New Angelfish- strange morph...

[SDguy]

Off the top of my head I thought it did lose the eyespot, but honestly I guess I'm not sure. Fenner's pic seems to suggest it at least can or does have it:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/auriga.htm

Anyway, sorry for the tangent...

 

[copps]

I disagree. I think it would be showing already. Most fish this far in the coloration seem to have the ocelli already. Look at this pic, but disregard the name:

And this pic:

Not always Tim... I've seen the ocelli develop later in maturation... this is not my photo below, but just an example... the fish is clearly more advanced, but with an ocellus barely apparent...

But WOW, what an interesting observation on Dan's fish that matured in captivity! My postulation would not be that that fish is a regional variant lacking the ocelli, but rather lacks the ocelli as a result of maturing in captivity... the chance of Dan's fish being from some exotic location is almost nil... you guys remember my captive raised lemonpeel from Frank at RCT? Frank only raised about a dozen, but they all lost the juvenile ocelli almost INSTANTLY after metamorphasis, much faster than wild juveniles... this was of course a result of being raised in captivity... not a regional thing, as the parents were simply nothing special from no exotic location...

I also agree with Jeremy that his fish would not lack the eyespot as a result of being a regional variant... Jeremy, how big is your fish nose to end of tail? Also, get more pics man!

 

[tcmfish]

I have a few things:

1.) Couldn't that fish be losing it's ocelli like dan's fish?

2.) How can we say it is from captivity if so many others don't lose it?

3.) Why do some lose the ocelli, while others gain it later?

 

[SDguy]

It would be really interesting if social dynamics with other fish in the confines of an aquarium can influence color/pattern on these angels. I wonder if it's anything like what goes on with the genicanthus angels?

 

[copps]

I have a few things:

1.) Couldn't that fish be losing it's ocelli like dan's fish?

Absolutely Tim! I was thinking about this last night before hitting the sack (welcome to my world!)... all of the blueface I've been thinking of have possibly been captive specimens, as I do not travel to places where bluefaces occur...

I have a few things:

2.) How can we say it is from captivity if so many others don't lose it?

This is just a guess... Look at wild photos of this fish and see if you could find one without the ocelli... also, do we have any other age progression shots of bluefaces that have grown to adulthood in captivity?

I have a few things:

3.) Why do some lose the ocelli, while others gain it later?

Reminds me of the Shakespeare quote... if we add just two words it's appropriate regarding the ocellus... To be there, or not to be there: that is the the question. :spin2:

Peter, that's another good example... it's not unheard of for color pattern to be influenced by life in our glass boxes...

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Let's all get a juvie blueface and grow it out... and check back in a couple of years... :spin1:

 

[tcmfish]

Here a few people happen to have some juvi bluefaces. Theirs all started showing the ocellus early:

http://reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1585470&page=3

 

[copps]

Hey Tim, I won't be able to see any of those photos until tonight... are any of the photos showing juvenile to full adult in captivity with the ocelli? I can't imagine it would happen with all captive specimens... but what would be another reason?

Hey Luiz, what's your educated guess?

I wonder if we can get Dan to put a grouper or some other predatory threat in his tank...

 

[ccampbell57]

I wonder if we can get Dan to put a grouper or some other predatory threat in his tank...

Hey John - Dan had a tank full of predators with his blueface. He had a couple big triggers, a huge Red Coris wrasse, and a grouper I think.

I always thought his coloration was due to the fact that the blueface was scared out of its mind to be in a tank with all those "killers"

 

[tcmfish]

Most of them are juvis that started to change showing the ocellus. But "blface"s blueface is almost adult and showing a small ocellus, not as big as someone else in the thread who bought an already changed blueface who had a larger ocellus.

Maybe it is due to a lack of predators that they ocelli are smaller or absent. The fish in dan's tank I wouldn't necessarily call killers either. I doubt those are the type of fish preying on juvi bluefaces in the wild, except for maybe the grouper if he had one.

Its hard to say from so few accounts, but maybe not having to hunt for food and a lack of predators causes the absence of the ocelli. And like you said John I don't know of any wild bluespot photos with a lack of an ocellus. But if this is the case that is CRAYZ (look you can spell it two ways and if you "sound it out" it sounds the same :lol: ) that they would be able to change their coloration or that the environment would effect the development of their coloration so much so quickly.

