clam X prefers sand is bunk!

[Kalkbreath]

Why did Wikipedia choose to include cultivated and captive bred species in a description titled Domestication?
Because they felt that these species fall somewhere under the term domesticated.

When a Rhino farm cultivates Rhinos they select rhinos which work well around humans. They don't re breed rhinos which are aggressive and dont adjust to captive conditions. There for over time the domestic stock has a tendency to be more docile and tame even at birth.(his daddy was well behaved rhino)
Something which natural selection in the wild would never reward (wimpy male rhinos dont breed).
An unnatural genetic change takes place through rewarding recessive traits (Shy) instead of dominant traits(Gangbanger).
This rewarding of unnatural traits is what makes this process more then simple cultivation and into the relm of "domestication" .
Most domesticated animals started out this way.
Wild animals were rounded up , the individuals which broke down the fences escaped or bit the hand that fed (farmer) were not invited to the gene pool come stud service time at the farm.

Mankind choosing which captive traits to perpetuate is
entirely different then animals in the wild adapting to changes in the environment on their own.

The very term "wild" means manipulated by natural forces.

what do we call manipulated by domestic forces?

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by jmaneyapanda
Anyways, correct me if Im wrong, but clam breeders dont put two clams together for propogation, What clam breeder pairs clams?

Several have been doing so for years.
It use to be that hardest part of clam farming is the problem of not knowing what the color will be of the baby clam until its an inch or so in size. Waisting time and growing space on brown calms.Nowadays after years of selective breeding some farms are working with fourth generation brood stock. selective breeding so that the brood stocks now yield not only mostly blue off spring , but even certain patters as well.
In most areas of the world wild Maxima born on the reef are less colorfull then the the average clam born at these clam farms.

So they have already purposely achieved a genetic distinction within the captive stock which differs from the wild maxima populations (in color.)
Also having been kept in artificial conditions over time must also bring about changes in stock through selection.
Next
Some scientists are also working on switching the zooxathellae in clams and coral with combinations of hosts and symbionts which are not found to occur in the wild.
Maybe creating a better combination then mother nature has to offer.

[mbbuna]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Why did Wikipedia choose to include cultivated and captive bred species in a description titled Domestication?

wiki is written by anyone that feels like typing at the time, they didn't chose anything.


Kalk, i have an idea what your motives are, and i must say great job at hijacking this thread



im going now to make sure Barb doesnt squish my domesticated spiders

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by mbbuna
its not my fault this thread was hijacked. i tried a few times to get it back on track not much more i can do

The idea that guild lines for clam keeping should NOT be based on observing wild clams, but instead should be based on replicating the conditions from which their specific clam originated (clam farm raceway) is a new concept for many.
But to me it seems to reason that if the clam was happy for the first two years of its life(its entire life) not growing on sand ...then why advise otherwise?

I just dont think many hobbyists realize that whether your chosen livestock is wild or farmed, the unique environmental conditions where your livestock originated and what conditions it adapted to there where it was harvested needs closer attention by the consumer.

But that cant happen until we adopt terms and wordings which explain and differentiate these distinctions.

[Slakker]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
The idea that guild lines for clam keeping should NOT be based on observing wild clams, but instead should be based on replicating the conditions from which their specific clam originated (clam farm raceway) ...

That is one of the most ridiculous things i have ever heard in my life.

Clams are not sentient creatures. It really seems like you want them to be human, but they aren't. Just because a clam may not have ever been around sand in its lifetime doesn't mean that it isn't better suited for life there. It's not a conscious choice, it's the most basic of instinct. I think you're confusing yourself here. Any creature, aquacultured or not, will inevitably do best in the aquarium if their NATURAL habitat is replicated as closely as possible.

Hypothetically, say you're a clam farmer. You have a pair of clams whose pedigree has been living in the same general area of the same reef, in the same conditions, for thousands of years now. Every time this pedigree spawns a new generation, the traits from the previous generation are passed on to the offspring with, of course, a few mutations and variations which may or may not be more successful than their parents. This process changes the traits of the clam very slowly over thousands of years, and they become better and better at surviving in those conditions.

As I understand it, Tridacnid aquaculture has been going on for approximately 10 years now, give or take. The amount of time we've been culturing clams is really only enough time for what...two, maybe three generations? I guarantee you that the genetic code that has suited them so well for life on the reef can ABSOLUTELY NOT be rewritten in such a short amount of time.

