From Anemone fishes and their host sea anemones by Fautin and Allen:
"Miyagawa found, in aquaria, that newly metamorphosed fry of some species locate an anemone by chemicals that are constantly being released by the anemone, much as a salmon senses its home stream, and that vision plays no role. These chemicals differ among species, so larval fish are attracted to anemones of species with which fish of that species naturally occur, but not to anemones of other species. However, fry of other fish are not attracted to anemones with which they naturally occur. So clownfishes may differ in how they select and locate hosts, as well as how they are protected from them."
D-Nak - The articles you cite miss the point. These sources stand only for the proposition that scent is the primary way by which clownfish FIND their host anemones. I have never disputed that. My point is that captive bred clowns are less inclined to know what they should do with that scent-based chemical attraction. In the wild, once a juvenile clown locates a suitable host, he will almost inevitably find that it is already hosting one or more clownfish "“ therein lies the learned component.
I think Puffyluv makes an excellent point. Clownfish that have been hosted before will be much more likely to host in the future, regardless of whether they are wild caught or tank bred. It just so happens that the vast majority of tank raised clowns available in the hobby have never laid eyes on an anemone before, while every single wild caught clown has been hosted its entire (post-larval) life.
On a similar note, I wonder how many of the tank bred "œsuccess story" clowns had either been hosted before or were introduced to aquariums where clowns were already hosted. I suspect that latter is certainly true for Minh, as well as many others. Similarly, to address Taylor T's point, logic dictates that odds certainly will favor hosting if you add large numbers of tank raised clowns. Consistent with my learned behavior hypothesis, it only takes one clown to begin hosting in order to set off a chain reaction for the others.
BlueFyre "“ Until a study specific to this issue is performed, dismissing my theory and the experiences of countless hobbyists as mere "œmyth" is inappropriate and indeed, very narrow-minded. Until such a study is performed, all we have is our experiences and logical deduction. It is not an illogical leap to deduce that clownfish collected from host anemones in the wild will be more likely to be hosted more quickly in the captive environment than tank-bred counterparts that have never seen an anemone before and with genes that may be far removed from wild stock and uninfluenced by nature's elimination of clowns that are not hosted quickly.
Lastly, BlueFyre, I disagree with your characterization of the collection of wild clowns as irresponsible. Last I checked, the majority of clownfish species remain plentiful. The risk posed by collection for the aquarium hobby is infinitesimal when compared to the dangers posed by habitat destruction. As for the reasons for desiring wild clowns, the natural behavior and appearance of wild clowns are unparalleled by their tank bred counterparts. IME, on average, captive bred clowns more often than not have stunted, non-proportional bodies and/or "œsmushed" faces. Furthermore, I fear that those and other defects, and eventually poor health, will eventually ensue due to pervasive inbreeding and the removal of natural selection from the equation, thus permitting sub-standard (and IMO deformed) clowns to survive and procreate. In addition, I firmly believe that wild behaviors (yes, including hosting) will continue to be bred out of the tank raised population as successive generations are reared "“ there is simply no evolutionary reason to preserve those behaviors in tank bred populations and the gene pool will respond accordingly.
