Full Version: What Variety Is This Fella?
Looks like a red and white oranda to me
Yep, looks like a lovely red cap oranda! Pretty fish you've got there 
i also think he'she is a r & w oranda very pretty fish
is it just me, or is that fish missing a tail? or is the fish's tail just not visible in this pic?
very pretty fishis it just me, or is that fish missing a tail? or is the fish's tail just not visible in this pic?
It looks like most of an oranda to me.....is it yours?
I know there was a strain bred called a "Meteor", it was a shortbodied fish that was bred without a tail, the dorsal, anal and ventral fins tended to be longer to compensate for the missing caudal fin, but it was an unpopular breed, I have never seen a meteor, or even a photo of one, just a picture drawn in one of my older reference books (in 1950's the breed was already unpopular, I wouldn't be surprised if they stopped breeding them altogether 
)
To me that just looks like a red-cap oranda with missing caudal fins. It's a shame, it would be quite a spectacular specimen if it had its tail, I've got such a tail fetish
.
)To me that just looks like a red-cap oranda with missing caudal fins. It's a shame, it would be quite a spectacular specimen if it had its tail, I've got such a tail fetish
.
obviously, yeah... a redcap oranda missing tis tail.
Interestingly, there's been a recent rise in Asian collectors' fascination with tail-less "dream" fish such as arowanas and flowerheads. I asked a retailer about it once and he claimed there's a prevailing belief that these deformed fish are supposed to be "luckier"...
Interestingly, there's been a recent rise in Asian collectors' fascination with tail-less "dream" fish such as arowanas and flowerheads. I asked a retailer about it once and he claimed there's a prevailing belief that these deformed fish are supposed to be "luckier"...
QUOTE(Man Yu @ Dec 4 2007, 03:23 PM) 
obviously, yeah... a redcap oranda missing tis tail.
Interestingly, there's been a recent rise in Asian collectors' fascination with tail-less "dream" fish such as arowanas and flowerheads. I asked a retailer about it once and he claimed there's a prevailing belief that these deformed fish are supposed to be "luckier"...
Interestingly, there's been a recent rise in Asian collectors' fascination with tail-less "dream" fish such as arowanas and flowerheads. I asked a retailer about it once and he claimed there's a prevailing belief that these deformed fish are supposed to be "luckier"...
Maybe it takes away all the bad luck and that is why it's taken away all the bad luck upon itself and got no tail
erratum:
I meant flowerhorn... not "flowerhead"
And also, the same reverence seems to be attributed to arowanas with spinal deformities yet still manage to survive the fry stage... The ones I've seen are either always "reserved" (usually with an accompanying eyebrows-raising price tag) or "not for sale"...
go figure... :s
I meant flowerhorn... not "flowerhead"
And also, the same reverence seems to be attributed to arowanas with spinal deformities yet still manage to survive the fry stage... The ones I've seen are either always "reserved" (usually with an accompanying eyebrows-raising price tag) or "not for sale"...
go figure... :s
Which do you think is more probable:
1. The tail is not there since birth
2. Tail was cut off when the fish was little
Somehow I'm leaning towards the second one.....
1. The tail is not there since birth
2. Tail was cut off when the fish was little
Somehow I'm leaning towards the second one.....
My guess...deformed oranda. Sad little fish...hope he found a good home with someone who thinks he's "lucky!" 
wow now thats a different fish.....
oh, its missing its tail?!?!! Thats sad. Poor fishie must have a hard time swimming around 
Not really, the tail is used for a guiding like a rotter, also for stopping.... 
what a nice fish..
hopefully it is just a deformed fish...
hopefully it is just a deformed fish...
missing tail or not hes cute!.. I'd fall in love 
..It's fish like that, that catch my heart really.. I love my good qualities but, those kinds are in need of loving homes and attention to..
..It's fish like that, that catch my heart really.. I love my good qualities but, those kinds are in need of loving homes and attention to..
QUOTE(koko @ Dec 5 2007, 03:13 AM)
Not really, the tail is used for a guiding like a rotter, also for stopping....
in long and double-tailed varieties, sure... Commons, wakins, ranchus and comets rely heavily on their tails to propel them, however...
QUOTE(FishCrazy @ Dec 5 2007, 07:31 AM)
hopefully it is just a deformed fish...
Doubt that really much. Have a read at the article in the link:
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...em.php?news=957
Amputated tail? I think so
that is barbaric and not to mention who wants a fish with out a tail 
they look really ugly
they look really ugly
QUOTE(dan in aus @ Dec 5 2007, 05:35 PM)
that is barbaric and not to mention who wants a fish with out a tail they look really ugly
they look really uglyIf it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
dorsal-less fish are bred that way, the fin is not cut off. I'm guessing the article about cosmetic clipping of the tail is what is being referred to as barbaric, not the keeping of the tailless fish. Although, keeping fish that have been subjected to acts of cruelty as a cosmetic statement (also fish that have been "tattooed/painted") is only supporting the trade. This is something that most people on this board feel very strongly about.
