Sorry, what I was trying to say a hump that looks proportionate on 3 inch fish won't look similarly proportionate when it grows up. I added my fish as an example on how body to head proportion changed from old pics.
General perception of flowerhorns and owners
- Thread starter Ruturaj
- Start date
Well yeah a 3in fish will have a much smaller kok then a fully mature one for sure. Yours honestly didn't change much other then a bit more volume to it's body and defining the colors a bit more. My girl when she was roughly 3in she almost had a full marble on her head, sucks I don't have a pic of her at that size to show a before and after.
But yeah I was mainly showing what I thought was appropriate size for a "big kok" on a fish. Seems like everyone has their own definition on what a "big kok" is. Some ppl, like me, think my female, as shown earlier, as having a big kok while some others may think of this here more as a big kok. This here was the father of the female in my other pic but he has what I would call a "ridiculously big kok". His kok was so big it caused him allot of swimming/feeding/self injury problems. Least to say even with that ridiculously big head of his he still wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, can't remember how many times he'd given himself a new scar on his head.
That ^ fish is one that...not so many years ago...would have been culled as an undesirable genetic abnormality. Now it's a fish to pay big bucks for and then brag about it on the internet.
And if you need proof, just look at this video. He doesn't title it "Look at this beautiful fish!" or "Check out my new flowerhorn"...no, instead it's "Look how much money I spent! I must be cool!!!!"
Once humans developed technology that made it possible for pretty much everybody to have a long and relatively healthy life...well, that was the end of human evolution. No more "survival of the fittest" or natural selection; now it seems to be survival of the loudest, or maybe the most insecure...and some of us seem to feel that it isn't sufficient that our own species has advanced to this questionably desirable condition. We apparently have to drag our companion animals down the hole with us as we go.
Dang...I love a good argument before I even have my morning coffee.
Last edited:
Large nuchal humps on a fish are not a genetic abnormality, in fact this trait found in flowerhorn fish is derived from Amphilophus genes.
The fish below is an F1 A. citrinellus, it's parents were collected in Nicaragua, and later bred by Jeff Rapps.
Love it, hate it, whatever, it's a perfectly normal trait of adult male Amphilophus, and for anyone that has not read some of the earlier works on this subject by George Barlow et al see this past discussion from 2012.
www.monsterfishkeepers.com
F1 A. citrinellus
The fish below is an F1 A. citrinellus, it's parents were collected in Nicaragua, and later bred by Jeff Rapps.
Love it, hate it, whatever, it's a perfectly normal trait of adult male Amphilophus, and for anyone that has not read some of the earlier works on this subject by George Barlow et al see this past discussion from 2012.
The Nuchal Hump in Amphilophus
This subject came up recently and while this may be common knowledge to some members I thought that I would share some information from some old research papers that discuss this in fish found within the midas complex. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0016648075901367...
www.monsterfishkeepers.com
F1 A. citrinellus
I get that this trait is normal; that devil pictured above is a pretty extreme example. How many fish will achieve that level of kok in the wild? If a "normal" fish is much smaller, then one like this is, almost by definition, "abnormal". There are 7- and 8-foot tall humans, but they are not considered "normal".
Aside from that, compare that red devil to the flowerhorn in the previous posts. The enormous kok on the devil fades to insignificance by comparison.
As described in other posts here, these fish get to the point of having difficulty in merely performing their daily functions of swimming and feeding. Let's suppose that the genetic potential exists in all of them to produce a kok the size of that monster flowerhorn; and that they all grow one that eventually results in their deaths in nature? If so, and if we are producing these things merely by providing them with an environment that allows them to survive despite their "handicap"...well, how is that different than creating them by manipulating their genetics? We are still, one way or the other, producing a monster that defies nature and would not exist or survive in it.
I see that the devil pictured is an F1 fish; perhaps already selected for an enlarged kok by the breeder? The first step...
Aside from that, compare that red devil to the flowerhorn in the previous posts. The enormous kok on the devil fades to insignificance by comparison.
As described in other posts here, these fish get to the point of having difficulty in merely performing their daily functions of swimming and feeding. Let's suppose that the genetic potential exists in all of them to produce a kok the size of that monster flowerhorn; and that they all grow one that eventually results in their deaths in nature? If so, and if we are producing these things merely by providing them with an environment that allows them to survive despite their "handicap"...well, how is that different than creating them by manipulating their genetics? We are still, one way or the other, producing a monster that defies nature and would not exist or survive in it.
