The myth of the "reverting" red cherry shrimp

[Mustafa]

Hi folks,

I wanted to make a post on this topic, but decided that it deserves its own article. So here you go:

http://www.petshrimp.com/articles/redch ... pmyth.html

I hope this will clarify some misconceptions and will rid our hobby of the "reverting" red cherry shrimp myth. One more myth down, about a trillion more to go.....

[The Fisherman]

Nice! An enjoyable read.

[ToddnBecka]

Very interesting and informative, thanks for taking the time to write that article.

Can it be concluded that if multiple generations of cherry shrimp don't produce any odd-colored offspring they are actually a pure strain?

Are there any other species that naturally produce red-colored individuals, or are any other red-colored shrimp hybrids with cherry shrimp somewhere in their family tree?

[Neonshrimp]

One more myth down, about a trillion more to go.....

Thanks for the article and for getting the word out

[Terran]

I was wondering if some of this information could be clarified or expanded on by anyone. I was reading this article and I couldnt help but be filled with questions and little scenarios in my mind.


A disclaimer though.... I am in no way an expert. Everything governing my questions and scenarios may be completely wrong....but thats why Im posting this in the first place so my thoughts can get cleared up.....

Let's think about this for a minute. The red cherry shrimp is a red color mutation of Neocaridina denticulata sinensis (which some people now call Neocaridina heteropoda). "Mutation" means that one or more genes had to spontaneously mutate (i.e. change) to produce red colored animals. Such mutations are quite rare. In very large populations, such a mutations can happen sporadically, but usually all kinds of odd-colored animals tend to stick out and get eaten by predators. Hence, such animals usually do not survive in nature. So, red-colored N. denticulata sinensis are the result of a rare mutation. Mutations seem to be pretty random, i.e. one cannot predict in which ways an animal will mutate. For a red cherry shrimp to "revert" to a brownish/clearish shrimp, not only would there have be one of of those very rare mutations happening, but it would have to be a mutation that produces a shrimp that is, once again, closer to its wild-type coloration, i.e a "reverse" mutation (since the red cherry shrimp is already a mutation).

Is the pigment of Red Cherry Shrimp the only characteristic that separates them from their wild form? What I mean is, are there slight physical attributes as well that distinguish them as being separate type from their wild form?

The reason why I ask is I would think that the more genes involved in labeling something a Red Cherry the less likely a “reverse” mutation event could happen that accounts for all those different genes changing back to the form witnessed commonly in the wild. Also since it appears that people selectively breed “super reds” one would assume that there is genetic variation in “redness” which would make one further assume that there is multiple genes involved (I don’t know to what extent the appearance of super reds could be due to varying feeding, or substrate color, or whatever so maybe this isn’t a factor). Im not entirely sure what we know about Cherry Shrimp genetics but I suppose that its also possible that the factors being selectively bred for to make Cherries redder are traits unrelated to the actual pigment color and are involved in the distribution of whatever pigment the shrimp has gene/s for…...I digress


I think I remembering hearing in either an Evolution course, a Genetics course, or a Molecular Genetics course that certain DNA regions were more prone to mutation than others. I think I recall that for the most part the regions usually found to be more prone to mutation are areas that are less vital to an organism functioning. Attributes like pigment would be an example. Attributes regulating the details of things like embryogenesis would not be an example. ....[The more I think about this the more I think Im recalling something from a Molecular Genetics course]

So for the sake of argument lets say that only one gene is responsible for all pigment variations in Red Cherry Shrimp and lets say that this gene is composed of 1000 nucleotide pairs. This would mean that all the different color variations of Neocaridina heteropoda are caused from mutations in key spot/s of this chain.

So depending on the type of mutation, would this not mean that the probability for a reversion be, at best, equal to the probability of the red mutation occurring in the first place (I dunno how well this would hold up if the mutation altered the shape drastically thus altering the probability for similar mutations)? Like the reversion mutation would have to effect the same area of the 1000 bp chain that the original mutation targeted.


