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

[BigPic]

hybrid (h

br

d) An organism that is the offspring of two parents that differ in one or more inheritable characteristics, especially the offspring of two different varieties of the same species or the offspring of two parents belonging to different species. In agriculture and animal husbandry, hybrids of different varieties and species are bred in order to combine the favorable characteristics of the parents. Hybrids often display hybrid vigor. The mule, which is the offspring of a male donkey and a female horse, is an example of a hybrid. It is strong for its size and has better endurance and a longer useful lifespan than its parents. However, mules are sterile, as are many animals that are hybrids between two species.


The American Heritage® Science Dictionary Copyright © 2005

A definition I came across, unless the "American Heritage Science Dictionary" is not reputable, this definition is a little more simple. Again, this is only one dictionary's definition, so, take it for what it's worth Thanks to Ewok - this one has made me think

 

[ewok]

A definition I came across, unless the "American Heritage Science Dictionary" is not reputable, this definition is a little more simple. Again, this is only one dictionary's definition, so, take it for what it's worth Thanks to Ewok - this one has made me think

it's my role to ask inquisitive questions that stirs everyone up

but yeah like i said i'm not going to do this experiment or whatever if there is a sense that what i would be doing would constitute hybridization, which i am not supportive of...
i know that ruck fules had this sick F1 gold mota male and i have a very fertile female rtm and i just thought it would be nice to inject some new blood into the hobby... but if i'm gonna be creating frankenfish then well i'd rather not do that.
thanks for everyone's input... this thread can go on forever from the looks of it

 

[fish_n_vw]

Ok my turn *pops another asprin*. I think we are safe to describe the process as "hybreeding" (I am "hybreeding" the red and gold color varients of the mota). But we cannot be justified in calling the out come a hybrid. Now for my reasoning the "hybreeding" of the two color varients has an end result of both of the parents (parachromis motaguensis + parachromis motaguensis = parachromis motaguensis). Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say the breeding took place. The fry are then devided up and taken to the capture locations of the parents and released. Then a scientist pulls one of the fry from each location and describes it. What is his description? I am pretty sure he would call it a parachromis motaguesis with odd coloring for that location. The reason behind this is because its the same fish. The color variation is hobbyist made to help tell and describe the same fish from two diffrent locations. And until a scientist describes it as a seperate speices or sub speices it would not be considerd a hybrid to anyone. A mota is a mota just like a carpentis is a carpentis. The scientific description of the fish would be the same and it would be the correct description of that fish. It is really mind boggeling how this is even an arguable subject. That is not saying that there are not good points that have been made but it all comes down to mota + mota can only = mota.

 

[robmcd]

Ok my turn *pops another asprin*. I think we are safe to describe the process as "hybreeding" (I am "hybreeding" the red and gold color varients of the mota). But we cannot be justified in calling the out come a hybrid. Now for my reasoning the "hybreeding" of the two color varients has an end result of both of the parents (parachromis motaguensis + parachromis motaguensis = parachromis motaguensis). Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say the breeding took place. The fry are then devided up and taken to the capture locations of the parents and released. Then a scientist pulls one of the fry from each location and describes it. What is his description? I am pretty sure he would call it a parachromis motaguesis with odd coloring for that location. The reason behind this is because its the same fish. The color variation is hobbyist made to help tell and describe the same fish from two diffrent locations. And until a scientist describes it as a seperate speices or sub speices it would not be considerd a hybrid to anyone. A mota is a mota just like a carpentis is a carpentis. The scientific description of the fish would be the same and it would be the correct description of that fish. It is really mind boggeling how this is even an arguable subject. That is not saying that there are not good points that have been made but it all comes down to mota + mota can only = mota.

I totally agree..... It took me vicodin though.

 

[dogofwar]

Because "species" is a man-made concept, it is imperfect in describing the range of creatures that populate our world. It is especially imperfect in adequately describing rapidly evolved, highly variable animals like cichlids....

And what is called a "species" is highly variable in its application: classification as a separate "species" vs. a geographic variant of a single species has as much to do with how much work has been done and the attitude of the scientists doing the classification (lumper or splitter) as any characterists of the fish themselves.

If the goal is to maintain "pure" fish (authentic to a particular population), then we need to keep populations of fish pure, same species or not...

Matt

 

[fish_n_vw]

Ok my turn *pops another asprin*. I think we are safe to describe the process as "hybreeding" (I am "hybreeding" the red and gold color varients of the mota). But we cannot be justified in calling the out come a hybrid. Now for my reasoning the "hybreeding" of the two color varients has an end result of both of the parents (parachromis motaguensis + parachromis motaguensis = parachromis motaguensis). Let's look at this from another angle. Let's say the breeding took place. The fry are then devided up and taken to the capture locations of the parents and released. Then a scientist pulls one of the fry from each location and describes it. What is his description? I am pretty sure he would call it a parachromis motaguesis with odd coloring for that location. The reason behind this is because its the same fish. The color variation is hobbyist made to help tell and describe the same fish from two diffrent locations. And until a scientist describes it as a seperate speices or sub speices it would not be considerd a hybrid to anyone. A mota is a mota just like a carpentis is a carpentis. The scientific description of the fish would be the same and it would be the correct description of that fish. It is really mind boggeling how this is even an arguable subject. That is not saying that there are not good points that have been made but it all comes down to mota + mota can only = mota.

BTW this is not IMO or IME. This is MOF (matter of fact) show me the scientist who will argue.

 

[fish_n_vw]

I agree and I am personaly against hybrids of any form. But this is not a hybrid. And I will leave it to you to take on the scientists that describe them.

 

[darth pike]

What astounds me is people what to you a scientific term to describe the fish (species, in this case Parachromis motaguensis) but then balk at the scientific description of a hybrid. If you are using manmade scientific terms to describe the fish, then you need to use all the associated scientific termnology. You don't get to pick and choose which part of the science you use.

That's like saying you don't believe in physics, except for gravity.

 

[fish_n_vw]

What astounds me is people what to you a scientific term to describe the fish (species, in this case Parachromis motaguensis) but then balk at the scientific description of a hybrid. If you are using manmade scientific terms to describe the fish, then you need to use all the associated scientific termnology. You don't get to pick and choose which part of the science you use.

That's like saying you don't believe in physics, except for gravity.

If you are refering to me useing the term hybreeding in my point then I will point out that it was left in quatations because I feel people are useing this term improperly. The quatations are there to show you that other people are wrongly putting that word in that spot. Maybee you missed that. I'm not on this forum to argue or flame but fact is fact and untill a scientific redescription of the speices is made a parachromis motaguensis is a parachromis motaguensis no matter where it was collected.

 

[dogofwar]

"untill a scientific redescription of the speices is made a parachromis motaguensis is a parachromis motaguensis no matter where it was collected."

...does your perspective on this extend to, for example, Aulonocara (peacocks)? Crossing one geopgraphic variant of A. stuartgranti with another A. stuartgranti variant = A. stuartgranti...so go ahead! Right?

Matt