As the title of this thread is already saying: Is a guppy always a Poecilia reticulata...?
The correct answer is "no"...!
Going back to wildguppies as a source for our current breeding forms of guppies, tells us that not just Poecilia reticulata is the only wild guppy species there is. The Poecilia reticulata is most wide spread wild guppy species there is. And I don't mean particularly those populations that are distributed all over this globe by man. But from natural occurance in the wild.
Besides the Poecilia reticulata, there are also other wild guppy species in the wild. They are all guppies but differ in DNA. Nothing more and nothing less. The other wild guppy species that aren't Poecilia reticulata are:
Poecilia obscura
Podifferecilia kempkesi
Poecilia wingei
All Micropoecilia species
Micropoecilia is a subgenus of the Poecilia genus.
These mentioned guppy species are all wild guppies. But again, they differ in DNA. Besides that they're in the same genus and subgenus, they have the same amount of chromosome pairs and their sexual organs are compatible. This all makes fertile offspring when crossbred to another.
Our current breeding forms of guppies are not just a result of linebreeding certain wild traits or linebreeding certain mutations but also by crossbreeding one or more of these wild guppy species.
I read too many times on website or homepages regarding guppies that they only use the scientific name "Poecilia reticulata" or the older names. It would be totally incorrect to claim that we can only speak of Poecilia reticulata when we talk about fancy guppies (= all breeding forms of guppies).
If one wants to make a data description of guppies, all the wild guppy species as mentioned above should be mentioned as being the source of today's breeding forms of guppies. Only mentioning Poecilia reticulata would be missing out on the a big part of the history of today's fancy guppies.
So, when someone claims that he/she is a specialist in guppies ( and believe me on the internet many call themselves a guppy specialist) but won't mention any others than just Poecilia reticulata, is still lacking knowledge. For if you don't even own the basic knowledge of guppies, one may not call him/herself a guppy specialist in my opinion. Using only the name "Poecilia reticulata" is a sign of using just a generalization.
So, if we're talking about fancy guppies (again, this means all breeding forms of guppies and not just show varieties), leave out the name "Poecilia reticulata" if you're not sure about their background. Only use the general name "guppy" instead. For that covers all situations.
Collecting a lot of breeding forms of guppies "can" make someone a guppy specilaist at some point when we're only discussing strains. But it doesn't make someone a guppy specialist in the broadest sense of the word. Such someone just owns a lot of guppy strains.
I felt like I had to write this down for too many people think that they know it all about guppies. And especially when there's a hype going on with regards to guppies. Then in a sudden a lot of wannabee specialists rise on forums and other relevant internet sites. But when I read or even hear most of them out, it becomes clear to me that the word "wannabee" is correctly chosen. No to be offensive but the word "specialist is easy to use for many. Even me being a seasoned guppy keeper and breeder am still learning... I would prefer to call myself a passionate guppy keeper and breeder but I won't call myself a guppy specialist despite of my level of knowledge...
The correct answer is "no"...!
Going back to wildguppies as a source for our current breeding forms of guppies, tells us that not just Poecilia reticulata is the only wild guppy species there is. The Poecilia reticulata is most wide spread wild guppy species there is. And I don't mean particularly those populations that are distributed all over this globe by man. But from natural occurance in the wild.
Besides the Poecilia reticulata, there are also other wild guppy species in the wild. They are all guppies but differ in DNA. Nothing more and nothing less. The other wild guppy species that aren't Poecilia reticulata are:
Poecilia obscura
Podifferecilia kempkesi
Poecilia wingei
All Micropoecilia species
Micropoecilia is a subgenus of the Poecilia genus.
These mentioned guppy species are all wild guppies. But again, they differ in DNA. Besides that they're in the same genus and subgenus, they have the same amount of chromosome pairs and their sexual organs are compatible. This all makes fertile offspring when crossbred to another.
Our current breeding forms of guppies are not just a result of linebreeding certain wild traits or linebreeding certain mutations but also by crossbreeding one or more of these wild guppy species.
I read too many times on website or homepages regarding guppies that they only use the scientific name "Poecilia reticulata" or the older names. It would be totally incorrect to claim that we can only speak of Poecilia reticulata when we talk about fancy guppies (= all breeding forms of guppies).
If one wants to make a data description of guppies, all the wild guppy species as mentioned above should be mentioned as being the source of today's breeding forms of guppies. Only mentioning Poecilia reticulata would be missing out on the a big part of the history of today's fancy guppies.
So, when someone claims that he/she is a specialist in guppies ( and believe me on the internet many call themselves a guppy specialist) but won't mention any others than just Poecilia reticulata, is still lacking knowledge. For if you don't even own the basic knowledge of guppies, one may not call him/herself a guppy specialist in my opinion. Using only the name "Poecilia reticulata" is a sign of using just a generalization.
So, if we're talking about fancy guppies (again, this means all breeding forms of guppies and not just show varieties), leave out the name "Poecilia reticulata" if you're not sure about their background. Only use the general name "guppy" instead. For that covers all situations.
Collecting a lot of breeding forms of guppies "can" make someone a guppy specilaist at some point when we're only discussing strains. But it doesn't make someone a guppy specialist in the broadest sense of the word. Such someone just owns a lot of guppy strains.
I felt like I had to write this down for too many people think that they know it all about guppies. And especially when there's a hype going on with regards to guppies. Then in a sudden a lot of wannabee specialists rise on forums and other relevant internet sites. But when I read or even hear most of them out, it becomes clear to me that the word "wannabee" is correctly chosen. No to be offensive but the word "specialist is easy to use for many. Even me being a seasoned guppy keeper and breeder am still learning... I would prefer to call myself a passionate guppy keeper and breeder but I won't call myself a guppy specialist despite of my level of knowledge...
