StefanW;3527581; said:I would prefer to define it like David does!
This is not something that I have invented, or 'my' definition , it is the correct use of the term as defined by universal consensus of biologists in all fields.
When you think about it, every ray ever born , wild or captive bred, to any unrelated parents ( F0) , is by definition F1, so according to logic of any other than the accepted definition, if any 2 F1 rays breed together , even if unrelated, you now get F2 by the other definition, same for any 2 unrelated F2 rays would by that definition produce F3, and that just doesn't make any sense and so that definition fails.

Out of popcorn + name calling = DONE 