A lot of this changes if the red pigment involves the mutation of several genes at once….. but the comparative probability would still apply…wouldn’t it?


The Red Cherry Shrimp seems to have occurred from a single mutation event…. right? What I mean is someone bred wild types for a while and witnessed a red offspring. They decided what they saw was a mutation and they singled it out till it bred true. (Do we know for sure that red pigment is a mutation?)

The reason I ask is if a single mutation event is responsible for Red Cherries because whatever the probability for that event occurring would put us in the ball park of the probability of it being reversed wouldn’t it? If it is multiple mutation events that cause what we see in Red Cherries than we would need to achieve dozens of mutations in one event that matched the wild type....and that would be extraordinarily slim.....ie impossible

The chances of that happening are extremely slim. This is similar to reporting that a pack of poodles suddenly produced an animal that looks like a wolf. So, the poodle must have "reverted" to its wild type. When was the last time anyone has seen a dog breed produce a wolf or anything similar to a wolf.

That’s a bit of an extreme comparison. I mean I wouldnt think its similiar at all. Dogs have been selectively bred and domestic over a much much longer period of time. Mutations on top of mutations. Wouldn’t this be more like breeding purebred regular brown coated Boxers and suddenly having a white coated Boxer offspring. The white being a color trait that was within natural genetic variation of their ancestors?




I really do not intend to add ammunition for those that claim that they have had a reversion. I just would like to hear some more input about how within the realm of possibility this is. Id bet that probably all of the people claiming to witness a reversion is mistaken in some fashion. Is there any information out there that clarifies some of these things that I have brought up?

[Mustafa]

Can it be concluded that if multiple generations of cherry shrimp don't produce any odd-colored offspring they are actually a pure strain?

That's a difficult question to answer in a simple way. Let me just say that it is even possible that the "pure" red cherry shrimp itself, as it came on the market in 2003, may have been the result of not only intraspecies crossings (which would have been necessary if only one red animal showed up in the breeder's tank) but also interspecies crossings with various other Neocaridina spp.. It is, for example, conceivable that the breeder already had a hybrid Neocaridina sp. population in his/her tank when the red mutation showed up. A genetic analysis of the red cherry shrimp and various Neocaridina sp. would help clarify things.

However, if we want to define "pure" as the red cherry shrimp that came on the market in 2003 and set that as a standard, i.e. a more or less intensely colored red animal with *yellow/orange* eggs, then animals that don't fit that description anymore, i.e. non-red animals or even red animals with dark greenish/brownish eggs, are most likely hybrids of some sort. But I even have presumably interspecies hybrid Neocaridina denticulata denticulata (from Japan), presumably hybridized with N. denticulata sinensis "red cherries", in one of my tanks that have red color (different from red cherry shrimp) and yellow/orange eggs. There are even animals among them that have a greyish color but still yellow eggs. Others that have the same greyish color but green eggs. So, egg color and body color are not necessarily inherited as a "package deal" or at least their dominance over other colors is different, so that they are not always expressed together. This can get very complicated, so I'll leave it at this.

Are there any other species that naturally produce red-colored individuals, or are any other red-colored shrimp hybrids with cherry shrimp somewhere in their family tree?

Any species out there could produce any number of colors naturally. That's the whole point of mutation. But normally such animals stick out and get eaten in the wild. The crystal red shrimp is another captive-bred red shrimp. It's a red bee shrimp.

[Mustafa]

I was wondering if some of this information could be clarified or expanded on by anyone. I was reading this article and I couldnt help but be filled with questions and little scenarios in my mind.

Yes, I can clear it up. Keep in mind when reading this article that it's meant for the *general public*, i.e. people that don't have any or any deep understanding of genetics. I kept things simple on purpose to make a point. The point is valid either way.

Is the pigment of Red Cherry Shrimp the only characteristic that separates them from their wild form? What I mean is, are there slight physical attributes as well that distinguish them as being separate type from their wild form?

