With the exception of trimacs, I also agree that the "passed off as pure" risk is minimal with flowerhorns.
It's certainly much, much lower risk than say the risk of mis-labeled or incorrectly labeled "pure" peacocks or lots of other "pure" cichlids.
Flowerhorns and other "intentional" hybrids (OB peacocks, Firefish, parrots, etc.) were developed - on purpose - to look different than "pure" species.
Unfortunately, in "traditional" cichlid circles, the most common reaction to "hybrid" discussions is to either parrot half-truths and myths or completely turn off for fear of confrontation / drama.
The other reaction is to use hair-splitting definitions to justify how ornamental cichlids like line bred peacocks, EBJD, fancy discus and angels, "triple red" apistos, etc. are a COMPLETELY different situation than flowerhorns. Because, of course, cross
I've come 180 degrees on the issue as a result of spending time with those who are into flowerhorns and rationally examining - and busting - the myths surrounding them.
The bottom line is that there are both responsible and irresponsible, ethical and unethical people who keep, breed, and sell both wild-type and hybrid cichlids. And a lot of good people who keep both. Some in traditional cichlids circles are "in the closet" with regard to them. Others have emerged.
Cichlidiots of all stripes have a lot more in common than different. Sadly, some just want to focus on differences.
The more people ask, "Why divide us?"...the better!
Matt
TheFishGuy;3151289; said:
I'll be honest, I'm a little bumbed that the discussion was ju8st thrown off the table.
The problem I see with hybrids is the fry getting into mainstream as pure. Weather they get there on purpose or by someones ignorance really doesn't matter. As for flowerhorns, there's really no mistaking a FH for something else... That's why I thought it was a great idea...