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
If it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
If the fish was born without the caudal fin, then that's totally fine. If the fish's caudal was cut off, then it's cruelty to the fish & I don't think u can talk about being bias there, mate.
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
If it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
If the fish was born without the caudal fin, then that's totally fine. If the fish's caudal was cut off, then it's cruelty to the fish & I don't think u can talk about being bias there, mate.
So is culling off your unwanted fries being barbaric?
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
If it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
If the fish was born without the caudal fin, then that's totally fine. If the fish's caudal was cut off, then it's cruelty to the fish & I don't think u can talk about being bias there, mate.
So is culling off your unwanted fries being barbaric?
Culling unwanted fries is done because of several reasons, but most of it comes down to limited space & resources, am I right? An average breeder just does not have enough resource and time to keep 1000s of fish at once, do they? So we largely cull out of necessity and when we do it, we do it humanely.
That oranda was on its way to become a beautiful, majestic fish with all of its fins complete when suddenly, "SNIP!", off goes its tail, bones and all. Then the fish having to struggle to recover from the wound & trauma, having to adapt to a new way of swimming, etc etc just to give satisfaction to the owner.
Of course, the whole issue being barbaric or not depends on the person, but for me (and the overwhelming majority of the board), cutting the tail of a perfectly good goldfish is just a step too far and must be condemned.
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
If it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
If the fish was born without the caudal fin, then that's totally fine. If the fish's caudal was cut off, then it's cruelty to the fish & I don't think u can talk about being bias there, mate.
i agree with what d_golem has said there i felt the actual practice of cutting a fish's tail barbaric
oh and Riz congrats on becoming a helper i think you are the only guy helper as toothless left
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 08:43 PM)
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 05:34 PM)
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 07:16 PM)
QUOTE(HNLim @ Dec 5 2007, 03:50 PM)
If it is ok to keep a goldfish without a dorsal fin, why not OK to keep one without its caudal fin? Are you being bias here?
If the fish was born without the caudal fin, then that's totally fine. If the fish's caudal was cut off, then it's cruelty to the fish & I don't think u can talk about being bias there, mate.
So is culling off your unwanted fries being barbaric?
Culling unwanted fries is done because of several reasons, but most of it comes down to limited space & resources, am I right? An average breeder just does not have enough resource and time to keep 1000s of fish at once, do they? So we largely cull out of necessity and when we do it, we do it humanely.
What if the fish has a deformed tail and has to be culled and cutting its tail will make it of value or sometimes higher value. If I am not mistaken, some dogs get their tail cut off. Is that barbaric?
That oranda was on its way to become a beautiful, majestic fish with all of its fins complete when suddenly, "SNIP!", off goes its tail, bones and all. Then the fish having to struggle to recover from the wound & trauma, having to adapt to a new way of swimming, etc etc just to give satisfaction to the owner.
Of course, the whole issue being barbaric or not depends on the person, but for me (and the overwhelming majority of the board), cutting the tail of a perfectly good goldfish is just a step too far and must be condemned.
I think any goldfish is cute, its just cruel to breed them that way or cut it off, thats not natural!
O_O;; It looks so weird...
But I agree that cutting or altering the fish via "cosmetic surgery/injections" is cruel! People do it to themselves b/c they choose to, fish are not capable of choosing, but you can tell they don't like it when they flail and attempt to jump out of the surgeon's hands.
I can't imagine the hundreds of fish that keepers go through just to have one that looks "purdy." Those altered fish spend weeks (or months) in antibiotic baths to reduce infection -- their health drops dramatically in the process.
No one wants to cull their fish, if they had the capability, they'd probably keep 'em all. However, in those cases, you risk the health of the entire group.
Fish surgery on the other hand isn't about health, it's just about "lookin' good." And that's a selfish way to think.
But I agree that cutting or altering the fish via "cosmetic surgery/injections" is cruel! People do it to themselves b/c they choose to, fish are not capable of choosing, but you can tell they don't like it when they flail and attempt to jump out of the surgeon's hands.
I can't imagine the hundreds of fish that keepers go through just to have one that looks "purdy." Those altered fish spend weeks (or months) in antibiotic baths to reduce infection -- their health drops dramatically in the process.
No one wants to cull their fish, if they had the capability, they'd probably keep 'em all. However, in those cases, you risk the health of the entire group.
Fish surgery on the other hand isn't about health, it's just about "lookin' good." And that's a selfish way to think.