I see that the devil pictured is an F1 fish; perhaps already selected for an enlarged kok by the breeder? The first step...
First off, it's not a devil. lol This is an adult 14" male "devil", A. labiatus. (wild caught)
+
The F1 citrinellus shown above wasn't "chosen" for anything, it was simply a juvie purchased from Rapps (the importer/breeder) and grown out by a member here. Same as any other juvie fish.
If you ventured into the link above regarding nuchal humps, then you would understand that the size of a hump, be it in a male, or female fish, it caused by swings in hormones. Here's another read. Hormonal control of the nuchal hump in the cichlid fish Cichlasoma citrinellum
"
Abstract
A nuchal hump (forehead swelling) develops in both male and female Cichlasoma citrinellum prior to spawning, and subsides shortly after spawning. Hump development is due to edema of the modified nuchal hypodermis. Fat stored in the same tissue does not contribute to prespawning hump development, although it may cause a residual, enduring hump. Plasma water increases slightly in fish with a nuchal swelling, indicating systemic water retention. The prespawning nuchal edema resembles preovulatory sexual skin swelling in monkeys. Nuchal hump development in males is gonad dependent. A hump could be induced with mammalian gonadotropins (HCG or ovine LH) in intact males but not in castrates. However, the steroid hormones testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, 17β-estradiol benzoate, progesterone, hydrocortisone acetate, and aldosterone failed to induce a hump. A decline in the hump comparable to that occurring after spawning was induced by homogenate of C. citrinellum rostral pars distalis (8 r. p. d. per male fish); and a slight effect was obtained with ovine prolactin (2 daily injections of 7.5 μg/g). These results suggest that PRL secretion may inhibit the hump during the parental period."
Certainly genetics is also involved, but this:
You referred to
Magnus_Bane
's fish along these lines, and stated:
The reality is that even in nature, gonadal changes cause upswings in hormones, causing fluid retention in the nuchal hump of fish. Some, more than others, but neither the fish that I showed, or Magnus, would equate to 7 and 8ft humans. In nature, large nuchal humps are common in some cichlid species, especially in older males.
While I would never condone breeding or keeping fish that can't perform simple daily functions, I also understand that the moment that someone forces a group of fish to live together in a glass box, they are essentially playing god, and manipulating genes by forcing those fish to breed under human designed conditions.
+The F1 citrinellus shown above wasn't "chosen" for anything, it was simply a juvie purchased from Rapps (the importer/breeder) and grown out by a member here. Same as any other juvie fish.
If you ventured into the link above regarding nuchal humps, then you would understand that the size of a hump, be it in a male, or female fish, it caused by swings in hormones. Here's another read. Hormonal control of the nuchal hump in the cichlid fish Cichlasoma citrinellum
"
Abstract
A nuchal hump (forehead swelling) develops in both male and female Cichlasoma citrinellum prior to spawning, and subsides shortly after spawning. Hump development is due to edema of the modified nuchal hypodermis. Fat stored in the same tissue does not contribute to prespawning hump development, although it may cause a residual, enduring hump. Plasma water increases slightly in fish with a nuchal swelling, indicating systemic water retention. The prespawning nuchal edema resembles preovulatory sexual skin swelling in monkeys. Nuchal hump development in males is gonad dependent. A hump could be induced with mammalian gonadotropins (HCG or ovine LH) in intact males but not in castrates. However, the steroid hormones testosterone, 11-ketotestosterone, 17β-estradiol benzoate, progesterone, hydrocortisone acetate, and aldosterone failed to induce a hump. A decline in the hump comparable to that occurring after spawning was induced by homogenate of C. citrinellum rostral pars distalis (8 r. p. d. per male fish); and a slight effect was obtained with ovine prolactin (2 daily injections of 7.5 μg/g). These results suggest that PRL secretion may inhibit the hump during the parental period."
Certainly genetics is also involved, but this:
.......... is simply not true.
