rtm mated with gold mota... is that a hybrid?

[ewok]

I have enjoyed this thread more than any other that I have read on here Thanks to all who have given me all of these tidbits to ponder. For the record, I belive that the cross would be a hybrid, just based on my understanding of the terms. Just another example to think about, Tropheus in Tanganyika. Now that they are studying them more, they are splitting them and raising more to species status for some "regional varients", they were ALL at one point considered Tropheus Moorii.

i'm honored that you love this thread i started

even though i had very little in terms of contributions.

but in all seriousness though, you do raise an interesting point about tropheus... if you took tropheus 'ikola' and crossed it with a tropheus 'firecracker red' for example... even though i THINK they are both tropheus moori, the fact is you end up with 'something'... i don't know what that 'something' is and people can call it what they want, but i don't think anyone would really want it from a purist standpoint.

i don't think i really want to create that 'something'... haha...

 

[Vicious_Fish]

I'm love'n this thread.

 

[dogofwar]

Really that's the point: a single "parent" species that finds itself in different habitats (whether they be different watersheds in central america or different parts of Lake Malawi or Tanganyika) can result in a adaptations (specializations) to it... some visible others not.

Think of it this way: if birds are blown by a storm and trapped on three different islands, over time the bird populatopms can adapt (specialize) to each of the islands (or fail to adapt and perish). While each of the bird populations originated from the same species, over time there might be visible and invisible ways that they differ from the "parent" species.

And - based on new opportunities on an island - certain subsets of the birds on that island might further specialize / adapt... to differ (in visible and not visible ways) from the other birds on the islands and the birds on the mainland that originally got blown there in the storm.

Each population I've described is genetically different. Scientists in an initial survey of the area might be tempted to label all of the birds the same species as the one on the mainland (especially if they look the same as that population). And the birds on the islands - if brought back to the mainland and caged with the original population - might mate.

Are the birds on the islands new species? variants of the shore birds? Something else?

What is clear is that they're different...and if the goal is to preserve what makes them different, then they should not be crossed back to the shore population.

On the other hand, if they're popular pets and there is a demand for birds that have some characteristics of the shore birds and some of one of the island populations (e.g. they don't fly), then I don't have a problem with captive breeding them to suit this end. Just label them for what they are...

Sorry to ramble...

Matt

"but in all seriousness though, you do raise an interesting point about tropheus... if you took tropheus 'ikola' and crossed it with a tropheus 'firecracker red' for example... even though i THINK they are both tropheus moori, the fact is you end up with 'something'... i don't know what that 'something' is and people can call it what they want, but i don't think anyone would really want it from a purist standpoint."

 

[BigPic]

i'm honored that you love this thread i started

even though i had very little in terms of contributions.

but in all seriousness though, you do raise an interesting point about tropheus... if you took tropheus 'ikola' and crossed it with a tropheus 'firecracker red' for example... even though i THINK they are both tropheus moori, the fact is you end up with 'something'... i don't know what that 'something' is and people can call it what they want, but i don't think anyone would really want it from a purist standpoint.

i don't think i really want to create that 'something'... haha...

Your contribution was what started a lot of interesting discussion, I don't think people were too offended by any of it (at least I hope not) and I'm sure that it got a lot of people thinking.

This is exactly what I enjoy about these forums

 

[fish_n_vw]

Really that's the point: a single "parent" species that finds itself in different habitats (whether they be different watersheds in central america or different parts of Lake Malawi or Tanganyika) can result in a adaptations (specializations) to it... some visible others not.

Think of it this way: if birds are blown by a storm and trapped on three different islands, over time the bird populatopms can adapt (specialize) to each of the islands (or fail to adapt and perish). While each of the bird populations originated from the same species, over time there might be visible and invisible ways that they differ from the "parent" species.

And - based on new opportunities on an island - certain subsets of the birds on that island might further specialize / adapt... to differ (in visible and not visible ways) from the other birds on the islands and the birds on the mainland that originally got blown there in the storm.

