will a wc clown host better or will a tank raised one will? [Archive]

cschweitzer

03/30/2007, 01:21 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9607368#post9607368 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mr Neutron
Just a FYI, percs and false percs don't naturally host with entacmaea quadricolor (bubble tips). I'm also doubtful that tb clowns won't host. Just like any wild animal you can't just remove behaviour that's imbeded in their genes.

Everything you stated here is correct and I don't think anyone disagrees.

Only thing I may contrast is the last statement.
What about breaking a wild horse?
House breaking a dog? Or crate training? Dogs were once wolves that ate humans...
What about lion tamers and big cat owners?
What about ferrets(close to my heart)? They were originally bred to ferret out rodents...mine would be afraid of them.
What about seals bouncing a ball on their nose?
Dolphins pushing people with their noses?

Those behaviors are trained behaviors. They get rewarded for good, reprimanded for the bad. Just like humans and rehabilitation. In fact, I would say that everything we do is learned and that instinctual is learned through copying, repetition, and the need for survival. Instincts are altered every day. Needs and instincts are very different in my opinion.

You need food, you need water, it is not your instinct to eat or drink. You need mating for repoduction of your species, you do not need a home to live in.

cschweitzer

03/30/2007, 01:25 PM

The problem is that we don't adapt to nature like most every other animal(besides beavers), we adapt nature to us. Once a fish is caught for the purpose of observation(as we do in our tanks) natural must be thrown out the window.

We and beavers make the world work around us. Evolution is now less based on the earth and more on what humans will force upon every other species...clowns in captivity are much more likely to have different attitudes than WC's. Just as WC's are more suceptable to having disease or getting stressed in a fish tank. Their not used to us making them adapt around our whims.

55semireef

03/30/2007, 02:22 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9607455#post9607455 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cschweitzer

Only thing I may contrast is the last statement.
What about breaking a wild horse?
House breaking a dog? Or crate training? Dogs were once wolves that ate humans...
What about lion tamers and big cat owners?
What about ferrets(close to my heart)? They were originally bred to ferret out rodents...mine would be afraid of them.
What about seals bouncing a ball on their nose?
Dolphins pushing people with their noses?

You got some concepts mixed up in your statements. There is a big difference between training a animal to do something and breeding an animal to lose a characteristic or gain one.

Dogs are still like wolves very much. They still have the instinct to go into packs, still have the instinct to bark or make some kind of noise when they feel threatened or want attention. Dogs still have a very good sense of smell and hearing just like wolves do. However, what seperates the two animals is that dogs are domesticated now. They have been bred over hundreds of years to lose some traits and gain others. For instance, they are friendly and are much smaller. They are related to the wolf but are also completely different. It took selective breeding to have dogs become mans best friend. Not to mention, when you say wolves killed humans, so have dogs. There are many attacks of dogs on humans as you know. It all goes back to instinct.

Again, you can't compare a house cat to the king of the jungle. They are related but seperated by hundreds of thousands of generations if not millions. BTW, there is no such thing as a tamed lion. Yes there are trained ones which will perform certain acts (motivated by food) but there have been many cases where a "tamed lion" all of a sudden reacts to a certain behavior that a human does and then instinct takes over. They attack the trainer. You cannot train a lion to lose its instincts.

Hopefully I have made my point. Sure animals can be trained to do certain tricks or behaviors but they still have their instincts. They are animals. Dolphins have been known to attack humans and even kill them. And yes, trained dolphins.

now what do these topics have anything to do with clownfish may I ask? A WC is just as likely to host an anemone as a TB. They will to host an anemone is based on purley instincts. Unless evolution is happening right before our eyes, clownfish will not lose that instinct to host anemones.

cschweitzer

03/30/2007, 02:48 PM

House cats are considered the biggest hunter or all cats. Per capita, they kill more animals than any other cats. they have the widest range of prey, they use animals as toys.

This is not my personal view, it was on discovery channel's 10 most deadly cats...But most of these cats are not "domesticated" like we do with most animals...the best cat hunters are the outdoor cats.

The question is not whether a dog can still smell as well, because I am not arguing that the clownfish's natural immunity to anems is altered, just its behavior to them...

cschweitzer

03/30/2007, 02:55 PM

You are really just arguing semantics, because instincts(in the wild) determine an animals behavior in situations that arise. In captivity, these behaviors change or are forcibly altered. By changing these behaviors manually, this will inevitably change the child's instincts. Senses are not instincts...sense of smell, sense of sight...not instincts.

instinct
1 A natural aptitude
2 A largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason

So based on the environment given in the wild, its instinct is to find and live in an anemone. Its "instinct" in our tanks is completely different. Instincts change based on environment and the stimuli or said environment. As environment is altered, so are "instincts"

cschweitzer

03/30/2007, 03:10 PM

Aren't most animals acts trained by food? That's how lions got their instinct to kill and be considered dangerous in the first place...