No, the body pigment is not the only thing that set the red cherry shrimp apart. The egg color, for example, is another thing. And as I have described above, the egg coloration can be independtly expressed from the body coloration. Plus, everything points to the fact that the red mutation in red cherry shrimp does *not* follow simple mendelian genetics. When I experimentally crossed red cherry shrimp with *verifiably* wild-caught Neocaridina denticulata sinensis, the first generation offspring all looked greenish with yellowish eggs. There were no red animals. In other words, the offspring did not look anything like either parent. The point is that there is more to the red color/yellow egg mutation of the red cherry than just one simple gene location mutating. For an example of simple mendelian genetics at work, see the red color mutation of bee shrimp, i.e. the crystal red shrimp. But even there, although the red *seems* to follow simple mendelian genetics, the white does not. I say "seems" because nothing seems to be as simple as Mendel put it in his model, but it's a good model to start from.

The reason why I ask is I would think that the more genes involved in labeling something a Red Cherry the less likely a “reverse” mutation event could happen that accounts for all those different genes changing back to the form witnessed commonly in the wild.

The above should answer this part of your question. In my opinion there are more than just one gene involved in the red cherry shrimp mutation.

Also since it appears that people selectively breed “super reds” one would assume that there is genetic variation in “redness” which would make one further assume that there is multiple genes involved (I don’t know to what extent the appearance of super reds could be due to varying feeding, or substrate color, or whatever so maybe this isn’t a factor).

That's not necessarily true. Different animals could just express the same trait in different way depending on many factors, including environment, water chemistry, lighting etc...etc...etc. So, when we select for redder color we're not necessarily selecting animals that have "other" "red genes" but just animals that express this trait differently. In the end all we are doing right now is just speculating, which is really not all that fruitful until someone goes out and does a genetic analysis on these animals. The point of the article was to show people that genetic mutations are not as common as people think and that there are tons of hybrids out there. It wasn't supposed to be a lesson on genetics or a complete analysis of the red cherry shrimp. The point I made is a valid one because I know so from experience.

Im not entirely sure what we know about Cherry Shrimp genetics but I suppose that its also possible that the factors being selectively bred for to make Cherries redder are traits unrelated to the actual pigment color and are involved in the distribution of whatever pigment the shrimp has gene/s for…...I digress

Yes, possible. But lots of other things are possible...in the end we really don't know until someone analysis the animals. See above.

So depending on the type of mutation, would this not mean that the probability for a reversion be, at best, equal to the probability of the red mutation occurring in the first place (I dunno how well this would hold up if the mutation altered the shape drastically thus altering the probability for similar mutations)? Like the reversion mutation would have to effect the same area of the 1000 bp chain that the original mutation targeted.

You're completely disregarding the "founder's effect." If one animal is responsible for all the red cherries we see today, then we're dealing with a lot less genetic variety in the red cherries than in the wild form. I.e. the probabilities would be different, especially since the red coloration does not just seem to be a single gene event. Even if we assume, as you said, that the probabilities of red animals popping out of non-red ones are the same as "wild colored" animals popping out of red ones, then the probability is still extremely low. It would not account for every second person in cybercpace reporting that their red cherries "reverted."

That’s a bit of an extreme comparison. I mean I wouldnt think its similiar at all. Dogs have been selectively bred and domestic over a much much longer period of time. Mutations on top of mutations. Wouldn’t this be more like breeding purebred regular brown coated Boxers and suddenly having a white coated Boxer offspring. The white being a color trait that was within natural genetic variation of their ancestors?

Of course it's an extreme comparison. Hence, the word "similar" in my example. I have used an extreme example to get an extreme myth out of people's minds. Since the article is meant for the general public I am keeping things extremely simple. A white dog coming out of a brown dog just does not get the point across. The point is, once again, that people have hybrids in their tanks. The proof? Just look in any store tanks and importer tanks, or even bags of imported red cherries freshly arrived in the US. They are full of wild-type Neocaridina sp. (who knows what species, although most of them *should* be Neocaridina denticulata sinensis) intermixed with red cherries! THAT is the point. There is no reversion...it's hybrids.

