Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community Archives > Invert and Plant Forums > Tridacnid Clams and other Mollusks

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #26  
Old 07/19/2007, 09:58 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Quote:
i think the term is a little hard to grasp, there already is a good term to describe the "culturing" of clams, aqua-cultured
Woopie! a great one at that! "WATER CULTURED" ......are not wild clams water cultured?
  #27  
Old 07/19/2007, 10:40 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally posted by mbbuna
im assuming you mean physiologically? if so what physiologic changes do you think clams have made in there short stint of being cultured?

if you do mean psychologically, i must remind you that clams dont have brains
Well Maybe a little of both:
in the case of clams .....Ecophysiology =the adaptation of organism's physiology to environmental conditions.

and with respect to the word "Domesticated"
like in domesticated dogs and cats. I feel the reason dogs and cats dont act like their "wild" counterparts while under our care, has more to do with our human involvement and influence in the pets psychological mental processes. ( bad dog good dog, sit etc.)
Proof that its less about genetics and more about the effects of Domestic life can be found when domesticated dogs and cats live feral existences out in the wild. The "wild" seems to usually overcome all our attempts to genetically tame Kitty.

Clams are in a unique position being that they are part animal and plant.
Its most likely that the zooxanthellae are what distinguishes cultured clams from their wild counterparts more so then the mollusks them self.

So maybe zooxanthellae Symbiodinium domestica would be the prober term for domesticated clams?

The term Domestica is used on countless botanical plant names
  #28  
Old 07/19/2007, 11:06 PM
mbbuna mbbuna is offline
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: De
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Woopie! a great one at that! "WATER CULTURED" ......are not wild clams water cultured?
no they are not. they are wild

wiki has failed me, but my trusty Websters has not!
Cultured adj. (ca.1974) 1:cultivated 2: produced under artificial conditions
__________________
looking for grammar check

------------------------------------------------
  #29  
Old 07/19/2007, 11:10 PM
mbbuna mbbuna is offline
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: De
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath


Clams are in a unique position being that they are part animal and plant.
no again, clams are animals that just happen to host/use/farm a plant for there benefit.
__________________
looking for grammar check

------------------------------------------------
  #30  
Old 07/19/2007, 11:14 PM
mbbuna mbbuna is offline
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: De
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath


and with respect to the word "Domesticated"
like in domesticated dogs and cats. I feel the reason dogs and cats dont act like their "wild" counterparts while under our care, has more to do with our human involvement and influence in the pets psychological mental processes. ( bad dog good dog, sit etc.)
Proof that its less about genetics and more about the effects of Domestic life can be found when domesticated dogs and cats live feral existences out in the wild. The "wild" seems to usually overcome all our attempts to genetically tame Kitty.
this is getting a little far fetched and OT IMO. i can see where you are trying to go with it but dont think it will add anything to the topic. however if you insist i will go there
__________________
looking for grammar check

------------------------------------------------
  #31  
Old 07/20/2007, 12:06 AM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Quote:
Originally posted by mbbuna
no again, clams are animals that just happen to host/use/farm a plant for there benefit.
Well.......I think its more then just "happen to host" Who is hosting who?The Zoox can live outside the clam..... but the clam cant live with out the zoox.
So when I say "clam care" are we caring for the clams or the algae in side the clam?
Do we keep clams or Zooxanthellae in our aquariums?
Does a wild coral reef grow coral or zooxanthellae?
Sure becomes evident when the algae decide to become motile and up and leave the reef during warm water events.

We look at it from the perspective of the clams.
But its actually the algae we are attempting to please inside our aquariums.
  #32  
Old 07/20/2007, 12:40 AM
mbbuna mbbuna is offline
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: De
Posts: 5,847
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath


We look at it from the perspective of the clams.
But its actually the algae we are attempting to please inside our aquariums.
again, i love it how you try to twist things

im interested in keeping clams. one of the requirements is keeping the algae that clams farm/host happy, just like any other photosynthetic organism we try to keep.



edit: getting OT, ill start a new thread about lighting and the role of zooxanthellae
__________________
looking for grammar check

------------------------------------------------
  #33  
Old 07/20/2007, 05:17 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath

and with respect to the word "Domesticated"
like in domesticated dogs and cats. I feel the reason dogs and cats dont act like their "wild" counterparts while under our care, has more to do with our human involvement and influence in the pets psychological mental processes. ( bad dog good dog, sit etc.)
Proof that its less about genetics and more about the effects of Domestic life can be found when domesticated dogs and cats live feral existences out in the wild. The "wild" seems to usually overcome all our attempts to genetically tame Kitty.