Also when I said big cat, I meant panthers, leopards, cheetahs, as many south FL eccentrics own...they are legal as pets here in FL.

What about my question on ferrets? the black footed ferret(endangered) in the wild will hunt animals of the family of rodents, but my ferrets are scared of mice. In fact any wild ferret in the mustalid family will do so. My ferrets will not eat raw meat when I give it to them, but they love yogurt snacks. My ferrets don't touch bones, but they'll gnaw on a greenie(the dog chews). In fact, it has been proven that domesticated ferret released back in the wild will most of the time die within the first week.

Same with many animals released back in the wild...shouldn't instincts defined by your defense just kick back in? Why do so few domesticated animals not survive when placed back in the wild?

teog

03/30/2007, 09:29 PM

I have never trained dolphins, lions, bevers, ferrets or any other animal you brought up(except dogs, I trained schutzhund for many yrs). But it sounds like you have. So you should know instinct and behavior are two different things. Just ask Roy from "Siegfried and Roy." They thought they trained/modified the behavior of the tiger, but his true INSTINCT came out. Trained animal attacks happen frequently. Good thing my untrained clown doesnt bite like a tiger.lol

Many TB clowns who have never seen an anenome from birth, some how know what to do with it once its introduced. This is not a learned behavior, its part of its natural instinct.

The people on RC to listen to are RedVipe, GSM, myself, and a few other really intelligent people.
I do, however, post and read and learn every day. I read Wilkerson's book, Hoff's book, I've been to ORA twice, I talk to breeder's of every type of clownfish(20/28 recorded species and a few unrecorded hybrids), and at some point hope to make it my life

Like I said prior give me real facts from a reputable fish farms and
not just your opinion because you feel people shoud listen to you. Until then Im done.

55semireef

03/31/2007, 10:57 AM

The people on RC to listen to are RedVipe, GSM, myself, and a few other really intelligent people

Who made this statement and care to explain yourself?

55semireef

03/31/2007, 11:11 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9608120#post9608120 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cschweitzer
This is not my personal view, it was on discovery channel's 10 most deadly cats...But most of these cats are not "domesticated" like we do with most animals...the best cat hunters are the outdoor cats.

Yes apparently you watched the Most Extreme and saw the house cat as one of the deadly cats. I never aruged how deadly a house cat was or its behavior did I? All I said was you can't compare a house cat to a lion. Yes house cats have that strong instinct to kill and go hunting. Its in their genetics.

Senses are not instincts...sense of smell, sense of sight...not instincts.
I know the difference between the two. No need to get the definitions. I never said instincts were the same thing as senses of smell nor did I get them confused.

Dogs still have a very good sense of smell and hearing just like wolves do.
Did I ever include the word instinct in that phrase? No I did not. Since you didn't understand what I exactly said, let me reword it. Dogs after many years of seperation between the wolf still retain their strong instincts and senses of smell. These characteristics that dogs have have not been lossed even through domestication. However, dogs have lost that wild animal type behavior and their agression. Dogs have been along side of humans for hundreds of years and have been puposely bred to accomodate man and to be "man's best friend."

I am not going to try and debate your situation with your ferret as I know nothing about them.

I am sorry but you can't alter an instinct. Since you disagree, can you provide an accuate reference and a good example? I would be interested.

teog

03/31/2007, 04:47 PM

55semireef- Since you ask here is the link to the orignal thread. Happy reading..lol
http://archive.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1083738

55semireef

04/01/2007, 10:17 AM

You don't have to agree...just go to the anem and clownfish forum or go over to rareclownfish.com(where I am a moderater) and ask the question in a new thread. The people on RC to listen to are RedVipe, GSM, myself, and a few other really intelligent people. Over on RCF, listen to CFK(clownfishking), EZHoops, Schlecht, and many other really intelligent breeders.

That's a funny statement. ^^^:lol: :lol:

teog, I completely agree with you on that link. TB clowns have that same strong instinct to host anemones as WC clowns. For heaven sakes, I bought two Clarkiis from PETCO (yes PETCO!!!) and soon as they went in the tank, both of them dove into the blue Haddoni immediately. There was no hesitation whatsoever. And cschweitzer calls that non-instinctual? lol. Whatever...

I am done with this thread.

Me No Nemo

04/01/2007, 11:31 AM

Pictured are snowflake clowns, tank bred in England. These pics were taken within 5 hours of being placed in a tank with an anemone. They hosted almost immediately. My experience leads me to believe that it is instinctual for them to find a home that will afford a safe haven. Even when hosting toadstools, they often dive below them when approached. My two true percs...one WC and one TB, will always host something...but if an anemone is present, they will host that before all else. I do think, for the most part, WC host anemones somewhat more readily, but perhaps because they recognize the anemone from previous experience? With TB, it seems they kinda stumble on it one day and then instinct kicks in and draws them to it.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/menonemo/100_1048.jpg

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c32/menonemo/100_1045.jpg

teog

04/01/2007, 12:50 PM

Me No Nemo- Nice pics of the snow flakes. The desjardin in my pic was bought from your store a few months ago. Your employees were calling her cindy jr.lol anyway she is doing great!

