Fish: Re: [tropical fish club] Freshwater Angel Fish

I don't see a new photo tab below did you upload them to an album on the group site?

Donna

>________________________________
> From: Diana Snyder <dianasnyder249@yahoo.com>
>
>Subject: Re: [tropical fish club] Freshwater Angel Fish
>
>
>
>I've only been in tropical fish for a year now & few months.Check out photos of some of my angels."Di's angles".I been told bye few por I doing a great job.with them ??? I also have paraibas now.from Mike G. I never thought I'd them .Now love all the angels.I think.
>
>________________________________
>From: "sevenspringss@wmconnect.com" <sevenspringss@wmconnect.com>
>To: tropicalfishclub@yahoogroups.com
>Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2012 6:57 AM
>Subject: Re: [tropical fish club] Freshwater Angel Fish
>
>
>
>
>Hi Lee,
>
>I don't know when or how long ago you dropped away from tropical fish but,
>yes, more recently there have been a number of new Angelfish color
>morphs/varieties. How they appear to the hobby all depends on the viewer, as this is
>a very subjective matter. I'll agree that not all of these newer varieties
>are to my liking, but there are some which I see as quite pleasing. As for
>your preferring the natural beauty of Angelfish and attempts to replicate
>what's found in nature, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
>
>Fortunately, the "wild type" (silver, with black bars) Angelfish are still
>with us, and I'm sure with us to stay. Many hobbyists still prefer these
>Silver Angels, even over the Silver morph, Veiltail developed in 1958.
>Similar to the natura' wild-type Angels, is the Black Lace Angelfish which is very
>similar (having black bars on a lighter background), but there is more
>black in them showing up as "lace" in the fins. I don't know if you object to
>that, but they were developed even earlier than the Silver Veiltails, in the
>early 1950's. So, there are still Angel's around that would have to be to
>your liking, and you really don't need to concern yourself with any of the
>newer ones if you don't want to.
>
>These newer Angelfish morphs will be with us until such time as they fall
>out of favor -- and some have already fallen out of favor, not to be found
>anywhere in the hobby any longer. As for other species of tropical fish being
>bred as other-than-wild-type morphs, yes -- quite a number of them have
>been developed into long-fin varieties. Others, such as Discus, have been
>similarly selectively bred as various color morphs far from what are found in
>nature. Some of these are very nice looking, albeit, quite different than any
>of the wild types, yet still nice in their own right. Others are not as
>attractive, but again, this all depends on one's personal preferences.
>
>Similarly to the AKC you mention, there is a world-recognized group in this
>country (U.S.A.) called "The Angelish Society" which establishes and
>monitors developed strains of Angelfish in accordance with what the genetics of
>these varieties will allow as breeding true. This group had more recently
>been accepted by the ACA (American Cichlid Assoctiation) for their work, and
>have been established as their own show class by the ACA in this association's
>annual convention. Many genetic crossings of these newer varieties will
>not yield a true strain resulting in all of the progeny appearing as the
>parents -- and so, are disallowed, discouraged by the TAS from being bred and not
>recognized as being a true strain. Those genetic crosses that do result in
>following through to being a true strain, having all of the following
>generations appearing the same, are considered as another strain. Of them, there
>may be some "true strains" which for one reason or another, are just not
>attractive enough to be seen as a beneficial variety and which will never sell
>very well. While those breeders rearing such poor looking fish are
>discouraged from continuing them, some may continue raising them just because
>they're different and because, as them being "different," they may feel that they
>can make another dollar on them -- especially as very few others will be
>raising the same variety.
>
>Ray</HTML>
>
>
>
>[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
>

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]