Cichlid "F System"

[thefishguy7]

The cichlid "F system" is used to show how many generations down from wild caught a cichlid is. An F0 cichlid is wild caught, as 0 shows there is no relation. Anything further than F3 is simply considered tank raised, as it will begin to lose characteristics fish from the wild have. (Such as a red devils large lips to extract crustaceans from under rocks.)
2 F0 parents will produce F1 fry, every spawn until they die. It is a common misconception that a wild caught pair (F0) will produce F1 fry their first spawn, F2 fry their second spawn, and so on. ALL fry are F1.
For your understanding:
F0 x F0 = F1
F1 x F1 = F2
F2 x F2 = F3
and so on....

But now the question emerges: What do you get when you breed an F0 with an F1 or F2? What do you you get when breed an F1 with an F2?
In my opinion, the fry should be 1 "F-number" higher than the highest "F number" parent.

Mo,

Although I cannot give you a reference for this my opinion is to state the
lowest level of captive generation, so for example for a pair F0 – F2, the
fry strictly would have to be F3. I understand there should be different
opinions about this topic because as far as I am aware of there is no
regulation on this matter.

All the best

Juan Miguel Artigas Azas
Editor
The Cichlid Room Companion
http://www.cichlidae.info

Therefore:
F0 x F1 = F2
F0 x F2 = F3
F1 x F2 = F3

A great source for more informtion: http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/cichlid_breeding_terms.php

Any questions, corrections, or opinions, please share here.

Special thanks to Mo (Aquamojo), Gani (Ruck Fules), and Juan.

 

[joel]

great info rob.

 

[Red_Terror]

F0-F1 f.5
f1-f2 f1.5

That's my theory.

 

[cookiemonster]

That would almost make sense, red_terror, if F1-F1=F1. If you were going to do it that way, F0-F1=F1.5, because you would be taking the averages of the F-numbers of the offspring of both F0 and both F1.

 

[Modest_Man]

If you want to read a bit more, it's a bastardization of the Filial generations used in genetics and plant hybridization.

Where it gets a bit confusing is when you think that most wild fish are netted in a group from a nest, and so are siblings. If you buy a batch of F0 fish from the same source you're most likely getting all related fish when technically you'd assume an F1 fish to be from unrelated wild parents.

 

[Modest_Man]

That would almost make sense, red_terror, if F1-F1=F1. If you were going to do it that way, F0-F1=F1.5, because you would be taking the averages of the F-numbers of the offspring of both F0 and both F1.

F1 and F1 would yield an F2. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the averages.

I'd just call anything not wild or from wild parent stock tank raised. Having an F0 X F2 cross would be practically the same as tank raised, unless you have the collection locale the same for both fish.

And this isn't just used for cichlids...it's used for most all tank bred tropical fish as far as I know.

 

[thefishguy7]

Thanks for the clarification there modest_man, I never heard of any fish other than cichlids classified as such though. Learn something every day...
I'll have to disagree with your theory red_terror. F0 x F1 = F1.5 would make more sense, but I still cannot agree with that, a fry from an F2 fish, whether the mate is F0 or F1, it is still 1 generation down from that fish making it F3.
BTW, thanks Joel.

 

[ctenopoma]

thank you so much for that, I found it so confusing untill you explained

 

[dirtyblacksocks]

To be quite honest I think a breeder with any integrity should make mention that the fish he is selling are a cross between a male F0 and female F1 and whatnot.

 

[cookiemonster]

F1 and F1 would yield an F2. I'm not sure what you're getting at with the averages.

I'd just call anything not wild or from wild parent stock tank raised. Having an F0 X F2 cross would be practically the same as tank raised, unless you have the collection locale the same for both fish.

And this isn't just used for cichlids...it's used for most all tank bred tropical fish as far as I know.

I know F1 and F1=F2, for the purpose of validating red_terror's theory F1 and F1 would have to result in F1 offspring. I'm not saying that my explanation involving the averages is correct at all, Juan Miguel's explanation makes the most sense to me by far.