Clams are in a unique position being that they are part animal and plant.
Its most likely that the zooxanthellae are what distinguishes cultured clams from their wild counterparts more so then the mollusks them self.

So maybe zooxanthellae Symbiodinium domestica would be the prober term for domesticated clams?

The term Domestica is used on countless botanical plant names
WOW! Where to begin!? Without sounding too holier than thou, I dont think you have a good understanding of domestication, or some animal behavior if this is what you truly feel. Do you really feel your cats and dogs in your house dont show any of their wild ancestry? Put a mouse, spider, lizard, etc. in fron t of your cat and see what happens. Why? We dont feed our cats these items. Because it is part of their genetic "programming" to be predators and hunt such smaller items. Then why do they "tame"? Because they are social animals, and we have socialized them to us. The feral animals you speak of do not appear like our tabbys in our homes because they are not socialized to us. But it can, and has been done.
Again, what you are speaking of here is acclimitization to stimulus and conditions. For example, take nonsocial pets -ie reptiles, insects, CLAMS- why do they tolerate handling- not domestication, but acclimitization and tolerance. However, put a stressor on these animals, and you WILL see the wild side again.

Do you really feel that farm raised clams should be a new species with a new name? That is absurd. These clams are doind absolutely nothing different than the clams in the wild, we are just minpulating the environment they are raised in. Once they start showing more significant signs of adaptation, such as tolerance to different salinity, temperatures, lighting regimes, etc- then I'll get on board with your domestication talk. But until that poitn, which will likely be well beyond our lifetimes, they are wild animals- true to their species.
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #34  
Old 07/21/2007, 02:46 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Quote:
Do you really feel that farm raised clams should be a new species with a new name? That is absurd.
Not any more so the a "Chow" puppy or "Early corn".
The term domesticated is such a convoluted notion that ,
I'm not sure what science considers a proper domestication?



Quote:
Wikipedia: There is debate within the scientific community over how the process of domestication works. Some researchers give credit to natural selection, where mutations outside of human control make some members of a species more compatible to human cultivation or companionship. Others have shown that carefully controlled selective breeding is responsible for many of the collective changes associated with domestication. These categories are not mutually exclusive and it is likely that natural selection and selective breeding have both played some role in the processes of domestication throughout history.
Clams which have gone through several generations of selected breeding under cultivated conditions are not much different then a domesticated wheat field or a pet Husky dog.
Both of these accepted versions of "domesticated" went through the same selected breeding cycles.
Clams which dont adapt to the domestic life at the farm are removed from the "gene pool".
I fail to see how this is any different from domesticated house dogs or domestic agriculture products?
  #35  
Old 07/21/2007, 04:23 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Not any more so the a "Chow" puppy or "Early corn".
The term domesticated is such a convoluted notion that ,
I'm not sure what science considers a proper domestication?





Clams which have gone through several generations of selected breeding under cultivated conditions are not much different then a domesticated wheat field or a pet Husky dog.
Both of these accepted versions of "domesticated" went through the same selected breeding cycles.
Clams which dont adapt to the domestic life at the farm are removed from the "gene pool".
I fail to see how this is any different from domesticated house dogs or domestic agriculture products?
I certainly admire your enthusiasm and persistance, but I have to disagree with some points of yours. First and foremost, there is an enormous difference between the example you have given and the captive clams. It is SCALE. The examples (corn, dogs, etc) you have mentioned have been "created" through either genetic or mechanical manipulation or through selection over a long time scale.
Clams have been captive bred for 30+ years only. While that may sound like a long time for some, it is a mere drop in the bucket for adaptive processes to have meaning.
Furthermore, this time scale must also rely on successive generations to be employed. However, how many clam broodstocks are wild caught? Perhaps you would know better than me, but I would guess a portion, if not a majority. I am just guessing on that though. But, if these clams are indeed wild clams, you domestication process has just had the clock reset.

