Bloodlines and pics you have of your own veils - Page 4

afertuna · 06-06-2010, 11:09 AM

I dont want to keep this going on we will have the history which isnt a mistery. There are breeding journals and lots of information that has been put together that will clear this misinformation bout the Veils. The pic that I posted here when you look closer you will see there has No fork in it just a fold where the tail isnt fully extended and you can see the squared off tail behind showing thru the tail behind it.

Lets please get back to the discussion at hand about what lines people have and pics ect.

Thank You

nolaveils · 06-10-2010, 02:27 AM

Correct, there is no mystery re. origins of philly veil. It has been completely documented in GFSA bulletins, both its history on this side of the pond and in the UK, which has done a much better job of keeping the line intact than we have. I have sent a lot of this info on to Mandley. Originally per the picture in Wolf's book, the fish were ribbontails/fringetails with a fork and high dorsal. As I have earlier mentioned, the fork was taken out of the tail when the picture was later reproduced in Innes's later volumes, (Innes and his father handset the original Wolf book in 1908, then later bought the rights to the book forming the basis for Innes's books). Re. the square tail, I believe Bourcey Beckley once said oranges do not grow from lemon trees, ugh. Anyway, the only fish around in the early part of the century with square tails were pearlscales so they probably had a part in the process. Seems both types, square and forked were kept. I have an article from Alan Fletcher, last editor of The Aquarium Magazine, re. Anderson's shipment of philly moors to Churchill, fins were forked. And in Aquatic Life ads in the 20's and 30's, it appears the telescope version was the most valued.
The British do a great job in breeding for the nuances of the veil. A ryukin does not make a philly veil, a ryukin with a poor back is not a philly veil. The Bristol Society had a good website which has pictures of both philly origin veils and chinese origins.
And as much as I love history, we shouldn't get too wrapped up in epast details. Breeding these fish today to old philly standards is hard enough on its own, we need to share fish and experiences to succeed. This is a very difficult strain to maintain.
One last bit of trivia, I've never bought into the often published theory that the reason for the near disappearance of the veils in the 30's was the drip water system. That theory ignores the elephant in the room, tropicals were introduced and became increasingly popular.

nolaveils · 06-10-2010, 02:34 AM

Correct, there is no mystery re. origins of philly veil. It has been completely documented in GFSA bulletins, both its history on this side of the pond and in the UK, which has done a much better job of keeping the line intact than we have. I have sent a lot of this info on to Mandley. Originally per the picture in Wolf's book, the fish were ribbontails/fringetails with a fork and high dorsal. As I have earlier mentioned, the fork was taken out of the tail when the picture was later reproduced in Innes's later volumes, (Innes and his father handset the original Wolf book in 1908, then later bought the rights to the book forming the basis for Innes's books). Re. the square tail, I believe Bourcey Beckley once said oranges do not grow from lemon trees, ugh. Anyway, the only fish around in the early part of the century with square tails were pearlscales so they probably had a part in the process. Seems both types, square and forked were kept. I have an article from Alan Fletcher, last editor of The Aquarium Magazine, re. Anderson's shipment of philly moors to Churchill, fins were forked. And in Aquatic Life ads in the 20's and 30's, it appears the telescope version was the most valued.
The British do a great job in breeding for the nuances of the veil. A ryukin does not make a philly veil, a ryukin with a poor back is not a philly veil. The Bristol Society had a good website which has pictures of both philly origin veils and chinese origins.
And as much as I love history, we shouldn't get too wrapped up in epast details. Breeding these fish today to old philly standards is hard enough on its own, we need to share fish and experiences to succeed. This is a very difficult strain to maintain.
One last bit of trivia, I've never bought into the often published theory that the reason for the near disappearance of the veils in the 30's was the drip water system. That theory ignores the elephant in the room, tropicals were introduced and became increasingly popular.

afertuna · 06-10-2010, 03:01 AM

Thnk you for sending the info to Mandley we were looking for the articles.
Allen

afertuna · 07-02-2010, 06:22 PM

How was everyones year so far with the fry??

nolaveils · 07-04-2010, 12:07 AM

Broadtail/veil moors so far.

java fern · 07-30-2010, 04:53 AM

Hello ,

>>>>>>>>them into one,using the most believable ideas.maybe veiltails never did include ryukins,but that is the most popular theory.Dan-of course they were originally cultivated in Philly!!! the "ryukins" (it may have been the telescopes at the world's fair and the ryukins/fringetails at Barrett's home in Philly) were taken home by Barrett to Philly before he bred them.so there you have it.and no pictures of Peach,hard-heads!!!<<<<<<<<<<

Some of the information I have read stated that the fish Mr. Barrett took home did not come from the Worlds Fair at all but from the Wisconsin fish commission or some similar sounding state body. The fish at the Worlds Fair were all preserved specimens for display (or had died and were perserved for display) . The fish commission received a shippment about the same time ( from the same source ?) and seem to have been in bad physical shape after shippment . Mr. Barrett ( was given ? Purchased ?) some of these fish , which were taken back to Philly . The legendary "Worlds Fair fish " whos image is on the face of the Innes book in gold was a white fish (some call silver) was one of the few to survive shipment .

java fern

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

06-06-2010, 11:09 AM	#31
afertuna Professional Breeder Group: Breeder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 331 Blog Entries: 10 Thanks: 41 Thanked 27 Times in 23 Posts	I dont want to keep this going on we will have the history which isnt a mistery. There are breeding journals and lots of information that has been put together that will clear this misinformation bout the Veils. The pic that I posted here when you look closer you will see there has No fork in it just a fold where the tail isnt fully extended and you can see the squared off tail behind showing thru the tail behind it. Lets please get back to the discussion at hand about what lines people have and pics ect. Thank You