Sorry for such a long rant, but Darwin rolls in his grave every time you say something, Kalkbreath. (That said, I agree that if a clam has been healthy where it is, then there's little reason to move it around.)

[mbbuna]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
The idea that guild lines for clam keeping should NOT be based on observing wild clams,

are we almost, kinda, back on topic ??

mother nature got it wrong but the farms got it right right

The idea that guild lines for clam keeping should NOT be based on observing wild clams, but instead should be based on replicating the conditions from which their specific clam originated

im convinced Kalk, any recommendations on a good concrete contractor, bulk ammonium nitrate and shade cloth?


clams have ONLY been breed in captivity for about 40 years, you have been asked time and time again what physiological changes have taken place in this short time, to no avail. but now you say that we should try to emulate the farms raceways?

But that cant happen until we adopt terms and wordings which explain and differentiate these distinctions.

the terms and wording are already in place.

wild=wild

cultured=cultured

i don't think many people have a problem differentiating them

[Kalkbreath]

No one really ever sees baby tridacna clams of any kind on the sand in the wild.
Sure it seem that larger specimens of Gigas and Derasa can survive out on the open sand , But all evidence points to them not originating out in the sand.
How many images of baby Gigas or Derasa in the wild settling out on the sand have you ever seen ?
There is a fine line between underlining genetics and individual adaptation.
Example : Wild xenia doesn't establish itself well in captive conditions and even captive grown xenia many times melts away and doesn't do well when its conditions are changed even from one aquarium to another .
Does the genetic code inside the xenia change when under different conditions?
Is captive xenia different genetically from wild stock?
When new cells are formed under drastically altered conditions does the make up of the new xenia cells adapt and alter itself to favor the new environment?
Are the new cells which develop in captivity unique to only captive raise individuals?

If so then the 10,000 years of adaptation in the wild means little to the cells which develop in an aquarium.

[Kalkbreath]

But what part of the word "cultured " explains the differences between using wild breeding stock ( a mother clam from the reef itself ) and using a 4th generation mother clam which is three generations removed from the wild and who's offspring fairs better under reduced lighting and reduced wave action?

[Slakker]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
If so then the 10,000 years of adaptation in the wild means little to the cells which develop in an aquarium.

More like developing in an aquarium means little to creatures who have spent tens of thousands of years adapting in the wild.

I'm telling you that an aquacultured individual, even three generations removed from the sea, is not in any way drastically different from wild counterparts. It may be slightly hardier, but that probably has more to do with the fact that it doesn't have to undergo the stresses of collection.

Three, four, even 15 generations is hardly enough to see any kind of evolutionary change in these creatures. It would take hundreds or thousands of generations of carefully selective breeding to alter the conditions that the clam is best suited for. The difference between breeding clams selectively for the best coloration and breeding them to be better suited for specific situations is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm pretty confident that we don't know enough about the creatures at this point to be able to develop a breeding program that will result (intentionally) in clams that like a certain substrate or a certain type of flow.

And the word "cultured" doesn't have anything to do with the fact that a creature may be captive bred three generations away from its wild counterparts because it's wholly insignificant.

[jmaneyapanda]

Originally posted by mbbuna
its not my fault this thread was hijacked. i tried a few times to get it back on track not much more i can do

I am sorry, I feel quite a guilty party in this. I wont post anymore after this. It is apparent that Kalk is not at all going to look at anything but what he wants. It's a hshame, because he is a smart guy, but feels pushing his nonsensical claptrap is more fun, so be it.

For what it's worth, Kalk- you dont know at all what your talking about outside of clams- and that is a fact. With all your talk about rhinos and reindeer, you are completely uninformed, and it shows. Acclimitization to humans in the species is not genetically passed on, and you are ridiculous for insinuating it is. The point blank accusation I can make to you is that you apparently are arguing that 100 m illion years of nature can be undone in as little as one breeding. That is laughable, absurdf, and ridiculous. I wouldnb't hoped you would have a little more common sense than that, but I am apparently barking up the wrong tree.

Good luck to you and your endeavours- I will leave this thread knowing that you have been able to show little or no evidence for your assessment, aside from duoble talk, nonsense, and ignorance. Good luck.

