A. cf. citrinellus - A potential case of F1 Midevils?
- Thread starter RD.
- Start date
I'm disappointed no one who keeps these has chimed in. Come on guys, what do you think? Respond with anything... Thoughts, pictures of your fish, info about where yours are collected from (if you know?), do you even care if they are hybrids, etc.
I can definately see how the rise of the MiDevil can be one of concern to those who believe they have pure fish. I'm still working through the information in this thread, but the variations in body types, color morphs, and markings is crazy. I guess it truely does come back to authenticity and knowing exactly where your fish are coming from and that they are collected/identified by a reputable source.
This is no where near as extreme as other cases of hybridiztion, but I challenge anyone that keeps Midas or Red Devils to readdress their beliefs before bashing other hybrid keepers. Along that same line, the argument could be made that willful intent is what will seperate the MiDevil from the Flowerhorn. The MiDevil being a case of misidentification and the Flowerhorn of selective breeding, but they are both hybrids in the end.
This is no where near as extreme as other cases of hybridiztion, but I challenge anyone that keeps Midas or Red Devils to readdress their beliefs before bashing other hybrid keepers. Along that same line, the argument could be made that willful intent is what will seperate the MiDevil from the Flowerhorn. The MiDevil being a case of misidentification and the Flowerhorn of selective breeding, but they are both hybrids in the end.
My 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.
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.
The FH comment was just a statement of how many in the hobby forget to include everything that should be considered a hybrid, but when speaking of "pure" fish it's really hard for anyone to confidently claim they have a pure specimen if they are unable to trace back the lineage. And like you said, the introduction and propagation that goes on in the aquarium community where wild caught species are breed with other supposed wild caught fish is only going to further blur the line between a true citrinellu or labiatus. I completely agree with the whole suggestion of fish having a provenance, especially among groups such as the Midas complex . All of this information is a great read. Thanks.
(I'll go start WWIII in a separate thread in the hybrid group
)
(I'll go start WWIII in a separate thread in the hybrid group
)RD. has hit on a really important subject as it relates to maintaining "pure" (which I would define as authentic as possible to fish from a particular wild population) lines of fish in captivity.
Especially with cichlids, which are amazingly genetically "plastic" (change-able) and variable, collection point...and provenance back to it...trumps everything else.
I think that people get to wound up about the scientific classification of fish...and should focus more on what's actually going on in nature. Classification involves trying to fit the square peg of nature into the round hole of the rules of classification. It fits OK for some things, not so much for cichlids. As Willem Heijns, who's one of the experts on this group of fish once noted (to paraphrase), the haul of a single cast of a net in Lake Nicaragua could bring in what one scientist could classify as one species...and another (equally qualified) one could classify as a dozen or more. Watching the different fish under the water in their habitats might prove useful in identifying different or distinct groups or populations of fish (...whether they should be classifiied as a different species is a whole different questions).
That Mother Nature has chosen to evolve a seemingly endless array of Amphilophus-types (convict-types, spilrum/cutteri-types, Chanchito-types, peacocks, Tropheus, Victorian Haps, etc, etc.) speaks to the amazing adaptability of cichlids. They're constantly evolving to fit the unique characteristics of their habitats.
A great example of this is the three forms of Hericthys minkleyi (moluscivore, predator, detrivore)...
Anyway, great topic and I hope that it inspires people to learn more about the habitats that their fish come from...that fish are the way that they are because of those habitats...and that those habitats need to be conserved...
Matt
Especially with cichlids, which are amazingly genetically "plastic" (change-able) and variable, collection point...and provenance back to it...trumps everything else.
I think that people get to wound up about the scientific classification of fish...and should focus more on what's actually going on in nature. Classification involves trying to fit the square peg of nature into the round hole of the rules of classification. It fits OK for some things, not so much for cichlids. As Willem Heijns, who's one of the experts on this group of fish once noted (to paraphrase), the haul of a single cast of a net in Lake Nicaragua could bring in what one scientist could classify as one species...and another (equally qualified) one could classify as a dozen or more. Watching the different fish under the water in their habitats might prove useful in identifying different or distinct groups or populations of fish (...whether they should be classifiied as a different species is a whole different questions).
That Mother Nature has chosen to evolve a seemingly endless array of Amphilophus-types (convict-types, spilrum/cutteri-types, Chanchito-types, peacocks, Tropheus, Victorian Haps, etc, etc.) speaks to the amazing adaptability of cichlids. They're constantly evolving to fit the unique characteristics of their habitats.
