Clown fish

Cornishlass

New member
I seem to remember reading a post somewhere about "designer " clown fish and it being a taboo subject. So I was wondering are all clown fish bar the common clown man made?
 
It depends on how you use the name "clownfish" - technically it's just the common name for Amphiprion percula and "false clownfish" for Amphiprion ocellaris, but around here "clownfish" is often used for all anemonefish species indiscriminately.

There are over 30 recognized species with likely 10 or more unrecognized species that are currently lumped in with other species.

So, the majority of "clownfish"/anemonefish species and color forms are not man-made but naturally occurring in the wild.
But if you go by what is commonly available in stores you are correct - most are"man-made".

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
To add to the discussion, it's very hard to reproduce what nature created. So, if you're looking for a "perfect" looking clown, then mother nature is your best bet.

The main reason why designers have that "taboo" is because a lot of the defects inherent with man-made clowns are hidden by the pattern (mis-bars in percula/ocellaris of Picasso/DaVinci morphs or lightning maroons) and/or are overlooked in favor of what some people consider nicer patterns, oftentimes for more money.
 
Thank you. So how can I be sure im getting the real deal? As you may of gathered I'm a total newbie. All I know is I like the look of the black clowns. I haven't got my tank yet but I'm looking at 250 ltrs
 
... So how can I be sure im getting the real deal? ...

A. buy tank raised directly from a breeder who has wild caught pairs where both partners are of the same species and from the same region (local color forms may turn out to be different species).

B. get a wild caught pair as outlined above.
 
When you say black clowns do you mean any of the types of clowns that come in black or the Darwin black and white variety of Ocellaris clownfish?
 
The Darwin black and white clownfish are almost certainly an undescribed species in their own right and not just an ocellaris color form. This becomes evident when cross breeding them with orange and white ocellaris. The offspring shows a uniform mix coloration you would expect with hybrids and not the variety of mixes you should see if they were just color forms and therefore following Mendel's laws.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk
 
The Darwin black and white clownfish are almost certainly an undescribed species in their own right and not just an ocellaris color form. This becomes evident when cross breeding them with orange and white ocellaris. The offspring shows a uniform mix coloration you would expect with hybrids and not the variety of mixes you should see if they were just color forms and therefore following Mendel's laws.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

I'm not sure what you mean in the last sentence exactly when you talk about a uniform mix vs. a variety of mixes, but many phenotypes are not caused by just one gene and therefore don't follow the simple dominant/recessive laws of Mendelian genetics. Blue eyes vs brown eyes comes to mind. We have lots of variation between the two colors including green, yellow, hazel and an infinite number of shades. There are also genes that display co-dominance in which both traits are equally expressed (roan horses, striped petunias) and traits that show incomplete dominance where the traits mix (pink carnations). In addition, the word hybrid could mean crosses between color morphs, population locations or even a white flowered sweet pea crossed with a purple flowered sweet pea.

Personally, now that we can map genes, I think that taxonomists need to redefine the concept of a species anyway. The old textbook definition of a species being organisms that can mate and produce fertile offspring, has been thrown out the window. There are still going to be splitters and lumpers in the taxonomy world. (You are obviously a splitter :) ) They need to figure out what the line of demarcation is going to be genetically to define one species from another. Or, maybe not worry about fitting nature (at least at the species level) into a man made box in the first place.

I noticed recently that all brown bears around the world, including grizzly bears are now considered sub-species of polar bears. Maybe there should only be 4 or 5 species of anemonefish with further divisions being at the sub-species level. Or maybe only one species with what we now consider species, becoming sub-species instead.
 
Maybe the level of species differentiation needs to be reevaluated. Though that may run into all kinds of political issues.

The genes of clownfish have already been mapped and there are rather more than less species than currently recognized.

Regardless if you call it species, sub-species or local variety - each form has their unique characteristics and deserves preservation.
Lumping them together would mean that conservation efforts would likely be limited to less localities and ultimately lead to loss of diversity.
Also, local variants are often a first step to the branching off of a new species.

The example of the brown and polar bears could lead to the argument that preservation of the polar bear may not be necessary as long as the brown bears are not endangered as they are the same species.

So lumping species together is in general not a good approach from a diversity and preservation point of view.
 
When you say black clowns do you mean any of the types of clowns that come in black or the Darwin black and white variety of Ocellaris clownfish?

All i know so far is I prefer the look of any clowns with a black colour. I then need to look into types and care needs or if they are suitable for a beginner.
 
My first recommendation would be true percula, onyx if you want lots of black (see my avatar picture) but not too large fish.

The black and white Darwin clowns would be another good choice.

Clarkii would only be good if you have a large tank - they get kind of big.
 
Back
Top