 

[copps]

Hey John - Dan had a tank full of predators with his blueface. He had a couple big triggers, a huge Red Coris wrasse, and a grouper I think.

I always thought his coloration was due to the fact that the blueface was scared out of its mind to be in a tank with all those "killers"

Interesting note... thanks Chris... I was thinking though about a fish that could actually pose a swallow threat to the juvie...

Maybe it is due to a lack of predators that they ocelli are smaller or absent.

My thoughts exactly... and why I referred to adding a large predatory fish!

Its hard to say from so few accounts, but maybe not having to hunt for food and a lack of predators causes the absence of the ocelli. And like you said John I don't know of any wild bluespot photos with a lack of an ocellus. But if this is the case that is CRAYZ (look you can spell it two ways and if you "sound it out" it sounds the same :lol: ) that they would be able to change their coloration or that the environment would effect the development of their coloration so much so quickly.

This has already been proven to happen in captivity, as I mentioned with Frank's captive raised lemonpeels...

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Wait a sec here, guys. What you are referring to is quite improbable, if I understand what you are suggesting. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that this fish is cognisantly deciding whether to have an ocelli or not. We are not talking about a temporary color shift, or stress coloration. You are suggesting a permanent developmental alteration based on perception of environment? That is, well....mind blowing. Especially if we are suggesting it to be so in a mere single generation. Darwin is spinning in his grave.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Footnote- I wouldnt doubt that is possibly could be something about captivity, but I am leaning more towards dietary. With Copps' lemonpeels, perhaps a planktonic presence in the wild that Frank did not offer. Likewise with the captive xanthometopon of Danorth (although Im still unconvinced that these are the same fish. I cant even fathom why a fish would develop a physical trait, only to lose it later, against all understood growth patterns of the species). Perhaps we will never know, but I find the notion that this individual fish can willfully dictate it's permanent coloration and pattern unlikely. With the comparison to the Genicanthus, it is not quite the same. Genicanthus alter their morphology based on sexual selection, and almost defintiely hormonal cues. Whether they be in the aquarium, or the wild.

 

[SDguy]

Wait a sec here, guys. What you are referring to is quite improbable, if I understand what you are suggesting. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that this fish is cognisantly deciding whether to have an ocelli or not.

I don't *think* anyone here is suggesting that the fish willed it to happen . More like environmental cues triggered biological processes in the fish.

 

[copps]

Wait a sec here, guys. What you are referring to is quite improbable, if I understand what you are suggesting. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that this fish is cognisantly deciding whether to have an ocelli or not. We are not talking about a temporary color shift, or stress coloration. You are suggesting a permanent developmental alteration based on perception of environment? That is, well....mind blowing. Especially if we are suggesting it to be so in a mere single generation. Darwin is spinning in his grave.

Jeremy, I'm not suggesting speciation or genetic drift in a single generation... this is not speciation at all... the general concept I'm referring to is well proven in science and known as phenotypic plasicity... the ability of a living thing to change its characteristics based on its environment... the fish does not have to be cognizant of it at all... phenotypic plasticity happens all the time in our tanks in a matter of weeks! Look at how our Acropora sticks can look so different in color and morphology from tank to tank depending on their environment... this is fueling speculation, even by world experts like Veron, about how many coral species there actually are on our reefs!

 

[jmaneyapanda]

So, what is determining the "decision" to produce the ocelli, or not? What enviromental cues? If Im understanding right (which is a GIANT "if" ), the factor is "fear". That is not an environmental cue, as far as I can see. Maybe someone needs to explain it to the cro-mag a little better, because Im not understanding it to be possible.

John, you comparaison to acropora growth is quite different (IMHO), because there are varaivbles which are empirical and causative (ie- flow velocity, light strengths, alkalinity, etc). However, presence of perceived predators is quite a ways off of that, in my mind.

