Topic: Hybrid Fish?

[cage623]

I was just wondering because on another forum i belong to there is a great post up about flowerhorns and hybrids in general.  i was hoping to see what others in this forum thought about hybrids like flowerhorns and parrots.  

here is the other forum post:

http://fishinthe.net/html/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10436

[stilllearnin]

BAD BAD BAD - for the hobby  

And thankfully the craze is starting to die out.


Tired of seeing them labeled as something (pure) thats it's not .


I still can not find one reason for them to be made.
people claim,they need them because    (in blue)
 why I disagree   (in black)                
color ?  
There is NO color in a flowerhorn that can't be found in another fish.

size?  
There is NO flowerhorn that gets bigger or stays smaller then any other cichlid that is hybridized from

nasty temperment?  
Find me ONE flowerhorn meaner then a Dovii - it won't happen - MOST are HYPE,no meaner then the trimacs,red devils or synspilus (and others) they're hybridized from. Torture some of these other fish in small tanks and raise them singily like many people (not all) do with "show" flowerhorns and they'll end up crazy too.


added varitey
With 3,000 variteys of natural cichlids - with some still being discovered and named - one man made one is need why?
 
they're hump heads
which point to take - hmmm
it's a deformity - just like bubble eye goldfish
or
what about normal (pure) cichlids? - they have them to - frontosa,trimacs,red devils etc...



they don't take from wild fish populations  
  this reasoning is still the dumbest I've heard - they're easier on wild fish because of that? hmm it takes 3+ species to make a flowerhorn - those founding fish didn't fall from the sky - once the craze is over, how many more wild fish will it take? Theres already a larger demand for wild trimacs,red devils and a few others from serious breeders who are afraid to add a mislabeled hybrids from local sources to their breeding stock.



One thing made flowerhorns popular - MONEY and it's a real shame to see this hobby get to where fish are looked at like baseball cards  

parrots

You mean those other fish that started out with the same hype as flowerhorns and now that they're price dropped they're dyed more often then any other fish   I think they speak for themselves - what other fish is dyed for holiday sales... pitiful


Don't like hybrids and thats my oponion -
Nothing against people who decide to keep them, a few people actually keep them honestly and/or sell them as hybrids - but the ethics behind these fish are dropping right along with priceing.






Thats my rant and my 2 cents  

[Tim]

I think its human nature to fiddle with genetics.
I think it silly to crossbred them, as the species diversity will suffer in the long run.

[owengibson]

I "inherited" a bunch of flowers at the store where I work, and I cant sell em for 5 bucks. I cant believe when I see people selling em for a thousand bucks. I cant beleive people would pay that, why wouldnt they get a shark or a nice new tank? Maybe they just like saying, that fish there cost me a thousand bucks

PS Wow, after going back and reading that lengthly topic posted above, what a controversy this whole issue is going to be. People are going to have strong opinions. I know its not going to stop, and this is just a hobby ( unless you eat your own fish so breed on fellow breeders, theyre all inbred anyway. Look at all the wicked angels out there ( I would love to find a red or green mutant gene...) definately not very "natural" either.... if the genes can physically fit together then they cant be that genetically different eh? Cichlasoma sp. must have had common ancestry to be classified cich?
OG

PSS Im very tired right now so disregard anything foolish that I EVER say.

[stilllearnin]

Look at all the wicked angels out there ( I would love to find a red or green mutant gene...) definately not very "natural" either....

red angels (and red spotted) do exists and can occur naturally. Never seen a green yet but angels posses genes for green so it's probally possiable.  - angels are avaliable in so many colors because of the careful breeding by many breeders for years,if the rest of the hobby was like that lots of other species would have more color morphs avaliable too.

so breed on fellow breeders, theyre all inbred anyway.

  nothing personal but thats the type of response that makes for more inbred (or hybrid) junk,if a person can't take the time to avoid inbreeding they shouldn't be breeding fish! You wouldn't marry your sister  would you.  



 
 

[ConvictKid]

BAD BAD BAD - for the hobby  

And thankfully the craze is starting to die out.


Tired of seeing them labeled as something (pure) thats it's not .