55semireef

04/01/2007, 01:12 PM

Me No Nemo, I agree with you hundred percent. Its just like how a baby lion has the instinct to kill. If they see something they can catch and kill, at first they don't know what to do. The instincts are there but they have no previous experiences on making a kill. I believe the same principle applies with TB and WC clownfish. WC clowns have the past experience of hosting anemones to while TB clowns don't(unless they were in a tank with anemones when they were reared). Regardless, TB clowns still have that drive to host anemones whether it takes them 2 months, 2 days or 2 seconds. You can't change or supress instincts.

Me No Nemo

04/01/2007, 01:32 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9621142#post9621142 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by teog
Me No Nemo- Nice pics of the snow flakes. The desjardin in my pic was bought from your store a few months ago. Your employees were calling her cindy jr.lol anyway she is doing great!

Thanks, I love snowflakes!
Glad Cindy Jr. is doing great! Aren't they great fish! I think they have more personality than the other tangs. Marcye

skinnyjoe1976

04/01/2007, 09:45 PM

good call marcye. my question is don't most fish try to find some where to hide when they feel treaten? damsel hide in staghorn at night correct. so why would it not be the same for clowns wc or not to host for protection? and maybe if we wait a 1,000 years from now maybe we'll see who is right.

osiris4evr

04/02/2007, 09:08 AM

Ive seen 3 captive breed crowns all hosting a feather duster! I'm pretty sure it doesnt matter if the are CB or WC they just do it!

cschweitzer

04/02/2007, 09:22 AM

My only question that discounts many of the statements above is this:
Why can you not release a captive raised animal into the wild with great success(very few animals that are ever taken into captivity can be released, and only then with significant training). I think everyone is getting trained behaviors confused with instinct. Anything can be trained, rewarded, and taught to do things. As a human, are we not trained from birth to act a certain way, do certain things, etc?

Trained behaviors is not only trained by humans but by the parents, others of its type, or by predators. Trained is something you would not naturally do without prompting, in my idea of trained in this statement.

Is a feather duster an anemone? No. Noone listens to what I said. This is not so much a discussion of hosting, because hosting in a clownfish means a symbiotic relationship with an anemone. There is no sybiotic relationship with a featherduster, with a pump, a ph, etc. I could have sworn I explained this previously. It is not natural for a clown to host a duster, hence proving my point even further. It is not instinctual to host an anem, but it is to "host", or show hosting behavior with something...if it happens to be an anem, then so be it.

chrisstie

04/02/2007, 09:43 AM

Not to hijack this, but I could have sworm when reading that without glasses or caffeiene, Craig, you said you wanted to host in a clownfish. I'd believe it too haha

But what you're saying kind of goes back a little bit to what I had suggested earlier- in clownfish its perhaps part nature and part nurture.

Clownfish, in the wild, typically cannot survive from hatching to adulthood without an anemone. They will get eaten or what not if they cant find an anemone to find home. That is such a simple truth that generally leads to some fundamental form of instinct "i must do this or else"...

When you have a domesticated creature - which i guess you could call tankbred as such - you have removed the threats of the wild, but the instinct remains. So while not feeling threatened clowns still probably feel they need to belong somewhere and will take what they can get. Why it takes so long for some to host in anything or why they may never do it at all is a bit of a mystery to me but in the way Craig used one of his clowns to sort of show his others that "Hi, this is an anemone, you go in it"

leads me to believe that the nurture part is something wild clowns get from all other wild clowns.. in a breeding tank with no anemone, well, that part of it is lost so its like they dont quite know what to do - they want to go somewhere comfortable and safe feeling but if they haven't seen an anemone before .. how would they know except to dash away to the fastest place to hide which could be your anemone when you put them in the tank

who knows, im back to babbling. im bored and need people to talk to for crying out loud its way more fun than engineering classes :)

cschweitzer

04/02/2007, 09:53 AM

Besides, the word "instinct" is just a word some human came up with to describe an unexplainable phenomenon of animal nature. I think that instincts are highly overrated. Just because it is a natural ability, a natural action, a natural defense, does this make it instinct or is this a trained response due to outlying factors? Is it instinct that keeps most fish from eating cleaner gobies or is it a specific color pattern that reminds fish that the goby is a helpful part of the environment. It is unexplainable as to exactly why most fish won't eat them, so I guess we could just chalk it up to instinct. I personally feel there is a lot more to it, but since we cannot explain it, we choose to label it as an unexplainable entity or force. I think that a reaction to a threat is not necissarily a common reaction, but a trained response to an outside factors. Learning something on your own, I believe is also a trained response. You touch the surface of a stove and realize not to do it again, it is not instinct, but rather a knowledge of what can and/or will occur as an outcome to a specific predetermined action. Guess that's just the CS major in me. AI is just that, it is a recreation of intelligent life. Intelligent life learns from previous experiences, trains itsself to deduce logical outcomes and builds a structure and guidline for living through these past experiences.

