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

[GMFISHNUT]

Hybrid - (genetics) an organism that is the offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock; especially offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties or breeds or species.

They're genetically dissimilar varieties, seems to fit the bill of hybrid to me.

 

[Jason_S]

here's where I think so many people are having problems:

1. P. mota 'red tiger' + P. mota 'gold' = P. mota

2. P. mota 'red tiger' + P. mota 'gold' = hybrid

So many people have believed for so long that, by definition, the above 2 statements cannot both be true. I thought and believed the same thing up until this month. The above 2 statements CAN and ARE, by definition, both true.

In the recent posts it was shown that this is an undiscribed fish. So who in the first place put the name p. Mota to that fish. Is it arguably not p. Mota is a better question. If the research has not been done then nobody within this discussion has the degree to lable it as such.

It doesn't even really matter if RTM is currently undescribed, because I think one thing we can ALL agree on is that it is definitely NOT identical to P. motaguense 'gold'. Best case scenario, it remains P. mota 'red tiger'...aka a separate race/variant/etc of P. mota that is still different enough from P. mota 'gold' to have it's own distinction. So whether it remains a different race of the same species, or it becomes a new species...either way fry of the 2, by definition, would be hybrids.

The difference would be inter-species hybrid or intra-species hybrid.

I don't think I've seen one reply to this thread that has stated that P. mota 'red tiger' + P. mota 'gold' would not equal P. mota. The resultant fry would still be P. mota...but they would be P. mota 'red tiger x gold'. Hence they would be an intra-species hybrid.

No, that does not mean that every living organism on earth is a hybrid, otherwise this wouldn't even be a discussion. Are all humans intra-species hybrids? No, not all but I'd be willing to say most are.

 

[fish_n_vw]

Ok but by definition all it takes to be a hybrid is to be concieved by two genetically different parents and no two thing are genetically exactly the same. So once again I will state that the fault is in the word hybrid and can be used to describe all living things. Hence my statement. All I am saying is that the word hybrid can be dug into so deep and used in either way to support or go against this discusion. So if you want to draw a line and say that because they are genetically different then you support the idea that all things are hybrids. If that is not the line that is to be drawn then we should use the current classification of the speices, subspeices or scientificly described race. Wich as has been covered there is none. So are we going in circles here or what.

 

[Toby_H]

We are going in circles and quite unnecessarily…
　

Ok but by definition all it takes to be a hybrid is to be concieved by two genetically different parents and no two thing are genetically exactly the same.

　
That is a bit of an exaggeration. While the definition of hybrid does clearly state "genetic dissimilar" parents is what is necessary for offspring to be considered a hybrid, it also clarifies by example what is meant by “genetically dissimilar” (difference species, different race or different variant).
　

So once again I will state that the fault is in the word hybrid and can be used to describe all living things.

　
It is completely true that no two living things are genetically identical. But in the definition of hybrid what is meant by “genetically dissimilar” is described. It requires ignoring this portion of the definition to make the claim “every two parents are genetically dissimilar”.
　
So the definition as listed is not faulty, but I agree it quickly becomes faulty when we ignore the second half.
　

So if you want to draw a line and say that because they are genetically different then you support the idea that all things are hybrids.

　
There is no need for any of us to draw the line between “genetically dissimilar” or ‘genetically similar’. Right there in the definition they did that for us.
　

If that is not the line that is to be drawn then we should use the current classification of the speices, subspeices or scientificly described race.

　
This is saying that ’we’ do not have the right to draw the line, and you are ignoring the line the definition offers… so you now assume the right to draw the line…
　
　
I think acknowledging the difference between inter-species hybridization and intra-species hybridization is very valid here…
　
I think referring to a TRM x GM specimen as a “RTM x GM cross" is wise… yet referring to it as an “aquarium strain P Mota” is very fair…
　
I think keeping pure strains of RTM & pure strains of GM is a good idea…

 

[fish_n_vw]

I personaly could see it described as an aquarium strain and would not argue that point. The point I do argue is that I am 110% against hybreeding and am not so sure this can be classified as such. And would have no problem purchasing a purebreed rtmxgold mota. Pure blood is what makes something not a hybrid. Whatever just like I said man circles. I'm not ignoring anything in the defininition. I'm pointing out how vague it is. You can't possibly be justified in breeding two of the same speices of fish and call it a hybrid. I have called and talked to a few very trusted friends on this matter both who are very strongly against hybrids and both who have been in this hobby for longer then I have been alive. Both are so into the hobby they both own there own specialty fish shops and both say this is not a hybrid. So not to knock any of you but I will stick to the guys advice that have been giving me advice since I was 12. You make a great argument but your argument is based off of a broken and vague word and that is were your argument holds ground. Kind of unsturdy ground to build on, but you all did it and its convincing. So this is how it is, no hard feelings but I'm not convinced.

