Jump to content
Carp Anglers Group Forums
  • Announcements

Guest NY Rob

Need help!! Mirror carp or not.

Recommended Posts

Bill, I hate to chime in on this anti_Bill, but Matt's fish is actually a "defective" common. The "muddler" trait is created when the nude gene becomes dominant in the second ominly (as in Ssn"N"). The defect CAN occur only when the first ominly in the scaled gene is dominant, second scaled ominly recessive, and the first ominly of the nude gene is recessive, and second ominly of the nude gene is dominant...

  Most commons have the SsNn,Ssnn, SSnn, SSNn, or sSnn, but those of the SsnN are suseptible to this recessive trait in commons. BUT, they still are commons...

  Mirrors can only exist with both ominlies of the scaled gene being recessive..once either ominly of the scaled gene becomes dominant, it is a common.

Scott,

Problem with that is that you have no idea what gene is dominant in either fish :D:D so how can you say Matt's fish is a "defective" common, when you don't know if its gene pattern is really SsnN? Let me know where you're quoting from I'd like to read more about it..... All the best..... Bill D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wasn't being Anti-Bill Scott, I just always heard to the terms scatter-scale and muddler used in reference to fish I would call a common carp otherwise, if it weren't for their wierd scaling.  MY fish and some of the other muddlers I've seen from such places as the Larry, were never even thought to be mirrors. 

It be interesting if there any real definitions of these terms...

Again, not trying to make an arguement, I just thought/think people, like me and Bill, had different understandings of the definitions of these words.

Language is a tricky thing...

Matt

Matt,

Language IS tricky..... I'm happy to look at both fish and say that they are great specimens of their kind. I'm glad you caught yours and I'm doubly glad I caught mine :D Even nicer to think that they are both still swimming around out there somewhere, totally oblivious to the ruckus they've caused :D Well actually NJ Rob caused it with the first post in the thread, but we all know what a Plonker he is :D:D (sorry Rob, see you tomorrow... ).......

All the best...... Bill D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NJ Rob
Well actually NJ Rob caused it with the first post in the thread, but we all know what a Plonker he is  (sorry Rob, see you tomorrow... ).......

I resemble that remark. Be carful Bill, I know my constipational rights and youre committing defacation of character!! <_<

I wasnt trying to stir up here. I really wanted more experienced anglers chiming in since you and I disagreed the day it was caught. And I still do ... Look at J Browns pic. Its basically the same fish as yours where the rear end of the fish has different scale patterns from the torso but each of the 2 patterns are the same size. NOT like a mirror where all scales are basically unique and different sizes and shapes.

I definately agree that a gene thing is going on here but opposite from what Scott said. Id say a mirror and common banged for this one but the common is by far DOMINANT in this fish. :D

Juts my plonker 2 cents and I still dont chalk this one up as a mirror. So you still owe me $250. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its a REALLY FAT grasser in a Common costume!! :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NJ Rob
I think its a REALLY FAT grasser in a Common costume!!  :D  :D

Hey Stewart ..

Im fishing tomorrow rain or shine. Can you believe it???? Its also suppossed to be 32 degrees. Make a mental note will ya? :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bill, once you have both scaled ominlies recessive in a carp (ie ss**), then there is nowhere on either side of the fish that common scaling occurs (ie at least 2 rows each way), and as looking on Matt's fish, just by the gill, about 1/3rd the way down, and right at the wrist of the tail clearly has common scaling patterns, meaning one of the ominlies on the scaled genes HAS to be dominant. And since "muddlers" cann only occur with a SsnN make up, then it is very easy to say this fish's genetic imprint is SsnN.

Once both scaled ominlies become recessive, then there are NO groupings of common type scalings anywhere on either side.

Now, many fish taken elsewhere, particlarly in the St Lawrence, and Great Lakes, have small patches of irregular scaling. Even in places where this happens most (ie above), still 90% of the commons taken will have the complete common scaling, bar injury. The SsnN make-up is the rarest there is, living anyways. Once you get both nude ominlies dominant, the fish dies (ie **NN).

THE most common "common" make-up found, and the most perfect scaling, would be SSnn, meaning a nearly flawless common. This occurs in about 78% of all commons, of course this can change slightly water to water, depending on the genetic make-up of the original fish. It seems Larry fish were blessed with a much higher ratio of parent fish being of the ***N variety. This is why "muddlers" occur much more frequently in these places.

Either way, once any grouping of scales on any area of the fish is common, then one scaled ominly in the genetic make-up is dominant, making it a common.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, once you have both scaled ominlies recessive in a carp (ie ss**), then there is nowhere on either side of the fish that common scaling occurs (ie at least 2 rows each way), and as looking on Matt's fish, just by the gill, about 1/3rd the way down, and right at the wrist of the tail clearly has common scaling patterns, meaning one of the ominlies on the scaled genes HAS to be dominant. And since "muddlers" cann only occur with  a SsnN make up, then it is very easy to say this fish's genetic imprint is SsnN.

  Once both scaled ominlies become recessive, then there are NO groupings of common type scalings anywhere on either side.

  Now, many fish taken elsewhere, particlarly in the St Lawrence, and Great Lakes, have small patches of irregular scaling. Even in places where this happens most (ie above), still 90% of the commons taken will have the complete common scaling, bar injury. The SsnN make-up is the rarest there is, living anyways. Once you get both nude ominlies dominant, the fish dies (ie **NN).