However, thinking about this from another viewpoint and one of the best counterpoints for your side(I'm actually surprised that noone brought this up) is survivability in the wild. It would still disprove instinct, but it could definitely help your side of the issue. The fact that over 99% of wild clownfish will not make it to adulthood. This could prove that clowns in the wild and clowns that are TB have statistically the same proportion of clowns that go into anems, but it would also prove that it is not necessarily instinct, but dumb luck that a WC clown makes it into an anem. Maybe it is true that WC clowns will even have less success with anem pairing in the wild because many just float around until they're eaten. Some, very few, by chance, by tides and current, or like previously mentioned by sheer coincidence, they flop into an anem and realize that it means safety for them when no predators chase them while in it.

If this were true, it would mean that no clown necissarily seeks out an anem and is dedicated on finding it, but instead it would be a good spot for resting. However, it would prove that it is as likely to have a WC host as it is a TB. If you buy into this debate, though, you would have to conceed that in a tank, it would be more likely that WC would host by the sheer percentages of babies that may not host in comparison to in the wild having same percentages per clutch that will host, but the ones that won't or don't will be killed off early in life.

cschweitzer

04/02/2007, 09:58 AM

Chrisstie, I love the way that you put everything so well-defined. I kind of go off on rants and tangents and sometimes lose what I was trying to explain...you make everything so simplified and laid out for everyone to understand, whereas I understand exactly what I'm trying to explain, but noone else can:).

Me No Nemo

04/02/2007, 10:28 AM

I think instinct in animals is very strong. Take my golden retriever. He's never been trained to retrieve. Neither were his parents. Yet, anyone with a retriever will tell you that they are driven by the need to retrieve. Throw a tennis ball and they will return it over and over. Many breeds won't. They never need to be taught to retrieve and in fact, it's extremely hard to break them of the instinct to retrieve. I have to believe that survival for most animals is based on their instincts. Many animals are not raised by their parents. Sea turtles, for example, hatch and instinctively follow light to end up in the ocean....thus the laws in many seaside towns that do not permit strong lighting near the shoreline since the baby turtles will go towards that rather than towards the water. If not instinctual, than how can that be explained? What about salmon?

"Instinct
What exactly is an instinct? If some behaviors are physical manifestations of instincts, understanding what an instinct is and how they evolved is a good first step to understanding the behavior of animals. An instinct is a behavior that animals exhibit independent of the wide range of learning and experiences of different individuals. Some times referred to as “hard-wiring”, instinct is the result of brain physiology. This is supported by Irenaus Eibl-Eibesfeldt who wrote in his book Ethology- the Biology of Behavior that “Innate behavior patterns may already be fully functional at the time of hatching or birth”. Often developed during critical periods, instinctual behaviors have evolved over evolutionary time to ensure the survival and reproduction of that species. Other behaviors evolve or are learned and perfected over an individual’s life time. The goal is the same, to survive and to reproduce.

Instinctive behaviors have been studied for some time. One such study examined the instinctive behaviors of newborn primates. In the early 1960’s a study was done with a baby Rhesus monkey abandoned by its mother shortly after birth. Researchers placed the baby in a room with two “mothers”. One of the surrogate mothers was made of wire and had no distinguishing features of a mother except that it had a bottle attached to it containing milk. The second wire mother had a soft blanket and a “face” on it. In a 24-hour span of time, the baby stayed on the soft mother the overwhelming majority of the time even though it had nothing to offer in the way of food. Instinctually, the baby monkey was drawn to the surrogate that could provide the warmth of what it thought was a mother.

Birds offer another example of instinctual behavior. The well known animal behaviorist Konrad Lorenz has been studying animals of all types including the Graylag Goose. Instinctively, the Graylag Goose and birds in general, know that upon hatching, they are looking for their mother. She is a being that is larger than they are within certain parameters and that she provides food. This is where the instinct stops and the learning begins. They learn that the first being they are in contact with who meets these criteria must be the mother. Imprinting occurs at this point. By moving slowly and crouching close to the ground Konrad Lorenz imprinted the geese on himself by being the first slow moving creature larger than themselves that they encountered. While the imprinting is a phenomenon that is most often seen in the world of birds and not to the companion animals that students of this class will be working with it is associated with instinctive behaviors of reproduction and nurturing.