 

[Toby_H]

Absolutely no hard feelings
　
It’s a friendly debate of logic…
　
And I can and do completely agree, that based on how the term “hybrid” is used (or misused?) in our hobby, these would not be considered hybrids by the typical hobbyist. Which is why I believe that your friends, as well as Ken Davis (FishFarm) who posted here previously, suggested this would not be a hybrid.
　
But for those of us who like to be technical about things, I still feel it would technically, or scientifically, be classified as a hybrid… even if it would not per hobby standards…
　
Since there is no BOD or commissioning group for the hobby at large, we don’t get to regulate our own standard terms, although we do as a group of hobbyists sometimes twist things for our own use. I see nothing wrong with doing so, with the exception of varying from the text book usage without writing our own textbook allows for multiple variations.
　
The usage of the filial system to label generations from the wild is an example of that… can we debate it next :-D
　
…again, all in fun with a smile on my face…

 

[peathenster]

here's where I think so many people are having problems:

1. P. mota 'red tiger' + P. mota 'gold' = P. mota

2. P. mota 'red tiger' + P. mota 'gold' = hybrid

So many people have believed for so long that, by definition, the above 2 statements cannot both be true. I thought and believed the same thing up until this month. The above 2 statements CAN and ARE, by definition, both true.

The difference would be inter-species hybrid or intra-species hybrid.

Jason - you hit the nail right on the head. Just to provide an example of intra-specific hybrid that we can all relate to: if you cross two different inbred lines of Zea maize (corn), the resulting F1 is still corn (the same species), but it's a hybrid. This is commonly done in breeding to look for desirable traits in the hybrid that are not present in the parents ("hybrid vigor" or "heterosis").

The bottom line is that, the F1 progenies from a cross between two corn inbred lines are hybrids, and so are the P. mota in question here. As Jason pointed out, they are intra-specific hybrids.

no two thing are genetically exactly the same.

Not exactly. Isogenic lines are widely used in plant genetic research and they are derived by extensive inbreeding or repeated back cross. It may take a while to get these for outcrossers, but for natural selfers it's really easy. Near isogenic lines have also been developed in mammalian models such as mouse.

Perhaps a better example is haploid prokaryotes. A single bacterium can divide and give rise to millions of bacteria in hours, all of which should be genetically identical to each other.

My 2 cents: if we go by strict denifitions the vast majority of eukaryotes are probably hybrids. But as NC-nutcase pointed out, a "guide" to the interpretation of this definition is also given, and should be considered. It's like the law....there is the law, and there is the interpretation of the law that sometimes really drives us crazy!

 

[fish_n_vw]

And I can and do completely agree, that based on how the term “hybrid” is used (or misused?) in our hobby, these would not be considered hybrids by the typical hobbyist. Which is why I believe that your friends, as well as Ken Davis (FishFarm) who posted here previously, suggested this would not be a hybrid.
　
But for those of us who like to be technical about things, I still feel it would technically, or scientifically, be classified as a hybrid… even if it would not per hobby standard

I can agree thee that the term is "misused" in the hobby. But we are talking about an aqaurium fish and that is our hobby. I agree that the definition does point out a few examples. But also leaves itself open by saying genetically dissimiler. I feel I am argueing as a hobbyist and I feel the other side of the arguement is being upheld by a "vague" open english word. I see your side about this there is no question about that. I can look at your arguement and say yeah that makes since.

So is it fare to say that the answer to the original question (wich dosent even mater anymore) is from a technical view yes this is a hybrid. This of course supports both of our translations of the word hybrid. And from a hobbyist point of view it is an arguable answer that has to come down to ones own opinion.

By the way I hope that some time in the future we can disagree on something else. You guys are an excellent debate group. Full of facts, opinions, and personal experiances. Man MFK is awsome.

 

[thor meeki]

For me it is about evolution... these two (RTM & GM) are described as the same fish by science. However we can see w/ our eyes that they are not. Like what has been said earlier, science hasn't caught up w/ that yet.
Scientifically it wouldn't be hybrid untill the 2 fish in question are described as different.

I think evolution has changed the color of these two fish, science just hasn't described it yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
To cross the two, would be to my distaste.

The views described above are of my personal thoughts on the matter & in no way, shape, or form, am I trying to pass off as fact, even evolution is but merely a theory.

 

[oHsNaP1337]

Hmmmm, well here is an update to your turn of last century dictionary.

As I stated, differant meanings .. differant levels.

Your statement is still incorrect, so lets try 2009.

Dictionary » R » Race Race

Definition
noun


(4) A population of interbreeding species that develops distinct characteristics differing from other populations of the same species, especially as caused by geographical isolation.

Supplement:

The biological context of the term race is only widely accepted when used to refer to a subspecies arising from a partially isolated reproductive population and thus share a considerable degree of genetic similarity. An example is the African wildcat, which is a subspecies of the domesticated cat.

Word origin: Old French, from Old Italian razza, race, lineage.
Synonyms:

• subspecies
• breed
• variety
• lineage