I still can not find one reason for them to be made.
people claim,they need them because    (in blue)
 why I disagree   (in black)                
color ?  
There is NO color in a flowerhorn that can't be found in another fish.

size?  
There is NO flowerhorn that gets bigger or stays smaller then any other cichlid that is hybridized from

nasty temperment?  
Find me ONE flowerhorn meaner then a Dovii - it won't happen - MOST are HYPE,no meaner then the trimacs,red devils or synspilus (and others) they're hybridized from. Torture some of these other fish in small tanks and raise them singily like many people (not all) do with "show" flowerhorns and they'll end up crazy too.


added varitey
With 3,000 variteys of natural cichlids - with some still being discovered and named - one man made one is need why?
 
they're hump heads
which point to take - hmmm
it's a deformity - just like bubble eye goldfish
or
what about normal (pure) cichlids? - they have them to - frontosa,trimacs,red devils etc...



they don't take from wild fish populations  
  this reasoning is still the dumbest I've heard - they're easier on wild fish because of that? hmm it takes 3+ species to make a flowerhorn - those founding fish didn't fall from the sky - once the craze is over, how many more wild fish will it take? Theres already a larger demand for wild trimacs,red devils and a few others from serious breeders who are afraid to add a mislabeled hybrids from local sources to their breeding stock.



One thing made flowerhorns popular - MONEY and it's a real shame to see this hobby get to where fish are looked at like baseball cards  

parrots

You mean those other fish that started out with the same hype as flowerhorns and now that they're price dropped they're dyed more often then any other fish   I think they speak for themselves - what other fish is dyed for holiday sales... pitiful


Don't like hybrids and thats my oponion -
Nothing against people who decide to keep them, a few people actually keep them honestly and/or sell them as hybrids - but the ethics behind these fish are dropping right along with priceing.






Thats my rant and my 2 cents  

Seriously man...will you marry me?

[Cichlid1]

it's a real shame to see this hobby get to where fish are looked at like baseball cards  

 
Well said!

Seriously man...will you marry me?

:-XGross dude

[owengibson]

Im probably gonna get torched for this but anyway;
Something that I read once about angels, is that when Axlerod and the boys started them out in America, they could only get a few to breed, an so they inbred them ( not sure if its true). A lot of fancy stuff, morphs, sports, mutants etc are inbred to keep a certain latent gene showing, they are then crossed with another line just to make sure they dont degenerate into crap fish...., for many sub species ( some totally different sp. too), all it took is for two fish to become isolated, then their genes are inbred for generations to produce a different looking fish.... some ( a lot even) taxonomist argue that ALL the rift lake cichlids came from the same sp. Most fish bred in captivity are just ornamental fish. Thats what they are; ornaments to look at. We dont "need" any of these fish in our homes, its just clean fun....
I really think, if their genes match that closely ( cich sp.), then its not that bad as long as their called what they are ( mutts), test tube engineering of animals is a whole new ballgame, but, I dont think its so bad ( as long as they are called what they are)! Now guys and gals, Im not saying I would personally breed a mut of splice a gene into an angel to make it glow in the dark, but come on their ornaments!

P.S. :OK I did some digging to back up my crap talk, " A gene for darkness probably appeared as a mutation and was inbred until the fish became solid black" ( Burgess, Freshwater Angelfish pg. 62), so, going by Dr. Burgess, if all these diligent and carefull breeders didnt inbreed their fish and instead crosse dthem all with wild fish, we would have a lot of silver angels swimming around and there wouldnt be much variety to be had. I also heard some talk about the black aeneus corydora cat, if they are diligent and out-cross them, none of us will ever have an all black cory....
Just food for thought, I dont want to offend anyone

OG

[stilllearnin]

Something that I read once about angels, is that when Axlerod and the boys started them out in America, they could only get a few to breed, an so they inbred them ( not sure if its true).

