N-E Cichlids;3258800; said:
I would like to try for a new species. I know alot of people do not believe in hybrids and think it is wrong, but I for one think it's very interesting. For instance I am a huge fan of tank raised Freshwater/Saltwater fish and aquacultured corals. I feel if we can breed them in captivity we should. Hybrids keep the hobby interesting while at the same time keep the wild population thriving and further away from extinction.
First, a caveat. This post is just me presenting my thoughts on the issue. It is not intended to be unpleasant in any way. So:
You're talking two about two different issues. I think everyone here is pro captive breeding. Captive hybridizing, however, does nothing to protect wild stocks.
Most tank-raised fish are not hybrids. Besides the cichlid hybrids like flowerhorns and blood parrots as well as several of the common livebearers, tank-raised fish are almost always pure species. I don't know much about coral propagation, but I don't think hybridization is common there either.
I don't think that creating hybrids is wrong, but it certainly has some cons. Of course in this case there is the issue of providing suitable conditions for the two parent species (and then trying to figure out the needs of any offspring). There is also the issue of offspring health; while hybridization of closely related species often results in very fit offspring, hybridization of more distantly related species often results in sickly offspring or animals with severe deformities. There is a large literature on this phenomenon from the mid 20th century, when hybridization experiments were often used to determine relatedness of organisms. A third issue is what happens once you start sharing your little hybrids and someone decides to backcross them to the parents. You may end up with a situation in which it is impossible to determine an animal's true genetic identity. This can cause problems if you see captive animals as a 'genetic ark' to be used if the genetic diversity of wild stocks drops too low.
Hybridization has its uses, but I don't think random experiments like this are one of them. Why not just breed your cave geckos and get some more little cave geckos? They're perfectly good lizards already.
All of this is probably moot unless your geckos actually produce offspring. You have several barriers here:
Will they recognize one another as potential partners? Most animals are pretty good at recognizing their own species. Hybrids in nature are much more common among species with external fertilization (most fish and frogs, etc.) than those with internal fertilization, such as lizards; this is because many natural hybrids are simply the result of the eggs and sperm of several species being present in the same place at the same time.
Will they both be "in the mood" at the same time? The differing captive requirements of the two species come into play here. Miserable animals are less likely to mate than comfortable animals.
Are they physically able to mate? Squamate genitals are pretty complicated; your two species may not be able to copulate no matter how much they want to.
Can the male's sperm reach and enter the egg? A sperm has to have the right "key" to enter the egg. The "keys" of different species may be different.
Can fertilization occur? Another biochemical issue. It may be physically imposssible for the egg and sperm of these two species to undergo the fertilization process.
Can a viable embryo be formed? Sometimes hybridization attempts produce fertilized eggs, but a genetic incompatibility during development leads to embryonic death.
And so on and on. The more closely related two species are, the more likly the answers to all those questions will be "Yes". But you're trying to cross two species from different genera, not even sister genera. I think there will be a lot of "No"s on the list.