Id bet that probably all of the people claiming to witness a reversion is mistaken in some fashion. Is there any information out there that clarifies some of these things that I have brought up?

I would not go as extreme as saying that all the people claiming anything that seems unusual are wrong. I only talk about probabilties. If the probability of an event occurring is extremely low, then most likely the person reporting this event is mistaken UNLESS that person produces supporting data...i.e. experiments, setup, pictures...etc...etc..

Nothing is really impossible (and I really mean nothing), especially if you have ever delved into quantum theory. According to quantum theory there is even a possibility of you walking through a solid wall and appearing on the other side if you just try long enough (on the scale of TRILLIONS of years). It's just that the possibility is so low that it's deemed impossible.

Anyway, I would not think to much about just one aspect of the article, thereby missing the main point. The main point, once again, is that the red cherry tanks of hobbyists, dealers, importers, exporters and presumably even the ponds of farms in asia are full of wild-type Neocaridina sp., which freely interbreed with the red cherry shrimp. If you know this, you will conclude that the "brown shrimp" in your red cherry shrimp tank are hybrids. If you are not "in the know" you will speculate and just assume "reversion" out of the blue. *That* is really the point here, not the genetic details or intricacies.

[Newjohn]

Well
If you are going to talk that way
I will have to take a few colloge classes to catch up.

Very good article and questions

John

[Terran]

Thanks for addressing everything.


Now the next question is....when are Scientists going to start doing more genetic studies on Shrimp!....
Slackers

[badflash]

Thanks for addressing everything.


Now the next question is....when are Scientists going to start doing more genetic studies on Shrimp!....
Slackers

Right after we infect one with the shrimp bug.

It may not be that long before you can afford a DNA sequencer though. Keep your eyes on e-bay. You'd be amazed at what you can get for cheap there.

[Kenshin]

I am very glad you wrote this article Mustafa. Now let's just hope the people out there (especially the new people who will join this forum) not just try to claim something that is not true in regards to RCS and its wild-type strain counterpart, and read your article before even trying to argue their point.

[TKD]

So to be clear, green or yellow eggs in a population does not mean anything?

I predominantly have yellow but occasionally I do have some greens that popup now and again.

TKD

[Rainbowfish]

Mustafa, how about posting some closeup photos showing these "Yellow/orange" eggs? If someone's shrimp eggs don't match then they have a possible watchout. As stated, though that doesn't necessarily mean that having yellow/orange eggs is proof of a pure cherry shrimp.

In your second photo under red cherry shrimp section you have a photo of a group of all red cherry shrimp, and it appears to be males and females. Is that correct?

Then your third photo shows what I think is an immature male that hasn't colored up yet? You don't say anything about him not coloring up yet, someone might only be looking for a pale colored fish as the only example of a "male cherry shrimp".

In photo 5 you have an example of a female, with berries that is still pretty pale, perhaps even green/grey by some standards. Of course she will eventually turn red, but do you think this is the reason that some people may think that their red cherry shrimp are "naturally" reverting? BTW her eggs in photo # 5 don't really look that orange/red. Maybe it's the photograph but by the standards that you put down in the article that would suggest that she's not purebred. That wouldn't be right but that's what someone would conclude from the article. I think it may be people often see uncolored females, carrying eggs that they feel that there is a random reversion, not because there are so many hybrids coming into the market.

A while back I found a fair number of my shrimp that were now, not red. Instead of just destroying them I decided to farm them out to some of my rainbowfish fry tanks as after a certain size rainbowfry, shrimp make excellent tank cleaner, making sure that excess food didn't go to waste and foul the tank. They all turned red and then were placed back into their home tank for breeding. I think that some people see the light colored shrimp and then toss them before they have changed.

