Geophagus sp. Xbreeding
- Thread starter Mrlalomoua
- Start date
glenbo;4300745; said:
Fight the power champ.
glenbo;4299537; said:
glenbo;4300521; said:
Might have to conform and pick up a map.
Where do I begin.
1. You insisted that "True Geophagus species are from the Amazonian River Basins, and rivers attached". This is absolutely false. The founding species of the surinamensoids was described in 1791 by Bloch as Sparus surinamensis, which was later moved to the genus Geophagus. This species is found in Suriname. A closely related species from Guyana, which was thought to be a regional variant of G. surinamensis, was later described as a separate species, G. brachybranchus (Kullander and Nijssen, 1989). There are other surinamensoid species that do not have an Amazonian distribution. Examples are available upon request.
Just to refresh your memory, the Amazon river starts in Peru and goes through Brazil. One can also say that it goes through Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Not Suriname or Guyana.
I think I don't have to explain to you that the other two main groups of species in the genus Geophagus (for now) - the G. steindachneri complex and G. brasiliensis complex - are not just in the Amazons. Some are even found outside of the Amazon Basin.
2. You cited an article from a breeder in Taiwan. He did not say in the article that he had repeated or witnessed the cross himself, nor did he presented any proof. The earlier article he cited was without a reference.
He could very well be right. In that case I stand corrected.
But by the same token, how is the account from the founder of ACA less credible (who said he had seen proof) than an article from a breeder, whose financial interests depend on not letting people know the real breeding method?
This breeder does not present any more evidence than Guy Jordan. If one believes one of these two, he/she is obligated to believe both. Simple logic. If you expect other people to believe an article you cite, you have to believe, as "proof", similar articles that other people cite, especially from credible sources.
One more note - you have not proven anything about the blood parrots. You are not the first to cite that article, and I'm sure you won't be the last.
3. You mentioned that you have had years of experience and tried many times to breed SAs and CAs together without any success. I'm curious - in all of these 15 years, how many of the CA hybrids that people have made were you able to make? This is what we usually refer to as a "positive control". It's done to make sure the system functions properly before interpreting negative results.
4. Most wild festae in the hobby are imported from Ecuador, yet you refuse to acknowledge that they are South American. Don't take it the hard way, but you don't get to define what "South American" means, even when it goes against your argument.
5. "Amazonian" is not the same as South American. The Amazon Basin is big, but it's not that big.
6. Oh the constantly moving goal posts. First is "SA can't breed with CA at all". Then it's "CA can't breed with an Amazonian or African cichlid". Then it's "ca x sa hybrid or a Heros x another Genera hybrid" doesn't exist. Then you ask for proof of "Festae breeding with any Amazonian cichlid". If the goal is to win in the end at whatever cost, what's the point of having an argument?
1. You insisted that "True Geophagus species are from the Amazonian River Basins, and rivers attached". This is absolutely false. The founding species of the surinamensoids was described in 1791 by Bloch as Sparus surinamensis, which was later moved to the genus Geophagus. This species is found in Suriname. A closely related species from Guyana, which was thought to be a regional variant of G. surinamensis, was later described as a separate species, G. brachybranchus (Kullander and Nijssen, 1989). There are other surinamensoid species that do not have an Amazonian distribution. Examples are available upon request.
Just to refresh your memory, the Amazon river starts in Peru and goes through Brazil. One can also say that it goes through Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador.
Not Suriname or Guyana.
I think I don't have to explain to you that the other two main groups of species in the genus Geophagus (for now) - the G. steindachneri complex and G. brasiliensis complex - are not just in the Amazons. Some are even found outside of the Amazon Basin.
2. You cited an article from a breeder in Taiwan. He did not say in the article that he had repeated or witnessed the cross himself, nor did he presented any proof. The earlier article he cited was without a reference.
He could very well be right. In that case I stand corrected.
But by the same token, how is the account from the founder of ACA less credible (who said he had seen proof) than an article from a breeder, whose financial interests depend on not letting people know the real breeding method?
This breeder does not present any more evidence than Guy Jordan. If one believes one of these two, he/she is obligated to believe both. Simple logic. If you expect other people to believe an article you cite, you have to believe, as "proof", similar articles that other people cite, especially from credible sources.
One more note - you have not proven anything about the blood parrots. You are not the first to cite that article, and I'm sure you won't be the last.
3. You mentioned that you have had years of experience and tried many times to breed SAs and CAs together without any success. I'm curious - in all of these 15 years, how many of the CA hybrids that people have made were you able to make? This is what we usually refer to as a "positive control". It's done to make sure the system functions properly before interpreting negative results.
4. Most wild festae in the hobby are imported from Ecuador, yet you refuse to acknowledge that they are South American. Don't take it the hard way, but you don't get to define what "South American" means, even when it goes against your argument.
5. "Amazonian" is not the same as South American. The Amazon Basin is big, but it's not that big.
6. Oh the constantly moving goal posts. First is "SA can't breed with CA at all". Then it's "CA can't breed with an Amazonian or African cichlid". Then it's "ca x sa hybrid or a Heros x another Genera hybrid" doesn't exist. Then you ask for proof of "Festae breeding with any Amazonian cichlid". If the goal is to win in the end at whatever cost, what's the point of having an argument?
peathenster;4301813; said:
Thanks peathenster, you said everything I wanted to, was too frustrated by the comments to get it out!
Ray
I feel like I'm jumping on the anti-glenbo bandwagon, but the guy really has a wealth of misinformation...
No Geophagus species outside of "Amazonia", eh?
What about the Central American Geo, Geophagus Crassilabris? It is found in Panama, which is quite far removed from the Amazon and not even part of South America.
No Geophagus species outside of "Amazonia", eh?
What about the Central American Geo, Geophagus Crassilabris? It is found in Panama, which is quite far removed from the Amazon and not even part of South America.
Keep in mind he did say "True Geophagus", which removes both the 'G'. brasiliensis (Pearl Eartheater) and 'G'. crassilabrus (Red-Hump Eartheater) complex.
Peathenster has pretty much covered it.
Peathenster has pretty much covered it.
I think a lot of people classify Festae to CA cichlids because there more closely related to the CA cichlids than other SA cichlids.
FishFreak95;4302954; said:
That's correct - festae is closely related to the herichthyines (things like Tomocichla, Caquetaia, Herotilapia, Thorichthys, Theraps, Vieja, and Paratheraps), more so than they are to Astatheros. But I'm not sure if phylogeny is the basis for CA/SA classification....