You referred to
Magnus_Bane
's fish along these lines, and stated: I disagree. That fish would have absolutely no issue performing daily functions, including swimming, or feeding. These fish also aren't living in the wild, they are living in glass boxes, so your comparison of the survival of the fittest in nature, really has no merit. It's not like anyone is planning on introducing Thai Silk's to the wilds of Borneo. And I don't know a single breeder of Amphilophus, that would cull a specimen because it's nuchal hump was too large. Never happen.
The reality is that even in nature, gonadal changes cause upswings in hormones, causing fluid retention in the nuchal hump of fish. Some, more than others, but neither the fish that I showed, or Magnus, would equate to 7 and 8ft humans. In nature, large nuchal humps are common in some cichlid species, especially in older males.
While I would never condone breeding or keeping fish that can't perform simple daily functions, I also understand that the moment that someone forces a group of fish to live together in a glass box, they are essentially playing god, and manipulating genes by forcing those fish to breed under human designed conditions.
I agree; no breeder today would cull a fish like that. That's my whole point. We value these freakish creations for some inexplicable reason.
My statement regarding the difficulty these fish have was based entirely upon the comments of those who have kept them. For example, @Magnus_Band said:
"His kok was so big it caused him allot of swimming/feeding/self injury problems. Least to say even with that ridiculously big head of his he still wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, can't remember how many times he'd given himself a new scar on his head."
I've heard other local guys say similar things. A LFS in town has, or at least had before the virus scare, a flowerhorn that sure can't swim the way it should, and only seems able to eat off the bottom in a vertical position. Does that sound like a fish that would be described as "normal"?
I did read that thread regarding hormones and nuchal humps. I then commented that, to me, there really isn't any difference between creating these things strictly through manipulating genetics versus simply maintaining them under conditions that allow their own biology to run amok without consequences. Large nuchal humps? Sure...but is that fish in Bane's post merely large? In my opinion, it is extreme, beyond the normal range...i.e. not normal or natural. And the initial question in the thread was asking for opinions.
What if a fish in nature developed a kok like Bane's fish? Would it get through a day without problems? Nope...in my opinion...it wouldn't. But would that development happen? I doubt it; if hormonal swings caused the kok to begin to develop to that point...and if it then interfered with daily functions, stress and deconditioning would begin to take hold and hormonal secretion would change, allowing the kok to decrease in size. A self-regulating system to prevent the appearance of clumsy monsters.
Have you ever seen a deer with a monstrously heavy, unbalanced set of antlers? Probably not, because they are exceedingly rare, and tend not to survive, even though the growth occurs as a result of entirely natural processes. Want to see one? You need to go to a deer farm, where such un-naturally inefficient things are valued and nurtured and encouraged.
Don't like the 7-foot people idea? Okay, how about this: there are people in the world today who have not trimmed their finger- and toenails for years or decades, and have grown ridiculous twisted gnarled claws that are measured in feet rather than inches. Natural, you say? Well, yes...after all, our pre-human ancestors didn't get manis and pedis...but if they grew nails like that they wouldn't be able to walk, run, feed themselves or generally function. Of course, they wouldn't die as a result, because their nails would be naturally broken and worn down to usable...i.e. normal...lengths. Today's weirdos can get away with it because of their environment...their un-natural environment...which allows them to obtain food and to avoid becoming something else's food despite their self-induced handicap.
@RD , your interpretation...your opinion...is entirely valid and meaningful...but it isn't the only one. I'm just presenting mine, as requested in the original post. I acknowledge that it's just my opinion ...and worth exactly what you paid for it.
My statement regarding the difficulty these fish have was based entirely upon the comments of those who have kept them. For example, @Magnus_Band said:
"His kok was so big it caused him allot of swimming/feeding/self injury problems. Least to say even with that ridiculously big head of his he still wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, can't remember how many times he'd given himself a new scar on his head."
I've heard other local guys say similar things. A LFS in town has, or at least had before the virus scare, a flowerhorn that sure can't swim the way it should, and only seems able to eat off the bottom in a vertical position. Does that sound like a fish that would be described as "normal"?
I did read that thread regarding hormones and nuchal humps. I then commented that, to me, there really isn't any difference between creating these things strictly through manipulating genetics versus simply maintaining them under conditions that allow their own biology to run amok without consequences. Large nuchal humps? Sure...but is that fish in Bane's post merely large? In my opinion, it is extreme, beyond the normal range...i.e. not normal or natural. And the initial question in the thread was asking for opinions.
