One example that I've always wondered about is...If a Sunshine and Rubescn Peacock were to breed what would you call it? It is the same fish...An Aulonocara Stuartgranti Maleri (chipoka island) The Rubescen was created by line breeding sunshines with more orange color. Would you sell it as that or would people consider it a hybrid?
Eureka Reds - Hybrids?
- Thread starter jhutch
- Start date
If it is the same spcies and same collection point then it shouldn't be considered a hydrid imo.
There's a great article in Nature this week (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7213/full/nature07285.html ) about speciation through sensory drive in cichlid fish of Lake Victoria.
Fish at different depths of water have more red or blue coloration (and appear different) based on their depth in the lake. This has led to different species. Subtle changes in the coloration of a species can make them ill-adapted to their ecological niche in nature.
In other words, man might enjoy a really red peacock...but the selective breeding that makes a "superior" aquarium specimen would lead to the fishes demise in nature....but we're not talking about nature...we're talking about an aquarium
Fish at different depths of water have more red or blue coloration (and appear different) based on their depth in the lake. This has led to different species. Subtle changes in the coloration of a species can make them ill-adapted to their ecological niche in nature.
In other words, man might enjoy a really red peacock...but the selective breeding that makes a "superior" aquarium specimen would lead to the fishes demise in nature....but we're not talking about nature...we're talking about an aquarium
...but all of those fish (AERs, firefish, dragon bloods) aren't like anything found in nature.
Should the litmus of whether a fish is OK to the ACA (in auctions, in shows, able to be sold on ACA trading post, not looked down upon by members as "the menace") be the technical definition of "hybrid"...or something else?
Today, a fish is OK...until it's a "hybrid"...then it's bad.
Should the litmus of whether a fish is OK to the ACA (in auctions, in shows, able to be sold on ACA trading post, not looked down upon by members as "the menace") be the technical definition of "hybrid"...or something else?
Today, a fish is OK...until it's a "hybrid"...then it's bad.
I understand the objection to hybrids they have,its at the base of what they stand for.
But line and selective breeding is done at all levels of the hobby.Every breeder chooses his best looking males and robust females for the next generation.But where to draw the line?How "good" does a fish have to look before you rule it out?
But line and selective breeding is done at all levels of the hobby.Every breeder chooses his best looking males and robust females for the next generation.But where to draw the line?How "good" does a fish have to look before you rule it out?
That's exactly the point: in the aquarium it's just not possible to maintain "pure" / absolutely authentic lines of a fish as it's found in nature...
In the Lake Victoria study that I cited earlier, F1 females behave differently in selecting mates than wild fish do....as I understand because they didn't grow up living at a certain depth in the lake and perceiving color as a function of living at that depth.
So does that mean that anything other than say wild, f1, and f2 fish are the equivalent of "line bred" / different than natural...because they probably are in some obvious and not so obvious ways to the aquarist?
I think that sends ACA (further) down the elitist path...
In the Lake Victoria study that I cited earlier, F1 females behave differently in selecting mates than wild fish do....as I understand because they didn't grow up living at a certain depth in the lake and perceiving color as a function of living at that depth.
So does that mean that anything other than say wild, f1, and f2 fish are the equivalent of "line bred" / different than natural...because they probably are in some obvious and not so obvious ways to the aquarist?
I think that sends ACA (further) down the elitist path...
gomezladdams;2392074; said:
You know this has been a question that has pondered me. Some people think that "line" breed are hybrids... This has been a very "distasteful" topic to me b/c people do not understand what exactly is a hybrid...
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red" do occur in nature. The "REDDEST" forms usually do not, as, these have been line breed to achieve the physical trait having the reddest form of this species. Albino's usually occur when a change in DNA replication occurs affecting pigmentation, hence line breeding. If you can affectively line breed, eventually you are going to make that specific strain of fish more frail which can result in genetic mutations that result in loss of pigmentation or albinoism or other physical/genetic deformities.
You can not say that a "SUPER" RED EMPRESS is a hybrid b/c that specific gene for REDDNESS does not occur in nature. To make a super red empress is just to line breed for the red color until you get offspring that resemble what you want while continue breeding with ONLY red empresses. These are a LINE-BREED type of species.
A HYBRID is one that is breed with 2 different species to form one new species. Examples: Aulonocara OB Peacock, Aulonocara FireFish, Aulonocara Dragon's Blood, Dimidochromis Compressicep OB, Scienochromis OB Fryeri, Copadichromis Azureus "OB", and many other hybrids. These were developed by breeding 2 different species of fish, for example, an Aulonocara OB Peacock was created by breeding a peacock with a OB Mbuna, then, line breeding that offspring to produce 100% Aulonocara OB Peacocks. You cannot really call the 1st generation cross between a peacock and OB Mbuna an OB Peacock b/c that would be HYBRID in the making. That is where a lot of people are getting confused IMO.