A great example of this is the three forms of Hericthys minkleyi (moluscivore, predator, detrivore)...
Anyway, great topic and I hope that it inspires people to learn more about the habitats that their fish come from...that fish are the way that they are because of those habitats...and that those habitats need to be conserved...
Matt
Hey Matt, I was hoping that you would pop into this discussion.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you stated;
It's interesting that you mentioned Willem Heijns, below is a link to discussion regarding this topic that took place a couple of years back. IMO Juan Artigas responses were right on the money.
A delicate question about Amphilophus labiatus
http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37303
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you stated;
It's interesting that you mentioned Willem Heijns, below is a link to discussion regarding this topic that took place a couple of years back. IMO Juan Artigas responses were right on the money.
A delicate question about Amphilophus labiatus
http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37303
Some interesting info here.
I have purchased many RDs and Midas over the years. I did not purchase them from suppliers directly, but in fish stores and even chain stores. BUt it seems no matter which one they are labeled as they all end up looking the same at maturity. I would say more like the Midas, blunt nose, thicker bodies. .............. so this is some great info. ..... usually the ones I purchase are listed as RDs but the 2 juvi's i have at the moment were labeled as midas. I am wanting to see if i notice much of a difference.
I have purchased many RDs and Midas over the years. I did not purchase them from suppliers directly, but in fish stores and even chain stores. BUt it seems no matter which one they are labeled as they all end up looking the same at maturity. I would say more like the Midas, blunt nose, thicker bodies. .............. so this is some great info. ..... usually the ones I purchase are listed as RDs but the 2 juvi's i have at the moment were labeled as midas. I am wanting to see if i notice much of a difference.
Interesting point and somthing I have thought about for a long time. I remember reading all the Rift lake cichlids evolved from one species that was isolated in different sections of the lake/lakes as time went on and evolved to fill specific niches, it stands to reason the same thing happened or is happing as we speak here. A group of Wrasses cut off from the ocean during the ice age and evolving to take advantage of different opertunistic areas with in a body or bodies of water seperated over time and while still relativly new as far as genetic diverafication goes might be subspecies within the parent group of Amphilophus and not seperate species at all but mearly adaptations within the group to take advantage of available food sources or environmental opertunities. Not so far fetched IMO. Great thread!
Thanks RD!
I think a good way to look at this issue is from the perspective of the hobbyist who wants to keep (breed) fish that are as authentic as possible to a wild population of fish.
Willem's thread really highlights that, whether a fish is (currently) classified as the same species (e.g. A labiatus) really shouldn't be the definitive criterion for assessing whether breeding two fish from, for example different populations of "A. labiatus" would support the hobbyist's goal.
Knowing that they are a line from the same collection location would be much better, although just because two fish of the same species have different collection locations (or trade) names doesn't mean that they're different populations of fish. Two fish caught in the same place can have different collection locations based on two people calling them different things...especially if the people coming describing that location aren't trying to be clear about where they're found.
It is also possible for multiple, similar looking fish to be really different and be from the same place. For example, both red and blue forms of Gymnogeophagus labiatus are found in a few locations in Uruguay. Same (described) species, same location, different fish.
My best advice is to get fish with provenance back to a known collection location...and the people who caught them. They were there...and they know best!
Matt
I think a good way to look at this issue is from the perspective of the hobbyist who wants to keep (breed) fish that are as authentic as possible to a wild population of fish.
Willem's thread really highlights that, whether a fish is (currently) classified as the same species (e.g. A labiatus) really shouldn't be the definitive criterion for assessing whether breeding two fish from, for example different populations of "A. labiatus" would support the hobbyist's goal.
Knowing that they are a line from the same collection location would be much better, although just because two fish of the same species have different collection locations (or trade) names doesn't mean that they're different populations of fish. Two fish caught in the same place can have different collection locations based on two people calling them different things...especially if the people coming describing that location aren't trying to be clear about where they're found.
It is also possible for multiple, similar looking fish to be really different and be from the same place. For example, both red and blue forms of Gymnogeophagus labiatus are found in a few locations in Uruguay. Same (described) species, same location, different fish.
My best advice is to get fish with provenance back to a known collection location...and the people who caught them. They were there...and they know best!
Matt
Hey Matt, I was hoping that you would pop into this discussion.
I think that you hit the nail on the head when you stated;
It's interesting that you mentioned Willem Heijns, below is a link to discussion regarding this topic that took place a couple of years back. IMO Juan Artigas responses were right on the money.
A delicate question about Amphilophus labiatus
http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=37303
