and you dont think fish hybridnize in the wild? northern pike and muskie breed in the wild and create tiger muskie. walleye and perch breed and make saugers. im sure there are alot more that do the same. i seen a video of a northern and muskie breediing in a small lake. so you dont think cichlids do the same in the wild? they may not but sure seem like they would
Cichlid Line Bred vs. Hybrid
- Thread starter Aquamojo
- Start date
nc_nutcase;2427729; said:Mojo... if you honestly feel EBJD are hybrids then why did you list them as an example of a line bred fish???? Based on the fact they are a contoverial strain is enough to remove them from the line bred example list... which was what I suggested that got this whole thing started
Just giving the benefit of the doubt. Back on topic...
I honestly believe most line bred fish arent pure species. Take discus for example. They have been line bred for a long time to achieve the colors they exhibit today. All the fish that were bred to create these various color varieties were all discus. However, what is a discus? Right now, we dont even know how many species there are of them, let alone how to tell them apart. Is there only one species of discus? Most likely not. Now, think about the classifications when discus were first being bred. Could they tell what species they were, when we cannot even tell today? I beleive that most line bred fish in the hobby today are that way. Angelfish(Altum, Scalare, Peruvian Altum, etc), Guppies(Guppies and endlers), Swordtails and Platies (Likely hybrids of Swordtails, platies, and possibly other livebearers), Midas/RDs(Self explanatory), Assorted Africans(Who knows what), EBJDs(Not for sure, but who knows), anyways, i think you get the point. In addition, as subspecies become species, fish that at one point would not be hybrids should technically be. What about misidentified fish? In addition, species were once considered to be a group of animals that could interbreed and produce fertile offspring. What is to say that the fish bred to produce so called hybrids arent the same species, if they infact can produce fertile offspring?
So, i think we should face the reality that line bred and hybrid fish are unnatural, and that the only significant difference between them is that most so called "hybrids" were intentially, or at least knowingly, hybridized, whilst line bred fish were at least intended to be the same species.
The question still exists: Should the ACA support hybrids? I don't know. But i feel that so called hybrids and line bred fish should be treated equally, as they are both not natural. If the ACA decides to only support the showing of fish as they would appear in nature, then both should be removed from contests. If they decide to accept one, they should also accept the other. I beleive that currently, line bred fish are in fact allowed at ACA conventions, so in that case, hybrids should be as well, in my opinion, as they are essentially the same, in that they are both not natural and probably not pure.
So, i think we should face the reality that line bred and hybrid fish are unnatural, and that the only significant difference between them is that most so called "hybrids" were intentially, or at least knowingly, hybridized, whilst line bred fish were at least intended to be the same species.
The question still exists: Should the ACA support hybrids? I don't know. But i feel that so called hybrids and line bred fish should be treated equally, as they are both not natural. If the ACA decides to only support the showing of fish as they would appear in nature, then both should be removed from contests. If they decide to accept one, they should also accept the other. I beleive that currently, line bred fish are in fact allowed at ACA conventions, so in that case, hybrids should be as well, in my opinion, as they are essentially the same, in that they are both not natural and probably not pure.
convict_breeder;2428650; said:
Just to be clear, humans didn't come from apes, we simply share a common ancestor with apes.........millions of years ago. No humans are related to chimpanzees, for instance, other than in the fact that chimps and humans have a several million year old common cousin. The species tree branched from there, and several species later up those already diverged branches saw humans and chimps finally come on the scene.
Regarding hybridization in the wild, certainly it does occur from time to time, but that does not mean a viable species or hybrid is created. In most cases, hybrids don't survive as they lose the competitive advantage that allowed their parent species to survive. Most speciation is the result of taking advantage of specific feeding characteristics and abilities (i.e. the ability to fill a certain feeding niche better than any other already existing species), and hybridization would result in a more generalized feeder that only has a little of "this" species and a little of "that" species. Such hybrids would ultimately be unable to reproduce as they would be outcompeted by their related true species (assuming enough hybrids were produced to form a breeding population in the first place --- the rare wild hybrid here and there just gets absorbed by the existing population or its particular food chain). Of course, some generalized hybrids occur and may be successful, but they are usually the result of human intervention (e.g. the carpintis hybrids in Lago Media Luna which are the result of canals being routed from the lake to farmlands and conected to foreign bodies of water).
However, as we continue to dramatically change the natural world the balance of things changes. For instance, with all the captive bred midas and red devils that escaped fish farms and now inhabit Floridian waters, and in the absence of their "natural" feeding habitat, there may be no catalyst (i.e. specific feeding predisposition and its related competitive advantage) to prevent them from freely hybridizing.
Incidentally, to my buddy MM........ thanks for the props a few pages back!
hybrids have brought alot of new people into the hobby. whether you like or dislike them, they seem to be here to stay. if the ACA decided to exclude hybrids or hybrid keepers, they could miss out on alot of members. maybe not a bad thing, if what you want is to encourage the keeping of pure strains.
I agree, although I'm not sure that the ACA can have as much of an actual impact on conservation with a few "purist" members as it could with more members and a more inclusive attitude...
terminalMTS;2429374; said:
I feel there is a strong overlapping of the two. IF INTENTIONAL....you're taking two specifically chosen fish to produce something different. In "this" line bred example, you want the crisp coloration of one, and the finnage of the other. In "this" hybrid example, you're wanting the crisp coloration of one, and the finnage of the other.....see my point? You can put it any way you like, but either way you're still "creating".
Well it seems that alot of the species we consider line bred were once hybrids years ago that just become a new species too us because we've never seen it. hybridization in the wild