The instinct part of that scenario seems to end at the “knowing” that the first relatively large being is the mother. The learned part seems to come when the newly hatched chick identifies or learns the exact shape and features of the object it will act towards as a parent. “Imprinting occurs at a critical period in development”. (Goldsmith and Zimmerman) It is important to note that the critical period for all behaviors is not always at birth. Critical development periods occur in most animals and are often rather short periods of time."
From text by
Kimberly J. Workinger
The Sound School Regional Vocational Aquaculture Center
New Haven

I think the example with the geese can be applied to the clowns. They are programmed to find safety and the first thing they come upon that affords that becomes their host.

taketz

04/02/2007, 11:11 AM

Basically, alot of what everyone is arguing on this thread is pretty much null a void unless certain Breeders specifically single out Perculas to breed that do/do not instinctively host in Anemones. Thats what changed wolves into dogs and virtually every other domesticated animal into what it is today. Selective breeding with the hopes of singling out certain characteristics. ex; human compatability, size, color, ect.

If that is not present, then WC and TB Percs should theoritically search out anemones at about the same percentage.

Now, this brings up another point; Why don't Perc breeders attempt to selectively breed pairs which will host in anemones. A few years work into that will be equivilent to a few million years of evolution...

~

Me No Nemo

04/02/2007, 11:33 AM

Well, ORA, for instance, breeds from WC pairs. The 25 year old pair I have from them bred for 23 years, never having been in an anemone all that time, yet when placed with an anemone went to it almost immediately. Their picassos parents are WC, so they should have the basic instinct to be drawn into an anemone. I guess one question is how many generations does it take for a TB clownfish to lose it's instinctual habits? My Maroon clowns (home) are second generation and went immediately (within days) into a carpet anemone. Perhaps the best answer is to breed TB from WC to keep the wild tendencies pure.

cschweitzer

04/02/2007, 12:24 PM

My picassos took over 9 months to stop hosting an overflow box and go into the anem...and this was only through training them.

They were from the original WC ORA picasso pair. Don't think it has anything to do with 1st or 2nd gen...more to do with the percent of larvae going through MMP in TB in comparison to WC and the fact that the ones that are WC obviously had that push into the anem at a very very young age(through security from predation). Chances are very high that you will never get a WC clown that did not spend most of its entire life in an anem, because it would have been food for something else...

teog

04/02/2007, 05:04 PM

Me No Nemo _ I love your analogy on the salmon and geese. It comes right from the dictionary.
in·stinct-
1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

2. A powerful motivation or impulse.

3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy

Just because we are talking about a TB clownfish, we have not domesticated it. We have breed a species within our living rooms. It doesnt play fetch, get the paper, lay in our laps, swim circles when it hears the door bell ring, jump over a tight rope for a snack, etc.(the highlite is "oooh my puffer spits water," or "ooohhh my fish lets me pet it when Im about to feed."

do·mes·ti·cate
1. to convert (animals, plants, etc.) to domestic uses; tame.

2. to tame (an animal), esp. by generations of breeding, to live in close association with human beings as a pet or work animal and usually creating a dependency so that the animal loses its ability to live in the wild.

This deffinition does not describe out fish.

You can not compare mammals to fish. Yes many captive raised animals that are domesticated could not live back in the wild. However many species can, IE snakes(I dont consider snakes to be domesticated either). Look at the issue south florida is having with boas, and pythons. These are even with captive raised snakes.

How about fish? it is against the law to release non-florida species of fish back in the waters(its against the law for all non-florida species). WHY? Because they do adapt and damage our eco systems. For example I have see lion fish and yellow tangs diving in FT lauderdale. These fish were never trained to be reintroduced into florida waters. Some smuck took a drive to the beach and let them go.

I think everyone is getting trained behaviors confused with instinct.
No I dont think so. Just because the majority of people disagree with you doesnt make them confused.

teog

04/02/2007, 05:19 PM

I hit submit to soon. lol

You also have the quaker parrot. Which is illegal to own in many states due to a few pets escaping and over several years they're thousand of them living and destroying local crops. You can see wild quakers in Tampa, Orlando and South Florida. Which again are not naitive to North America.

There has been many sightings of other types of parrots living in south Florida and even nesting. Parrots from all sorts of conures to cockatoos. Which were all pets at one time. Is this to say all escaped birds live, no not at all. However many have.

So these few examples of birds, fish and snakes prove that animals that were once "pets" do not have to be trained to re-live in the wild. They can hunt and find food on their own. INSTINCT.:rollface:

cschweitzer

04/02/2007, 07:13 PM

in·stinct-
1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

So the environment of a fish tank or the environment of tank breeding leads these clowns suceptable to all of the same problems as in the wild? Or are you saying that in the wild the clownfishes conditions are the same as in the tank?

