Cichlid Line Bred vs. Hybrid

[Aphilophus]

all i was trying to say is that to some degree there should be limits to what would be excepted. i have no problem with line breeding as most fish are done that way but hybrids are where my objections lie

 

[dogofwar]

Both line bred and hybrids are man made. Both are different than what is found in nature. Both represent a prominent share of the fish sold in LFS and kept by aquarists who keep cichlids.

There are line bred fish that are more "different" than wild-type fish than some hybrids. And vice-versa.

Different from nature is different from nature - there's no consistent empirical way of judging whether a yellow peacock that's been line bred to be large, red and swallowtailed is any better or worse adapted to its natural environment than a cross between two closely related, for example, Parachromis or Amphilophus.

Mo asked respondents to put personal opinions aside on this. So personal taste and what you like should have no bearing in your comments or judgements.

That said, if there are people who are willing/request to keep and buy fish that are different from what is in nature, then people will produce and sell these fish.

Just as fancy livebearers, fancy discus, fancy angels, fancy bettas, fancy goldfish, etc. represent legitimate and recognized "wings" of each of these associations of fish keepers (ALA, IBC, etc.), so too should "man made" cichlids.

That's doesn't mean that principles of responsible fishkeeping shouldn't apply to both man made and wild-type fish: accurate labeling, not releasing captive fish into the wild, etc. Passing off wild-type fish as something that it's not is probably MORE dangerous to purity of captive populations of wild-type fish than passing off a Super AAA Kamfa flowerhorn as a AAAA+ Super Kamfa faded flowerhorn (whatever that means)

 

[Aquamojo]

So other than the obvious ends to a means, are the line bred fish (electric blue jack dempseys, long finned oscars, super red severums, etc.) any different than flowerhorns?

Thanks for all the input.

Mo

 

[ewok]

i would think that today's domestic discus are in some way hybrids. i think wild blue, green and heckel discus are considered to be different species if i am not wrong. today's myriad strains of discus were probably derived from cross breeding these species in a selective manner to achieve what we have today.

having said that, i'm not in support of hybridization. selective breeding is a fact of ornamental fish cultivation whereby desired traits are selected and isolated through breeding.

 

[ikevi]

The ACA states 3 goals, two are greatly affected by Hybrid/line bred fish.

* Further the conservation of cichlids and their natural habitats
* Promote fellowship among cichlid hobbyists

From what I have seen the ACA current stance has been that if it is anything that doesn't look identical to a WC specimen (though it can be a really nice one) then it isn't promoting conservation. An idea a completely disagree with. What better way to promote conservation than to encourage people with these hybrids/line bred fish to join the ACA and learn about what makes the fish both a joy and a concern in the hobby.

If we are attempting to promote more fellowship then definitely line breds should be accepted, and likely hybrids. (It is possible that many people who would normally join the ACA don't because they feel antagonized against their choice to keep these fish.

That said I honestly don't understand what the ACA has against line bred fish. Just by taking the fish out of their natural environment females will mate with males they normally never would. (IE they see color differently from different water depths, after a few generations the better fish is one that has adapted to a tank setting with different traits.) So then you would WC/f1/f2 or else you fish is a line bred fish.

Hybrids are harder. The only problem I see with them in the hobby is that people will take them and breed them with other fish and then sell the fry as what it looks like and not as a hybrid. This is something that the ACA could help educate people on, if they started to allow hybrids.

(Heck there is no doubt that the first fish most people buy is likely a line bred or hybrid, and hence these fish have there place.)

 

[dogofwar]

Not in my perspective. The intent of developing these fish was INTENTIONALLY to create something DIFFERENT than what's in nature. Something Super-Natural.

That genetically unusual examples of one species, multiple species, multiple varients of a species, multiple species that used to be classified a single species, etc. went into creating them is beside the point.

Someone said, "I think people would like a bright orange discus (long-finned betta, black angelfish, guppy with a 2" tail, long finned oscar, lyretail sword)"...and they set out to create it.

Back in the day Drs. Myron Gordon, Joanne Norman, and others were celebrated as "pioneers" in the hobby for developing the first aquarium strains of these kind of fish. Clearly the existence of "fancy" fish destroyed the hobby (in the early 1960's)

So other than the obvious ends to a means, are the line bred fish (electric blue jack dempseys, long finned oscars, super red severums, etc.) any different than flowerhorns?

Thanks for all the input.

Mo

 

[big dovii]

I don't agree with either.
If you're "selectively" breeding two of the same species together to get some dominant or "aquired" traits, how different is it from breeding two different species and creating a hybrid?

All in all, I think in line breeding, you are creating a hybrid within the species.

That's my 2 cents.

 

[Modest_Man]

I don't agree with either.
If you're "selectively" breeding two of the same species together to get some dominant or "aquired" traits, how different is it from breeding two different species and creating a hybrid?

All in all, I think in line breeding, you are creating a hybrid within the species.

That's my 2 cents.

Going from a definition of hybrid and line breeding it is theoretically impossible for you to line breed a hybrid.

The main difference being that if I dump several line bred fish back into the native habitat after a couple generations they should revert back into the wild form (a la natural selection and survival of the fittest).

If I dump some hybrids into the wild (can't use native habitat, as there is none) then what do I have? Pretty much a mess. They seem to revert back to trimac looks after a few generations if the fish caught in Malaysia show us anything.

I believe CHC's post on www.aquamojo.com pretty much sums up my thought's. Hope it's OK to post it here.

IMO both line breeding and hybridiztion can have negative effects to both the fish in question and the hobby in general.

