Proposal adjustment IBC plakat standards - Joep van Esch

Proposal for adjustment of the IBC plakat standards

By Joep van Esch

This article was published in Flare (Journal of the IBC) - March/April 2008, Volume 41, No. 5.

Motivation
Show standards will always be subject to change and are influenced by what is being bred in the world. This way new and higher goals are set. That always has been the case when we look in the history of our standards, first several breeders dedicate their program to the development of a new type which needs time to get accepted in the scene. At a certain point this usually will lead to an adjustment of the standard as these new types become more and more generally appreciated among hobbyists. It was the intensive work of Paris Jones, Peter Goettner, Guy Delaval, Rajiv Massilamoni, Laurent Chenot and Jeff Wilson which lead to the development of the halfmoon. Although it took quite some time to get this new type accepted on betta shows this finally lead to the creation of the halfmoon standard as we are familiar with today. A similar thing happened to the crowntail standard after Ahmad Yusuf and Henry Yin, who created this fin type, started to present them at shows.
In the past the betta clubs were isolated per country or even regions within a country but internet made it possible to unite betta hobbyists from all over the world. I personally think this also applies to the International Betta Club (IBC). Although “International” is represented in the name of the club for a long time, I think it was internet which really made it possible for the IBC to reach a bigger international public. By now the IBC has members from all parts of the world and if we want to set a good high quality standard which will be accepted by breeders worldwide it is important to involve these breeders in this discussion.

Plakats are gaining more and more popularity in the betta-world. For several years (asymmetrical) traditional plakats were the only type seen at shows but the halfmoon fever also triggered an evolution of the shortfinned betta leading to a second plakat type, the asymmetrical show plakat. Further selective breeding and the continuous strive for symmetry led to the development of a third shortfinned type, the symmetrical show plakat. I’m therefore extremely happy that all three classes are now officially recognized by the IBC with their own standard. This makes the plakat standard unique in comparison to the other standards as three different shortfinned subtypes each have been officially recognized as seperate classes. I have been dedicating my breeding program to plakats for several years. Although I am not an IBC judge I do have quite some experience with judging fish at shows here in Europe and during the years I have observed many fish in my own fish room as well as fish from other breeders. I spend quite some time to study the current IBC standards for plakats and I personally felt some things should be adjusted. First of all I think that a standard, regardless of the type, should be accompanied with clear examples matching the written rules in order to prevent confusion. When we look at the current standards for the three different plakat types I think this is not the case. Secondly I think that the current standards should be taken under the loop in order to create a more clear distinction between the three different plakat types. The current standard has been changed through the years by constantly adding something to it. This probably also is one of the causes of the confusion/misinterpretation. Please do not get me wrong here, I do not want to attack or offend anyone with this article but only want to stimulate a nice discussion regarding this matter. I personally love breeding plakats and therefore a good standard representing the three different plakat types is very important for me.

Because we are now dealing with three different plakat types which have been evolved from each other by years of selective breeding, this also creates a lot of "in-between" types which are sometimes difficult to place in a certain show class. In my article “The Plakat Trilogy!” which was published in the September/October 2007 edition of FLARE, I already tried to formulate my thoughts regarding this matter. As I also mentioned in its introduction, my article was based on my personal view and only partly overlapped with the current IBC standards. In response to my article, Dan Young drew some sketches in order to explain and visualize the current IBC standard for the three plakat types. These sketches were published in an article written by Sieg Illig and Dan Young in the January/February 2008 edition of FLARE.



I personally have some concerns regarding the current standard for the three plakat types and the accompanying sketches/examples.

1. (Asymmetrical) traditional plakats: I personally think that the sketch of Dan Young nicely shows what an (asymmetrical) traditional plakat should look like. With respect to this type, I think the maximum ray splitting ideally should be 2-ray (primary branching) as (asymmetrical) traditional plakats are the beginning of the beginning and the closest related to the wildtypes which also show a primary branching in their caudal. Further (asymmetrical) traditional plakats are the shortfinned equivalent of the veiltail betta which ideally also shows a primary raysplitting in the caudal. In the current standard, 4-ray caudals (secondary branching) are also allowed for (asymmetrical) traditional plakats. The base of the dorsal should not be allowed to be broader than 1/3 of the breadth of the anal. When we look at the example for the shape of the dorsal posted in the current standard I think this should be changed for a better example which does represent what is written in the standard. The current example is far from the ideal as the first rays are way too short and the base of the dorsal is too broad for this traditional type. The ventrals should be long and slender. This way the “traditional” characteristics of this classical type are preserved.