  THE most common "common" make-up found, and the most perfect scaling, would be SSnn, meaning a nearly flawless common. This occurs in about 78% of all commons, of course this can change slightly water to water, depending on the genetic make-up of the original fish. It seems Larry fish were blessed with a much higher ratio of parent fish being of the ***N variety. This is why "muddlers" occur much more frequently in these places.

  Either way, once any grouping of scales on any area of the fish is common, then one scaled ominly in the genetic make-up is dominant, making it a common.

Scott,

Very interesting.... :D So what would the combination be for a true Leather, i.e. No scales at all? ............. All the best..... Bill D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys,

The 'scattered' scaled commons carry the recessive mirror gene, which is why they show these random scale patterns. Although we also call them 'commons', we have a special name for them in the Benelux.

Some carp have this scattered pattern all over their body, like the picture shows from this Larry carp.

But I would still call it a 'scattered scale common'.

BOB

post-363-1131834239_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But sometimes nature has its own way, what would you call this ? A fully scaled mirror I guess ?

post-363-1131834732_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe you understand my surprise when I turned it over !! :D

post-363-1131834915_thumb.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

King

i caught a fish exaclty like that last year

smaller but it was like a fully scalled mirror one side

and a perfect common on the other :D

to bad i did not had the camera with me :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i never caught a mirror from this lake

do you guys think there is still any in this water ???

having in mind the fish that i described before

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bob, fantastic photo's once again!

The half "mirror" looks like there was a disease in its past, ick/dropsy? I cannot see that as natural occuring like that, but maybe?

ssNn would be leather.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sodbury Steve

IMHO any carp that doesn't have a full set of small, regular scales is not a common just as a leather with a few small scales is a not a leather

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Scott,

Studying the fish/photo I found that as perfect a common it is , on one side...all scales lining up...the other side really NO scale did fit any pattern. I'm quite sure it is not a disease, but I never saw it as extreme as this one.

Miguel,... you caught my fish?? Never! :D I don't think you can catch it again, it's emigrated to Canada. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NJ Rob
IMHO any carp that doesn't have a full set of small, regular scales is not a common just as a leather with a few small scales is a not a leather

Well said as usual Sod ..

From all info I could gather Ive come to the conclusion that what Sod stated above is correct. If the fish is not a "typical" common: having a uniform scale pattern throughout; then its a mirror.

I mean, even Oz's theory supports this DESPITE the "dominant" gene as he pointed out. Because at what point does this "irregular" with dominant genes actually BECOME a mirror then????????? :D

So thats it people. If its not uniformly scaled throughout it aint a common. :D:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO any carp that doesn't have a full set of small, regular scales is not a common just as a leather with a few small scales is a not a leather

Steve,

My thoughts exactly :D:D:D Perhaps we'll have to agree that a "muddler" is a regional American term for one particular type of Mirror and leave it at that :D

All the best..... Bill D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest NJ Rob

Im the epitome of "American" and lived ont he East Coast my entire life. NEVER heard the term muddler before. Definately invented by a wally with an incredibly large cranium!!! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott,

Very interesting....  :D So what would the combination be for a true Leather, i.e. No scales at all? ............. All the best..... Bill D.

Bill, If I can answer for Scotty, I think leather is Nnss.

I hate to bring this up, but genetically, a Nnss fish can have a few scales, there are other distinguishing characteristics that makes it a leather, mostly having to do with the number of rays in fins.

If you look at pictures of leathers you'll notice they have small tails and fins.

Having said that, as far as I'm concerned (for our purposes) a leather has no scales.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bill, I hate to chime in on this anti_Bill, but Matt's fish is actually a "defective" common. The "muddler" trait is created when the nude gene becomes dominant in the second ominly (as in Ssn"N"). The defect CAN occur only when the first ominly in the scaled gene is dominant, second scaled ominly recessive, and the first ominly of the nude gene is recessive, and second ominly of the nude gene is dominant...

  Most commons have the SsNn,Ssnn, SSnn, SSNn, or sSnn, but those of the SsnN are suseptible to this recessive trait in commons. BUT, they still are commons...

  Mirrors can only exist with both ominlies of the scaled gene being recessive..once either ominly of the scaled gene becomes dominant, it is a common.

Not ominlies...alleles

al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Im the epitome of "American" and lived ont he East Coast my entire life. NEVER heard the term muddler before. Definately invented by a wally with an incredibly large cranium!!!  :D

that large cranium is definitely a recesive trait.

al

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not ominlies...alleles

al

Al - you are correct of course. If I was at home and had access to my material on this interesting thread I would give the definitive answers for you guys. However

Leather - should have no scales

Common - small, regular scales evenly distributed on each side (number of rows should be at least 10)

Anything else is a mirror (call them fully-scaled, scatter-scaled, muddlers, linears or anything else but they are all mirrors).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Al - you are correct of course. If I was at home and had access to my material on this interesting thread I would give the definitive answers for you guys. However

Leather - should have no scales

Common - small, regular scales evenly distributed on each side (number of rows should be at least 10)

Anything else is a mirror (call them fully-scaled, scatter-scaled, muddlers, linears or anything else but they are all mirrors).

Keith,

Couldn't have said it better myself :D:D:D All the best..... Bill D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×