 

[copps]

So, what is determining the "decision" to produce the ocelli, or not? What enviromental cues? If Im understanding right (which is a GIANT "if" ), the factor is "fear". That is not an environmental cue, as far as I can see. Maybe someone needs to explain it to the cro-mag a little better, because Im not understanding it to be possible.

Who knows what it really is! But we can say it is something in captivity...

John, you comparaison to acropora growth is quite different (IMHO), because there are varaivbles which are empirical and causative (ie- flow velocity, light strengths, alkalinity, etc). However, presence of perceived predators is quite a ways off of that, in my mind.

The only reason I brought the Acropora up is because you talked about how "Darwin is spinning in his grave." The Acropora example is of course not the same as what happens to the fish, but these both occur in our tanks and are both examples of phenotypic plasticity... just because we can explain it as easily as what happens with Acropora does not mean it cannot happen...

 

[jmaneyapanda]

John, I dont know if I can swallow that. Im no more sure that it is a captive specific problem, as I am that its dietary. Which is to say Im not certain at all, but just have a "gut feeling"

Regarding my Darwin comment, it was in regards to the claim I still think some are leaning towards: the fact that this fish is somehow determining that the presence of predators requires a ocelli. I find that rather incredulous, and it permits an entire violation of herdirtary issues. Why not just make themselves bigger, or camoflagued exactly, or spinier? The bigger issue I am seeing is that we can suggest the claim that some "cue" is causing the fish to do this. I cant fathom what "cue" we'd be talking about (in the scenario suggested) that wouldnt be cognisant.

In other words, if the lack of presence of predators is whats causing the lack of ocelli, how is the fishes' body determining this? I find it FAR more likely to be metabolic.

 

[copps]

Wait a sec here, guys. What you are referring to is quite improbable, if I understand what you are suggesting. I think it is extraordinarily unlikely that this fish is cognisantly deciding whether to have an ocelli or not. We are not talking about a temporary color shift, or stress coloration. You are suggesting a permanent developmental alteration based on perception of environment? That is, well....mind blowing. Especially if we are suggesting it to be so in a mere single generation. Darwin is spinning in his grave.

John, I dont know if I can swallow that. Im no more sure that it is a captive specific problem, as I am that its dietary. Which is to say Im not certain at all, but just have a "gut feeling"

Regarding my Darwin comment, it was in regards to the claim I still think some are leaning towards: the fact that this fish is somehow determining that the presence of predators requires a ocelli. I find that rather incredulous, and it permits an entire violation of herdirtary issues. Why not just make themselves bigger, or camoflagued exactly, or spinier? The bigger issue I am seeing is that we can suggest the claim that some "cue" is causing the fish to do this. I cant fathom what "cue" we'd be talking about (in the scenario suggested) that wouldnt be cognisant.

In other words, if the lack of presence of predators is whats causing the lack of ocelli, how is the fishes' body determining this? I find it FAR more likely to be metabolic.

Jeremy, the idea of "one gene- one phenotype" is long gone in science... predator-induced phenotypic plasticity, while not proven in the case here with blueface angels, has been proven to exist in the animal world... one good example is a snail that in the wild develops a thick shell when a crab that feeds on it is present... snails where the crabs are not present have a thin shell... take a thin shelled crab and place it with crab predators and it produces a thick shell... same genes... different phenotype... the snail of course is not making a cognizant change...

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Jeremy, the idea of "one gene- one phenotype" is long gone in science... predator-induced phenotypic plasticity, while not proven in the case here with blueface angels, has been proven to exist in the animal world... one good example is a snail that in the wild develops a thick shell when a crab that feeds on it is present... snails where the crabs are not present have a thin shell... take a thin shelled crab and place it with crab predators and it produces a thick shell... same genes... different phenotype... the snail of course is not making a cognizant change...

John, were not seeing eye to eye here. In your crab reference, what stimulates the snail to "create" the thicker shell? This is where my doubt lies. In the angelfish reference, what could these fish possibly be experiencing that would cause them to not develop an ocelli? The "cue" is the key. As I imagine it to be with your snail reference also.

 

[copps]

chemoreception of the effluent given off by the crabs... In the case of fish in our tanks, be it the blueface angels or captive raised lemonpeels from Frank, it would be the lack thereof...