Here are some questions you can hopefully answer for me, so that I can get a better scale of our discussion. How are the clams selected (and culled) in these captive programs? You have said ones which "don't adapt to captive life"- what does this mean? Finally, what differences do you see between the wild clams and your "domestica clams"? How are these differences gauged?
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #36  
Old 07/22/2007, 11:36 AM
DrDNA DrDNA is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Loomis, CA
Posts: 389
Getting back to the original point of this thread, FWIW I have several 4-6" maxima clams that are "happy as a clam" living half buried in my sand bed. I also have some smaller ones 2-3" that are attached to fragging rocks on the sand, mainly to keep the snails from bulldozing them over at night.
Generally, it seems if you put your clams on the bottom in a mix of sand and small rocks, they will make themselves at home (assuming lighting and flow are okay). At least then they can't commit "clam suicide" and dive off the top of your reef.
Just my two cents worth. I am not touching the rest of this thread with a ten foot pole
__________________
O O o o O O o
o o o o o O

<º)))>< <º)))>< <º)))>< <º)))><


Jeff
  #37  
Old 07/22/2007, 01:25 PM
beerguy beerguy is offline
RC Staff & Thread Pirate
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: The left coast
Posts: 12,970
bump
__________________
Doug - v2.0.4

Nuclear winter solves global warming.
  #38  
Old 07/23/2007, 04:18 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
I agree that scale does play into the degree of domestication .

For instance a cultivated clam (and the zooxanthellae inside) raised at a clam farm would be less domesticated
then say an entirely tank raised clam.

What animals and what plants would you say qualifies as a domesticated life form?

I was watching a show about a company called Nexia which spliced a spider gene into a goat and now the goat produces spider web in its milk. (They use the "goaterweb" to make bullet proof vests and such)
Would this relatively new animal ( one year) be considered a Domesticated animal if they had used a wild goat?
Does domestication require that the adaptation be viewable to the naked eye?

How about cultivated clown fish?
these new breeds of clown fish dont recognize anemones as hosts , they don't fight for territory
they have little imunities
and they look about as different from a wild clown as does a Siberian husky does from a timber wolf.

What constitutes true domestication in your view?
  #39  
Old 07/23/2007, 05:19 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
I agree that scale does play into the degree of domestication .

For instance a cultivated clam (and the zooxanthellae inside) raised at a clam farm would be less domesticated
then say an entirely tank raised clam.

What animals and what plants would you say qualifies as a domesticated life form?

I was watching a show about a company called Nexia which spliced a spider gene into a goat and now the goat produces spider web in its milk. (They use the "goaterweb" to make bullet proof vests and such)
Would this relatively new animal ( one year) be considered a Domesticated animal if they had used a wild goat?
Does domestication require that the adaptation be viewable to the naked eye?

How about cultivated clown fish?
these new breeds of clown fish dont recognize anemones as hosts , they don't fight for territory
they have little imunities
and they look about as different from a wild clown as does a Siberian husky does from a timber wolf.

What constitutes true domestication in your view?
Good questions- I will try to work through them one by one.

I consider many animals to be domestics. A first consideration (at least in my mind), is that it is not found naturally in the wild. For example, there are no wild Dachshunds (or similar). Feral animals do not apply. But animals such as certain "types" of goats, cattle, etc. do not exist exist in the wild, but instead were selected by man over time for a specific purpose. In regards to plants, this has a slightly different application. I dont necesasrily consider many domestic plants, but instead variants which have adapted for certain purposes. Again, due to human selection and propogation. This rather leads to the next question/statement. What about the goaterweb? This applies under the catergory of "genetic or mechanical manipulation". They can grow a rat with an ear on it's back nowadays- is that a new species- of course not- it is manipulated. The same is true of this situation. In these cases, the traits demonstrated (goaterweb, ear-rats, etc) will not proliferate without absolute intervention. Same for artificial insemination, in vitro cultrues, and mechanical cross pollination.
Your question of the clownfish I think leads back to acclimitization, rather than domestication. Wild clownfish are exposed to this stimulus from day 1, whereas cultured ones are not. Yet, there are cultured clowns that do take to anemones, and do remain territorial, and so on. Domesticated? Not in my book.
So, you've mentioned huskies a couple times, so let me elaborate on that. Certainly huskies can look and act like wolves, their wild ancestors. So my question is instead, are huskies domesticated? WHo knows. The selwection they have been under to create this "breed" has not been as a companion or aesthetic purpose- it has bveen under a work purpose. Huskies were domesticated to operate and work in extreme environments, and as such, retain much of their wild ancestry. Are huskies domestci? I dont know, but there is a reason many husky breeders strongly advise against letting a husky off lead, or letting them anywher near cats (that you want to keep alive, at least).


