will a wc clown host better or will a tank raised one will?

[cschweitzer]

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]

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]

<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 â€" when and where it was collected, the habitat in which it lived and other information â€" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.