Have to ask though, if it is so common for these mixed pairs to breed in the wild with different "specializations," how do we get them in the first place? If everyone is breeding with everyone all the time, how would specific specializations even form?
A. cf. citrinellus - A potential case of F1 Midevils?
- Thread starter RD.
- Start date
You're assuming that the fish are one "type" or another...when I'd bet that there are a full range of phenotypes - one type or another...plus every combination in between...It's evolution in action.
I'd also bet that more generalized (i.e. less specialized) fish is more likely to mate with a more specialized one...vs. two with different specializations pairing. But who knows.
As Willem said, a netfull could be described as one species...or a dozen...depending on the scientists working on it.
This is different than, for example, Lake Malawi where geographic isolation has developed distinct varients of a given species.
Michi Tobler is one of the leading researchers (an evolutionary biologist) on (natural) variation in populations of cichlids. He could explain this 1,000 times better than me
Matt
PS This is a very different topic than man-made development - through breeding for attractive characteristics and other reasons - of MiDevils in the hobby (by farms, etc.).
I'd also bet that more generalized (i.e. less specialized) fish is more likely to mate with a more specialized one...vs. two with different specializations pairing. But who knows.
As Willem said, a netfull could be described as one species...or a dozen...depending on the scientists working on it.
This is different than, for example, Lake Malawi where geographic isolation has developed distinct varients of a given species.
Michi Tobler is one of the leading researchers (an evolutionary biologist) on (natural) variation in populations of cichlids. He could explain this 1,000 times better than me
Matt
PS This is a very different topic than man-made development - through breeding for attractive characteristics and other reasons - of MiDevils in the hobby (by farms, etc.).
While I agree that all of the species within the midas complex are genetically similar fish, and that different species in the crater lakes & great lakes likely did evolve from a shared parent species, my understanding is that Willem has seen A. xiloaensis and A. sagittae in Laguna Xiloá in mixed pairs, but I am not aware of anyone reporting "pairs" of A. labiatus & A. citrinellus in the wild. I don't believe that any of the genetic studies that have taken place over the past few years points to that occuring in nature either.
Agreed - I've never heard of mixed A. labiatus x A. citrinellus pairs in the wild, either...
Matt
Matt
ok question i have so costa rican race nicauguan race crossed citrinillus that makes them hybid cause i dont see that i mean they just come from different lakes and the two countries arent far from each otherMy intent of this discussion certainly wasn't to compare a fish such as a flowerhorn, to a midevil, even though they are both indeed hybrids. I'm not looking to start WWIII.
The point that I was attempting to make was that unless a fishes provenance can be traced back to the original wild source, including the geographical location of where those fish were collected, the term "pure" can sometimes become open to interpretation.
The Midas complex is a classic example of why the geographical location of where the original wild fish were collected can later become so important. When one goes back to the original A. citrinellus, and A. labiatus that were collected & imported in the late 60's early 70's you will find that there was much confusion as to what was pure, even by those such as George Barlow who were collecting & studying this genus in the wild. This topic is mentioned in the following article by Paul Loiselle (originally published in 1980)
http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=106
....... where he states;
The above was written 30 yrs ago, yet what Paul Loiselle stated; "The original hybrids have been effectively swamped through crossing with such pure A. labiatus." , has certainly NOT proven to be true. Buy a 100 juvie "red devils" at your LFS and it's almost a 100% guarentee that some will mature having a citrinellus appearence, and some like a labiatus. The original hybrids have certainly not been swamped through as Loiselle suggested 30 yrs ago.
I'm not pointing fingers at anyone, simply suggesting that even if one is buying and breeding "wild caught" fish from the midas complex, in order for any offspring to remain "pure", both parents should come from the exact same geographical location, not just one of the various crater lakes in CA.
I suspect that exact collection locations seldom enter into the equation and most hobbyists wouldn't think twice about breeding a wild caught citrinellus, or labiatus, to another wild caught specimen, whether they knew the original collection location of each fish, or not. This type of breeding only encourages the advancement of more midevils into the hobby.
Before long we'll be right back to where George Barlow was 40+ yrs ago.
Did you read all the papers RD. linked to? Probably the best route if you really want to understand the question. Basic answer to your question is it's possible they are hybrids, and at the very least they probably no longer truly represent a "pure" fish found in nature. Doesn't mean they aren't nice fish though!
Not my intention to derail but it seems the place to bring this up. I have always been curious about Amphilophus margaritifer, is it (or was it if it's extinct) a valid species or a naturally occuring hybrid. It is supposed to be from the Lake Petan area. Does anyone know the truth about this fish?
I agree with MM, that topic is a big ol can of worms that has & will most likely remain an enigma.
