They do look more wild. I like it. Look very durable lol
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Sent from my iPhone using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Feral jaguars
- Thread starter HerCrenVie
- Start date
No offence, but you don't know what you're talking about. I will not dispute the fact that there will always be the POSSIBILITY that these are not pure managuensis since their origin is unknown, but to say they have motaguensis or dovii in them just shows your lack of knowledge on parachromis morphology since there are pictures of jagxdovii and jagxmota here on mfk and on the web and they look distinctly different from these feral jags.
I've bred jag x dovii hybrids in the past and got fry with various traits (check my previous threads). After looking at your pics again I'm fairly certain that there is dovii in the mix. The pattern in the body is a dead give away. For you to suggest that i dont know what im talking based on my previous statement alone is quite ignorant, no offense. If it pleases you to call your fish P. managuense be my guest, just don't try selling their fry as such.
You might want to consider the fact that your fish ARE from a feral population in a region known for mass producing hybrid cichlids before you take offense at my suggesting that they are hybrids. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that the hybridization didn't occur several generations ago? Of course you can't. Do they look like jags? No, they don't. Am I wasting my time right now, undoubtedly. Enjoy your fish, they look quite nice whatever they are.
Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
You might want to consider the fact that your fish ARE from a feral population in a region known for mass producing hybrid cichlids before you take offense at my suggesting that they are hybrids. Can you say without a shadow of a doubt that the hybridization didn't occur several generations ago? Of course you can't. Do they look like jags? No, they don't. Am I wasting my time right now, undoubtedly. Enjoy your fish, they look quite nice whatever they are.
Sent from my iPad using MonsterAquariaNetwork app
Plenty of other very experienced keepers have posted in this thread and not one of them said they "don't look like jags". So why is that?
I myself thought along the same lines as flowerpower that they might be hybrids, but I held my tongue because I thought you might have an over emotional response based on some of your other previous responses in other threads. Apparently I was correct as the first thing you did was attack flowerpowers knowledge. By the way following an attack with the statement no offence makes it no less an attack. It's comparable to saying someone "no offence, but your a moron" and just to be clear I'm not calling you or anyone a moron just giving an example of what I mean when I say it doesn't make an insult any less insulting. I also find it weird that you admit in this thread to not having much experience with Jag's but jumped on someone as though you knew all the in's and outs of Jags.
As for your statement about their being pics of Jag/Mota and Jag/Dovii that is the only thing that is correct in your statement. Realize that it one of the most rudimentary understandings in genetics that no outcome is assured. Meaning even dominant traits won't always show in offspring so generalizations about what a hybrid between 2 fish will definitely look like is flawed. I might also point out that those pics of those hybrids are few and far between so it's even impossible to say what a cross between those 2 Parachromis will look like more times than not. If these hybrids where produced on a regular and a base appearance established as the norm than your statement would some have credence, but that is not the case. I've personally witnessed a definitive Jag/Mota hybrid that a fellow member had produced themselves and the result was a fish that did not resemble the internet picture representations of that hybrid cross. It's just the way of genetics especially when speaking of hybrids that no one has made public knowledge their attempt at a genetic mapping of traits, such as in this case.
I'd also like to point out that you have made a repeated statement that anything unnatural is ugly. Do you not realize that even a best case scenario being that the fish in question are pure "feral" Jag's they would still be unnatural. A fish reintroduced by man to a new ecosystem is unnatural and the resultant adaptations can be classified as such as well. Making your previous statements about your feelings regarding things unnatural hypocritical.
I want to end by saying in my opinion those Jags are gorgeous and I wish you the best of luck with them. I just suggest that you try to be more open in the future to opinions that may not agree with our own. Even the best of us, experts and novice alike are capable of errors. The best way to grow is to listen and consider all things, we all could stand to learn something new.
I cannot agree with your analogy there. I said "no offence, but you don't know what you're talking about" and you likened it to "no offence, but you're a moron" - how are those two statements anything like each other? Saying a person doesn't know what he's talking about simply means saying he is wrong. Calling a person a moron is a personal attack. And you lump the two together?
Also, yes, I am not a fan of hybrids. But again your statement about feral fish also being "unnatural" again holds no water (excuse the pun). A feral fish population may adapt to a foreign water system, but it would take tens, if not hundreds of years or longer. Are you telling me this pair of feral jags have somehow adapted to local waterways despite most likely only being a couple of generations down from the captive fish that were originally introduced into the canal? Jaguar cichlids and other central american cichlids haven't been in the Singapore ornamental fish hobby for that long, and there is almost no demand for them (check out arofanatics.com and the Singapore marketplace here on MFK for any evidence you may seek), so they are kept by very few people and they are likely to have only recently been put into the canal. I find amusing, your comparison of hybrids with feral fish that you assume have adapted to a new ecosystem that they have not been in for long.
By all means then since my comparison is so off base(which by the way the definition of a comparison by Merriam Webster:an examination of two or more items to establish similarities and dissimilarities.). Please tell me how? Both are statements that make point of saying that an individual lacks knowledge that would be a similarity. You said they don't know what they're talking about see know(pertaining to knowledge) and you saying they lack as evidence by what they're saying. In both instance your belittling the persons knowledge, so what pray tell is the difference? Since they're both conveying a lack of knowledge(there's that similarity again) how is the comparison wrong?
I find your reading comprehension amusing. Now if you find that insulting by the implication of being condescending you should be able to associate that with your own statements. Because obviously I'm not insulting you right as I'm just mentioning how I believe your reading comprehension is wrong like you did to flowerpower. By the way I stated being introduced to a new eco system was unnatural and therefore makes your other statements hypocritical. I only mentioned the adaptations because because you mentioned how they have an elongate head and unique pattern and eluded to it being due to them being feral. Essentially I tried to lend credence to your statement, foolish I suppose on my part trying to give you any credit for your thought process. By the way again my statement fits into a comparison regardless. Hybrids are unnatural due to the manipulation of their breeding partners by man correct? So if a man introduces a animal to an environment it would not otherwise ever inhabit isn't that unnatural? Doesn't that again fit the definition of a comparison. Both instances involve man's manipulation hence making it unnatural by your own definition of unnatural.
The act of introducing an alien species into an ecosystem is indeed unnatural. We were, however, talking about hybrids being unnatural, and you said feral fish were equally unnatural. How can you say that just because an alien species is introduced into a non-native habitat, the animal itself becomes "unnatural"? How can you equate the artificial production of hybrid fish to that? Hybridising fish creates "unnatural" fish as a product. And you say a fish from an invasive alien population is itself "unnatural" because it is not naturally occurring? Does being part of an invasive population physically and tangibly alter a fish's physical state and make it "unnatural"?
In short, to your mind, just because an act is unnatural, the physical product of said act is considered equally unnatural?
