Any ex FH keepers wanna input?

[dogofwar]

To me at least, I classify any cichlid that's been intentionally bred to be different than what's found in the wild as "ornamental".

While some people will argue until they're blue in the face that crossing two different geographic varients of a particular species (i.e. line breeding) is totally different (and more acceptable) than crossing two closely realted species (i.e. hybridization), the truth is that different icthyologists on different days could just as easily classify the two geographic variants as different species...and such line breeding would become hybridization.

Look at "convicts": one day all "convicts" are one species. The next, they're four different ones. One day crossing one from Nicaragua with one from Panama is a "pure" convict. The next, the same exact fish is a hybrid (A. siquia x A. kanna).

My point is that establishing "hybrid" vs. "line bred" as a ethical bright line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is frought with issues.

Matt

 

[Water]

At least according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-dog_hybrid), several breeds of dogs, even dogs accepted by various dog clubs, are wolf-dog hybrids:

Today, at least seven breeds of dog exist which acknowledge a significant amount of recent wolf-dog hybridization in their creation. Four breeds were the result of intentional crosses with German Shepherd Dogs, and have distinguishing characteristics of appearance that may reflect the varying subspecies of wolf that contributed to their foundation stock. Other, more unusual crosses have occurred; recent experiments in Germany were conducted in the crossing of wolves and poodles.[22] The intention in creating the breeds was manifold; ranging from the desire for a recognizable companion wolfdog, to military working dogs.

• The eldest breed, the Saarlooswolfhond, traces its origins to the efforts of a Dutch breeder in 1921. This first attempt at sustained wolf-dog crossing was to improve Shepherd breeding stock and prevent canine distemper. Though this effort failed, today the FCI and the Dutch Kennel Club both recognize the breed.

• In the 1950s the Czechoslovakian Wolfdog was also created to work on border patrol in the countries now known as Slovakia and the Czech Republic. It is recognized by the Foundation Stock Service of the American Kennel Club AKC, the United Kennel Club UKC, and the FCI, and today is used in agility, obedience, search and rescue, police work, therapy work, and herding in Europe and the United States.

• The Lupo Italiano has also been accepted into the Italian Kennel Club.[citation needed]

• The Kunming Wolfdog is a Chinese wolf-dog hybrid bred for military purpose.

Matt

Wiki as your source..? >.>

 

[peathenster]

At least according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf-dog_hybrid), several breeds of dogs, even dogs accepted by various dog clubs, are wolf-dog hybrids:

By the very definition of "species", it can be argued that dogs and wolves are still the same species.......

 

[peathenster]

To me at least, I classify any cichlid that's been intentionally bred to be different than what's found in the wild as "ornamental".

While some people will argue until they're blue in the face that crossing two different geographic varients of a particular species (i.e. line breeding) is totally different (and more acceptable) than crossing two closely realted species (i.e. hybridization), the truth is that different icthyologists on different days could just as easily classify the two geographic variants as different species...and such line breeding would become hybridization.

Look at "convicts": one day all "convicts" are one species. The next, they're four different ones. One day crossing one from Nicaragua with one from Panama is a "pure" convict. The next, the same exact fish is a hybrid (A. siquia x A. kanna).

My point is that establishing "hybrid" vs. "line bred" as a ethical bright line between "acceptable" and "unacceptable" is frought with issues.

Matt

The difference between interspecific hybridization and line breeding does not need to be established. It is there. It is an objective fact. It was never the intention to use it as an "ethical bright line". I have never, nor do I intend to attack FHs for being hybrids, and Matt you should know me better than that.

I hope more people would respect the definition of the term "species" before starting to argue over it. If two individuals can produced viable F1s, AND the F1s are fertile, these two individuals are the same species. PERIOD. This is the definition. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks. Don't like it? Don't use it.

The implication of this definition is that there is no gene flow between species (not considering horizontal gene transfer events here). Donkeys and horses can mate and produce mules, but mules are sterile. Dead end. No gene flow. In other words, each species is reproductively isolated from another.

In my view, classifying specimens that differ somewhat in appearance or locality by some of those so called "icthyologists" is simply irresponsible. But of course it leads to more publications in some obscure journals, or perhaps fame in a small circle of people.

It is not always possible to test compatibility and the fertility rate of F1s. That's why more and more of my colleagues are using the term "OTUs" - operational taxonomic units - to refer to things that are close enough but may or may not be the same species.

Are different convicts the same species? Cross them, the cross the F1s. There is a clear definition and clear path to test it. What's the problem? Why sit there any argue? Who cares about what those "icthyologists" think? Who gives them those titles anyway?

 

[dogofwar]

Hi Peter,

Totally didn't intend that to be aimed at you You make perfect sense!

Some in the cichlid club world seek to rationalize the difference between line bred and hybrid (based on strict taxonomic definition) and there is a current proposition to treat the two kinds of ornamental fish differently (accept one...BAN the other)... seems nonsensical to me...

I'm also with you on the absurdity of splitting everything to the nth degree...but that's where the academic and economic (sell "new" and different fish) incentives are.