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by Slakker
More like developing in an aquarium means little to creatures who have spent tens of thousands of years adapting in the wild.

I'm telling you that an aquacultured individual, even three generations removed from the sea, is not in any way drastically different from wild counterparts. It may be slightly hardier, but that probably has more to do with the fact that it doesn't have to undergo the stresses of collection.

Three, four, even 15 generations is hardly enough to see any kind of evolutionary change in these creatures. It would take hundreds or thousands of generations of carefully selective breeding to alter the conditions that the clam is best suited for. The difference between breeding clams selectively for the best coloration and breeding them to be better suited for specific situations is absolutely ridiculous, and I'm pretty confident that we don't know enough about the creatures at this point to be able to develop a breeding program that will result (intentionally) in clams that like a certain substrate or a certain type of flow.

what your talking about is establishing a new species.
I am not suggesting this.
I am speaking of domesticating an existing one.
Cultivating certain traits to where they can thrive in a domestic setting more so then a wild stock.

[Kalkbreath]

Acclimitization to humans in the species is not genetically passed on, and you are ridiculous for insinuating it is.

Im still not following you here....Your suggesting that selective breeding doesnt effect the bloodline? That parents dont pass down any of their own unique traits?
Animals which dont respond well to contact with humans are removed from the gene pool of domestication.
I guess from your view its impossible for race horsing or dog fighting breeders to refine the animals bloodline in your opinion?
Dog and horse fighters only re breed from parent stock which holds promise, like responding to jockey commands in racing conditions or fighting in one of mr Vicks dog rings just like his daddy old Red did.
You dont understand the concept of paying more for stud service from a champion blood line?
Or how breeding stock from former champions increases the likely hood the offspring will inherit some of its parents superior genetics?
Its all up to God? an flip of the coin?
Im not following you.

I though at first this was about degrees of domestication .
From "Cultivation" to "partially Domesticated " to "fully Domesticated"and finally a entirely "new species".

[Slakker]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
what your talking about is establishing a new species.
I am not suggesting this.
I am speaking of domesticating an existing one.
Cultivating certain traits to where they can thrive in a domestic setting more so then a wild stock.

No, what i'm saying is that it takes a lot longer than you think to "domesticate" an animal as sensitive as a Tridacnid clam to the point where it's better suited for life in captivity than it is for life in the wild.

You're not really grasping the fact that the kind of change you're talking about takes hundreds of years to happen. True domesticated animals (the domestic dog, cattle, etc.) have been influenced and bred by humans for centuries, many since the beginning of written history. 40 years of clam culturing is hardly comparable.

Edit: I hate to do this, but if you're going to try to have a scientific debate and you want to be taken seriously, you might try using proper spelling and grammar.

[Kalkbreath]

Originally posted by Slakker
[B]No, what i'm saying is that it takes a lot longer than you think to "domesticate" an animal

So what "DO" you call the changes in a species prior to the point at which its fully certified as a domestic breed?
If dogs were not considered domesticated until 15,000 years ago
How did humans refer to pre domestic dogs in 20,000 BC ?
how about in 14,000 BC?

Somewhere along the journey there must be a point at which the evolving species is mildly different from its aboriginal origin.
But not entirely different?
Can there be various degrees of domestication?
After all some domestic breeds of dog look almost exactly like the wild dogs they originated from. Are some dogs only slightly domesticated while others severely?

[Kalkbreath]

This Article I found makes me wonder if Domestication can in fact be accomplished in one generation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm

By Christine McGourty By Christine McGourty
BBC science correspondent
Dogs today come in all shapes and sizes, but scientists believe they evolved from just a handful of wolves tamed by humans living in or near China less than 15,000 years ago.


It looks as if 95% of current dogs come from just three original founding females

Matthew Binns, Animal Health Trust
Three research teams have attempted to solve some long-standing puzzles in the evolution and social history of dogs.

Their findings, reported in the journal Science, point to the existence of probably three founding females - the so-called "Eves" of the dog world.

They conclude that intensive breeding by humans over the last 500 years - not different genetic origins - is responsible for the dramatic differences in appearance among modern dogs.