If you believe this to be true, then the instincts of WC and TB clownfish are not at all the same. Thus, your point of TB clownfish going right into an anem due to instincts just became null and void.

chrisstie

04/02/2007, 07:22 PM

Just to clarify I wasn't calling the fish in our tanks domesticated.. just sort of equating tank bred to being near that sort of status compared to living out in the wild since, you know, tank breds haven't been in the wild.. if that makes sense?

This conversation is getitng so deep and into symantics i can't even keep track of it anymore ;p

taketz

04/02/2007, 07:48 PM

Cschweitzer has a point, but I don't think its been clearly made or explained yet. The fact is, many breeders of TB clownfish do not worry whether or not the clowns they are breeding host in Anenome's. This tends to lead toward a pattern of selective breeding where the instinct of hosting an anenome might become less important than other aspects.

Furthermore, I would imagine in the wild, the instinct to host in an Anenome to be of great survival importance. Meaning, those clownfish which reached a size where they would likely be caught would more than likely have that instinct, given that they lived long enough to be said size. Again, this is just speculation, but I would imagine it to be true.

Now, like I said before, breeders could make this less of an issue by only breeding pairs with a strong instinct to host, therefore making it a desirable trait for TB clownfish.

~

Me No Nemo

04/02/2007, 09:52 PM

Doing some reading and found these facts...although off the current subject, I've seen people question both issues addressed below. Not sure the source of this, it's from a website addressed as:nhu.ku.ecu so I'm assuming some type of biology text. Still interesting facts to ponder:

"In another instance of anemone affecting fish, the normally orange-coloured portions of the fish darken, so that the fish is black, rather than orange, with white stripes. This type of melanism differs from that associated with size and certain isolated geographical populations (see Chapter 2). Only certain species of fish react this way, and only in certain species of actinians -- for example, A. chrysopterus in S. mertensii, and A. polymnus in H. crispa. Such changes may be relatively rapid, so that an orange fish transferred to another anemone will darken within a matter of hours. Lightening, once removed from that host, generally occurs more slowly. The adaptive value of this reaction to either partner is unknown.

The fish can also affect its anemone. In the presence of a resident fish, tentacles of E. quadricolor bulge near the end, but in the absence of a fish, the tentacles commonly lack bulbs. Specimens of this anemone are often identified as different species based solely on tentacle form. But in all other respects they are indistinguishable. The transformation of an anemone from a member of the non-bulbous "species" into a member of the other putative species can be effected by placing an anemonefish among its tentacles, which develop bulbs within minutes. The reverse occurs when a fish is removed, although more slowly. The bulb exposes a larger surface area of the tentacle to sunlight, so that the algae may be able to gather more solar energy, but why that should happen only in the presence of fish, and how it occurs, are enigmas."

teog

04/02/2007, 10:21 PM

Me No Nemo-great read. I found it very interesting

chrisstie-Thanks for the clarification. Others have mentioned the word domesticated or even tame. I also agree about the symantics

taketz-I found what you said intriguing about breeding the instinc out of the clown to host. IE breeding multiple generations of TB clowns. I dont know if I buy it, but only time will tell.

cschweitzer-Take you pick on dictionary.com. Doesnt mean Im "null and void" , just means theres tons of deffinitions out there. I selected that deffinition since it went with some ones statement. Here is the first deffinition for you.
1. inborn pattern of activity or tendency to action common to a given biological species.

BUT back to the original topic....Does a TB host any less than a WC clown? Survey says....NO.

There is no facts to show this. So if you have legitament articles on the topic from true experts or marine biologists, send me the links. I would be excited to read them, as would many here.

cschweitzer

04/03/2007, 07:08 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9632806#post9632806 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Me No Nemo
The fish can also affect its anemone. In the presence of a resident fish, tentacles of E. quadricolor bulge near the end, but in the absence of a fish, the tentacles commonly lack bulbs. Specimens of this anemone are often identified as different species based solely on tentacle form. But in all other respects they are indistinguishable. The transformation of an anemone from a member of the non-bulbous "species" into a member of the other putative species can be effected by placing an anemonefish among its tentacles, which develop bulbs within minutes. The reverse occurs when a fish is removed, although more slowly. The bulb exposes a larger surface area of the tentacle to sunlight, so that the algae may be able to gather more solar energy, but why that should happen only in the presence of fish, and how it occurs, are enigmas."

The problem with this is that it is not true. I have clowns host in a non-bulb BTA and I have a BTA with bulbs that is not hosted...it is agreed that there is not just one reason that a BTA "bulbs".

