to probabally F5.

Mat

[raglanroad]

Mat,

this quote from Heiko shows me that a few breedings are considered acknowledged as verifiable.

But as you all know, breeding Heckel discus successfully has been in the hand of a very few guys around the world. They can be counted on a single hand... (that is Heckels with Heckels, not hybrids)

By using non-inclusion ( the safest way to make sure of no inclusion of mutts),in logical manner, all are rejected unless reasonably shown to be in the possession of a reliable source from capture locale to spawning in the tank.

Any f2, unless from f1 of similarly know solid chain of possession from start to finish, must be excluded. Tank breds bought from Somebody who bought from Somebody who bought..these offspring, which all involved may claim as "pure", cannot ever pass. Let one "kinda" respectable case in , and you let them all in. One weak link in the chain of possession, or ID and it's "all bets off".

One must start from wilds acknowledged to be heckel and document it in modern style, if it's to be accepted these days, because otherwise it could introduce the lowest form of success to a breeding project - a not-pure fish mixed in, right from the start.

Heiko has demonstrated to me that it is the logical route to take regarding altum definition of species. No matter how unpalatable to my personal or Altum Breeders' Club project desires, angelfish from any capture locales, other than the holotype collection locale, are not included until generally proven to be one and the same spread throughout the system , by DNA analysis.

In other words,to prove we have altum, we have to match DNA from the other locales to fish from the holotype specimen's capture locale, not the reverse.

DNA evidence acceptance has now reached the stage where it is considered the deciding factor, I believe, wherever possible.

Using the indicator of observations that populations are "Naturally breeding together - or not" to determine species differentiation is not considered as valuable a tool as DNA results are, it seems.

Somebody, soon, I'm sure, is going to do DNA testing on fish from Orinoco locations and we'll see. But it is up to the "inclusionists" to prove the case, to match to the holotype.


DNA acceptance lands a crushing blow to any naturalist theories of what "species" means. If a science uses measurements that are named, recognized units of measurement, it becomes more definite science. That's what most other "species-defining" distinctions lack.


On top of that, Heiko showed me why, (though I already knew the fact), that since even respectable museum specimen's ID have been horribly confused or are of different collection locale- and some remain so - that all pleas to authority of that type are null and void.

Add to this that some of the most highly respected scientific examinations have been on fish with collection locale I noted as saying " Dead. from "an" aquarium "
His direct assessment is better than that.

I should make it clear that I am not saying that Heiko said all these. I am saying that these are my conclusions that I reached after resisting for a couple of years most of what Heiko said regarding "altum or not".

I have not altered my position on what I expect the DNA will show regarding Orinoco angelfish from tributaries : I think they will show by DNA evidence to be the same as the holotype, but one must admit that we must match up to this standard of evidence.

And this is vital to our altum project.Edit: If my understanding of what heiko is saying is correct, my work for a couple of years might not be with altum, but another wild angelfish.

And yet when DNA testing is done, all Orinoco angels could be one species, if that's the way it looks.

But our project may not be a pure altum project if what I understand is correct. It might be a "Naturally Occurring AltumXScalare Hybrid" Breeder's Club or something. : )

It's not a thought I like.

[raglanroad]

then again, anyone who has a WILDxWILD heckel program, will in the future be able to prove the fry are pure heckel using DNA : )

[brewmaster15]

Dave,
By your argurment above, the only people who are really able to claim that their fish are wild heckels are infact the fisherman that collected them.... as they are the only ones that would definetly know they were wild., but I doubt that the local fisherman could tell the pure wild heckels from the f1 wild crosses that could in theory resemble the heckel parentage more than wild other parentage..for that matter, since phenotypes( how a fish looks) mask Genotypes( whats genetic inside) how can anyone really know what their stock is? Or whats inside an accepted "type specimen"

Like wise by your definition , I guess I better have all my heckels I now possess genetically tested to prove that they are indeed "pure"? heckels and not some natural hybrid. Now that'll cost me a pretty penny. As I did not collect, but purchased thru shippers. Someone please let me know where I can find a lab that is willing to test my fish against a type specimen? While at, please let me know which type specimen I should obtain genetic reference material from.

Though I value the science in genetic testing....What you are describing is not practical here... I Say that not because it isn't scientifically possible but because at this point...The experts can't even agree if a heckel is a species in its own right. so its going to be hard to test for something that may not exist...a species identity.

In order to genetically test heckels...you would need a standard to test against...Who will provide that standard to hobbyists like myself?..I'd assume it would have to be from the species type specimen and so again you need that and more importantly the access to it to run tests, I can see it now... hundreds of hobbysists begging for access to a type specimen. If as Heiko says the type specimens are all messed up.. what worth are they here? What can we test against.

Genetic tests are important, but they are not without their flaws.. If the reference material is flawed all results compared to them are worthless.

Though I understand the Altum comparison here...Altums are a distinct species and as accepted as one.. with heckels.. we have a bit of a more complicated picture, actually we have an exceedingly complicated genetic picture, IMO.