Also food makes a difference. When changing water on my cherry shrimp tank, if I accidently siphon any babies off they are transfered to rainbowfish hatch out tanks, usually 1-2 per tank. I can trust the very small shrimp with newly hatched rainbowfish and I can again rely on the shrimp to help keep the tanks clean. These tanks get APR, followed by live baby brine shrimp and Cyclops Ease, and live daphnia, the point being that many of these products have a lot of astaxanthin, the red producing pigment. All of these young shrimp, so far have grown up to be quite red, even from an early age. Most likely it is because they are offered foods with astaxanthin, but it could also be something totally different and the variables still need to be carefully checked to know for sure.

"simple mendelian genetics" - You stated that a cherry crossed to a wild produced all green shrimp. What did the offspring of that cross look like? Simple Mendelian genetics, if red is recessive, so far have perfectly agreed with your 1st crossing. All of the offpring would carry the red recessive gene, but none of them would show it. Spawning the F1's back to themselves, it would be predicted that only 1 in four would be red. Crossing an F1 back to a red cherry parent would be predicted to yield 50% cherry shrimp with 2 carriers. The red colors may be indeed more complex and carried on several genes but a single cross back to the wild type (as state in this thread) would not prove this complexity.

"Throw-backs" - I agree that what some people might be seeing in the stores right now are crosses, I don't have enough info and haven't seen enough LFS shrimp to comment one way or the other. However throwbacks are very common in people that are trying to perfect a specific guppy or betta color. We're talking about someone who has kept a strain for 10 or 20 generations and they will see spontaneous throwbacks. Now those "throwbacks" don't go back to the wildtype, no long-finned guppy, your "wolf" from a poodle suggestion, but the color can be lost and another dominant color appear that has been lost long ago. This is often because the colors are not specific for one gene. If you are going to argue that the red color comes from more than one gene then you have also opened the door that a multiple gene effect could cause a throw back. And although I agree, that so far, I haven't seen any cherry shrimp that have really reverted to a wild type I don't think that you can state that it just can't happen. Like fancy guppies and bettas there could be the possibility for a color change.

Finally, what have you heard from the experts in Germany and the rest of the EU on reversions in Cherry shrimp? Those that have kept them for a long time and don't have any of the possible "new crosses"? Do they reach the same conclusions? Have you checked with any of the experts in Tawain or Japan to see if they've reached the same conclusions? They've certainly been dealing with the shrimp a LOT longer than any of us can claim in the US.

BTW what are the genetics on your white shrimp? Is that a recessive gene that totally dissapears when you cross it back to the wild-type? How about for the second generation?


gw

[Mustafa]

Mustafa, how about posting some closeup photos showing these "Yellow/orange" eggs?

You can see them very clearly in the second picture in their species description.

In your second photo under red cherry shrimp section you have a photo of a group of all red cherry shrimp, and it appears to be males and females. Is that correct?

Incorrect. Those are all females with one juvenile in the foreground. Although the juvenile is very red, if it turns out to be a male it will lose most of that deep red color.

Then your third photo shows what I think is an immature male that hasn't colored up yet? You don't say anything about him not coloring up yet, someone might only be looking for a pale colored fish as the only example of a "male cherry shrimp".

Incorrect again. That's a fully grown male shrimp. Nowhere did I state that it hasn't colored up yet. Males can range from very clear to having red markings over their bodies. There is some variation in coloration. What's for sure, though, is that they never get fully red like females. Many people think that slim looking red shrimp are males and then proudly proclaim that they have "fully red males." That's just because they don't know any better. Females that have not yet carried any eggs have that "slim" streamlined look. They are usually just as big, or nearly as big, as fully grown males. You made the same mistake by assuming that there are males in the second picture of the red cherry species description. It's a common mistake, but with some experience you'll get the hang of it.