What if a fish in nature developed a kok like Bane's fish? Would it get through a day without problems? Nope...in my opinion...it wouldn't. But would that development happen? I doubt it; if hormonal swings caused the kok to begin to develop to that point...and if it then interfered with daily functions, stress and deconditioning would begin to take hold and hormonal secretion would change, allowing the kok to decrease in size. A self-regulating system to prevent the appearance of clumsy monsters.
Have you ever seen a deer with a monstrously heavy, unbalanced set of antlers? Probably not, because they are exceedingly rare, and tend not to survive, even though the growth occurs as a result of entirely natural processes. Want to see one? You need to go to a deer farm, where such un-naturally inefficient things are valued and nurtured and encouraged.
Don't like the 7-foot people idea? Okay, how about this: there are people in the world today who have not trimmed their finger- and toenails for years or decades, and have grown ridiculous twisted gnarled claws that are measured in feet rather than inches. Natural, you say? Well, yes...after all, our pre-human ancestors didn't get manis and pedis...but if they grew nails like that they wouldn't be able to walk, run, feed themselves or generally function. Of course, they wouldn't die as a result, because their nails would be naturally broken and worn down to usable...i.e. normal...lengths. Today's weirdos can get away with it because of their environment...their un-natural environment...which allows them to obtain food and to avoid becoming something else's food despite their self-induced handicap.
@RD , your interpretation...your opinion...is entirely valid and meaningful...but it isn't the only one. I'm just presenting mine, as requested in the original post. I acknowledge that it's just my opinion ...and worth exactly what you paid for it.
LOL, no worries John. I completely understand where you are coming from. I do. But I think that sometimes your viewpoint regarding keeping fish (a window into nature) sways your view on the hobby as a whole. This hobby doesn't have to be the same for everyone. Just because a fish has been genetically manipulated to look different, compared to its wild counterpart, doesn't equate to it being an abomination, or monstrosity.
I have kept several flowerhorn over the years, and while some had large koks, and some not so large, obviously none of them were natural looking "cichlids", but at the same time none of them suffered due to their physical traits. Quite the opposite, they suffered from what laid underneath, which in FH's is generally just overall weak genetics from too many years of inbreeding. A result of choosing beauty, over function, which aligns exactly with what you are saying, just in a different manner. So you see, in that regards we are in 100% agreement, and for this reason I would never keep this type of fish again.
On a side note I think that you would feel better if you got this off your chest & just admitted that you're an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy that has never liked designer animals. Oh right, you did.
I have kept several flowerhorn over the years, and while some had large koks, and some not so large, obviously none of them were natural looking "cichlids", but at the same time none of them suffered due to their physical traits. Quite the opposite, they suffered from what laid underneath, which in FH's is generally just overall weak genetics from too many years of inbreeding. A result of choosing beauty, over function, which aligns exactly with what you are saying, just in a different manner. So you see, in that regards we are in 100% agreement, and for this reason I would never keep this type of fish again.
On a side note I think that you would feel better if you got this off your chest & just admitted that you're an old-fashioned fuddy-duddy that has never liked designer animals. Oh right, you did.
I sure did!
I agree that it's important to remain unbiased when examining things like this, in order to ensure a rational and reasonable conclusion to the decision-making process.
I just don't do it that way.
I agree that it's important to remain unbiased when examining things like this, in order to ensure a rational and reasonable conclusion to the decision-making process.
I just don't do it that way.
For me I think there are already plenty enough naturally beautiful fish to not warrant these hybrids. Lots of inbreeding causes many defects both external and internal, I've never seen a flower live as long as say a Vieja or Ampilophus. I disagree with messing with animals genetics too much (although I own a few gold sevs), I dislike the idea of shaping the fish to your taste instead of appreciating how the fish naturally looks.
Also the marketing for the hybrid market is ridiculous, especially with foods. You see way overpriced foods with crappy ingredients, and they make like 4 varieties that you "need" to buy because one's for the head the other for color or whatever.
Also the marketing for the hybrid market is ridiculous, especially with foods. You see way overpriced foods with crappy ingredients, and they make like 4 varieties that you "need" to buy because one's for the head the other for color or whatever.