Example of the dorsal in the current IBC standard for the (asymmetrical) traditional PK

2. Asymmetrical show plakats: On one hand the IBC seems to want to create a standard with a clear distinction between the three types but when looking at the current standard and the accompanying sketches the difference between the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat and asymmetrical show plakat is very minimal. Further, when we look at the example of the asymmetrical show plakat which is published in the current standard, this does not represent what is written in the text of this standard. The example shows an unbalanced fish from which the shape of the dorsal, caudal and anal do not match with the ideal shapes described in the current standard and the accompanying sketches.


Example of asymmetrical show plakat taken from the current IBC standard for asymmetrical show plakats

I think all plakat breeders easily can tell the difference between (asymmetrical) traditional plakats and symmetrical show plakats but in my opinion the main problem lies with the definition of the asymmetrical show plakat in the current standard. The classical characteristics are already preserved in the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat, but with the creation of the halfmoon, plakats also have been taken to the next level. According to the current IBC standard the only difference between the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat and the asymmetrical show plakat is the D-shaped caudal. In my opinion the difference is much more! The outcrossing of (asymmetrical) traditional plakats with longfinned halfmoons to create asymmetrical show plakats besides an increase of branching in the caudal also introduced more raysplitting in both the anal and dorsal. Also we should not forget the influence of the doubletail-gene in this respect creating broader dorsals with more volume (as also with our longfinned halfmoons). I do not think we can neglect that. Please do not get me wrong here, I do not think the dorsals should be as broad as seen in the symmetrical show plakat but I think we should allow them to have a slight broader base than what we see in the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat. I would suggest that the base of the dorsal ideally should be allowed to be maximum 1/2 of the length of the breadth of the anal (thereby still conserving the asymmetrical appearance). According to the current standard, the anal of the asymmetrical show plakat should have the clear pointed tip as seen in the (asymmetrical) traditional show plakat and the absence of this tip is seen as a major fault. In practice the shape of the anal fin in asymmetrical show plakats also is different as the one seen in (asymmetrical) traditional plakats. Where (asymmetrical) traditional show plakats have the clear pointed tip at the back, asymmetrical show plakats usually have a more gradual sloped anal (without the clear pointed tip). Further I think the ventrals of the asymmetrical show plakat should have a fuller appearance than what we see in (asymmetrical) traditional plakats and should match the length of the longest ray of the anal. This way we still preserve a clear asymmetrical appearance but achieve this in a different manner than in the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat and thereby create a clearly distinct type.

3. Symmetrical show plakat: The symmetrical show plakat is the shortfinned equivalent of the longfinned halfmoon. In my opinion the difference between the symmetrical show plakat and the asymmetrical show plakat is mainly caused by the shape/length of the anal as this is the key determinant of the asymmetrical/symmetrical appearance. Other important factors are the breadth of the dorsal which is more rectangular in the symmetrical plakat and off course the shape/length of and the ventrals. Ideally I think we should allow the base of the dorsal to be maximally 3/4 of the breadth of the anal whereas the ventrals should be allowed to be slightly longer than the length of the rays in the anal (maximal length 1/3 of the breadth of the anal). When we look at the example of the symmetrical show plakat which is published in the current standard, I do not think that this is a type which represents the current standard. The example indeed shows a fish with a more symmetrical appearance but with also a lot of faults like the messy/damaged rays in all three unpaired fins and the short and stubby ventrals.


Example of symmetrical show plakat taken from the current IBC standard for symmetrical show plakats

After discussing my concerns with Dan Young by email, he asked me to write down my thoughts regarding this matter in the form of an official proposal and Stuart Scott subsequently asked me to submit the proposal for publication in FLARE. By observing many different fish of all three types and measuring their dimensions I tried to write down a proposal including faults and examples. I tried to visualize the proposed dimensions by some sketches and my friend Stefan Psarakos from Australia made some excellent drawings giving a more realistic presentation of what my proposal is about.

