oh okay i know a bit about hybrids and genomes but not an expert hopefully this guy or gal pitches in some words of wisdom about hybrids
Catfish talk i wanna hear you guys thoughts on this
- Thread starter Paradox2296
- Start date
When it comes to felines the female is the one that dictates how it will look in the end. The reason a liger is larger then a tigon is due to the female tiger being far larger then a female lion is. Honestly a female tiger is almost the same size as a male lion if not larger. As for how the liger is larger then both parents that's still not known exactly. Tigons make sense in the fact that they tend to be in-between a lion and tiger in size.
Male lion average is 220 kg. Male tiger 240 kg. So tigers are insignificnlty larger.
i have to say I really think that the mother's for these fish are different picked up 2 more hybrids and one again looks more TSN than red tail and the opposite for the other I'll be keeping the ones that look more TSN
You are comparing fish of different age and size, fresh from different sources...
But anyhow... IDK why you keep thinking like that. Once again, AFAIK, there is no such thing and we have never seen a hybrid of an RTC mother and a TSN father. Never. Period. Maybe
necrocanis
has seen scientific lab reports mentioning these but this is his field of study and we, the laymen, have never seen such a fish.
All these hybrids are of TSN mothers and RTC fathers. Even if you are seeing subtle differences now, they will disappear as they grow except for the prevailing skeletal deformities. All the colors and spot patterns will be the same on 2'-3' fish within the normal individual range / variation.
So in my book you are deluding yourself and your readers but this is an open and free forum. I think I will stop pushing the "right" knowledge now.
If you wanted to rationalize the differences you are observing, you are looking at the wrong explanation; I suggest you start digging in different directions. All these fish have the same genome from the same parent species patriarchal and matriarchal pair.
But anyhow... IDK why you keep thinking like that. Once again, AFAIK, there is no such thing and we have never seen a hybrid of an RTC mother and a TSN father. Never. Period. Maybe
necrocanis
has seen scientific lab reports mentioning these but this is his field of study and we, the laymen, have never seen such a fish.All these hybrids are of TSN mothers and RTC fathers. Even if you are seeing subtle differences now, they will disappear as they grow except for the prevailing skeletal deformities. All the colors and spot patterns will be the same on 2'-3' fish within the normal individual range / variation.
So in my book you are deluding yourself and your readers but this is an open and free forum. I think I will stop pushing the "right" knowledge now.
If you wanted to rationalize the differences you are observing, you are looking at the wrong explanation; I suggest you start digging in different directions. All these fish have the same genome from the same parent species patriarchal and matriarchal pair.
I am comparing fish of different ages but its clearly apparent that out of the for 2 look one way and 2 look another size differences or not im looking at head shape and body shape color pattern isn't even what im looking at I understand what you are saying and im not arguing that your wrong but for fish sharing the same genetics with the large variation on body structure fin shape and length even body length dont miss understand im not saying anything as fact I'm going off my observation and my current knowledge of hybrids and am seeking more knowledge if you have a link to the research on these fish plz provide it I haven't seen or heard of it thanks mateYou are comparing fish of different age and size, fresh from different sources...
But anyhow... IDK why you keep thinking like that. Once again, AFAIK, there is no such thing and we have never seen a hybrid of an RTC mother and a TSN father. Never. Period. Maybe
All these hybrids are of TSN mothers and RTC fathers. Even if you are seeing subtle differences now, they will disappear as they grow except for the prevailing skeletal deformities. All the colors and spot patterns will be the same on 2'-3' fish within the normal individual range / variation.
So in my book you are deluding yourself and your readers but this is an open and free forum. I think I will stop pushing the "right" knowledge now.
If you wanted to rationalize the differences you are observing, you are looking at the wrong explanation; I suggest you start digging in different directions. All these fish have the same genome from the same parent species patriarchal and matriarchal pair.
Thank you bro.
It's challenging to digest a text without punctuation and be sure I got it correctly. If I read it right, you are comparing head shapes, body structure, fin shape and length, and body length.
If I do the same, I see a natural variation within these manmade frankensteins. Perhaps keeping in mind the following points may help:
-- these are manmade fish made in a Petri dish, there is little natural about them, and they are subject to more defects and deformities and variation than any naturally procreating fish; not 2x more but like a 1000x more;
-- the camel face or duckbill deformity is a highly prevailing one and has varying severity, it can develop or worsen later or earlier in life, making comparing skulls and drawing meaningful conclusions often plain impossible;
-- it's not uncommon for these to have misshapen fins or even fins missing altogether (genetic garbage);
-- these are NOT grown for the ornamental fish trade but are farm culls - the worst of the species, the dinks, the runts, the genetic refuse not suited to be grown for people's table fare because they don't grow fast and healthy enough, they are sifted out at 1", 2', 3", 4" and such sizes multiple times during the rearing process at fish farms in South America; the farmers found that a small percentage of this genetic refuse can be sold into our trade for much better $ than being normally sold to be ground into fishmeal or fertilizer.
Necro's got true research. I am but a lowly layman. I have seen and raised many of these over the last 12 years and go off my knowledge and experience. I may be wrong but they all look the same to me when adults, barring the deformities and their consequences.