Jeez, when I first looked at the pic it didn't even register that it didn't have a tail....I just assumed that the fish was in the process of turning and its tail was hidden from view. I didn't even know someone would do such a thing to a fish, how horrible! I can't imagine what kind of person would think that its cool to mutilate a perfectly beautiful fish, certaintly no one I'd want to know!
Not to muddy the waters, but aren't there a number of dog breeds in which tail amputation or shortening is a routine matter and done for mostly cosmetic reasons. I'll bet some of the members of this board own such animals, without giving it as much thought as they have this poor fishie.
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
QUOTE(oliver_black @ Dec 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Not to muddy the waters, but aren't there a number of dog breeds in which tail amputation or shortening is a routine matter and done for mostly cosmetic reasons. I'll bet some of the members of this board own such animals, without giving it as much thought as they have this poor fishie.
Couldn't be more wrong. I am one that is totally against any type of mutilation to animals (or humans) when it is against their will. You shouldn't make assumptions like that.
QUOTE
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
Oliver
Well, DUH it's about MONEY!!! Everything in this world works around money -- why do you think places like wal*mart (heaven forbid) carries thousands of "feeder goldfish?"
No one is denying the fact that these things are going on for money, for "beauty," or even some type of "artistic pleasure." However, you also can't deny the fact that some things are just wrong.
And I certainly hope you don't try to argue this with "Well, some people believe this or that." It's still no excuse. There are some universal truths that hold out in all cultures, and one of them is that it is bad to cause others pain. For me, and a lot of us on this board (surprise, you're on a fish forum!), fish are categorized under "others."
QUOTE(oliver_black @ Dec 6 2007, 05:50 AM)
Not to muddy the waters, but aren't there a number of dog breeds in which tail amputation or shortening is a routine matter and done for mostly cosmetic reasons. I'll bet some of the members of this board own such animals, without giving it as much thought as they have this poor fishie.
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
Just had a quick look at wikipedia about tail docking.
Basically tail docking was originally done on herding & hunting dogs because their tails would get injured by collecting spiky plants like burrs & foxtails & cause infection. Longer tails will also get caught in farm gates & collect faeces & become a cleanliness problem. So docking was basically done with medical & well-being of the dog in mind.
However, tail-docking (& ear-cropping) is controversial, and I can see no need to dock the tail if the dog doesn't work in a field or hunt. Fortunately, the practice seems to be diminishing and more & more countries are banning them completely. Australia, Germany, Italy, UK & many more have recently made the practice illegal. Some states in the US have also considered to do the same.
So overall, tail-docking & ear-cropping looks like to be on the way out, according to wikipedia.
I'd do anything in my power to prevent tail-cutting for fish to become widespread
QUOTE(d_golem @ Dec 5 2007, 03:18 PM)
QUOTE(oliver_black @ Dec 6 2007, 05:50 AM)
Not to muddy the waters, but aren't there a number of dog breeds in which tail amputation or shortening is a routine matter and done for mostly cosmetic reasons. I'll bet some of the members of this board own such animals, without giving it as much thought as they have this poor fishie.
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
As far as cosmetic amputations on fish are concerned, like most things in this world, they are done for money, pure and simple, and then displayed because of pride. Then again, that might just be the cynic in me talking.
Oliver
Just had a quick look at wikipedia about tail docking.
Basically tail docking was originally done on herding & hunting dogs because their tails would get injured by collecting spiky plants like burrs & foxtails & cause infection. Longer tails will also get caught in farm gates & collect faeces & become a cleanliness problem. So docking was basically done with medical & well-being of the dog in mind.
However, tail-docking (& ear-cropping) is controversial, and I can see no need to dock the tail if the dog doesn't work in a field or hunt. Fortunately, the practice seems to be diminishing and more & more countries are banning them completely. Australia, Germany, Italy, UK & many more have recently made the practice illegal. Some states in the US have also considered to do the same.
So overall, tail-docking & ear-cropping looks like to be on the way out, according to wikipedia.
I'd do anything in my power to prevent tail-cutting for fish to become widespread
Yup, that's correct. Lots of people who have had dog breeds like pit bulls that have had their ears done is so that the dog's ears don't get pulled off in fights (if they use them for that purpose).
I disagree with doing any sort of amputation in any type of animal. We have a sheepdog and the breeder offered to crop his tail for us but we turned it down. I see no reason to put an animal through pain just for looks.
they also do that for great danes to make there ears ponited they wrap there ear on this cone thing when the are puppies...it was done so the dog wouldn't get there ears stuck in the brush..
I think the fish is cute without it's tail!!! It gives him/her character!!!! He could say; "Look at me. I have no tail. Kiss me here, and over here. Worship me now!"