Additionally, I also want to draw your attention to another development which greatly influences the show bettas we see today, the “rosetail”. At the end of 2005 I decided to write my concerns down in an article which was published in the March/April 2006 edition of FLARE. With this article I wanted inform people that we should be cautious with this trait in our breeding projects. Yes, working with rosetails are a shortcut to quick results but if not handled with care this, in most cases, will also result in more and more (extreme) rosetails popping up in the generations to come. Initially most people did not believe that the more extreme rosetails could be a threat to our beautifull hobby but I think more and more breeders experience that they should be very carefull with this trait.
Unfortunately the extreme forms are still used for breeding purposes by many breeders because they, as mentioned earlier, offer a quick route to halfmoon finnage in few generations. They are offered for sale on aquabid more and to my dissapointment they are even also more and more frequently seen at shows. In my opinion, these more extreme forms do not belong at a show. Because of the following characteristics:
• Unbalanced appearance (small finnage in comparison to body) --> Ideally the size of the finnage should be in proportion with the size/volume of the body.
• Assymmetric scaling --> Ideally scaling should be nicely alligned with more or less similar size and symmetrical distribution on the body.
• Pale body color --> In normal bettas the color is usually more intense and better distributed.
• Excessive branching leading to a diamond/rose-shaped caudal with the outer rays curled towards the head --> Ideally this should be a D-shaped caudal with straight rays.
With respect to the three plakat types types described in this standard, these problems are most likely to be found in the asymmetrical show plakat and symmetrical show plakat classes because of its relation with the halfmoon caudal and the selection for multiple branching.
I think the “rosetail” problem is not so much a matter of faulty standards but more how these standards are interpreted. To my opinion it is the task of the IBC to educate and warn both judges and hobbyists/breeders about these problems in order to breed healthy and high quality show bettas. I therefore also added an additional comment regarding this matter in my proposal.

On the Bettas4all forum the discussion on this topic has grown into an international discussion where plakat breeders from all over the world participate to express their opinions/feelings regarding this matter. If you are interested in reading more please have a look at the following link: Discussion on the current PK standards - What do you think? (registration necessary to prevent spam postings).

I hope I was able to explain my thoughts/motivation regarding this matter with these additional comments. The next pages of this document consist of the actual proposal for adjustment of the IBC plakat standards. I hope the IBC judging board will be open to the suggestions I made in this proposal and that this proposal will contribute to a higher goal within our hobby. Thank you for your time and attention.

================================================== ==============================================

PROPOSAL NEW PLAKAT STANDARD

Introduction
Shortfinned bettas have gained much popularity in the betta world because of their compact, vital appearance. They often also have the advantage above longfinned betas in that are more able to carry their finnage throughout their live and are less prone to finrot. Shortfinned bettas, also known as plakats are finnage-wise the closest related to the wildtype form of Betta splendens. For ages, Thai breeders bred this form from wild caught bettas in order to develop its fighting nature, style, hardiness, size and color. This practice of selective breeding stood at the base of the different colors and tail types we know today.

For many years the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat type was the only type seen at betta shows but the halfmoon fever also led to the evolution of the shortfinned tailtype. Outcrossing the traditional plakat type to longfinned halfmoons led to the development of the halfmoon plakat. The overall appearance of these fish is asymmetrical and is combining traits of both (asymmetrical) traditional plakats and halfmoons. Besides the raysplitting in the caudal, the outcrossing to longfinned halfmoons also introduced more raysplitting in the anal and dorsal finnage thereby also has also influenced the shape and volume. Both types have a clear asymmetrical appearance which is mainly caused by the extended rays in the rear (posterior) part of the caudal but also by the length and shape of the ventrals and the dorsal. In 2005 the IBC officially distinguished (asymmetrical) traditional plakats and asymmetrical show plakats by creating a separate standard for both forms.

When breeding longfinned halfmoons the ultimate goal is a fish with a balanced appearance. The increasing interest in asymmetrical show plakats lead to the development of another plakat type, the symmetrical plakat. This type is the shortfinned equivalent of the longfinned halfmoon and is often reffered to as “shortmoon”. In 2007 this type was officially recognized by the IBC with the addition of a third plakat standard.

Form criteria

(Asymmetrical) traditional plakats:



• Overall appearance: The asymmetrical appearance is mostly caused by the length and shape of the anal but also the breadth, length and shape of the ventrals and dorsal play an important role.
• Body: (Asymmetrical) traditional plakats have the most slender bodyshape of the three types. The body should not be too big/small in comparison to the finnage. The “mouth-to-dorsal” topline should be smooth without dips and bumps. The back of the body should be nearly symmetrical (almost like a mirror image when one would draw an imaginary midlateral line) with a strong peduncle. The scaling on the body should be nicely aligned.
• Dorsal: The dorsal may have a uniformly rounded appearance or come to a slight point towards the back. The base of the dorsal is equal to 1/3 of the breadth of the anal. The rear (posterior) part of the dorsal overlaps the upper part of the caudal. The front rays of the dorsal should not be too short. Overlap of the dorsal with the body is not desirable.
• Caudal: The caudal has a spread of 180 degrees with rounded edges. The overall shape can be either rounded or slightly spade-shaped. In case of the spade-shaped form the point is situated in the middle of the caudal. In the middle of the caudal, the length of the rays running from the peduncle to the outer edge should be equal to 1/2 of the breadth of the anal (in case of a spade-shaped caudal, slightly longer). The spread in the caudal is not caused by an increase of branching but by an increase of webbing between the rays. The caudal ideally shows a primary (2-ray) branching.
• Anal: The anal fin has a trapezoid shape with the front (anterior) part shorter than the rear (posterior) part. The front edge can be a bit rounded whereas the rear part runs into a clear point. The longest ray of the anal ideally should be twice as long as the length of the outer rays of the caudal (~2/3 of the breadth of the anal). During flaring, the front should be slightly directed forward and the back should overlap the lower part of the caudal.
• Ventrals: The shape of the ventrals mimic the blade of a knife with the cutting edge directed backwards. The ventrals are long and slender, equal in length and do not cross each other. The length of the ventrals should be equal to at least 2/3 and up to maximally 3/4 of breadth of the anal.
• Pectoral fins: As in other show bettas.



FORM AND FINNAGE FAULTS – (ASYMMETRICAL) TRADITIONAL PLAKATS
1. Dorsal base <1>165 degrees, but <180 degrees (minor fault).
5. Caudal branching more then primary (2-ray) branching, up to secundary (4-ray) branching (minor fault).
6. Length of the ventrals <2>3/4 of the breadth of the anal (minor fault).
7. Dorsal base >1/3 of breadth of the anal (major fault).
8. The length of the longest ray of the anal is shorter or longer than twice the length of the outer ray of the caudal (major fault).
9. Anal fin without the characteristic pointed tip (major fault).
10. Caudal spread <165 degrees (major fault).
11. Caudal branching more then secundary (4-ray) branching (major fault).
12. Body too short or excessively stout and heavy (major fault).
13. Body extremely slender comparable to some wildtype Betta species (major fault).

ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE GENERAL FAULTS APPLY


Please note that these examples show great similarities with the above described standard for (asymmetrical) traditional plakats but still have some points which need to be improved.

Asymmetrical show plakats:



• Overall appearance: The asymmetrical appearance is mostly caused by the length and shape of the anal but also the breadth, length and shape of the ventrals and dorsal play an important role.
• Body: Asymmetrical show plakats have a more fuller body than the (asymmetrical) traditional plakat. The body should not be too big/small in comparison to the finnage. The “mouth-to-dorsal” topline should be smooth without dips and bumps. The back of the body should be nearly symmetrical (almost like a mirror image when one would draw an imaginary midlateral line) with a strong peduncle. The scaling on the body should be nicely aligned.
• Dorsal: The dorsal has the shape of a semi-circle which snaps open like a fan. The base of the dorsal is equal to 1/2 of the breadth of the anal. In the most ideal situation the dorsal overlaps the upper part of the caudal. The front rays (closer to the head) must be comparable in length to the other rays and have to be directed forward. The upper front edge can be either sharp or slighly rounded. The capacity of the fin to open up like a fan is achieved by an increase in fin ray branching and possibly an slight increase of rays. Overlap of the dorsal with the body is not desirable.
• Caudal: The caudal spread is 180 degrees, has straight rays, sharp edges and the shape of a semi-circle (capital “D”). In the middle of the caudal, the length of the rays running from the peduncle to the outer edge should be equal to 1/2 of the breadth of the anal. The raysplitting should be evenly distributed with a secondary branching (4-ray) or more without becoming too excessive. An >180 degree spread (overhalfmoon, oHM) is not preferred to a 180 degree spread.
• Anal: The anal fin has a trapezoid shape with the front rays (anterior part) shorter than the rear rays (posterior part). From the front to the back the anal shows a gradual slope without a pointed tip. The longest ray of the anal ideally should be twice as long as the length of the outer rays of the caudal. During flaring, the front should be directed forward and the back should overlap the lower part of the caudal.
• Ventrals: The shape of the ventrals mimic the blade of a knife with the cutting edge directed backwards. The ventrals have a full appearance, are equal in length and do not cross each other. The length of the ventrals should be equal to the longest ray of the anal.
• Pectoral fins: As in other show bettas.