Each population I've described is genetically different. Scientists in an initial survey of the area might be tempted to label all of the birds the same species as the one on the mainland (especially if they look the same as that population). And the birds on the islands - if brought back to the mainland and caged with the original population - might mate.

Are the birds on the islands new species? variants of the shore birds? Something else?

What is clear is that they're different...and if the goal is to preserve what makes them different, then they should not be crossed back to the shore population.

On the other hand, if they're popular pets and there is a demand for birds that have some characteristics of the shore birds and some of one of the island populations (e.g. they don't fly), then I don't have a problem with captive breeding them to suit this end. Just label them for what they are...

Sorry to ramble...

Matt

"but in all seriousness though, you do raise an interesting point about tropheus... if you took tropheus 'ikola' and crossed it with a tropheus 'firecracker red' for example... even though i THINK they are both tropheus moori, the fact is you end up with 'something'... i don't know what that 'something' is and people can call it what they want, but i don't think anyone would really want it from a purist standpoint."

I couldent agree with you more on a point you made in this great "story". You said from a purests point of view. I am talking about a scientific point of view. So here goes as per our current scientific description this would not be a hybrid but givin further adaptation and or describing in the future this may well be considered a hybrid. Sorry. I know I said I was done (and I'm sure some were happy that I was going to shut up) but your post really sent sparks off in my brain and I thank you for the possible and plausible scnario. I am happy to hear that he is not going to breed the two together (from a purest stand point) but would not frown upon it if he did (from a scientific stand point). It is a great topic and I'm happy to have discused it with you and everyone else who contributed. I feel that discusions such as this one are what takes our hobby to the extream lengths that it has since I first got into the hobby.

 

[Toby_H]

Can you please explain "why" you came to this conclusion in addition to sharing the conclusion you came to?
　

So here goes as per our current scientific description this would not be a hybrid but givin further adaptation and or describing in the future this may well be considered a hybrid.

　
The definition of "hybrid" does not suggest two animals must be different species to create a hybrid when crossed. It clearly states races and variants of a species also qualify as a hybrid. It also does not limit “genetic dissimilarity” to these three things.
　
It says "genetic dissimilarity" is what is required. "Genetic dissimilarity" is not dependant on how it is described (what species it is).
　
I can understand that every two individuals are genetically dissimilar to some degree, even if it is exceptionally tiny. So some line must be drawn in the dirt to decide what is "enough" genetic dissimilarity...
　
and since none of us are the guy (or gal) who gets to officially draw that line, there's no need to argue where it is...
　
So are you suggesting that line is when a scientist establishes a difference in "species". If so why would they include distinctions (such as race or variant) in addition to species when making examples of "genetic dissimilarities"?
　
I’m not arguing that you are wrong, I’m only asking you how you came to the conclusion you came to.

 

[fish_n_vw]

The word hybrid as pointed out by you and others has a very vague description. The word once again as pointed out would include all living things as hybrid. So I break it down to sceintific placement. That is what describes every known living thing on the face of the planet. This line that you are talking about I will leave to the pros in this perticular field. And as per the pros THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ANY PARACHROMIS MOTAGUENSIS regardless of the color variant or collection location as per the current description. That is not to say that in the future this will not change. And that line has been drawn by the scientists and they say there is no difference. If they did think there was a difference they would have givin the two variants of the ONE species seperate names. So I use the cassification given to us by the scientists. Let us look at what is not a hybrid. A pureblood is not a hybrid. A pure P. Mota + pure P. Mota = pure P. Mota. AM I WRONG?

 

[dogofwar]

Yes - you could be wrong...