Overall, I feel domestication is a result of human selection (artificial or otherwise), which has created a sustainable organism for purpose to those humans. These animals do not exist in this form in the wild, and as such, have certainly undergone a long period of adaptation and selection for that adaptation. For example, cattle were domesticated for their food source, horses for the work capacity. All because certains traits were selected and perpetuated by humans. As to this definition is why I have difficulty accepting you domestic clam theory. These animals have not undergone any discernable change over the wild clams. They have simply adapted to a different environment. The changes that occur do not need to be blatantly visible at all, but must be functional.

Plaese take all this with a bucket of salt- it is only my opinion.
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #40  
Old 07/23/2007, 05:56 PM
ezcompany ezcompany is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 3,290
My definition of "domestication" would be this: influenced, bred, tamed, trained, engineered, manipulated or changed for human purpose, thus "creating" a living organism through time, "different" to the extent that they can be differentiated by their "wild" counterparts in their original habitat.

This would, in my book make current captive bred clownfish domesticated, as they are bred for the sole purpose of being kept in captive environments of people.

I don't know where Huskies originate from, but with my definition I can say that Alaskan Malamutes are domesticated, as they are primarily used in the Northern areas to pull sleds. Yes they may be very close to their wolf counterparts, but they have a distinct difference which exists in the form of their bond and relationship with their human partners.

Going back to Tridacnid clams, I would say that the captive raised ones are still closer to their wild counterparts rather than being classified as domesticated. In other words as Jmaneypanda stated about scale and length of time, they have not been bred to the extent where they can be differentiated from their wild counterparts. If one was to release one of these captive raised juvenile clams into the wild, they would probably have an equal chance of surviving compared to that of wild spawned clams. Now if one was to release one of the tank raised clownfish, where they can't recognize an anemone to host in (i have not verified this fact btw, just using the definition above) then that clownfish will probably have less chance of survival than its wild counterparts, thus being more "domesticated" than the captive raised clam.

i hope that made sense
__________________
less is more
  #41  
Old 07/23/2007, 10:39 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Sure some domesticated dog species likely cant survive in the wild , but ; Domesticated pigs and horses survive just fine in the wild given the correct habitat.

In fact ,domesticated Pigs and Horses seem to thrive in many places of the world when reintroduced into the wild.
We bred them to grow faster and bigger, traits which also benefit their species in the wild.

Demanding that in order to be deemed a true "domesticated" species somehow the species must benefit mankind while not benefiting the species itself silly.

Most breeds of dogs were cultivated to better refine their existing skills,,,, not to lick your face.
Wild dogs hunted long before breeders refined them to see better and swim faster and respond to the alpha humans commands.
Nature had already bred larger feet on snow dogs long before sled breeders requested even bigger feet.

House cats were bred to be smaller then their wild counterparts.
this smaller statue in turn now makes the common domestic kitty one of the most effective predators ever in North America.... killing more wild birds and rodents then their origins the bobcats links and panthers ever could.

Sure bioengineering can be used to refine a species for both domestic service and wild superiority?.
Lets say a new zooxanthellae modification which makes the algae better suited to warm temperatures ?
lets say the new zoox cultivar is injected into a coral and the corals injected with this super zooxanthellae now grow better in aquariums and the ever warming oceans as well.

Your notion that domesticating a species must somehow only serve the needs of its human captor (like a lionhead or bubble eye goldfish swimming in a fish bowl) is an outdated concept.

Cultivating wildlife to live a new and unnatural domestic lifestyle is nothing new.
The squirrels , foxes and birds living in my subdivision have been living a domesticated lifestyle for thirty plus years. You can find more wildlife living around my neighborhood then I ever see while walking or camping in the woods .

Sure there are different degrees of domestication , but to reserve the title only for the genetic freaks like tiny poodles, is a bit to narrow for me.
  #42  
Old 07/24/2007, 07:49 AM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
Sure some domesticated dog species likely cant survive in the wild , but ; Domesticated pigs and horses survive just fine in the wild given the correct habitat.

In fact ,domesticated Pigs and Horses seem to thrive in many places of the world when reintroduced into the wild.
We bred them to grow faster and bigger, traits which also benefit their species in the wild.

