japes;4295966; said:
They have the aesthetic characteristics that many aquarists seem to like.
Man has been creating fancy fish to suit his aesthetic desires since like 200 ad.
Matt
Geophagus sp. Xbreeding
- Thread starter Mrlalomoua
- Start date
They have the aesthetic characteristics that many aquarists seem to like.
Man has been creating fancy fish to suit his aesthetic desires since like 200 ad.
Matt
FishFreak95;4295415; said:
I could answer that, but I would surely get banned from this website and turn this thread into something very nasty, so I shall refrain.
dogofwar;4296147; said:
That's interesting and I forgot about the other "Geophagus"
It appears that "Geophagus" in fact include three genera (Lopez-Fernandez et al., 2005):
1. The "surinamensis type" such as altifrons, abalios, dicrozoster, surinamensis etc.
2. The "brasiliensis complex", which are more closely related to rams and perhaps some pikes.
3. The "steindachneri complex", which are more closely related to Gymnogeophagus.
I was thinking 1 only...no experience with 2 or 3.
I thought i saw some where on here, maybe an old vender or something, but it was a geophagus hybrid, it was only altifron and some other type of geo. Mind you this was a while back. I like flowerhorns and stuff like that, but i wouldn't want hybrid geos, i love the color in geos, plus ID would be so much harder.
FishFreak95;4295415; said:
How about we wait for all species to be properly labeled/described by science before we smack 'ma nature' in the face with a new one, "labeled" or not... That seems more fun, I'll do that.
From edition 16 of the American Cichlids Association's Buntbarche Bulletin:
this interesting bit."
- ACA Founder Guy Jordan
"I've seen many examples of
Cichlasomas cross breeding within the genus,
but was rather startled to hear of a cross between a regular "convict" and a G.
brasiliensis! I've seen the photographic proof, too, the pair with eggs and with fry.
The same people announced a successful cross between a "convict" and a C.
friedrichsthali. My reaction to this was, "Where in the world did they get that
species?" I've wanted that one for years! Thanks to Jim Malcolm for sending me
but was rather startled to hear of a cross between a regular "convict" and a G.
brasiliensis! I've seen the photographic proof, too, the pair with eggs and with fry.
The same people announced a successful cross between a "convict" and a C.
friedrichsthali. My reaction to this was, "Where in the world did they get that
species?" I've wanted that one for years! Thanks to Jim Malcolm for sending me
this interesting bit."
- ACA Founder Guy Jordan
glenbo;4299537; said:
...so should we have labeled and described every plant on the planet before we created the different varieties of apples, oranges and other fruits that fill our supermarkets? How about roses?
Matt
Matt
JK47;4297335; said:How about we wait for all species to be properly labeled/described by science before we smack 'ma nature' in the face with a new one, "labeled" or not... That seems more fun, I'll do that.
dogofwar;4299646; said:
For many people, there is a large differance in crossing nonintelligent species (plants, livebearers) and those with high levels of intelligence (cichlids, humans). Perhaps a doublestandard, but it's there none the less.
Why are you classifying live-bearers as unintelligent? They may not be that smart for a fish but they had enough brain power to recognize me as there feeder when I kept them. I wouls classify them as low intelligence. and I wouldn't put a cichlid in the same category as a human but they are very intelligent as a fish. As far as fish go there is no difference between hybridizing cichlids or live-bearers IMO.darth pike;4299669; said:
