What are your opinions about hybrid cichlids?
- Thread starter ParachromisPower
- Start date
The difference there is that the species you've listed haven't caused the contamination of nearly as many species as the FH. How often do you see a fish at your lfs and debate whether it is a pure Vieja synspila or a V. synspila x discus hybrid?
I guess you could argue that issues could arrise from midevil breeding, but tbh, I would be about as likely to buy a midevil as I would to buy a FH.
Exactly, moral relativism. Nevermind.
Yes, there are genetic defects in all animals. They won't be perfect. That is why as breeders we need to cull out the deformed and runty ones. In their natural habitat, nature does does this for us. Genetic diversity in a species is good. And I don't think my Hoplo cats (the only cats I own) could really handle eating anything but little pellets that I give them and zucchini.
My issue with your argument is that you say breeding hybrids is okay for you. But you don't condone breeding hybrids that you don't like. But if others want to breed them that is okay too. And you aren't responsible for what happens to the hybrids once you have turned them over to someone else.
All I know is I can't walk into a store and buy anything (cichlids especially) and wondering if it might be mixed with something. If I want to go out and buy a Midas, I would like to expect to actually get a Midas. Unfortunately, that is not the case any longer. I think it hurts the LFS owners and it hurts the hobby in general.
A couple of points concerning hybrids:
- They need to be properly labeled as hybrids. Irresponsible labeling of hybrids as some have pointed out, negatively affects fish keeping in general and turns people against hybrids.
- They need to be "genetically healthy". I am opposed to the deformed hybrids with bent spines or mouths that prevent them from eating normally.
- Rare or endangered fish shouldn't be bred for hybrids.
So if these few basics are covered, hybrids are fine.
The one particular issue I have with flowerhorns is that they became a fad. I read about flowerhorns being dumped into the wild as a result of this. This isn't so much because the flowerhorns were hybrids, it was due to too many being bred. This was a couple of years ago so not sure if it's still going on.
- They need to be properly labeled as hybrids. Irresponsible labeling of hybrids as some have pointed out, negatively affects fish keeping in general and turns people against hybrids.
- They need to be "genetically healthy". I am opposed to the deformed hybrids with bent spines or mouths that prevent them from eating normally.
- Rare or endangered fish shouldn't be bred for hybrids.
So if these few basics are covered, hybrids are fine.
The one particular issue I have with flowerhorns is that they became a fad. I read about flowerhorns being dumped into the wild as a result of this. This isn't so much because the flowerhorns were hybrids, it was due to too many being bred. This was a couple of years ago so not sure if it's still going on.
I think many people get issues of personal preferences and morality mixed.
Man has been creating "fancy" strains of fish to suit his aesthetic desires since like 200 AD (colored koi). The foundation of the aquarium hobby is built on fancy fish, many of them, as it turns out are technically hybrids. I don't really see flowerhorns as anything different than fancy discus, livebearers, bettas and the like.
Some people like fancy fish. Some people like wild-type fish. Some like both. To each their own.
All of the arguments about the "risk" of hybrids are equally applicable to wild-type fish:
A danger when introduced to non-native ecosystems - absolutely. But so are wild-type fish (just go look in waterways in Florida).
A source of anger and disappointment when mislabeled and sold as something they're not - absolutely. But so are wild-type fish (anyone ever bought a bag of one species at an auction and it turned out to be something else? I have...)
A source of money for people who breed and sell them - possibly. But no more so than people who breed and sell wild-type fish...
The availability of "pure" lines of wild-type fish and the proper labeling of hybrids / fancy fish comes down to responsibility and asking questions.
As for taste, that's not something that can be regulated (or else I'd decree that no one keeps anything but acaras and chanchitos)...
Matt
Man has been creating "fancy" strains of fish to suit his aesthetic desires since like 200 AD (colored koi). The foundation of the aquarium hobby is built on fancy fish, many of them, as it turns out are technically hybrids. I don't really see flowerhorns as anything different than fancy discus, livebearers, bettas and the like.
Some people like fancy fish. Some people like wild-type fish. Some like both. To each their own.
All of the arguments about the "risk" of hybrids are equally applicable to wild-type fish:
A danger when introduced to non-native ecosystems - absolutely. But so are wild-type fish (just go look in waterways in Florida).
A source of anger and disappointment when mislabeled and sold as something they're not - absolutely. But so are wild-type fish (anyone ever bought a bag of one species at an auction and it turned out to be something else? I have...)
A source of money for people who breed and sell them - possibly. But no more so than people who breed and sell wild-type fish...
The availability of "pure" lines of wild-type fish and the proper labeling of hybrids / fancy fish comes down to responsibility and asking questions.
As for taste, that's not something that can be regulated (or else I'd decree that no one keeps anything but acaras and chanchitos)...
Matt
It never was the case. Both A citrinellus & A labiatus have been a mixed bag since the first fish were imported into the USA back in the early 1970's. Today, not a whole lot different even when buying wild caught specimens, the midas complex is changing faster than the hobby can keep up with it. (see my thread on this subject for more details)
Personally I don't care what people keep in their own tanks, just do it responsibly.
The OP asked, "What is your opinions on hybrid cichlids". Well, my opinion is that some are just plain ugly (such as BP and short body fish) and others look pretty cool (such as FH and Red Texas). I 100% prefer natural cichlids and always will, however I can not deny that some FH and SRT have amazing colors. I think that a Trimac looks way better than any Flowerhorn ever will, but that is my preference. I admire the natural look of cichlids over the hybrid look of cichlids. If someone wishes to keep a FH or any other hybrid as a pet, great and more power to them... just be responsible is all. There is nothing worse than tabbing a fish something that it is not. I'm not opposed to keeping hybrid cichlids and I've seen some Festae/Jaguar hybrids that are pretty cool looking and would not mind owning some one day. You know what they are called, no?? Anyway, all things said it is in the eye of the beholder... just be responsible.
blood parrots are awesome! i think you people who insult blood parrots do not know what you are talking about, they are semi aggressive cichlids that heavily vary in looks (i like my blood parrot because he is red and black, has a funny personality, and is a beautiful fish) i think most people insult blood parrots because they are "deformed" and "uninteresting", well no, just no, you have to pick out the right blood parrot with the color and shape that you like, before insulting or commenting on how you do not like blood parrots you should try raising one first, they are very interesting fish and who cares if they are not purebred, it feels good and makes you feel like a genius to introduce a new species of an animal into existence, thats my opinion
I've seen hundreds of BP and never seen one that I could even pretend to like. You feel like a genius for owning a BP? I don't follow your line of thought.