Demanding that in order to be deemed a true "domesticated" species somehow the species must benefit mankind while not benefiting the species itself silly.

Most breeds of dogs were cultivated to better refine their existing skills,,,, not to lick your face.
Wild dogs hunted long before breeders refined them to see better and swim faster and respond to the alpha humans commands.
Nature had already bred larger feet on snow dogs long before sled breeders requested even bigger feet.

House cats were bred to be smaller then their wild counterparts.
this smaller statue in turn now makes the common domestic kitty one of the most effective predators ever in North America.... killing more wild birds and rodents then their origins the bobcats links and panthers ever could.

Sure bioengineering can be used to refine a species for both domestic service and wild superiority?.
Lets say a new zooxanthellae modification which makes the algae better suited to warm temperatures ?
lets say the new zoox cultivar is injected into a coral and the corals injected with this super zooxanthellae now grow better in aquariums and the ever warming oceans as well.

Your notion that domesticating a species must somehow only serve the needs of its human captor (like a lionhead or bubble eye goldfish swimming in a fish bowl) is an outdated concept.

Cultivating wildlife to live a new and unnatural domestic lifestyle is nothing new.
The squirrels , foxes and birds living in my subdivision have been living a domesticated lifestyle for thirty plus years. You can find more wildlife living around my neighborhood then I ever see while walking or camping in the woods .

Sure there are different degrees of domestication , but to reserve the title only for the genetic freaks like tiny poodles, is a bit to narrow for me.
Jeff- You have to remember, we are talking about domestication here, not adaptation/evolution. Domestication is a sole result of human involvement, and ipso facto, is specifically to the benefit of humans desires. This is not an outdated or innappropriate concept, it is a definitive one. No other species on this planet provides artificial conditions for another in order to purposefully change that secondlary species in order to make it more useful to themselves. This is what domestication does. All other species change and adapt themselves in order to better suit the conditions.

Domestic animals can go feral- but you stated an important issue with that "if given the correct habitat". Why is this important, and what does it mean? They need the correct habitat because they have adaptively changed to likely be unable to survive certain conditions their wild ancestors have. But, regardless, feral animals are capable of adapting to unusual conditions as are wild animals to captive conditions- but not absolutely and a not without certain individual failure. But, at any rate, what does this have to do with domestication? If anything, feral animals will OVER TIME revert back to ancestral conditions.

Your comments on domestic dog breed traits and such as actually kinda proving my point. Many dogs were not domesticated for licking our faces, you are correct. They were domesticated to assist in human survival- ie- hunting skills, swimming skills, work dogs, etc. Domestic cats were bred smaller to hunt smaller prey- such as mice and rats, because the larger ones were not adapted to such. And this was done so to assist humans. It's not like there weren't any rat or mouse predators out there, they were just not candidates for domestication.

This point I am hoping you understand is that using your concept of domestication- nearly every animal is domestic. Bears that eat garbage, elephants that raid African farms, your raccoons and foxes that live in your backyard- they are no different than your "domestica" clams. Animsl that have been raised in a certain environment and have adapted. Does this get passed on to future generations? Absolutely not. Does this help them better survive those conditions? Absolutely yes. If those specific individuals happened to be raised in "wild" conditions, would they be as likely to survive as a "wild born" individual- in my mind yes. Because they has been no adaptive selection that has taken place which would select for different holotype. If any one of the above listed animals developed a morphological or physiological or biochemical adaptation which made them better suited for this environment- this is adaptive evolution. If humans have selected for such traits, we are domesticating them.
Keep this in mind- humans puproses are quite encompassing. For example, absolute direct benefit to specific indivudal humans is not necessarily a requirement. Conservation efforts do not necessarily benefit any particular purpose, yet humans actively and vigorously engage in it- and as such, benefit humans.
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #43  
Old 07/24/2007, 03:37 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
I still side with the position that
Quote:
Encyclopædia Britannica : The fundamental distinction of domesticated animals and plants from their wild ancestors is that they are created by human labour to meet specific requirements or whims and are adapted to the conditions of continuous care and solicitude people maintain for them.
"Wims" as in pretty or more colorfull ."adapted" as in unnatural growing conditions (Aquarium). and "Solitude" as in the constant unchanging habitat of indoors , without seasonal variations (Summer Winter) .


