Amphilophus istlanus

[Stanzzzz7]

I don't think this discussion is pointless at all.
I think with Dna analysis it's become interesting to learn the history of these cichlids and how they came to be as they are today.
I would never of guessed the origins of istlanus and enjoy learning about the ancestry of any species.
People do like to shoot each other down on this forum,I don't know why.
If someone is keeping a jag in a 55, by all means shoot them down.
If someone starts an interesting conversation that we may all learn something from,I find that commendable.
Interesting post Dan.

 

[Ihsnshaik]

@frankcastle

 

[Aquamojo]

I don't think many people would argue that istlanus should be classified as a hybrid now, just a species that evolved through hybridisation rather then evolving from a common ancestry. All humans that originated from Europe have neanderthal dna in them about 4% so in a way I suppose I could call myself a hybrid

Not to mention that man shares 93 - 98.8% of their DNA between Apes and Monkeys...and a sizeable portion with mice, dogs and chickens. It's an amazing science that's only now shedding more light on the origin of species.

 

[Ihsnshaik]

Should this be moved to the hybrid section now? lol

This is so interesting. There is a guy SKIP aka FISHLAW1 on youtube and FB who is a specialist in this species. I would like to know is two cents.

 

[jonclark96]

I think some folks are missing the point of this post and would benefit from reading Willem's article on Facebook. No one is saying that someone created istlanum in their aquarium recently. The DNA evidence shows common ancestry from long ago.

 

[cichlidfish]

Not to mention that man shares 93 - 98.8% of their DNA between Apes and Monkeys...and a sizeable portion with mice, dogs and chickens. It's an amazing science that's only now shedding more light on the origin of species.

Don't forget we share 50% DNA w/ bananas too! But it's truly amazing what we can find through testing DNA. It's amazing that such a small % between a human and a chimp can make such a huge difference physically.
Not to get off topic here, but many people try to ID fish as hybrids by visual pics on the Internet, but it's nearly impossible. Unless you know the exact origin of the fish or test DNA, you will never really know. Just guessing leads to false info.

 

[lunsforj]

I don't really consider the commonality of mammalian DNA to be all that unexpected when you consider the roughly 500 million years of vertebrate evolution. On the other hand speciation of a new cichlid through hybridization without human intervention is rather unexpected. Especially when one considers the great lakes of Africa as a model. If speciation occurred through hybridization in those environments, you would expect to see a homogenization of the population as a whole. Which is quite the opposite of what is observed.

 

[cichlidfish]

Here is another one of Willems publications on hybrids. It talks about the threats of man made, but also natural occurring hybrids. But this an introduced species hybridizing w/ a local. It could be the case w/ managuensis being introduced in several countries.

http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=429