We have tendency to want to "improve" upon nature but often just end up creating some monstrosity that meets OUR needs while its own needs are dismissed. Just look to the gruesomes parrots and other artificial breeds that suffer from serious physical problems throught their lives (IF they managed to survive the relentless culling of their breeders). We do the same thing in line-breeding dogs to fit our eye and just blindly look away from the terrible physical problems we've created in some breeds (even going so far as to call them "cute"). The level of callousness required of an intelligent person to continue to propagate physically suffering animals can only be present in someone of extremely selfish character. The absence of those characteristics in a hybrid supporter can only serve to identify a frightening level of ignorance.

Even absent of those concerns, I cannot see any redeeming qualities of hybridization. There is no hybrid I've seen that is any more attractive or behaviorally more interesting than some of its wild cousins, and the proliferation of "Frankenfish" seems to further the ecological ignorance of many pet owners and (more disturbingly) retailers.

Line breeding of fish bothers me less if only because there is often value placed on protecting and obtaining wild bloodlines to maintain and improve breeding programs. Someone who values wild discus bloodlines, for instance, will have an interest in preserving the habitat of those fish. There is also a generally higher level of understanding of and concern for the natural world in the discus and angel communities than in the hybrid community. I know of lots of discus breeders who are adamant about protecting the purity and wild characteristics of their other species. Many of them take part in collecting trips and other undertakings that lead to a full appreciation of the natural state of their fish. I don't see much of that in the hybrid community.

Funny, though...... My grudging acceptance of line breeding ends with discus and angels. I don't want to see any EBJD in an ACA show for instance. Perhaps that is hypocritical, but that has been the tradition on the hobby for years. So, I could vote FOR the status quo, FOR the elimination of line breds from shows, but only AGAINST the inclusion on hybrids and line breds on a wider scale.

Regarding your question about my perspective on line breeding, I think such efforts should stop when the resulting fish no longer represent the wild caught populations of a given species. So, long finned Oscars and the like would be SOL!

This is a tough one for sure. There are certainly credible arguments on both sides. For instance, if all hybrid keepers/breeders were doing everything they could to further education about the disappearing habitats, the need for sustainable businesses in threatened areas (e.g. the Amazon basin), and the symbiotic relationship of all the world's creatures I don't think I'd have any problem including hybrids and linebreds at all! Unfortunately, IMO the proliferation of those types ends of doing quite the opposite of improving the general understanding of the natural world and the problems facing it.

You have probably seen the many discussions about the way that the collection of wild fish and other natural products in a sustainable way adds value to habitats and protects them from destruction and exploitation. If hybrid fish became the norm, what would be the need for the big fish retailers to protect the habitat of their wild cousins? No matter how many of us little guys appreciated them, if the big money of the industry can be made on fully captive & artificial creations the value of natural areas would disappear.

Said another way, if it weren't for the people who want to go to Africa and spend $50,000 to shoot a trophy Lion on a game preserve, there would BE no game preserve.......and no lions. It's counter intuitive, but there's a lot of truth there. With no demand for wild caught fish from the Amazon and elsewhere, and no appreciation of their incredibly complicated ecosystems we would race even faster to the destruction of those areas.

So, I worry that a more "open approach" by the ACA toward hybrids and line breds would ultimately perpetuate what is a dangerous ignorance and do nothing to improve one of the key issues facing the ACA, conservation.

 

[rallysman]

I think the ACA should consider taking baby steps. It seems to be assumed that everyone knows the difference between pure, line bred, and hybrid.
Concentrate on education and accept all forms of fish before you decide what's "good" and what's not.
If you decide that any type of fish is not welcome in the hobby then you're not doing anything different. If anything, you're staying the same and overall, demoting the hobby while enforcing the "clique".

ALL types of fish should be recognized, but only certain types/lines/strains/whatever should be deemed acceptable to show. IMO the ACA should Recognize, accept, educate, and tolerate.

It's the last 4 words of the previous sentence that keep me away.

 

[Aquamojo]

I don't know if I posted this before...but no where in the ACA's by-laws, web site, or any other official publication....does it even MENTION hybrids. At this point in time the club has NO policy...like or dislike. All things considered it's no different than this gathering of folks here at MFK. Some like hybrids....some don't. The only place that hybrids are even mentioned is in the trading post...as in no hybrids.

I can think of two major clubs and shows, both sanctioned by the ACA...both having a Flowerhorn class in the show. Midwest Cichlid ASSN and North Jersey Club (huge club).

The difficulty is in the execution. How would you judge a Flowerhorn division in a show? Right now cichlids are judged against the standard for the species...much like the AKC for dogs. For the same reason it would be difficult to judge a mutt cichlid under the same guidelines.

How does a club that itself doesn't know much about the details of creating FH educate the masses. The club DOES educate folks on all things cichlid. And it does attempt to address issues regarding hybrid fish. Adding a section on to the forum? Maybe...but does that educate? There's not even an official organization for FH that does that. On a sidenot, in the latest Buntbarsche (officil ACA publication) Ad Konigs has an article called "Are Hybrid Cichlids Natural". Freaking excellent article by a cichlid legend. That's education...and not a rant. Details on their place in nature.

What does "accept" mean? In the show (see previous concern)? What else is there. Not everyone here will agree that they are OK. Would you leave here?

Look....folks who have known me for years know that I have had a pretty firm stance on Flowerhorns for MANY years. I've since put on my big boy pants and realized that I had to open my mind to the topic at hand. Myself and the club are working hard to try and sort this whole thing out. You would be surprised (shocked probably) at how many folks (and in particular, who) have a similar mindset. I would hope that the folks that have had a negative view of the club could be as open minded. At the end of the day we ALL do it for the love of the hobby.