I for one, will take the wild heckels I have purchased from sources that had them shipped out of the Amazon. I will try in my extremely low tech hobbyists hatchery to breed them, because it is something I would love to achieve for many reasons... If I succeed I will count myself lucky beyond belief....If others chose to believe that I succeeded in this goal.. Great..If not and they question the validity of the breeding programs parent stock or offspring... I can live with that. Heckels breed in the wild and are numerous....all this hype about heckels being difficult to breed in captivity is true... but its only because we haven't focused our efforts on learning what it takes to breed them. By their reproductive success in the wild, I dont think theres anything difficult about heckels...the difficulty lays in us accepting that they may have different needs than other discus ( which is in fact one reason I believe Heckels are their own species)

So thats my view, without any genetic proof I can guarantee that it came from original wild Brew stock
al

[ShinShin]

This has gotten far too complicated for our purpose, I believe, and if it continues down this road, many will lose interest in what we want to do - breed the wild Heckel. Alot of what has been accomplished in the aquarium hobby regarding fish husbandry has been accomplished by hobbyist and breeders, many of which have no scientificc background whatsoever. Is all this to be disregarded because of this nonscience background?

It's a given, Heckels have been proven to be difficult to breed in the home aquarium for the vast majority of the Western world. However, it has been done, and has done since the first recorded successful spawning in 1949. German breeders such as Degan and Schmidt-Focke (he has a scientific background) cracked the secret. This I have already mentioned and many also know. I have spoken to a man who resides outside of Seattle and he has bred Heckels back in the '80's. He tried for 5 years before he had success. His discus were over 5 years old when they spawned. They were from his original batch. Simply's own yogi just told us he spawned 3 different Heckel males, as others have spawned males as well, and that it appears that the female's mystery is what needs to be solved.

There is much info and pics as well to verify the Asian successes, and in fact, it has(d) been routine over there. But, I have already stated that, too. I, like Al, if I succeed, will tell everyone so, be satisfied with the success and won't care what anyone else thinks or believes, as I only have myself to please.

We are just hobbyists trying to have some fun. I am not going to have my Heckels DNA tested for this project. Just for the record, my discus were collected for Oliver Lucanus (Belowwater.com) in the Rio Nhumunda and sold to me by Oliver Lucanus on 12/12/06.

Mat

[raglanroad]

Actually, no.

remember, I said "reasonably shown". Nothing is foolproof, but true laxity in this area opens both the project and more generally, scientific knowledge advancement,to failure.

There is no doubt scientific ID of specimens has been messed up. That is historical fact , Al.

It does come down to DNA testing, unfortunately for your desires.
this is 2007.

What it comes down to is that the puzzles will not be solved by stay at home science. It is the active scientist who can have his specimens either personally collected or collected by reputable source that will do the proving for us.
All other ways include some wishful thinking aspects.

I'm not setting standards, they naturally rise as we become more aware.

As to access to the "holotype specimen" assertions, no again.

Once holotype locale DNA is studied, why on earth would it need to be tested again when testing for match ups by other fish ???????


Dave

[raglanroad]

There is a concept in science called "flasifiability". This entails realization that some things are not within the scope of science to prove untrue.

The existence of things which by definition are supernatural. These claims are not falsifiable by science because the subjects are by definition precisely able to defy scientific laws.

Similarly, if something is unfalsifiable, it is not science.

By refusing to allow that science takes precedence over wishes, one makes their project unfalsifiable.

Dave

[raglanroad]

important to understand about my conclusions: the distinction made between "exluded" and "not included"

"Not included" is provisional, not definite as "exclusion" is.

Personally, my project goes ahead. If we see in time that holotype area specimens DNA have been matched by some fish in other Orinoco tributaries, the door is wide open again.

[ShinShin]

Dave,

We are just some hobbyists attempting to breed some heckel discus.

Mat

[raglanroad]

Mat, believe me, I understand.

Like Homer Simpson, I had to go through the "five stages of grieving" after realization that Heiko is correct in his approach.

You see, somehow we have strayed from hobbyist land, and proposed a loftier goal: to make a BASE BREEDING STOCK for the hobby, a pool of 'pure' genetics.

This requires standards. If our altum project succeeds, then later on, in twenty years, if our fish are shown to be not "pure" altum in origin, we go down as having ignored science after having it shown to us. But having achieved a milestone in Wilds any case.
But having put lots of visually indistinguishable hybrid fish into the hobby. OUCH.

[brewmaster15]

Dave,

I disagree with you strongly.

You see, somehow we have strayed from hobbyist land, and proposed a loftier goal: to make a BASE BREEDING STOCK for the hobby, a pool of 'pure' genetics.

That may be the purpose of your altum study group... Our heckel project is not that lofty an expectation.. ,,At least it is not my personal goal...others may have their own hopes...and thats fine,.. I think most just want to learn how to breed them... once thats accomplished all else can follow....Surely not before.

As for "Pure" genetics stock...That will need to be defined...but I Personally think that the reality will be far from the fantasy as to what is determined ultimatley, if ever, in Discus Genetics.

crawl before you walk...walk before you run....otherwise you are sure to fail and fall.