FORM AND FINNAGE FAULTS – ASYMMETRICAL SHOW PLAKATS
1. Dorsal base <1>1/2 of breadth of the anal (major fault).
11. The anal shows a clear pointed tip (major fault).
12. Caudal spread <180 degrees (major fault).
13. The outer rays of the caudal are strongly curved outward (major fault).
14. Excessive branching in the caudal, dorsal and/or anal disturbing the smooth appearance of the finnage (major fault).
15. Body too short, slender or thick (major fault).

ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE GENERAL FAULTS APPLY


Please note that these examples show great similarities with the above described standard for asymmetrical show plakats but still have some points which need to be improved.

Symmetrical show plakats:



• Overall appearance: The symmetrical appearance is mostly caused by the length and shape of the anal but also the breadth, length and shape of the ventrals and dorsal play an important role.
• Body: The body of the symmetrical PK is stronger and thicker than seen in both of the asymmetrical types. The body should not be too big/small in comparison to the finnage. The “mouth-to-dorsal” topline should be smooth without dips and bumps. The back of the body should be nearly symmetrical (almost like a mirror image when one would draw an imaginary midlateral line) with a strong peduncle. The scaling on the body should be nicely aligned.
• Dorsal: The dorsal has a rectangular shape which is achieved by an increase in the number of fin rays and fin ray branching. The base of the dorsal is equal to 3/4 of the breadth of the anal. It is important that the shape and size both do not disturb the overall balance. In the most ideal situation the dorsal overlaps the upper part of the caudal. The front rays (closer to the head) must be comparable in length to the other rays and have to be directed forward. The upper front edge should be sharp. Overlap of the dorsal with the body is not desirable.
• Caudal: The caudal spread is 180 degrees, has straight rays, sharp edges and the shape of a semi-circle (capital “D”). In the middle of the caudal, the length of the rays running from the peduncle to the outer edge should be equal to 1/2 of the breadth of the anal. The raysplitting should be evenly distributed with a secondary branching (4-ray) or more without becoming too excessive. An >180 degree spread (overhalfmoon, oHM) is not preferred to a 180 degree spread.
• Anal: The anal fin has rectangular shape which runs parallel to the body. The length of the rays is more or less the same as the outer rays of the caudal and height of the dorsal in order to maintain the overall balance. During flaring, the front should be directed forward and the back should overlap the lower part of the caudal.
• Ventrals: The shape of the ventrals mimic the blade of a knife with the cutting edge directed backwards. The ventrals have a full appearance, are equal in length, do not cross each other and should be in balance with the rest of the finnage in order to preserve the symmetrical look. The length of the ventrals should be equal to maximally 1/3 of the breadth of the anal.
• Pectoral fins: As in other show bettas.



FORM AND FINNAGE FAULTS – SYMMETRICAL PLAKATS
1. Dorsal base <3/4 of the breadth of the anal (minor fault).
2. Anal and/or dorsal without primary branching (minor fault).
3. Front (anterior) rays of the anal and/or dorsal are too short (minor fault).
4. Front edge of the anal is too rounded (minor fault).
5. Length of the ventrals is <1>1/3 of the breadth of the anal (minor fault).
6. Caudal branching less than secondary (4-ray) branching (minor fault).
7. The caudal edges are slightly rounded (minor fault).
8. The outer rays of the caudal are slightly curved outward (minor fault).
9. Dorsal base >3/4 of breadth of the anal (major fault).
10. The anal shows a clear pointed tip (major fault).
11. Anal fin slopes from front to back (trapezoid shape) and/or the posterior edge is substantially longer than that of the outer rays of the caudal (major fault).
12. Caudal spread <180 degrees (major fault).
13. The outer rays of the caudal are strongly curved outward (major fault).
14. Excessive branching in the caudal, dorsal and/or anal disturbing the smooth appearance of the finnage (major fault).
15. Body too short or slender (major fault).

ALL OTHER APPROPRIATE GENERAL FAULTS APPLY


Please note that these examples show great similarities with the above described standard for symmetrical PKs but still have some points which need to be improved.

I also tried to explain the details of my proposal at the North Betta Club show on 11-13 july in Dunkerque - France. This presentation has been recorded and the video is now being edited and should be available online witin 1-1.5 week from now. I hope you will take the time to look at this video with an open mind.

With kind regards from the Netherlands,

Joep van Esch

[Excelsior]

nice info i read it somewhere else...

but not as detailed as this

[kian_john]

wow..thanks for the hard work and great info

[kebab7]

gd work... very interesting article..

Superb detailed article. Thanks so much for sharing.

Simply amazing~ great job!