Sincerely,
Matt

The difference between interspecific hybridization and line breeding does not need to be established. It is there. It is an objective fact. It was never the intention to use it as an "ethical bright line". I have never, nor do I intend to attack FHs for being hybrids, and Matt you should know me better than that.

I hope more people would respect the definition of the term "species" before starting to argue over it. If two individuals can produced viable F1s, AND the F1s are fertile, these two individuals are the same species. PERIOD. This is the definition. It doesn't matter what each of us thinks. Don't like it? Don't use it.

The implication of this definition is that there is no gene flow between species (not considering horizontal gene transfer events here). Donkeys and horses can mate and produce mules, but mules are sterile. Dead end. No gene flow. In other words, each species is reproductively isolated from another.

In my view, classifying specimens that differ somewhat in appearance or locality by some of those so called "icthyologists" is simply irresponsible. But of course it leads to more publications in some obscure journals, or perhaps fame in a small circle of people.

It is not always possible to test compatibility and the fertility rate of F1s. That's why more and more of my colleagues are using the term "OTUs" - operational taxonomic units - to refer to things that are close enough but may or may not be the same species.

Are different convicts the same species? Cross them, the cross the F1s. There is a clear definition and clear path to test it. What's the problem? Why sit there any argue? Who cares about what those "icthyologists" think? Who gives them those titles anyway?

 

[dogofwar]

Dude - at least I referenced a source...and most of the info cited has references. Feel free to verify.

And I agree that wolves and dogs are likely the same species...

Matt

Wiki as your source..? >.>

 

[driftwood]

I have kept FH's and stopped keeping them for the same reason I no longer keep certain Central and South American cichlids. I found them to be too aggressive and always had to keep mine solo. I prefer several different fish in my tanks and get easily bored with just 1 fish in a large tank. I am currently keeping a lot of different spieces and all are on the mellow side except for some of my Madagascar cichlids. Would I ever keep a FH again? probably not and its not because they are man made but rather they are just too aggressive. Most of the fish we keep in our glass cages have been tampered with to a certain degree once they leave the wild.

 

[peathenster]

Hi Peter,

Totally didn't intend that to be aimed at you You make perfect sense!

Some in the cichlid club world seek to rationalize the difference between line bred and hybrid (based on strict taxonomic definition) and there is a current proposition to treat the two kinds of ornamental fish differently (accept one...BAN the other)... seems nonsensical to me...

I'm also with you on the absurdity of splitting everything to the nth degree...but that's where the academic and economic (sell "new" and different fish) incentives are.

Sincerely,
Matt

Sorry Matt - it was late and I had something else on my mind...

I can totally see myself trying FHs down the road. After all, there are only so many "pure species" available in the hobby, and I have the tendency of moving on once I figured something out.

To me the major attraction of FHs is the uncertainty. For a known species you know what to expect most of the time. For a FH everyday and every fish is a new experience. The potential problem to me is that since they are usually rather aggressive, them may have to be kept as a single fish in a tank, and one would lose the fun of observing fish interact with each other.

It's just unfortunately that some people declare that they are opposed to FHs for the wrong reason...

I have kept FH's and stopped keeping them for the same reason I no longer keep certain Central and South American cichlids. I found them to be too aggressive and always had to keep mine solo. I prefer several different fish in my tanks and get easily bored with just 1 fish in a large tank. I am currently keeping a lot of different spieces and all are on the mellow side except for some of my Madagascar cichlids. Would I ever keep a FH again? probably not and its not because they are man made but rather they are just too aggressive. Most of the fish we keep in our glass cages have been tampered with to a certain degree once they leave the wild.

Well said

 

[jgentry]

This thread was an interesting read.

It's somewhat funny to me that some people get so passionately against something so trival as a hybrid fish. Everyone would be better off if they just realized that we are keeping fish in a glass box. There is nothing natural about it to begin with. Keep wild types if you want. Keep hybrids if you want. Just be responsible with any fish you keep.

Keeping a wild fish in an aquarium does nothing for conservation or preserving anything in the wild. All of the people that hate hybrids because they claim they are ruining pure lines or are man made are fooling themselves. All aquarium fish are man made. Someone collects a wild fish and selects the prettiest ones. We then select what we consider the best male and female to breed. We then select the the best fry to sell. The story goes on and on. From the very start a F1 fish is tampered with by man to make them into what we desire. Which is often nothing like what nature intended.

Let me know when your ready Peter. I just had a batch of about 1000 babies from a carpintis cross. I'll send you a bag of them.

 

[peathenster]

Let me know when your ready Peter. I just had a batch of about 1000 babies from a carpintis cross. I'll send you a bag of them.

Sounds like a waste of resource - aren't those carpintis fry in high demand? Cross something else.... Anyway, I (and my 8 dats) are ready now

Actually I am thinking about adding a 1) somewhat tough; 2) not too aggressive; 3) mid-sized (for now) and 4) very active CA or FH to the dat grow-out tank (36") to cheer them up a little bit. Got any ideas?