In photo 5 you have an example of a female, with berries that is still pretty pale, perhaps even green/grey by some standards. Of course she will eventually turn red, but do you think this is the reason that some people may think that their red cherry shrimp are "naturally" reverting?

Not at all. When people talk about "reverting" they specifically mean shrimp that are brownish/greyish, with no red whatsoever, popping up in their populations "out of nowhere." Many of these people even post pictures of those shrimp in various forums. It's very clear that those shrimp are not pale red cherries. Pale red cherries still have red on them, even the palest ones, so it's very clear that they are red cherry shrimp. Could a total beginner think that they have some other shrimp, other than red cherries, because they can't tell that a pale shrimp is a red cherry? Sure, but that's not what the article is about and that's not what the frequent reports of "reverted" red cherry shrimp are about. You might want to look around on the internet a little to get an accurate picture of this "phenomenon."

BTW her eggs in photo # 5 don't really look that orange/red. Maybe it's the photograph but by the standards that you put down in the article that would suggest that she's not purebred.

The eggs on that female were yellow. The picture is a bad one because it was still taken with my old point and shoot camera with a magnifying lens held in front of it. I should remove that picture and replace it with a new one.

I think it may be people often see uncolored females, carrying eggs that they feel that there is a random reversion, not because there are so many hybrids coming into the market.

Read above. That is not what's happening in the cases I am talking about. It's very evident when someone is confused about his pale shrimp being red cherry shrimp or not. That's a different scenario.

"simple mendelian genetics" - You stated that a cherry crossed to a wild produced all green shrimp. What did the offspring of that cross look like?

I didn't let it get to that, as I needed the tank for other "pure" species breeding projects. I do have a hybrid/mixed colony of red and "wild color" shrimp right now that someone sent me because he was moving and could not take the shrimp with him. So, if I am bent on proving Mendel, I can check if the ratios apply to this colony. But, that's not really the point I was making above. The point is that the OFFSPRING DID NOT LOOK LIKE ANY OF THE PARENTS. And...there must be MORE going on then SIMPLE MENDELIAN genetics if the F1 generation does not look like the wild-type dominant parent. I.e. the red gene might be recessive according to Mendel, but the fact that the F1 hybrids look different indicates there is more to the whole story. THAT is the point.

Simple Mendelian genetics, if red is recessive, so far have perfectly agreed with your 1st crossing.

Incorrect again, see above. They *may* have agreed just with the red trait, but even that remains to be seen.

The red colors may be indeed more complex and carried on several genes but a single cross back to the wild type (as state in this thread) would not prove this complexity.

Not proving anything. Hypothesizing given the evidence. See above...the offspring did not look like any of the parents. I.e. probably more color genes involved than just one.

If you are going to argue that the red color comes from more than one gene then you have also opened the door that a multiple gene effect could cause a throw back.

As I have already stated in my reply to "Terran" above, the point is not to philosophize about the genetic complexity of red cherry shrimp, but to tell people that their "throwbacks" are results of hybridization. That part of my argument is as real as the computer screen in front of you. You have stated yourself that you haven't seen enough LFS tanks or importer tanks or even bags of imported red cherry shrimp (with tons of wild-type Neocaridina sp. in the same bags), so you would not know the severity of this hybridization phenomenon. However, I do as I have, and still am, witnessing these things all over the place.

And although I agree, that so far, I haven't seen any cherry shrimp that have really reverted to a wild type I don't think that you can state that it just can't happen.

Where did I state that it can't happen? I actually stated the opposite. What I am saying, again, is that "throwbacks/reversions" cannot account for the frequency of reports of "brown" shrimp appearing in, seemingly, every third tank around the country/cybercpace. The mutation that would have to happen to cause a red shrimp to go brown/grey again has a very, very low probability of happening. This is NOT the same as a certain strain of guppy producing a non-typically colored guppy. The red shrimp do *not* have the gene for the "brown/grey" color anymore and it would take a *random* mutation for that gene to appear again. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

Finally, what have you heard from the experts in Germany and the rest of the EU on reversions in Cherry shrimp?