[Kalkbreath]

Good luck to you and your endeavours- I will leave this thread knowing that you have been able to show little or no evidence for your assessment, aside from duoble talk, nonsense, and ignorance. Good luck.

jmaneyapanda , dont get the wrong idea : your a great guy!
Thanks for voicing your position. Its not about right or wrong its about finding more effective ways to communicate events in aquaculture and the hobby as a whole.

[Slakker]

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
This Article I found makes me wonder if Domestication can in fact be accomplished in one generation?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2498669.stm

And I would argue that dogs are still not fully domesticated. There are still hundreds of cases each year where so called "domestic" animals attack people, including their owners. Sure, most of the time it has a lot to do with mistreatment of that specific individual, but sometimes it's the result of hundreds of thousands of years of evolution and instinct overturning the domestic behavior.

There's no way that an animals wild instinct, behavior, or in this case requirements for life, can be completely removed in just one generation. This is obvious to me in the example I've just provided. Dogs have been "domesticated" for 15,000 years now, as you say, and there are still signs of their wild, natural instincts and behaviors today.

If we can assume that the same basic truth stands for clams (and I think it's safe to do so), there's no way that they are fully domesticated at a mere 40 or 50 years. I won't argue that the aquacultured clams of today are hardier than wild caught clams. And I will also admit that they may be slightly better suited for life in captivity than their wild counterparts. However, I absolutely cannot agree that after just four or five generations, the ideal conditions for these clams in our aquarium is to match the conditions seen in the aquaculturing facilities.

[Kalkbreath]

..So if dogs and cats are still not fully domesticated then what is?

and what do we call partially domesticated animals?

[Kalkbreath]

absolutely cannot agree that after just four or five generations, the ideal conditions for these clams in our aquarium is to match the conditions seen in the aquaculturing facilities. [/B]

So where a wild clam was collected plays no roll in that individuals specific likes or dislikes? A maxima clam collected in sixty feet of water and a maxima clam collected in six feet of water will have experienced dramatically different living conditions,light intensity and such . Will both clams adjust to new living conditions equally?
Which wild clam would you suspect likes blue light and which white light? Less light or more light?
Some clams live in green plankton rich waters and others in clear nutrient poor waters.
The amount of plankton available effects the chemical make up of the clam. Clams with little plankton to eat, relay more on sugars which the Zooxanthella produce inside the clam and clams with little to filterfrom the water have larger amounts of the symbiont algae in their tissue to compensate.
When a local clam population spends multiple generations living in nutrient poor conditions they change genetically.
Maxima clams even look different from location to location depending on the local conditions.
Maxima clams in Fiji look different from maxima clams in Bali and both different from those in Vietnam.

Where a clam came and the conditions it grown accustomed to , does effect its ability to survive relocation into new conditions.

[Slakker]

I agree with that, as well, but chances are that Fiji maxima's have been in Fiji for thousands of years, and Bali maximas in Bali for thousands of years, and so on.

I'm certainly no expert, but I do not believe that Maxima clams are found at a depth of 60 feet, and I certainly don't think that they are collected at that depth. Why would a collector dive 60 feet for a clam they can find at 10 or 15? Once again, I could be wrong, but I remember reading somewhere that many, if not most, wild clams found in the trade are collected in less than 20 feet of water.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Where a clam came and the conditions it grown accustomed to , does effect its ability to survive relocation into new conditions.

Yes, and that's what makes aquacultured clams hardier than wild clams. However, that does not mean that aquacultured clams don't benefit from being in an environment that attempts to emulate the conditions it would have thrived in in the wild.

Originally posted by Kalkbreath
..So if dogs and cats are still not fully domesticated then what is?

As for this...personally, I would say "Nothing." I don't have the arrogance to believe that we have the power to affect a species so deeply that it no longer bears any characteristics of its wild counterparts or ancestors...not in our comparatively short time here on this planet, anyways.

[ezcompany]

but since the word "domestication" does exist in our vocabulary, and the general public agreeing that dogs and cats are domesticated, we have to draw the line somewhere and put some concrete.

