I hope this thread can remain civil and start some good dialogue on the subject. First, I would like to quote renowned cichlid hobbyist Willem Heijns:
"Whenever a hobbyist selects fry from a brood to grow (and maybe later use for breeding), in other words whenever natural selection is replaced by artificial (=human) selection we are line breeding. This is to say: everybody does it!"
Source: http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=429
Let's say I get a dozen legitimate wild cichlids of the same species from the same collection point from my friend that has gone collecting in Central or South America. I keep them in a tank and they begin pairing off. Let's then say I get lucky and get three or four solid pairs out of the group.
But, like most of us, I only have room for one or maybe two pairs to keep. Which pair(s) do I choose? I think the obvious choice would be the ones that "look the best" to my eye--the most color, the most appealing body structure, etc.
This is the first example in this "line" of fish I am implementing artificial selection over natural selection. I like colorful fish, and the people who may buy the offspring of my fish no doubt want the parents to look nice (to their eye). Why would I choose the other pairs over the "better looking" ones?
Step two, breeding begins, and I begin raising out fry. Another issue also begins--compared to the wild where a tiny percentage of fry would survive, I am raising large percentages of fry successfully (I'm just that good! Just kidding). These fry do not have to find their own food in my tank(s) and do not encounter the predators they would face in their original collection point in nature. The natural selection factors that make a specific collection point of this cichlid unique cease to exist. This only increases as the line goes on--I sell F1s (first generation offspring of my wild pair) and the "best looking" pairs are chosen and those are bred and the F2 fry have high survival rates and the cycle goes on and on.
By F5 or F6, how much will these fish really resemble their wild ancestors? It was recently brought up on another thread (and I am sorry I cannot find the link) that by this point with offspring originating from wild angelfish, they had lost any visible characteristics of wild angels and essentially resembled all other typical "silver" aquarium strain angelfish. Within only a few generations of tank breeding!
So what is the "purist" to do? Within a few generations of captive breeding these fish will not be representative of the characteristics and genetics that made their wild ancestors unique--we have implemented so much artificial selection in our breeding program, how could they?
The only solution I see is for a true purist to only keep wild fish. But I see this as an issue for several reasons... First, this requires a constant influx of wild fish, many of which are coming from increasingly threatened habitats. We have members right here on MFK working with endangered species. And wild fish really have their own sets of issues--they have a greater tendency (not always the rule but...) to be more shy, harder to wean on to prepared foods, and arrive with diseases, when compared with tank bred fish. There is a tendency for newer hobbyists to jump on the wild caught bandwagon because it is what's popular when most really would probably be happier and have better luck with a captive bred fish. And many F1s (despite some opinions to the contrary) look just as good if not better than their parents--look at umbeeking's "blue gorillas" umbees he collected. I don't think anyone would argue the offspring he is putting out are not as good looking as their parents.
Where to go from here, and back to the title of the thread, where is the line? If after a few generations of breeding our fish are essentially not representative of their ancestors, is this much different than breeding two different collection points of the same species together? In the end will an F6 be much more representative of a specific population of a collection point of wild cichlids than the crossed collection point fish? In the end if the offspring of this collection point cross of the same species look great and people are happy with them, is that to be frowned upon at all?
Where does really extreme line breeding land then? The balloon, short body, long fin, etc. type fish? I see a slippery slope developing...
I don't think there can possibly be any one right answer or opinion and I just put this down as some food for thought. Looking forward to the responses!
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
"Whenever a hobbyist selects fry from a brood to grow (and maybe later use for breeding), in other words whenever natural selection is replaced by artificial (=human) selection we are line breeding. This is to say: everybody does it!"
Source: http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=429
Let's say I get a dozen legitimate wild cichlids of the same species from the same collection point from my friend that has gone collecting in Central or South America. I keep them in a tank and they begin pairing off. Let's then say I get lucky and get three or four solid pairs out of the group.
But, like most of us, I only have room for one or maybe two pairs to keep. Which pair(s) do I choose? I think the obvious choice would be the ones that "look the best" to my eye--the most color, the most appealing body structure, etc.
This is the first example in this "line" of fish I am implementing artificial selection over natural selection. I like colorful fish, and the people who may buy the offspring of my fish no doubt want the parents to look nice (to their eye). Why would I choose the other pairs over the "better looking" ones?
Step two, breeding begins, and I begin raising out fry. Another issue also begins--compared to the wild where a tiny percentage of fry would survive, I am raising large percentages of fry successfully (I'm just that good! Just kidding). These fry do not have to find their own food in my tank(s) and do not encounter the predators they would face in their original collection point in nature. The natural selection factors that make a specific collection point of this cichlid unique cease to exist. This only increases as the line goes on--I sell F1s (first generation offspring of my wild pair) and the "best looking" pairs are chosen and those are bred and the F2 fry have high survival rates and the cycle goes on and on.
By F5 or F6, how much will these fish really resemble their wild ancestors? It was recently brought up on another thread (and I am sorry I cannot find the link) that by this point with offspring originating from wild angelfish, they had lost any visible characteristics of wild angels and essentially resembled all other typical "silver" aquarium strain angelfish. Within only a few generations of tank breeding!
So what is the "purist" to do? Within a few generations of captive breeding these fish will not be representative of the characteristics and genetics that made their wild ancestors unique--we have implemented so much artificial selection in our breeding program, how could they?
The only solution I see is for a true purist to only keep wild fish. But I see this as an issue for several reasons... First, this requires a constant influx of wild fish, many of which are coming from increasingly threatened habitats. We have members right here on MFK working with endangered species. And wild fish really have their own sets of issues--they have a greater tendency (not always the rule but...) to be more shy, harder to wean on to prepared foods, and arrive with diseases, when compared with tank bred fish. There is a tendency for newer hobbyists to jump on the wild caught bandwagon because it is what's popular when most really would probably be happier and have better luck with a captive bred fish. And many F1s (despite some opinions to the contrary) look just as good if not better than their parents--look at umbeeking's "blue gorillas" umbees he collected. I don't think anyone would argue the offspring he is putting out are not as good looking as their parents.
Where to go from here, and back to the title of the thread, where is the line? If after a few generations of breeding our fish are essentially not representative of their ancestors, is this much different than breeding two different collection points of the same species together? In the end will an F6 be much more representative of a specific population of a collection point of wild cichlids than the crossed collection point fish? In the end if the offspring of this collection point cross of the same species look great and people are happy with them, is that to be frowned upon at all?
Where does really extreme line breeding land then? The balloon, short body, long fin, etc. type fish? I see a slippery slope developing...
I don't think there can possibly be any one right answer or opinion and I just put this down as some food for thought. Looking forward to the responses!
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
). 