I *am* an "expert from Germany" so I don't have to consult anyone there. I know what's going on in the shrimp hobby in Germany. Actually, the consultation usually goes the opposite direction accross the big pond. And, contrary to popular belief, there aren't all that many "experts" in Germany as most people tend to believe. There are maybe a handful (at most). There are a lot more hobbyists there, but their knowledge isn't any bigger than the knowledge of the average hobbyist here in the US. Having said that...other "experts" agree.

Those that have kept them for a long time and don't have any of the possible "new crosses"? Do they reach the same conclusions?
Have you checked with any of the experts in Tawain or Japan to see if they've reached the same conclusions? They've certainly been dealing with the shrimp a LOT longer than any of us can claim in the US.

As I have said above already, the red cherry shrimp has only been around since about spring/summer 2003, so my colony is about as old (or older) as anyone's colony in Germany or Asia. So, no, nobody has been dealing with these shrimp any longer elsewhere, excpect for the guy/fish farm that developed it. As for "experts" in Taiwan and Japan...I have no direct contact with anyone there as the shrimp breeders there tend to not speak any English/German (and my Chinese is a bit rusty, my Japanese non-existent). Either way, being a productive shrimp breeder does not mean that you are necessarily an "expert" in genetics or even have what could be considered "good knowledge" of genetics (or expertise in anything else besides being able to produce shrimp). So, I don't see your point.

Just to clarify a confusion you (and likely many others) seem to have here. There just aren't that many well-rounded "experts" shrimp hobbyists (or even just breeders), be it here, Germany, Japan...you name it. Some people in the US seem to have the (wrong) impression that Germany and Japan are "full of experts" (and breeders) with "so much more knowledge." Being an aquarist from Germany I can tell you that that is utter and complete nonsense. Some of the shrimp keepers/sellers in Germany that misguided people here consider to be "experts", just because they have a website or whose name was mentioned in connection with Germany (don't want to name any names here) have, at best, rudimentary knowledge about shrimp, shrimp keeping/breeding, shrimp genetics, and other aspects of the shrimp hobby. The situation in Japan, judging from their websites, is unlikely to be any different.

Fact is that *today* the shrimp hobby in the US is just as advanced, if not more advanced actually, as anywhere else in the world, including Germany and Japan. We did have a later start here than in Germany and Japan (but not later than Singapore/Southeast Asia for example, which some other misguided people also put on pedestals and declare anyone from there with some crystal reds in their tanks "experts"), but I have done everything to get the hobby up to speed in the US....and, by the looks of it, I was quite successful. We have caught up and have surpassed. We actually do have a flourishing shrimp hobby in the US now, where there used to be utter confusion, mythology, tons of false "experts" and just plain bad advice and speculation. Nevermind the fact that shrimp were thought of as curiosities in community tanks. (The concept of the "shrimp tank" in the US got its start right here on this website). If it had been up to me I would have put up this website even earlier and "jumpstarted" things, but other things had priority. Yes, there are still fewer shrimp keepers in the US than in Germany or Japan, but that will change over time, too. But when it comes to knowledge and expertise, it's *quality* that counts, not quantity. I hope this clarifies a few things about "expertise" in various countries and the state of the shrimp hobby in the US and elsewhere.

BTW what are the genetics on your white shrimp? Is that a recessive gene that totally dissapears when you cross it back to the wild-type? How about for the second generation?

I have not done any crossing experiments with my snowballs and their wild-type yet, so I can't comment from first-hand experience. However, others have and from their reports it seems that the snowballs' genetics are similar to the red cherry shrimp's, i.e. no white in the first generation. But, again, those are second hand reports and I'll report on it again once (and if) I conduct my own crossing experiments.

[Neonshrimp]

Thanks for the response in the last thread, this could be an educational article in itself