[manderx]

maybe i missed someone else pointing it out because i tried to skip over all the 'domestication' posts,

but there is no logic to this statement and it does not prove anything in any way:

you always see people saying that squamosa, derasa and gigas "prefer" to be in the sand, why? because thats what they've read and were told, but its not true. when some writes that a clam "can" be found on the sand it doesn't mean that's where it is most commonly found. these clams are most commonly found right up on the reef.

where it's most commonly found in nature is *no* indication of what it prefers. where it is found is a result of factors outside the clam's control combined with the clam's ability to survive there. it's entirely possible for a clam to "prefer" (which i am taking to mean as 'be happier and healthier") the sand even though it has a higher chance of dying there from getting buried or eaten. it's not going to get buried or eaten in my tank so i don't care about that. so it seems to me that in-tank observations (that led to the sand/rock recommendations) are far more valuable than natural observations.

i know in my tank, croceas do not do well unless they are on a rock. it's a night/day difference within days of moving them either direction. maximas seem indifferent, and derasas seem to do better on the sand. i never tried my squammy up in the rocks but it did just fine on the sand. which all seems to coincide with the sand/rock advice. funny how that works.

[jmaneyapanda]

Originally posted by manderx
where it's most commonly found in nature is *no* indication of what it prefers. where it is found is a result of factors outside the clam's control combined with the clam's ability to survive there. it's entirely possible for a clam to "prefer" (which i am taking to mean as 'be happier and healthier")

Isnt this a contradiction to itself? Clams "prefer" to survive. And therefore, the conditions that allow the ability to survive is what they prefer.

Really, it is a silly argument to say "my clam LIKES this"- we have no idea at all how clams "think" (note that word in quotes). I think that is more the point of this thread.

[smcnally]

I can't believe this thread had 4 pages...All you guys are doing is basically saying that other people's opinions on what clams "prefer" are stupid and that you for some reason or another think that your opinion is correct. I personally have no idea whether or not certain species prefer sand over rock, but I will say that the individual clam itself will absolutely choose one over the other. I've had a lot of clams in my tanks over the years and I've had Croceas that absolutely refused to stay on any rock anywhere in the tank. They would spin and rock and move themselves until they were back in sand. Then they would open up nice and stay put. I've also had Corceas that preferred to be on rock. If I put them on sand, they would always lay on their side (opened nice, but on their side).

Then we come into the realm of what is better for the clam...When a clam gets large, it only makes sense (to me) for it to be in the sand. I had a 12" squamosa and I can't imagine it being up on rock in a tank. Maybe a LARGE rock in the ocean, but not rocks that are the same size as the clam itself. Just my $0.02

[mbbuna]

the point of this thread is that clams DONT prefer anything. clams dont have brains and there actions are purely reactionary and instinctual. if you have a clam that "jumps" off a rock, its not doing it because it doesnt "like" the rock or it would "rather" be on the sand.

All you guys are doing is basically saying that other people's opinions on what clams "prefer" are stupid and that you for some reason or another think that your opinion is correct.

i dont think anyone has said that others opinions are stupid. and my statement about where these clams are most commonly found is not a matter of opinion, its a fact.

from http://www.cites.org/eng/com/ac/22/E22-10-2-A8g.pdf

General information on the biology of T. squamosa and other giant clam species is provided in the
accompanying introduction.
Table 1. Maximum shell length observed and size and age at first year of sexual maturity
Species Maximum First year of sexual maturity Remarks
Shell Male Hermaphrodite
length Age (y.) Size (cm) Age (y.) Size (cm)
T. squamosa 40-45 4 6 6 16 Commonly found amongst branching
corals (staghorn, Acropora spp.); some
shells have bright yellow or orange
areas; wide distribution (ref. T. maxima)


from http://www.int-res.com/articles/meps/107/m107p147.pdf

Thus, large Tridacna derasa (Roding) were commonly
found at 10 to 20 m depth in the clear oceanic conditions
of the windward islands and barrier reefs of
eastern Fiji (Adams et al. 1988). In these regions, juveniles
of 7: derasa were usually found attached to the
tops and sides of coral outcrops at shallow depths

it only makes sense (to me) for it to be in the sand. I had a 12" squamosa and I can't imagine it being up on rock in a tank

if you reread the thread (at least the part that isnt talking about domestication) you will see that i said that this isnt about getting people to put all there clams up on the rocks. you can place a clam, any clam, anywhere you want in your tank as long as the lighting is strong enough. this is about people classifying clams as "rock clams" and "sand clams" do a search here on clam placement and see how many people say "squamosas are sand clams, you need to put it on the sand"