06-10-2010, 02:27 AM	#32
nolaveils Breeder Group: Keeper Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New Orleans Posts: 15 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Correct, there is no mystery re. origins of philly veil. It has been completely documented in GFSA bulletins, both its history on this side of the pond and in the UK, which has done a much better job of keeping the line intact than we have. I have sent a lot of this info on to Mandley. Originally per the picture in Wolf's book, the fish were ribbontails/fringetails with a fork and high dorsal. As I have earlier mentioned, the fork was taken out of the tail when the picture was later reproduced in Innes's later volumes, (Innes and his father handset the original Wolf book in 1908, then later bought the rights to the book forming the basis for Innes's books). Re. the square tail, I believe Bourcey Beckley once said oranges do not grow from lemon trees, ugh. Anyway, the only fish around in the early part of the century with square tails were pearlscales so they probably had a part in the process. Seems both types, square and forked were kept. I have an article from Alan Fletcher, last editor of The Aquarium Magazine, re. Anderson's shipment of philly moors to Churchill, fins were forked. And in Aquatic Life ads in the 20's and 30's, it appears the telescope version was the most valued. The British do a great job in breeding for the nuances of the veil. A ryukin does not make a philly veil, a ryukin with a poor back is not a philly veil. The Bristol Society had a good website which has pictures of both philly origin veils and chinese origins. And as much as I love history, we shouldn't get too wrapped up in epast details. Breeding these fish today to old philly standards is hard enough on its own, we need to share fish and experiences to succeed. This is a very difficult strain to maintain. One last bit of trivia, I've never bought into the often published theory that the reason for the near disappearance of the veils in the 30's was the drip water system. That theory ignores the elephant in the room, tropicals were introduced and became increasingly popular.

06-10-2010, 02:34 AM	#33
nolaveils Breeder Group: Keeper Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New Orleans Posts: 15 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Correct, there is no mystery re. origins of philly veil. It has been completely documented in GFSA bulletins, both its history on this side of the pond and in the UK, which has done a much better job of keeping the line intact than we have. I have sent a lot of this info on to Mandley. Originally per the picture in Wolf's book, the fish were ribbontails/fringetails with a fork and high dorsal. As I have earlier mentioned, the fork was taken out of the tail when the picture was later reproduced in Innes's later volumes, (Innes and his father handset the original Wolf book in 1908, then later bought the rights to the book forming the basis for Innes's books). Re. the square tail, I believe Bourcey Beckley once said oranges do not grow from lemon trees, ugh. Anyway, the only fish around in the early part of the century with square tails were pearlscales so they probably had a part in the process. Seems both types, square and forked were kept. I have an article from Alan Fletcher, last editor of The Aquarium Magazine, re. Anderson's shipment of philly moors to Churchill, fins were forked. And in Aquatic Life ads in the 20's and 30's, it appears the telescope version was the most valued. The British do a great job in breeding for the nuances of the veil. A ryukin does not make a philly veil, a ryukin with a poor back is not a philly veil. The Bristol Society had a good website which has pictures of both philly origin veils and chinese origins. And as much as I love history, we shouldn't get too wrapped up in epast details. Breeding these fish today to old philly standards is hard enough on its own, we need to share fish and experiences to succeed. This is a very difficult strain to maintain. One last bit of trivia, I've never bought into the often published theory that the reason for the near disappearance of the veils in the 30's was the drip water system. That theory ignores the elephant in the room, tropicals were introduced and became increasingly popular.

06-10-2010, 03:01 AM	#34
afertuna Professional Breeder Group: Breeder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 331 Blog Entries: 10 Thanks: 41 Thanked 27 Times in 23 Posts	Thnk you for sending the info to Mandley we were looking for the articles. Allen

07-02-2010, 06:22 PM	#35
afertuna Professional Breeder Group: Breeder Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Portland Oregon Posts: 331 Blog Entries: 10 Thanks: 41 Thanked 27 Times in 23 Posts	How was everyones year so far with the fry??

07-04-2010, 12:07 AM	#36
nolaveils Breeder Group: Keeper Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: New Orleans Posts: 15 Thanks: 1 Thanked 9 Times in 3 Posts	Broadtail/veil moors so far.

07-30-2010, 04:53 AM	#37
java fern New Member Group: Keeper Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 4 Thanks: 0 Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts	Hello , >>>>>>>>them into one,using the most believable ideas.maybe veiltails never did include ryukins,but that is the most popular theory.Dan-of course they were originally cultivated in Philly!!! the "ryukins" (it may have been the telescopes at the world's fair and the ryukins/fringetails at Barrett's home in Philly) were taken home by Barrett to Philly before he bred them.so there you have it.and no pictures of Peach,hard-heads!!!<<<<<<<<<< Some of the information I have read stated that the fish Mr. Barrett took home did not come from the Worlds Fair at all but from the Wisconsin fish commission or some similar sounding state body. The fish at the Worlds Fair were all preserved specimens for display (or had died and were perserved for display) . The fish commission received a shippment about the same time ( from the same source ?) and seem to have been in bad physical shape after shippment . Mr. Barrett ( was given ? Purchased ?) some of these fish , which were taken back to Philly . The legendary "Worlds Fair fish " whos image is on the face of the Innes book in gold was a white fish (some call silver) was one of the few to survive shipment . java fern