Farmers of clams and corals which are propagated with these human demands in mind are just as actively domesticating species as a when a green house grower selects flowers which are more colorful or when a farmer choses to propagate wheat which stays on the stalk better during transport.
Coral and clam farms use the same parameters of selection, domestic viability and usefulness to decide if and when to re propagating these desirable morphs to establish these variations into new generations.

I think a nice link to Darwins work will help :http://www.literature.org/authors/da...hapter-01.html
  #44  
Old 07/24/2007, 04:32 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
I still side with the position that
"Wims" as in pretty or more colorfull ."adapted" as in unnatural growing conditions (Aquarium). and "Solitude" as in the constant unchanging habitat of indoors , without seasonal variations (Summer Winter) .


Farmers of clams and corals which are propagated with these human demands in mind are just as actively domesticating species as a when a green house grower selects flowers which are more colorful or when a farmer choses to propagate wheat which stays on the stalk better during transport.
Coral and clam farms use the same parameters of selection, domestic viability and usefulness to decide if and when to re propagating these desirable morphs to establish these variations into new generations.

I think a nice link to Darwins work will help :http://www.literature.org/authors/da...hapter-01.html
I am glad you posted that definition, because I feel it more proves my point than yours. "Whims"- as in to benefit humans desires, whether it be aesthetics (as you mentioned), necessity, or otherwise. But nonetheless, to satiate our desire for it's existance. "Adapted"- as is to be changed from a previous form- ie- the "wild" ancestral form. And finally "Solicitude" (not solitude)- as in the effort of caring for these organisms. That definition you posted essentially states the domestication occurs through human efforts to satisfy humans needs (whatever they may be) and have changed from previous states to be something "new", based on the conditions humans have set for them.

Again, I raise my point- what differences are seen between the "Domestica" clams and the wild counterparts? Ability to tolerate captivity? This is not accurate, as wild clams can also tolerate captivity.

Using your examples again, you have pointed out human (artificial) selection. Not domestication. The colorful flower and damage tolerant wheat- where did it come from? From humans purposefully borbarding the flower with atypical conditions to stimulate new colors? From wheat that has been vigorusly and constantly shaken to stimulate better grain retention? More than likely not. They come from either genetic engineering, or as a naturally occuring variant parent organism, that has been selected for. Do these organisms exist outside the greenhouse and farmers field. If the answer is yes, then they are NOT domesticated. So, how do these examples apply to the clams? Only in as much as to prove that they are not domestciated (unless the Southeast Asian cultivars are genetically engineering them), but instead just selectively chosen.

Did you actually read that link to Darwin that you posted? Let me quote something from it- "Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us". What is inherited from these domestica clams which makes them domestic?
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #45  
Old 07/24/2007, 11:25 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
"just selectively chosen" is the basis for domestication.

[/QUOTE]
Quote:
The act of harvesting the wild grains changed them genetically. For example, a small percentage of wild grass plants has seed that clings to the stalk even when ripe, rather than separating easily. Humans collecting wheat or barley seed would succeed in gathering a disproportionate amount of the mutant seeds-that-cling in each harvest. .
Its our "selecting" and successfully bringing to harvest which developed domestic forms of wheat. Certain plants simply made it through the distribution process better.
Clams which ship better or survive under artificial conditions find themselves rewarded with propagation.

:
Quote:
The same kinds of genetic transformations occured in the animals domesticated by early farmers and pastoralists. The process of selective breeding of animals was at first unintentional and probably unobserved. For example, large, aggressive, and big-horned bulls were probably too dangerous to keep around and so did not survive to reproduce these characteristics. Thus, over time, early farmers unwittingly altered the genetic make-up of the life forms they most relied on.
We gathered up all the wild cows (wild Aurock bull) and simply selected to breed those with which we found most pleasing .(smaller and less aggressive)

It would be no different if we collected all the wild clams and then only bred the brightly colored ones.


Clam farmers and coral cultivators select which products to reproduce.There in gathering a disproportionate amount of the mutant colorful individuals. But even still
only those selected organisms which grow and reach market are re chosen for propagation.
Organisms which dont survive the cultivation process dont make it to market, even in spite of the farmers wishes.
The farmer can choose which morphs to propagate,
but ultimately its the animal itself which must adapt to its new domestic conditions.

