Ontario Shore Fishing Forum

Wow...so much scientific inaccuracy here!

Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio)

Goldfish (Carassius auratus)

"Asian Carp"

Grass Carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella)

Black Carp (Mylopharyngodon piceus)

Silver Carp (Hypophthalmichthys molitrix)

Bighead Carp (Hypophthalmichthys nobilis)

Goldfish is a distinct species that arise from domestication from Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio), much like the Cat (Felis catus) became a distinct species from domestication from the Wildcat (F. silvestris) and its subspecies.

Goldfish is NOT bred from the Common Carp.

Goldfish can hybridize with Common Carp, and has been known to do so naturally. I have caught hybrids in Ontario. However, Goldfish x Common Carp do not revert back to Common Carp only. The reversion is based on genetic dilution of the back crosses based on the parent of the crosses. If the hybrid breeds with a Goldfish, and successive generations continues to breed with Goldfish, then eventually the Common Carp genetics is bred out. On the other hand, if the back cross is done with Common Carp generations after generations, then the Goldfish contribution will be bred out. If the hybrids breed with other hybrids, the successive generations remains as hybrids.

Even in domestic form, any batch of Goldfish will include "wild" (grey/green) individuals. No clutch is ever pure. The same occurs in Koi, the domesticated and selected form of Common Carp. Any clutch of Koi will contain "wild" individuals. There is a lot of culling in the aquarium trade for individuals with ideal colour and patterns.

While colours tend to vary, other features like tail shape, fin sizes and scale pattern seems to breed more true between generations.

By convention, "Asian Carp" refers to 4 different species, of which two are closely related. Among these, only Silver and Bighead Carp are known to hybridize naturally, but not often. Grass Carp x Bighead Carp has been artificially hybridized in the lab, but not known to hybridize in the wild.

I despise the term "Asian Carp" as it conglomerate 4 different species that behave completely differently with varying level of invasive threats. It is unscientific to describe these 4 species and only serve to create fear mongering every time the term is used. It also promote poor public understand of these species as proven above. The level of inaccuracies demonstrated on fishing forums about the behavior and threat is rampant.

In short, Goldfish does not equal domesticated Common Carp, and it certainly does NOT give rise to "Asian Carp".

This kind of comment is like saying the Cat is a domesticated Bobcat (Lynx rufus), and the Cat can give rise to the "Big Cats" such as Lion (Panthera leo) and Snow Leopard (Uncia uncia) when they are released into the wild and go feral. It's just ridiculous.

Ok so I was wrong with that last comment but I disagree with a few things:

The first goldfish were bred from Prussian carps. It started with basic mutations such as the colour. Seeing as they were rare, those fish were kept safe and further selectively bred to bear features that we have today (split tails, telescopic eyes, longer tails, etc). I was wrong with which types of goldfish came from which carp. To clarify, goldfish were bred from Prussian carps and koi bred from common carps (difference lies in the barbel; koi retained theirs from common carp). This would be why if you left the goldfish to breed as they please without being culled, they'd go back to what they were before being domesticated, Prussian carp which isn't what the thread originally was about, oops!

Yes, goldfish are their own species but I don't necessarily agree with that either. They were bred based on recessive mutations to bring out something that was more aesthetically appealing, but its just that; mutations. We wouldn't call someone with a progeria mutation not human and give them a label, or label someone with blue eyes as a different kind of human.

Furthermore, I think that the four types of carp grouped as "Asian" is only done because of where they came from geographically, not based on their threat level or behaviour.

My facts were wrong and this post made me do some research to correct that information.

What I learned: nah, tossing the goldfish into a lake wasn't the cause of this carp problem. Just threw a theory out there but I guess, MYTH BUSTED!

Since you seemed to know some genetics...so here goes...

The following study supports that Goldfish is a monophyletic lineage that is not nested within Prussian Carp. Rather, Goldfish and Prussian Carp are sister lineages, suggested that the two species have diverged from each other through domestication. The difference between Goldfish and Prussian Carp is not merely limited to recessive mutations.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Luk...000000.pdf

And this next study of Prussian Carp genetic diversity suggests that although Prussian Carp from western Mongolia belongs in the same clade as the Goldfish, Prussian Carp from Europe, Russia, Eastern Mongolia and China do not cluster in the same clade. It is hypothesized that there may be two species within the C. gibelio designation, or that one population have given rise to the Goldfish while the other populations continued to diverge.

http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/pdf/ief23_1_03.pdf

This study generated an experimental hybrid Goldfish by crossing C. auratus with Common Carp. The resulting hybrid shares many morphological and genetic similarities with the Common Goldfish. It is one argument that the Goldfish as we know it is not merely a selectively breed Prussian Carp that easily reverts back to C. gibelio.

http://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articl...2156-15-33

Taken together, these studies suggest that through breeding and crossing in the past, a genetically stable and distinct lineage was generated that is deserving of a full species status for the Goldfish as we know it.

Very interesting, to think that there'd be so much studying done on just goldfish.

New report:

http://blackburnnews.com/midwestern-onta...lake-erie/

News update:

http://www.manitoulin.ca/2016/10/21/asia...one-muter/

It's been known for a while now...nothing new.

Juvenile Grass Carp had been captured in the Sandusky before this.

New update:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/gr...-1.3954946

sigh............ guess we'll have to sort out how to target these thing.

Does anyone know if the MNR has stated a position on the destruction (termination) of these should one haul one in? (as they have for Round Goby)

(02-03-2017 02:30 PM)OldTimer Wrote: [ -> ]sigh............ guess we'll have to sort out how to target these thing.

Does anyone know if the MNR has stated a position on the destruction (termination) of these should one haul one in? (as they have for Round Goby)

None of these efforts has ever been successful on invasive species...

Round Goby, Rudd, Silver Carp, Northern Snakehead, Bullseye Snakehead...just to name a few off the top of my head...not even trying hard.

The Great Lakes is a HUGE watershed (so is the Mississippi). Once something gets in, it is not likely to be getting out...unless environmental conditions isn't right for the species and Mother Nature gets rid of them.

On the other hand, catch-and-kill has a huge impact on native species that were considered as "trash fish" or "nuisance"...

Gar, Buffalo, Sucker, Bull Trout, Pikeminnow...just to name a few of the top of my head.