Ok then that makes me a little less confused. I am having a hard time putting into words what I am trying to ask/get across here, and I don't mean to sound condescending or sarcastic, I actually like the project as a whole.Yes Rick, your post from yesterday had me thinking and yes, you pretty much nailed it on the head.
Maybe I am reading things wrong, but there seems to be a feeling that wilds somehow differ from domestics genetically, and that is really not the case(barring the mutations). These wild "charasteristics" are more a product of environment, not of genetics, and that is the point I was trying to get across. Much like that of a brown city squirrel, vs a brown country squirrel if you will, genetically identical, but have been subjected to a different environment and thus behave much differently over time and generations.
To further explain look at this:
A...................B...................C
(A) represents your wilds, (B) can represent your ultimate goal, while (C) represents a current domestic discus we have today. For all intensive purposes, B (your goal) was one of the first domestics developed. Now you can start at (A) and work forwards towards achieving (B) (as was first done) or you could also start at (C) and work backwards to achieve (B). For sake of argument lets say we do both and achieve identical (B's). Chances are both fish are going to be nearly identical genetically, as to how much of the "wild charasteristics" are left would more be a product of environmental concerns then that of genetics. At least that is my understanding, I would be curious to see Rod's opionion on this.
Rick