Wild animals have only proven themselves living out in the pristine wild reef.
Cultivated clams and corals which cant survive the conditions at the farm dont reach the consumer.
Thats the difference . And a big one.
  #46  
Old 07/24/2007, 11:39 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Quote:
"Any variation which is not inherited is unimportant for us". What is inherited from these domestica clams which makes them domestic? [/B]
The brood stock can be several generations old.
Breeding true is the main objective in these operations.
There is much work right now with zooxanthellae switching.
Brown corals and clam seem to be more resistant to warm water bleaching.
Taking the tolerant zoox and injecting it into colorful corals yields a very unlikely pair.
Much like finding blue eyed Siamese cats that are not deaf.
Then establishing a brood which has the blue eyes but with out the disadvantage is not hearing.
  #47  
Old 07/25/2007, 12:08 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
I think you are totally misunderstanding the point. "Just selectively chosen" is absolutely NOT the basis of domestication. Human selection is quite necessary for domestication. But IN NO WAY does human selection = domestication. All the comparisons and examples you have given are just that human selection. When human selection causes organisms with adaptive differences to suddenly "succeed", we are leaning towards domestication, and when these adaptive differences are passed to succeeding generation, we have domesticated the organism.

Going back to an original question, what adaptive difference is their between your "Domestica" clam and a clam in the ocean? Are these traits passed on to successive generations? I must insist there are no adaptive differences, and if differences do exist (such as an atypical zooxanthellae colonizing the clam as you mentioned), this is an environmnetal condition, and it is NOT passed along to future generations. It is therefore an indivudal adaptation, not a domestication.

Quote:
We gathered up all the wild cows (wild Aurock bull) and simply selected to breed those with which we found most pleasing .(smaller and less aggressive) It would be no different if we collected all the wild clams and then only bred the brightly colored ones.
What does this have to do with domestication- it is human selection.

Quote:
Wild animals have only proven themselves living out in the pristine wild reef.Cultivated clams and corals which cant survive the conditions at the farm dont reach the consumer.
Thats the difference . And a big one.
I dont have any idea what this is supposed to mean, or why it applies to anything we're talking about
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #48  
Old 07/25/2007, 12:10 PM
jmaneyapanda jmaneyapanda is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Blue Ridge, GA
Posts: 1,589
Quote:
Originally posted by Kalkbreath
The brood stock can be several generations old.
Breeding true is the main objective in these operations.
There is much work right now with zooxanthellae switching.
Brown corals and clam seem to be more resistant to warm water bleaching.
Taking the tolerant zoox and injecting it into colorful corals yields a very unlikely pair.
Much like finding blue eyed Siamese cats that are not deaf.
Then establishing a brood which has the blue eyes but with out the disadvantage is not hearing.
Again, I have no idea where you are going with this. How does this show anything?
__________________
"Everybody's clever nowadays"
  #49  
Old 07/25/2007, 05:42 PM
Kalkbreath Kalkbreath is offline
Registered Member.
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 311
Most of human domestication is from simply selecting those we find appealing.
"Monstrosities" as Darwin called them sometimes strike our human fancy.
Selecting those monsters we like and helping them to carry on is the mainstay of human domestication of species.
Wheat with seed stalks which dont fall off as we carry them to the barn end up in a seed bag instead of on the ground.
The seed in the bags is used to sow the next seasons crop.
There was no premeditated manipulation in this event.

Thats no different then clams which fail to keep their color and adapt to the captive conditions fade or die and whos empty shells are tossed on the ground.
Then when its time to spawn the remaining clams next Spring, the clams still alive and the ones with the best color are selected to seed the next batch.

Its no different then how most plants were domesticated prior to 1900s.... human selection instead of mother nature went on for thousands of years.

Cows with bigger utters and smaller horns are selected by the farmer to breed and continue that trait.

Humans had already Domesticated wild life by "selecting" long before they had the ability to manipulate the genes.

Maybe we should back up .... I would be interested in your take on which of the tens of thousands of domestic plants would pass your litmus test.

(Also I wish more people would join the fun and voice their opinions)
  #50  
Old 07/25/2007, 09:11 PM
mbbuna mbbuna is offline
Team RC Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: De
Posts: 5,847
how did the thread i started on "sand clams" turn into a discussion of cows with large mammaries?
__________________
looking for grammar check

------------------------------------------------
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef Central™ Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2009