Talk:GloFish
I reverted the edits because they not written in an appropriate manner, and I really think the information is wrong. The article also specifically states 'intentional breeding' is illegal. This AFAIK is true for genetically engineered fish. --Brian 03:21, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, Glofish are a product of the science industry, they are copyrighted. They were never meant for the pet trade. I have heard that they have dyed some Danios to replicate the Glofish and these are sold cheaper than proper Glofish. Their colour would obviously fade while true Glofish wouldn't. They are also illegal full stop in the UK and probably some other countries due to their genetically modified status. --Cat 13:28, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
They may not be originally meant for the pet trade. But I've heard of American entrepreneurs approaching the scientists and getting a license to sell them. But it's a condition of the license that they're not suppose to breed them. Quite how they can stop this is beyond me.
I'm told that adding the glow gene to animals is now considered 'trivial' and 2nd year biology students routinely do it. But the fact that you need a special aquarium set up in the dark to view this weird looking animal will prove to put most people off buying them. I'd be more worried if they start playing around with colour genes. Now that will cause a massive trade in GM pets.
--Quatermass 15:42, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- You have obviously never seen them. These fish are incredibly brightly colored under normal aquarium lighting. Huw Powell 01:22, 13 March 2011 (EST)
- It is true I've personally never seen them. This is because they are illegal to sell in the UK. But I was refering to their particular engineered trait. Why buy these animals and then not put them in a special UV aquarium? --Quatermass 05:05, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
- I fixed your indent. Because they are bright - fluorescent day-glo bright - under normal lighting. Under normal light they are some of the brightest colored fish I have ever seen, except perhaps for a few marine exotics. Though the temptation to add a black light (a trivial task) as well as the normal lighting for the occasional psychedelic hour or two would be very high. You know how easy it is to add one more fluorescent bulb fixture to a tank and buy a blacklight bulb, right? Other than that addition, it's not a "special" tank.
- It is true I've personally never seen them. This is because they are illegal to sell in the UK. But I was refering to their particular engineered trait. Why buy these animals and then not put them in a special UV aquarium? --Quatermass 05:05, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
- I suspect we won't see a flood of day-glo fish, I don't think it's quite "trivial" to develop a healthy, breeding strain of a species.
- As far as "illegal" breeding and enforcement, just look up Monsanto and their glyphosate-resistant strains of various plants. Now, as an easy to breed fish, one does wonder how long it will be before someone manages to get a few fertile examples and starts sharing the fry around. Does one bust a hobbyist by demanding receipts showing where they bought their fish? Huw Powell 23:06, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
- Huw hit it on the nose for patent law here in the US (can't speak you your side of the world). Monsanto sues farmers out of business when seeds spill or are accidentally planted on their land. It only takes 1 plant. These fish would likely be the same way, intentionally (important caveat in the license) breeding and selling them would get you royally fucked in court.
- And yes, they are that bright without a black-light. I have seen duller ones but I suspect its probably poor nutrition. They would sell like pop-rocks at a rave. --Brian 08:22, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
License[edit]
There are 4 retail chains near my home that sell these and one local fish store. They are real easy to get here in the US. - Hpglow
- Why does that license remind me of MP3 files sold by online music companies? ;-)
--Quatermass 23:37, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
- Probably because you have a personal issue. Huw Powell 01:26, 13 March 2011 (EST)
- Sorry? It was a rhetorical question. :) --Quatermass 05:07, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
- Ah, ok. Nevermind, sorry. Huw Powell 23:08, 13 March 2011 (EDT)
- Seems more like the license used by MonSanto for their crops, but they do allow their breeding for educational purposes so +1 --Brian 07:54, 14 March 2011 (EDT)
Yeah it does seem odd that you could even patent a living creature.
- Call Monsanto. It's been going on for a while, companies are even patenting genes they have sequenced. Creepy in general, but in this case I almost "buy" it - they created a unique and desirable (to some) creature, and copying their work is a violation of IP rights. Huw Powell 01:26, 13 March 2011 (EST)
Title[edit]
Cat & Q, on that last edit, it looks like that heading is the only one with both capital letters, the rest just have the first letter capitalized. Any comments on which way we should go? --Brian 18:33, 13 February 2011 (EST)
Correct way[edit]
The correct way is 'Glofish' of course. :) --Quatermass 19:33, 13 February 2011 (EST)
I meant the section heading, but the official GloFish website has the camel case spelling. --Brian 09:18, 14 February 2011 (EST)
More about the correct way[edit]
Please use section headers in talk pages, not those silly HR (----) things. Section headers create editable sections (doh). HRs are just messy. Huw Powell 01:26, 13 March 2011 (EST)
Dead link[edit]
During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!
--PsiPro bot 00:44, 2 May 2011 (CDT)
- I removed the reference for now. Huw Powell 03:58, 3 July 2011 (CDT)
