dogofwar;4234504; said:
<For people not familiar with the topic, providing a definition of "hybrid fish" would be helpful. I think it also makes sense to differentiate fish that are intentionally hybridized to create something of aesthetic value vs. random crosses... as well as to differentiate line bred fish vs. hybrids...and all of the issues (with taxonomic revisions, variability across regions of "species", etc. of defining "species".>
A definition you will have. Intenional crosses, got it. I think touching on the purpose of creating hybrids would fit well within what I was writing. It probably sounds confusing not really knowing why some people create hybrids on their own.
The topic of hybrid fish is very very broad. I tried to narrow it down, and I cut out a lot of writing because it was leading me in circles and I wanted a nice flow and an easy read.
Even though species crossing with a species only varying by locations is technically considered a hybrid, I wanted to keep it simple. Just focus on the more prevalent hybrids.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
Hybrid fish have been a controversial topic since day one of their discovery <When were hybrid fish first discovered? Hybrid livebearers have been a staple of the hobby since at least the 1960s>.
I don't know. That's why I left it open. I've done some poking around, but there isn't a real clear cut date on when the first freshwater aquarium fish was hybridized. I know that the livebearers were probably crossed first, but when exactly was that? I suppose I could say the 60's, but I chose to be vague instead of guessing.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
The conversations and arguements that surround this topic can be heated to say the least. I would like to start out by saying that I have kept both hybrid fish and wild caught, or pure fish. Despite my personal preference, I'd like to believe that the following is an unbiased rendering of my own observations < You make some extremely broad (and unsupported) generalizations throughout this article...>
Yes, I do.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
Early in the hobby, not much was known about hybrid <When was "early in the hobby"? It has been widely known that plants and animals, including cichlids, can hybridize for many, many years. The term "hybrid" entered into popular use in English in the 19th century, though examples of its use have been found from the early 17th century>
I see how that statement is worded incorrectly. I think a better statement would be ... Before the popularity of hybrid fish blossomed, many hybrid fish went unnoticed... or something to that effect.
I do not have a timeline for you. I base these statements on the fact that the popularity of fish keeping has increased over time.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
They were unheard of and most fish back then were assumed to be pure <Perhaps regional differences / variation weren't as well understood as they are today, but again, this isn't correct>.
I believe, even today, that many of the average people who keep fish are unaware of hybrids. For every one educated fish keeper, there are probably 3 or 4 who think fish can be kept in a bowl. Just my opinion.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
Successful breeding was not common in the home aquarium because of the lack of information available to research and learn about the process. After some improvements in technology and the ability to gain knowledge at the 'click' of a button, we are able to reproduce (breed) many of the fish we keep ourselves <Really? There wasn't much information prior to the Internet? I recall flowerhorns emerging around the early '90s... well before widespread use of the internet / fish forums. The organized hobby was HUGE back in the 80s>
I mean that the access to the information is now readily available. Before the internet, it was not as easy for joe schmoe to find out how to sex, breed, care for fry. Now, all he has to do is boot up the internet.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
This inevitabley has led to some species cross-breeding (male and female of different species, breeding) and offspring that are not genetically pure, or 'hybrid'. Today there is a large crowd that favors hybrids and promotes the practice of cross-breeding <Is this any different of a crowd than has been breeding fancy livebearers, discus, angelfish, bettas, goldfish, koi, etc., etc. for many, mean years?>
Perhaps it is not. Just a general statement.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
Naturally, there is also a large crowd that is against the idea of hybrids <Why is this natural...especially since fancy fish, including hybrids, have been part of the hobby for many, many years?>.
I mean that since there is group in favor, there is 'naturally' a group against it.
dogofwar;4234504; said:
The two groups have unofficially been called for lack of better terms, "purists" and "hybrid lovers". Not all fish keepers are either a Purist or a Hybrid lover, but these two groups make the middle of the spectrum long indeed. <I don't understand the last sentence>
I mean that middle ground between these two groups is not easily reached. They are polar opposites like Democrats, Republicans/Liberals, Conservatives. Does it not make sense?
dogofwar;4234504; said:
You close the article by recommending that education is the key. How would better education have solved either of the scenarios that you describe? How will education bring together purists and those who are hybrid enthusiasts? You need to be explicit about your recommendations in order for this to be meaningful...
I don't think there is a way to find a viable solution without really taking one side or the other. I want the emphasis to be more about spreading awareness of the problem. Its easy to forget that not everyone who keeps fish knows about hybrids or how to identify one. I think a small step toward bettering the situation is educating people about hybrids. In scenario A if joe were educated about Texicons, maybe he'd be able to identify it, and choose if he wanted or not. In scenario B Joe is educated, and he is aware of the risk of buying from a LFS, so he can order online from a reputable source Rapps, Davis, etc.
Again, thank you for the insight. Its good to have other views on the subject and writing in general.
