Cichlid Line Bred vs. Hybrid

[Aquamojo]

Hybrids are a cross between two species of fish. Line breeding is not hybridization. One discussion has nothing to do with the other.

That all depends. If the end result is man manipulating a particular characteristic (color. shape, whatever) then it's a matter of intent and not necessarily process. The end result is something "unique".

 

[badisbadis101]

In addition, line breeding can lead to accidental hybridization. If you want to add a certain feature to your line of fish, and you find one that has it, it may be a different geographic variant, potentially even a different species. Especially when we are constantly reclassifying fish, especially cichlids. One day, 2 fish may be subspecies, and a week later they could be completely different species. Is it hybridization then?

 

[Aquamojo]

In addition, line breeding can lead to accidental hybridization. If you want to add a certain feature to your line of fish, and you find one that has it, it may be a different geographic variant, potentially even a different species. Especially when we are constantly reclassifying fish, especially cichlids. One day, 2 fish may be subspecies, and a week later they could be completely different species. Is it hybridization then?

Yes. Consider Convicts. A year ago we only had A. nigrofasciatum...now they're Amatilania nigrofasciatum, coatepeque, kanna & siquia. Cross any of the convict looking fish and you have a hybrid today...but not a year ago. It's a mess.

 

[cchhcc]

Hybrids are a cross between two species of fish. Line breeding is not hybridization. One discussion has nothing to do with the other. I'm against Flowerhorns and Blood Parrots. I think they're abominations (and fugly). This is just my opinion.

Inbreeding occurs in nature. This is fact. To what degree varies from species to species and environment to environment. Inbreeding should not be the only argument against line breeding. The features which are trying to be maintained or replicated should be the question. For me it depends on if breeders are line breeding to maintain something superficial like color (Red Oscars, Tiger Oscars) or breeding for physical abnormalities. When people are born with hump backs and crab hands we see this as undesirable and don't go out of our way to duplicate it. Unfortunately with animals something "unusual" may be seen as positive. People see fish as ornamental more often than not, "uniqueness" is a major selling point.

Great post!

 

[dogofwar]

"For me it depends on if breeders are line breeding to maintain something superficial like color (Red Oscars, Tiger Oscars) or breeding for physical abnormalities. When people are born with hump backs and crab hands we see this as undesirable and don't go out of our way to duplicate it."

Color in cichlids is more than superficial. Even subtle changes in color can make a fish dramatically more or less successful in the wild.

That said, hybrids and line bred fish are developed for the express purpose of being different than wild fish. Look at goldfish: wild-type ones go 12/$1 (50 cents each if you pick , while the crazy shaped ones go for hundreds. It's all aesthetics...

 

[David R]

It really depends on what you are trying to achieve with the line breeding. If you're picking out an odd colour morph and line breeding to increase that, as with the different colour varieties of oscar, which are still all A. ocellatus but bear little or no resemblance to the wild strain, then what you are doing is nearly on par with creating hybrids. The only difference is that genetically/theoretically you still have the same species.

If you're line-breeding simply to get the best/biggest fish, ie raising a batch of fry to adults and picking the best coloured and larges pair to breed, then it is definately a good thing and should be encouraged.

 

[jwarriner]

Color in cichlids is more than superficial. Even subtle changes in color can make a fish dramatically more or less successful in the wild.

It goes without saying that I don't think any captive bred cichlids should be released back into the wild. Unless you're stocking a lake for sport fishing, which I don't know much about.

When I say "superficial" I mean it's not causing the fish any physical discomfort to be a different color, whereas if it was bred because it had a malformed body this could have repercussions. I'm not sure how I feel about "albino" fish. I had an "albino" Tiger Oscar and I'm pretty sure he couldn't see as well as my Red-O.

For sure color would matter in the wild though, all one needs to do is put something orange or red in front of my tank to see that these colors mean something significant to my Oscar whereas blue or green goes totally unnoticed.

 

[cchhcc]

If you're line-breeding simply to get the best/biggest fish, ie raising a batch of fry to adults and picking the best coloured and larges pair to breed, then it is definately a good thing and should be encouraged.

Why?

Who determines what traits are preferrable? Are you assuming a bigger fish is a better fish?

 

[Spaz]

Eye of the beholder. That fish in your avatar isn't winning any beauty contests.

Very true.

 

[Aphilophus]

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

sauger are not a hybrid but a sepperate species who do hybridize with walleye this is called a saugeye, as fare as i can tell tiger muskies are a sterile hybrid thats man made to enhance sport fishing similer to a splake a man made hybrid between a lake trout and a brooky