It's challenging to digest a text without punctuation and be sure I got it correctly. If I read it right, you are comparing head shapes, body structure, fin shape and length, and body length.
If I do the same, I see a natural variation within these manmade frankensteins. Perhaps keeping in mind the following points may help:
-- these are manmade fish made in a Petri dish, there is little natural about them, and they are subject to more defects and deformities and variation than any naturally procreating fish; not 2x more but like a 1000x more;
-- the camel face or duckbill deformity is a highly prevailing one and has varying severity, it can develop or worsen later or earlier in life, making comparing skulls and drawing meaningful conclusions often plain impossible;
-- it's not uncommon for these to have misshapen fins or even fins missing altogether (genetic garbage);
-- these are NOT grown for the ornamental fish trade but are farm culls - the worst of the species, the dinks, the runts, the genetic refuse not suited to be grown for people's table fare because they don't grow fast and healthy enough, they are sifted out at 1", 2', 3", 4" and such sizes multiple times during the rearing process at fish farms in South America; the farmers found that a small percentage of this genetic refuse can be sold into our trade for much better $ than being normally sold to be ground into fishmeal or fertilizer.
Necro's got true research. I am but a lowly layman. I have seen and raised many of these over the last 12 years and go off my knowledge and experience. I may be wrong but they all look the same to me when adults, barring the deformities and their consequences.
Right right if you can find a link to that research that will be greatly appreciated I will continue to update with pics as they grow thus conversation is very interesting id love to hear more about your experience with these fish
From reading a paper on Molecular identification of intergenus crosses involving catfish hybrids: risks for aquaculture production, which centres it's review on five fish farms in Brazil I can say that Victor is almost correct (99% probably).
The genetic crossing of any fish with a tiger shovelnose is "usually" done with a female p.reticulatum . The reason being that female p.reticulatum have a longer reproductive period, hence much more monitarily benefficial to the fish farms involved.
You can get rtcxtsn cross genetically but you probably will never see one as it just costs much more to do on a fish farm scale.
The biggest reason I found in this paper for the difference in appearance and also in defects, and general strength of the hybrids we see, is below.
Generally a GOOD hybrid is a stronger, larger, faster growing fish than both parents! Hence crossing them in the first place.
HOWEVER !!!!!!
Even when the test samples were taken of the female p.reticulatum used in the breeding programme on the fish farms , they were actually already found to be p.reticulatum x p.corrusicans hybrids.
so the mum used to produce many tsnxrtc crosses we see in the hobby is probably already a hybrid herself, hence further variations in patterning, genetic make up, deformaties, poor health, stunted growth, etc. etc. As Victor said, we get to see the rings and outcasts and this may only get worse over time.
if we actually got good true straight crosses they should be real good fish, which also explains why some we are are stronger and live longer or grow bigger, etc. than others.
So for future reference I conclude that 99% of the crosses we see between tiger shovelnose and redtails are most likely
tsn x rtc or maybe tsn f1 x rtc or maybe tsn f2 x rtc where the f number denotes different generation crosses and we may never have actually seen a rtf x tsn cross.
(Which goes against my first statement at the start of the thread, but now even I know more! )
(Every day is a school day!!!!!!)
The genetic crossing of any fish with a tiger shovelnose is "usually" done with a female p.reticulatum . The reason being that female p.reticulatum have a longer reproductive period, hence much more monitarily benefficial to the fish farms involved.
You can get rtcxtsn cross genetically but you probably will never see one as it just costs much more to do on a fish farm scale.
The biggest reason I found in this paper for the difference in appearance and also in defects, and general strength of the hybrids we see, is below.
Generally a GOOD hybrid is a stronger, larger, faster growing fish than both parents! Hence crossing them in the first place.
HOWEVER !!!!!!
Even when the test samples were taken of the female p.reticulatum used in the breeding programme on the fish farms , they were actually already found to be p.reticulatum x p.corrusicans hybrids.
so the mum used to produce many tsnxrtc crosses we see in the hobby is probably already a hybrid herself, hence further variations in patterning, genetic make up, deformaties, poor health, stunted growth, etc. etc. As Victor said, we get to see the rings and outcasts and this may only get worse over time.
if we actually got good true straight crosses they should be real good fish, which also explains why some we are are stronger and live longer or grow bigger, etc. than others.
So for future reference I conclude that 99% of the crosses we see between tiger shovelnose and redtails are most likely
tsn x rtc or maybe tsn f1 x rtc or maybe tsn f2 x rtc where the f number denotes different generation crosses and we may never have actually seen a rtf x tsn cross.
(Which goes against my first statement at the start of the thread, but now even I know more! )
(Every day is a school day!!!!!!)
So good to see you read serious scientific articles and and serve the learnings on a silver platter. Thank you so very much, Dave!
We as a community have always been unsure what species of TSN they use and also did suspect that it could be an intra-genus hybrid of some TSN species too. It is probably a know-how secret too that's not easily knowable and the matter can fathomably be purposefully muddled up in the patent and scientific literature to guard the competitive edge gained as a result of R&D research.