They were in the u.s. hobby before Axlerod brought some in. The first few came here from germany in 1915 (Bob Berdoulay- the history of angelfish)(roughly 12 years  before Axelrod was born) followed by wilds in the 1920's. after the Roosevelt expedition to Brazil

 Blacks (and veils) were bred/developed in Germany from wild fish in the mid 50's. (while Axelrod was in the army just getting the idea to write books) - So that gives  aprox 50 years black angels have been bred
   some added info to back that up
"Since all it took to get black angelfish was to obtain a spawn from black lace parents, it is not surprising that a number of aquarists soon and almost simultaneously had black angelfish, which were reported by Innes (July, 1955), Ludwig (June, 1955) and Wolfsheimer (July, 1955). " Quoted from Angelfish Genetics by Dr. Joanne Norton  


 Black oddballs (melanistic or hypermelanistic - depending on the amount of black) are the most common odd form to occur in most animals.

Dark patternless wild angels were reported
1925 - Wilhelm Eimeke.(german importer/exporter) (2yrs before Axelrod was born)

A gene for darkness probably appeared as a mutation

See above

all it took is for two fish to become isolated, then their genes are inbred for generations to produce a different looking fish.... some ( a lot even) taxonomist argue that ALL the rift lake cichlids came from the same sp

It takes more then 2 fish (of any animal) to start a new population or subspecies.

If you honestly think small populations can sustain a healthy population of fish - do some reading on lake victoria or some of the madagascar lakes , whats happening there pretty much disproves that.
or
do some reading on other endanged animals read the results put together on limited gene pools


Rift lake cichlids may have originated from one species but over millions  of years and not in the space of an aquarium.If it happened fast every year tons of species of cichlids that get landlocked in S.A. would become seperate species and it just doesn't happen
   on the same note
They claim Humans started from a small population too,but again that doesn't mean you'd want to marry your sister.

I really think, if their genes match that closely ( cich sp.), then its not that bad as long as their called what they are ( mutts),

They don't - if you haven't noticed over 90% of cichlids have been taken out of cichlasoma and reclassified and divided  in the last few years.Why?,because they're not as related as once thought

test tube engineering of animals is a whole new ballgame,

whats the differance? One is made in a lab and one is made in an aquarium - both are still the same - man-made

I also heard some talk about the black aeneus corydora cat, if they are diligent and out-cross them, none of us will ever have an all black cory....Just food for thought

First I think your a little of on your thinking from a genetic/breeding thought. If a morph of fish is TOTALLY recessive. One (new morph) bred too two commons = 2 seperate batches of het.babies - those crossed into each other = 100's of batches of het. and (new morph) babies. So within 1 year whatever new morph is found can have 1,000 of fish carrying the (new morph genes) then it's just a matter of outcrossing - culling and perfecting the newer generations of the new morph.
  In reality most morphs of fish are co-dominate - so this actually cuts the time in 1/4
    but on the other hand
Here's some more food for thought about morphs that have been found then bred  and out-crossed by responsiable breeders,I belive it did take some time  
- Blue dempsey - didn't hit the market for 10 years
- Albino/Lutino oscars - didn't hit the market for about 6 years
- Gold oscars took about 4 years to hit the market
- Gold Jags - didn't hit the market for a few years
- Albino Angelfish didn't hit the market for about 4 years
- Xanthic jags - probally won't hit the market for another  5 years
- "True Albino" Oscars have yet to hit the market
- Albino pike cichlids - still aren't on the market
- Albino stingrays - still aren't readily avaliable

We dont "need" any of these fish in our homes, its just clean fun

It's a shame though that you don't see the responsability you take on when you volunteer to keep a LIVING animal.

Im probably gonna get torched for this but anyway

Not tourching anyone,just adding some often unthought or missed information

Quote:
Seriously man...will you marry me?
 
Gross dude  

well said  

[stilllearnin]

P.S. I'm not even the person who voted "I HATE HYBRID FISH!!!!"  

[allamerican333]

Cross-breeding to me ruins the nature of the
hobby.  Well not to say that its a attack of crime
but I believe that the hobby should keep in line
with breeding the same species together.  It
keeps genetics inline and that to me is the factor,
because there are tons of fish in the hobby and
hybrids are altered and look at upon differently,
so in my opinion keep the hobby simple and don't
mess with mother nature.

[axilla]

Since Mother Nature has appeared I feel no choice but to bring out her hubby, Father Darwin. Father Darwin's current poster child happens to be cichlids. They are evolving faster than just about any other family of animals on this planet. This leads to incredible confusion on the classification issue and easy Frankenstonian hybrids.

Let's take Midas & RD for starters. Seems to me there has been only minimal genetic drift between these two 'species' and the reason why I put 'species' in quotes is because the jury is still out over whether these are actualy two species or actually subspecies. The Powers That Be when it comes to deciding what is actually a species is still broke into two fighting camps, namely the anatomical morphologists and molecular phylogeneticists. Personally, I'd like to b**ch slap both parties for not coming together to look at things in a integrative evolutionary biology point of view but I'm in a different field. My point to this rant is that even the experts cant agree on what is really a species sometimes..... and we're collecting fish from the wild way faster than they can classify them.
 

[g]

LOL, true about the confusion - how often have they been discussing if e.g. thicker lips, different teeth, or a more elongated body can be used as a criterium for different species or are just the result of a species adjusting to different habitats (substrate, food, faster flowing water) evolution wise, and where to draw the line between species/subspecies. Mother Nature and Father Darwin seem to get along quite well as long as we keep talking undomesticated species in the wild I think, and new species keep evolving. IMO it's a different thing with manmade hybrids and even variations of a species, or introducing species to new habitats by man. I don't think naturally occuring mutations like albinos or really long finned variants would produce new strains in the natural habitat as they are just too visible or slow for predators. It seems fish do hybridize in the wild occassionally but from what I've read they will prefer their own species if they have the choice.

Um, now I forgot what my point was supposed to be, talk about confusion in a different meaning

[stilllearnin]

Let's take Midas & RD for starters. Seems to me there has been only minimal genetic drift between these two 'species' and the reason why I put 'species' in quotes is because the jury is still out over whether these are actualy two species or actually subspecies

The Debate that just don't die  

Thought this was settled? (well for now   scientists)

The last explaination I heard is they HAVE to be considered different species - because if they drop them to subspecies status due to their minimal differances, they would also have to reduce all other  Amphilophus to subspecies.
 So that would make mayans,red devils,midas,arrow cichlids,festae,trimacs, calobrensis  and more all subspecies of one or two species    Can't see them grouping some of those any closer then they already are.
If they revise  Amphilophus  into subspecies then to keep a standard classification system,what would have to be next ?
 
Astronotus   those are about as close (maybe closer) then red devils and midas.
  So that'd mean  
Astronotus ocellatus,Astronotus crassipinnis and Astronotus orbicularus would become subspecies too then ?  
   Now that they've proposed there are different subspecies of  ocellatus (possiably 5) and (maybe 2 subspecies) of   orbicularus - can't see that happening .

Also if they start reduceing fish from species to subspecies - think about what that should do to african cichlids    again to keep some kind of standard classification system ALOT of species would be made subspecies - so all the Zebra,Alunacara,Tropheus and more species would  become subspecies



With the current trend to rename everything and break up some fish into different species that look different only by color - I can't see anyone wanting to put red devils and midas in the same species.

different species or are just the result of a species adjusting to different habitats

Adjusting to different habitats doesn't really  seem to apply with Midas and red devils though since they can be found together and apart - but their feature are consistantly different.  And both adapt to their habitat equally - both come in different color or pattern morphs depending on their collection area.


On another note if similar fish cross bred in the wild (it's been proven they won't 99% of the time) it's called natural intergration.And still not the same as man made hybrids.

[cage623]

i think that hybrids are the downfall of our hobby.  it is a given that some hobbiests will cross breed fish out of curiosity or to "create" a better fish.  lets face it nothing that great has come from hybrids.  parrots are ugly and the males are sterile.  flowerhorns are seen as super fish in the some asian cultures for their aggresion, color and large humps.   but there really aren't any more aggresive than the trimacs that they were bred from.  their colors are inconsistant, so people really don't know what they are getting.  and as far as the humps they don't make it look like a royal fish they make it look really stupid.  to put it in a different light in a school of fish i would say that the flowerhorn rides the short bus.  here is a look at what i'm talking about:

http://flowerfish.com/rainbowdragon.html

check out the one with the hudge hump.  now i dont' know about you but i would think this would put the fish at a slight  disadvantage in a fight will a real trimac or any other aggressive cichlid in the wild.  like if a deer had antlers that were 8 feet long.  it would break its neck trying to hold them up.  

but hey these are just my thoughts.