Also, hypermelanization(the previous part of the quote) is also not directly related to a species of anemone.

cschweitzer

04/03/2007, 07:13 AM

Teog, just because you're using a word incorrectly and giving an incorrect definition on this site doesn't mean I'm wrong either. You're the one that needs to choose a definition and stick with it, because you are aguing for instinct, I am arguing against it. I can use any definition I want. Don't just post three definitions and then say, oh, but there are other definitions. If you meant for you explanation of instinct to include only this last definition, don't start spitting out others to use for your proof. Especially if when someone disclaims it, you just change your idea of what instinct is...there is no way to argue my point when you keep changing my point on me.

teog

04/03/2007, 08:45 AM

Teog, just because you're using a word incorrectly and giving an incorrect definition on this site doesn't mean I'm wrong either.

Criag I never said you were wrong. I said you have no proof, and you have yet to bring some to the table.

And Im done.

Me No Nemo

04/03/2007, 09:15 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9634815#post9634815 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cschweitzer
The problem with this is that it is not true. I have clowns host in a non-bulb BTA and I have a BTA with bulbs that is not hosted...it is agreed that there is not just one reason that a BTA "bulbs".

Also, hypermelanization (the previous part of the quote) is also not directly related to a species of anemone.

Note in the quote that it says "can" affect. There are often multiple cause/effect scenarios that can play out...nature vs. tank etc., so saying "that's not true," because it happens differently sometimes isn't a fair conclusion, IMO.

The information quoted, came from the University of Kansas Natural History Museum and Biodiversity Research Center.
"Our scientists are heading an international initiative that uses information technology to harness biodiversity information from three billion specimens of plants and animals in museums worldwide. This vast storehouse of knowledge, the result of 300 years of the biological exploration of the planet, previously lay largely untapped. Today, the information stored with each specimen — when and where it was collected, the habitat in which it lived and other information — combined with geographic and climate data, is a powerful tool for simulating and predicting environmental phenomena that affect life and increasing knowledge to inform conservation and natural resource management."

Can you provide documentation to the contrary? This is one area that fascinates me.

Me No Nemo

04/03/2007, 09:39 AM

Let's not have this erode! Any good discussion involves point/counterpoint as Teog was doing. Initial hypotheses evolve when a point is countered with stronger or more indepth understanding or additional facts or research conclusions. If we address the issues by providing scientific basis, this can be a very worthwhile and informative discussion! There are many opinions and lots of experimentation, both in nature and in-home aquaria/research facilities...obviously different conclusions will be reached through these processes, so it's not really a matter of who's right or wrong, but laying out solid results so that conclusions can be individually drawn.

cschweitzer

04/03/2007, 09:47 AM

I'm sorry, I missed this statement:
This type of melanism differs from that associated with size and certain isolated geographical populations (see Chapter 2)

Do you know what this article said in chapter two about hypermelanization? I concede the first portion of what you said because I don't know what the study produced in Ch. 2. Until I have time to read the whole thing, I will leave that point. What they said was not about hypermelanization, it was more about temporary melanization due to reaction with an anem...my bad.

Because something "can" affect something does not make it normal, does not make it readily producible in testing, and does not make it true. I can do a lot of things that I don't.

Adding high dosage of phosphates can make your BTA bubble, adding new lighting, adding more flow, adding different spectrum of lighting, not feeding for a few weeks(although will also more than likely bleach the anem also)...just because it can, does it mean it will? Maybe it'll just kill the thing, maybe it'll actually bubble, maybe it will do no affect whatsoever. Just like maybe the fish will not make its BTA bubble. That's giving very shaky proof for a very shaky initial conclusion. No backing whatsoever except that they have seen a BTA bubble after a clown went into it.

So they use other people's studies over the past three hundred years, and are putting it to use on three billion specimens...doesn't leave much time for any one specimen...doesn't make me convinced that they know thing 1 about clowns. Do they have a reference page on where they got this info?

That's what I hate about science. Because someone states something, the burden is on me to prove it wrong...I personally feel the burden should be on them to prove it right. Showing portions of a scientific study without conclusive backing. I can go through hundreds of steps to find a contrapositive, where it would take specific controlled studies to prove it right...besides, nothing in science can be proven...it's the fact that it has not been disproven yet that makes it a theory...this is one of my biggest beef's with science and the reason that I will counterpoint almost any scientific theory and/or law. Just because I can't disprove something does not automatically make it right.