Even scientists recognize that scientific classification hasn't caught up with reality... And that the "type" paradigm of classification is less useful than DNA testing

Scientists, for example, know that the various gymnogeophagus gymnogenys found throughout Uruguay are different and some are different species. They just haven't done the work required to describe them and declare them new species or sub species. Would they consider crossing them a hybrid? I'd bet

I believe the argument you making is semantic and based on a formal description of the rtm as "p. Mota" existing. Is this even the case? Who are the scientists working on the parachromis of Honduras (if anyone). Sven kullander is working in Uruguay and southern brazil, I believe

Matt

 

[thor meeki]

After contemplating the topic a bit I did some google researching.
I am convenced this would be considered, scientifically... a hybrid

Some of the topics google searched were...Charles Darwin,phylogenetic taxonomy,Evolutionary biology, & Phylogenetic tree.
I'm thinking rtm & gm would be described as hypothetical taxonomic units? in relationship to parachromis motaguense.
All were really good reads, especially Charles Darwin's "On the Origin of Species" for me it really brings the op's topic to light.

Great thread btw.

 

[fish_n_vw]

Now in the case of the gymnogeophagus it has as you stated been recognized by science as not having enough work done to classify these fish correctly. This is not the case with the p. mota. As I said it is a possibility that reclasification can take place. In my many years in the hobby I have seen it so many times that it is sometimes difficult to keep up with. But as i have pointed out if the breeding took place and the fry were released what would kullandar or any other scientist working in that region classify the fry if they caught it? As it stands with todays current classification the breeding of the two diffrent variations of the same fish would be considered a purebreed whatever fish that is. Its not up to you or anyone else to say science dident do there job right. I am a firm believer in questioning anything that is not backed by science (and thats not to say that science is flawless). But in a court or to a scientist variations of the same fish are just that a variaty of the one fish.

As far as any confusion as to wether the "rtm" or "gm" have been thourghly classified is concerned i dont know who is working on it if anyone. This disscusion went earlier to the Dovii of two diffrent locations and color variaties. The dovii has been commercially available to the hobby for a long time and has under gone several reclassifications, And through all of the diffrent classifications nobody has given it a diffrent name from one lake to the next. This is because it is a color variation and not a diffrent fish. The P. mota has not been recognized in the hobby as long and not been so readily available. There seemed to be a big growth spurt in the hobby in the last 5 or 6 years and since it is easier to keep fish more people are doing it, And rarer and diffrent variaties are what give one guy a head up on the competition. As far as the mota goes ,and in its current standing, there are two variations of the same fish from two locations. So I think it is safe to say that givin time, Just as the dovii and the carpentis, It will be found that the fish are truely the same fish, With just a color variation and a strech of land between them. And this is only if it has not been done already.

The formal discription of P. mota IS the current description of the P. mota. and that description would include both variaties (to the best of my knowledge). And if it dosent then there is a bit more work to do and im sure that in the future they will indeed be proven as the same fish from two regions.

Something that i think we need to look at is color since that is to the best of all of our knowladge the only diffrence besides colection location. Is it not possible that A gold viriaty in the red viriaties habitat eating the same foods as the red would in time maybee a few generations or maybee right away change its color without the dna of the fish being altered. We know as hobbyists that some foods bring out color that with out those foods there is only a slight sign of the color. So what if? does anyone have a gold viriaty that when the fish is givin color enhancing foods develops some red anywhere. it is possible that with the specific diet the change from gold to red could be jsut one or two generations off. There is also the case of like the pink convict the red or gold gene is in both locations just more dominant in one or the other. This could also be hindered by the foods the fish consume. Is the pink convict a hybrid? No its a purebreed convict that through selective breeding has brought out the pink in the fish.

I am going to mention yet again that I do not support the crossing of the two location specifc fish but would not frown upon it. I personally would probably not purchase it. But if i found one with great coloration or behaviour i dont think i would pass it up. And if a purchase was made i would not say i had a rtm or a gm only p. mota. and ilke i said before this would be the accurate description of this fish. I currently keep 3 rtm but guess what they are also parachromis motaguensis. And that is there acurately described name.

I think the flaw in this is definatly in the words "red tiger mota" and "gold mota" and because of these hobby made names there is confusion.