All these fish are considered hybrids, but, you CANNOT sell an Aulonocara OB Peacock in the first stages of creation as an Aulonocara OB Peacock b/c the line has not been perfected w/ 100% offspring being TRUE aulonocara OB Peacocks. Once you get the OB peacock line perfected, then, you can call it an Aulonocara OB peacock, but, until you have all the necessary kinks worked out to where NONE of the offspring resemble mbuna, they are still considered a "mix between mbuna peacock" and this is what they SHOULD be sold as.
As far as line breeding different traits, think of it like humans. No human is alike, as, we all have different aspects of our "physical" appearence that make us unique. If we can, "line-breed" humans to where we have 90% of the offspring to that of Lebron James (athletic ability, body structure, silky skin, etc. etc.) then we would have the "perfect" basketball player. Now, translate that to fish. As breeders, this is what we are after. Taking the top 10% of the offspring and continuing the line-breeding until we get that PERFECT speciman. Yes, the coloration might not be as they are in the "wild" but this is what has created the "show" type of specimens. When is the last time you saw a F0 speciman at an ACA show, OCA, or any cichlid show place 1st in the class or show? I haven't seen that happen, so, why should BREEDERS import F0 fish that are so expensive and all? Granite, there are a VERY FEW F0 Specimens that will win shows, due partly b/c of the Big LIPS factor, but those are FEW AND far BETWEEN.
Line breeding makes the coloration brighter, and fins longer. This is what the "hobbyists" is after and is what I am after. I do not creat hybrids, but, I DO create a LINE of fish that you will not see anywhere else.
For instance:
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Ruby Red:
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Super ORANGE"
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Maleri Island Yellow"
Aulonocara Ngara "TRUE RED" Kelley-Livingston strain
Fry Pictures ~2"
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red"
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red Albino"
These are just a few examples of "Line-breeding" and NOT hybridization....
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red" do occur in nature. The "REDDEST" forms usually do not, as, these have been line breed to achieve the physical trait having the reddest form of this species. Albino's usually occur when a change in DNA replication occurs affecting pigmentation, hence line breeding. If you can affectively line breed, eventually you are going to make that specific strain of fish more frail which can result in genetic mutations that result in loss of pigmentation or albinoism or other physical/genetic deformities.
You can not say that a "SUPER" RED EMPRESS is a hybrid b/c that specific gene for REDDNESS does not occur in nature. To make a super red empress is just to line breed for the red color until you get offspring that resemble what you want while continue breeding with ONLY red empresses. These are a LINE-BREED type of species.
A HYBRID is one that is breed with 2 different species to form one new species. Examples: Aulonocara OB Peacock, Aulonocara FireFish, Aulonocara Dragon's Blood, Dimidochromis Compressicep OB, Scienochromis OB Fryeri, Copadichromis Azureus "OB", and many other hybrids. These were developed by breeding 2 different species of fish, for example, an Aulonocara OB Peacock was created by breeding a peacock with a OB Mbuna, then, line breeding that offspring to produce 100% Aulonocara OB Peacocks. You cannot really call the 1st generation cross between a peacock and OB Mbuna an OB Peacock b/c that would be HYBRID in the making. That is where a lot of people are getting confused IMO.
All these fish are considered hybrids, but, you CANNOT sell an Aulonocara OB Peacock in the first stages of creation as an Aulonocara OB Peacock b/c the line has not been perfected w/ 100% offspring being TRUE aulonocara OB Peacocks. Once you get the OB peacock line perfected, then, you can call it an Aulonocara OB peacock, but, until you have all the necessary kinks worked out to where NONE of the offspring resemble mbuna, they are still considered a "mix between mbuna peacock" and this is what they SHOULD be sold as.
As far as line breeding different traits, think of it like humans. No human is alike, as, we all have different aspects of our "physical" appearence that make us unique. If we can, "line-breed" humans to where we have 90% of the offspring to that of Lebron James (athletic ability, body structure, silky skin, etc. etc.) then we would have the "perfect" basketball player. Now, translate that to fish. As breeders, this is what we are after. Taking the top 10% of the offspring and continuing the line-breeding until we get that PERFECT speciman. Yes, the coloration might not be as they are in the "wild" but this is what has created the "show" type of specimens. When is the last time you saw a F0 speciman at an ACA show, OCA, or any cichlid show place 1st in the class or show? I haven't seen that happen, so, why should BREEDERS import F0 fish that are so expensive and all? Granite, there are a VERY FEW F0 Specimens that will win shows, due partly b/c of the Big LIPS factor, but those are FEW AND far BETWEEN.
Line breeding makes the coloration brighter, and fins longer. This is what the "hobbyists" is after and is what I am after. I do not creat hybrids, but, I DO create a LINE of fish that you will not see anywhere else.
For instance:
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Ruby Red:
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Super ORANGE"
Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Maleri Island Yellow"
Aulonocara Ngara "TRUE RED" Kelley-Livingston strain
Fry Pictures ~2"
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red"
Aulonocara jacobfreibergi "Eureka Red Albino"
These are just a few examples of "Line-breeding" and NOT hybridization....