So I will counterpoint their second theory with this:
"The fish can also HAVE NO affect its anemone. In the presence of a resident fish, tentacles of E. quadricolor DO NOT NECISSARILY bulge near the end, but in the absence of a fish, the tentacles MAY NOT commonly lack bulbs AND SOMETIMES WILL HAVE BULBS ONLY WHEN FISH IS NOT PRESENT. Specimens of this anemone are often identified as different species based solely on tentacle form, UNLESS YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT ANEMONES, THEN YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TELL ITS GENUS AND SPECIES. But in all other respects they are indistinguishable. The transformation of an anemone from a member of the non-bulbous "species" into a member of the other putative species can be effected by placing an anemonefish among its tentacles, which develop bulbs within minutes; HENCE THE REASONING THAT THEY ARE NOT SEPARATE SPECIES, LIKE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED...ANIMALS CAN NOT CHANGE SPECIES LIKE THIS. The reverse MAY NOT occur when a fish is removed, although more slowly. The bulb exposes a larger surface area of the tentacle to sunlight, so that the algae may be able to gather more solar energy, but why that should happen only in the presence of fish, and how it occurs, are enigmas, THAT ARE ANSWERED LIKE SO: THIS STATEMENT CAN NOT BE TRUE UNDER MANY, MANY CIRCUMSTANCES."

My part is uppercase so you can tell the difference. Now please try to disprove my new theory I just made up through alteration of someone else's concocted beliefs.

Also, you shouldn't start off with can and then have the last line of your theory be:"but why that should happen ONLY in the presence of fish, and how it occurs, are enigmas" You can't say possible and then say only...these are contradicting statements within his own ideas.

cschweitzer

04/03/2007, 09:53 AM

The only reason I stated that is because if someone wants to mention instincts, they have to stick with one definition of it that they are trying to prove. By switching the definition he is using mid-discussion, I cannot combat this with reason, logic, or examples. If everyone is saying I'm wrong, at least agree on what I am wrong about.

Changing definitions of your main argument in the middle is either unfair or conceding the point(which you can look back and see that I have done many times so far, including the previous post). I will not hold to an side when your points have countered it already. But at the same time, I will not change the direction in the middle on a 180degree slant because someone countered my point either.

cschweitzer

04/03/2007, 10:10 AM

Changing a definition midstream is impossible to combat with any reason.

What if I were to say, "I read (fictitious name of magazine) Clownfishes, therefore I know this topic very well."

Logically, by saying this, you would conclude that I have a monthly subscription and I read every volume...when you combat a statement I just made, I change the meaning of "read" from present to past tense. No, I don't read it every month, I have read it before one time...oh, well. You must have misunderstood me when I defined "read" in present tense.

My point? If you define a word that is the main centerpoint of a discussion, you have to stick with that definition. Many words have multiple definitions...it's how you are using these definitions in the statements that matters.

55semireef

04/05/2007, 07:13 PM

cschweitzer, no one is changing definitions on you. Your just over analyzing them. All Teog did was address a couple of definitions of the word instinct. If there are multiple definitions of a word, then there are multiple meanings to the word and thus there are multiple ways to argue his side of that word. No one made a rule saying you can only use one definition. That's like a 9th grade debate class.

BTW cschweitzer, you have yet to provide factual proof of half the stuff you claim. Anyone can hyothesize and read fun faqs off the internet. Claiming that your a moderator on another website that is much much smaller than RC and calling yourself and some others the more intelligent folks does not give you the right to claim all these facts without proof.

You still have yet to back up your argument when you said TB clowns are less likely to host anemones while WC are more likely to host anemones. I told you that my TB Clarkii clowns that I bought from PETCO hosted my blue Haddoni less than 5 seconds. If you want me to provide references, I can show you the pictures of them when first introduced in the tank. So...explain this phenomonon. I call that instinct but you tend to think otherwise based off your past posts.

To be on the less hotly side now, I belive that it is pure instinct for a clownfish to host an anemone regardless if the clowns are TB or WC. I think we can all agree on that the behavior of clownfish hosting an anemone is instincts, not trained behavior. Now cschweitzer, I believe you said that clowns hosting featherdusters, PH and overflow boxes are not instincts but trained behaviors. Well, I disagree. I believe that if an anemone not of their natural choice or just an anemone is not present, the clownfish will find some other alternative as a refuge. Clownfish do not end up accidently in a host and all of a sudden think that this is safety like you said. Thousands and thousands of years of evolution is not caused by luck. Clownfish have the instinct to find an anemone and seek refuge. Yes, many don't make it due to predation but for the clownfish that do, its because of instincts, not trained behavior. The ocean is more complex than Finding Nemo where the mother and father clownfish can teach their baby clownfish and "train them." Obviously mother and father clownfish don't train their young. Like I was saying, clownfish do not accidently end up in an anemone because of current or because they were chased into it. If that were true than your calling the fact that clownfish have specific host preferences not true. A. Percula don't naturally host S. Gigantea or E. Quadricolor. In the wild you don't see Percula with these anemones. Why? Becauase they have the instinct to seek out an anemone they naturally host such as S. Gigantea. In tanks though, you do see Percula with E. Quad and S. Haddoni because those are alternative anemones. They still have the strong instinct to host but if their natural host isn't there, they will seek the next best. Hopefully I have made my point clear. If I have not, then I seriously give up.