I personally think the fish is neat looking, I don't think I'd be against breeding a ''meteor'' fish, in my opinion (which may be wrong) but if they're born without a tail, then they've never known what's it like to have a tailfin...so they could learn to swim with what they were born with. I would be staunchly opposed to ''docking'' normal fish. Dogs are docked nowadays mostly when they're smaaaall puppies, so they won't have a memory when they're grown of it...kinda like babies being circumsized (am I allowed to say that word here? x.x) ...But that's just my opinion, I know it doesn't mean much since I'm still in the Fry group
You can't even compare cutting off a fishes tail to docking a dogs tail. Fish use their tails to move themselves forward and it is very harmfull to them.
A dogs tail serves no purpose and docking their tail is no worse than having them fixed.
A dogs tail serves no purpose and docking their tail is no worse than having them fixed.
QUOTE(oliver_black @ Dec 5 2007, 12:50 PM)
Not to muddy the waters, but aren't there a number of dog breeds in which tail amputation or shortening is a routine matter and done for mostly cosmetic reasons. I'll bet some of the members of this board own such animals, without giving it as much thought as they have this poor fishie.
Oliver
Oliver
In several Countries in Europe tail and ear clipping are forbidden. In Belgium it is forbidden since several years (I think since 2001) and that aswell in dogs as in horses. Those big "work- horses" now get a regular tail trim, they just keep the tail haisr short, instaid of cutting of part of the vertebra in the tail like they used to do.
QUOTE(nick11380 @ Jan 17 2008, 08:17 PM)
You can't even compare cutting off a fishes tail to docking a dogs tail. Fish use their tails to move themselves forward and it is very harmfull to them.
A dogs tail serves no purpose and docking their tail is no worse than having them fixed.
A dogs tail serves no purpose and docking their tail is no worse than having them fixed.
A dogs tail is very important in their body language. That is one of the reasons why they do it in dog fights, so the other dog can't show surrender that clearly.
You should see an old rottweiler when clipping was allowed, they shake they entire rear end to show that are friendly. The poor thing
Barbarianism is in the eye of the beholder. Is it cruel to breed deformed fish for our viewing pleasure since many of them end up with digestive problems as a result? What about those cute lionhead and ranchu goldfish that seem to struggle swimming without a dorsal fin. In addition to surgically altering dogs' tails and ears, it is also common to declaw cats. Is this cruel or barbaric? What about spaying or neutering? As someone mentioned, is it cruel to cull fish? What about eating fish? This topic makes me wonder: what is acceptable, cruel or barbaric and how do we judge others versus ourselves?
One word of warning to anyone who replies to this thread, if this thread becomes a general mud throwing match about cruelty to animals it will be trashed immediately. There are forums out there where you can vent about cruelty to animals but this isn't the place.
I dont understand why people are arguing here.
I dont think any of you have any proof that the tail was snipped off.
If it was born that way, thats not cruel. You dont call parents cruel if they birthed a mentally-deficiant/deaf/mute/blind child.
I dont think any of you have any proof that the tail was snipped off.
If it was born that way, thats not cruel. You dont call parents cruel if they birthed a mentally-deficiant/deaf/mute/blind child.
The argument wasn't about that particular fish, it was about tail-less fish in general. Then it escalated into an argument about whether or not creating planned breeding or cosmetic surgeries were "cruel."
if it was cutted off for people's enjoyment then it's cruel if it was born that way, deformed, then it's not (that is why peopel cull, btu then that is not any less cruel but we have to)
The picture at the beginning of this post looks more like a Ranchu without a tail fin.
This is my fish which is very similar. He was in a tank with 30 "regular" orandas when I rescued him. Since he is a very fast & capable swimmer I would say he was born without tail fins. The area of where the tail would be is slighly rounded & his dorsal & anal fins are overdeveloped. There seems to be no scar tissue.
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj149/f...00160001xxx.jpg
http://i271.photobucket.com/albums/jj149/f...00160001xxx.jpg
QUOTE(Smilingfish @ Jan 20 2008, 05:43 PM)
This is my fish which is very similar.
I wonder if the breeders on the board could give their input as to how often they see fry born without tails. That would be interesting!
It's more often than a lot of people would believe.
There's also tons of crooked spines, all sorts of fin deformities as well as extra appendages.
There's also tons of crooked spines, all sorts of fin deformities as well as extra appendages.
Yeah, that is true. However, a tail completely gone like the two pictures above is somewhat rare. Pieces of a tail, upper part, lower part, yes, that is more common. In those two fish in question it looks so neatly gone, that you don't even see a trace of it anywhere. In most deformed/missing tails, there is at least a hint of it visible that there usually is something there.
Out of all the fry I had, there wasn't one with its tail completely gone. I am interested to hear how many Daryl stumbled upon in her 1000s of fry from last year.
Out of all the fry I had, there wasn't one with its tail completely gone. I am interested to hear how many Daryl stumbled upon in her 1000s of fry from last year.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.