Electric Blue Jack Dempsey hybrid or not?

[Buphy]

Yes, completely acceptable. I agree there are many instances where a fish may look like one thing by not be 100% that. Then argument then should become are these BGJD actually true JD? Or is a JD really a "pure bred" fish? At this point I fully accept that the blue gene could have come from anywhere but unless you start calling BGJD or JD hybrids, the fact remains that an EBJD is not a hybrid.

 

[ShadowP]

Hey!, For all we know it could be the result of a Geneticist Nazzi war criminal who escaped to Argentina at the end of World War II and continues his research there instead of coming to the US with Project Paperclip.
He then teaches his son everything he knows about gene manipulations via splicing
The son then conducts successful experiments and voila! EBJD!!!

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...LHKJ-qyqdfwwH9HtobovNIA&bvm=bv.99804247,d.dmo

Hey! It coulda happened and might explain the secrecy around the friends ID

Sorry... forgot to put on the shades before talking about black ops ... there! That's better.

 

[RD.]

Buphy, for most folks the latter conclusion would be obvious.

The term hybrid would be used from the first hybrid crossing that took place back in the early to mid 80's, so obviously everything downstream of that breeding event would be carrying hybrid genes, which would include ALL BGJD.

Of course that's assuming that such a hybrid event took place all those years ago .....

 

[Buphy]

That I find acceptable.

 

[ShadowP]

We are well aware that EBJD x Wild Type produces 50% EBJD & 50% BGJD.

OMG!!! I BRAINFARTED THAT ONE!!!

EBJD×Wild Type produces 100% BGJD

Kick me to the curb everybody! Please.
I can take it.

It's that damned bus that'll probably run me over when I crawl back out into traffic that's really gonna hurt

 

[cichlidfish]

This strain of fish didn't start off with any type of line breeding project, or years of inbreeding. It started off with two fish of unknown origin breeding in captivity, which resulted in fry that were later referred to as EBJD. By all acounts they were hard to keep and weak from the get go, way back with the very first spawnings. Have you not read the article by Marcelo Casacuberta?


As far as hybrids ........

http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hybrid.htm

Usually within the fish keeping hobby most people relate a hybrid to when two different species are crossed, but with all the changes back and forth in classification of various cichlids over the past 25 yrs, my opinion has always been that it's certainly a good idea to even keep geographical variants seperate when breeding. Unfortunately as Chris just stated this simple concept has been largely ignored within the hobby, as though all races found within an entire area, or large body of water, are all genetically identical. When researchers get around to examining & comparing DNA, this seldom turns out to be the case. The Amphilophus found within the Great Lakes of Nicaragua are a prime example.

Really? So these guys are wrong about the origin:

http://www.cichlidae.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18356


This would be true if r. octoafascia, r. ocotal, and r. gemmata were interbred to make the EBJD. There is still a lot of debate on that subject, whether they are all r. octoafascia or morphs. Either way there isn't any conclusive research that EBJDs are hybrids, so the real truth is neither of us can really say what is true. Common names also make things more confusing.

 

[RD.]

LOL, none of those people were there when these fish were bred, so how in the hell would they know? You might as well ask Jacques Cousteau for his opinion while you are at it.

Go back & reread what I have stated from the beginning of this discussion, and perhaps some of it will sink in.

Such as me saying this from the get go.

Either way there isn't any conclusive research that EBJDs are hybrids, so the real truth is neither of us can really say what is true.

I don't believe that a single person in this discussion has stated that they are hybrids, I certainly haven't.

 

[cichlidfish]

RD. Wrote..."This strain of fish didn't start off with any type of line breeding project, or years of inbreeding. It started off with two fish of unknown origin breeding in captivity, which resulted in fry that were later referred to as EBJD. By all acounts they were hard to keep and weak from the get go, way back with the very first spawnings. Have you not read the article by Marcelo Casacuberta?"

I might add that this is not quite the truth according to what we know of the breeding requirements needed to produce the EBJD. Nothing against you RD. You are accurately referencing the information source.

Mr. Hector Luzardo received his two fish from "a friend" and these two fish produced the first known EBJD...
I have a contention with THIS source information for a very specific reason... not the information itself, but rather what the information is providing without saying openly.

As proven by the EBJD ratio he stated as approximately 25%; what Mr Luzardo was given were a MATED PAIR of two Blue Gene Jack Dempseys, not just two happenstance fish.
We are all aware (I hope) that the results of breeding EBJD to EBJD as being futile, with near 100% unviable spawns, and if viable, near 100% fatalities of the fry within the first few days alone. This "fact" is exceedingly well documented.
We are well aware that EBJD x Wild Type produces 50% EBJD & 50% BGJD.
We are also well aware that BGJD × BGJD produces 25% EBJD, 25% Wild Type and 50% BGJD.
To this day, regardless of the cross which produced the EBJD fry, they are "Weak from the start" as RD well noted.
As Mr Luzardo documented, they are quickly preyed upon by their own siblings.
By all manner of statistics,
when combining their being physically weaker, growing much slower, being MUCH LESS CAMOUFLAGED, predited in the very least by both fish and fowl, to include their own siblings which outnumber them 3 to 1 and quickly outsize them. The strain of these specimens should have easily bred themselves into extinction, but such is not the case.
Agreed... the parents protect them; but not from their own siblings.
In my own observations of my own fry in the latest hatch from 25 July, I have already seen losses near 30% from the larger siblings opportunistically preying on their smaller siblings. They even do this when their bellies are already plump with food. Note... these are all BGJD from EBJD × Wild Type.. NOT BG preying on EB.
Within my current BGJD hatch, the larger fry l×h×w were already 8 times larger than their smallest siblings by the end of the 2nd week, and these smaller fry aren't even the even smaller and weaker EB!
I am of the opinion that there was no mistake made, nor any luck involved, when Mr Luzardo received his BGJD. I believe "his friend" had seen the EBJD specimens and knew Mr Luzardo would "discover" them also.
Why??? Because in the world of Jack Dempseys; from the time they mate, to the time the fry are free swimming - it is usually less than 6 days.
his friend should have also easily noted that something was different about approximately 25% of the young...
Why???
Mr Luzardo stated the explanation perfectly!
The EB fry start off mixed in amongst the normal looking fry. Well and good... hard to differentiate between them, but... and it's a BIG BUT!!!
Within days of the start of the predation by their siblings, the EB fry separate unto themselves!, and when grouped, their color differences can be readily seen.
If I had received such fish, I would be happy to credit my friend who gave them to me (in and of itself, that proves nothing), yet Mr Luzardo's friend remains nameless after all these years.
imho... Mr Luzardo's friend knew exactly what he was doing.

I agree with this, and think its the most accurate explanation. Well said, ShadowP. I don't think I was explaining well.

 

[cichlidfish]

LOL, none of those people were there when these fish were bred, so how in the hell would they know? You might as well ask Jacques Cousteau for his opinion while you are at it.

Go back & reread what I have stated from the beginning of this discussion, and perhaps some of it will sink in.

Such as me saying this from the get go.




I don't believe that a single person in this discussion has stated that they are hybrids, I certainly haven't.

You were the one pushing the hybrid theory and being quite rude about it.

 

[RD.]

A long time ago, back in a land far far and away, the OP asked .........

Is there a scientific paper article or evidence that puts an end to this debate?

The answer to that question remains the same as always, no, there is no definitive scientific proof one way or the other.