I posted this a while back in another discussion involving hybrids, and it seems like a good fit in this topic as well.
The term "pure", "wild caught", or F1 equates to nothing more than a bucket of warm spit unless those fishes provenance can be traced back to the original wild source, including the geographical location of where those fish were collected. And even then, the term "pure" or even "wild" can sometimes become open to interpretation.
The Midas complex is a classic example of why the geographical location of where the original wild fish were collected can later become so important. When one goes back to the original A. citrinellus, and A. labiatus that were collected & imported in the late 60's early 70's you will find that there was much confusion as to what was pure, even by those such as George Barlow who were collecting & studying this genus in the wild. This topic is mentioned in the following article by Paul Loiselle (originally published in 1980)
http://www.cichlidae.com/article.php?id=106
....... where he states;
Second, the small numbers of fish initially imported, the confusion over the number of species involved and the great eagerness to spawn them led initially to a great deal of indiscriminate hybridization. While all these cichlids display strong preferences for conspecific mates, they will hybridize in a no-choice situation (Bayliss, 1976). There is even some evidence that introgressive hybridization between A. labiatus and A. citrinellus may have occurred in the past in some of the smaller crater lakes (Barlow, 1976). The progeny of such shotgun marriages are as viable and fertile as the parental species. Thus the first few tank-reared generations were pretty much of a genetic omelette. With the passage of time, these fish have converged phenotypically on A. labiatus. Subsequent commercial importations have consisted exclusively of large-lipped, bright red animals. These obvious A. labiatus have been pond-bred in Florida for nearly ten years, and their offspring have dominated the market during this interval. The original hybrids have been effectively swamped through crossing with such pure A. labiatus.
Today, most tank-reared Red Devils are phenotypically recognizable A. labiatus, though one still encounters the odd individual whose deeper body and blunter snout proclaim the presence of a Midas Cichlid in the rock pile in the recent past!
A long but very interesting read from a paper released in 2010 that clearly describes how confusing the entire Midas complex is, much more so than George Barlow initially thought, or even Paul Loiselle when he wrote the above linked to article 30 years ago.
http://www.gaianicaragua.org/Geiger_et_al_2010.pdf
Not a simple case – A first comprehensive phylogenetic hypothesis for the Midas cichlid complex in Nicaragua (Teleostei: Cichlidae: Amphilophus)
Matthias F. Geiger, Jeffrey K. McCrary, Ulrich K. Schliewen
Bavarian State Collection of Zoology (ZSM), Department of Ichthyology, Münchhausenstr. 21, 81247 Munich, Germany b Fundación Nicaragüense Pro-desarrollo Comunitario Integral (FUNDECI/GAIA), Estación Biológica, Laguna de Apoyo Nature Reserve, Nicaragua
4.3. Three species vs. multi-species concept with notes on diversity
While previous and also some recent authors distinguished between
a number of species based on morphological characters (e.g.
Elmer et al., 2010b; Meek, 1907; McKaye et al., 2002; Stauffer et al.,
), other authors assign numerous forms to only three species,
namely
A. citrinellus, A. zaliosus and A. labiatus (Wilson et al., 2000;
Barluenga et al., 2004, 2006a; Bunje et al., 2007
). The ongoing dispute
about
Amphilophus taxonomy (e.g. Villa, 1976b; Stauffer et al.,
2002
) is certainly based on the aforementioned high phenotypic
diversity within the Midas cichlid complex which sometimes hampers
ready identification in the field. To consider this issue adequately
especially when testing for alternative speciation
scenarios it is necessary to stick to a conservative taxonomy and
only assign taxonomically valid species names to unambiguously
identifiable individuals and not to each phenotype that is similar
due to only one character, i.e. ‘‘elongate body form” or ‘‘thick lips”.
According to the most recent taxonomy, the Midas cichlid complex
contains nine described species at the moment, but several more
are awaiting their proper systematic treatment (
, Geiger et al., in preparation).
In the case of Midas/Red Devil crosses (MidDevils), clearly the origins of of this fish had nothing to do with breeders or vendors being unscrupulous, or experimenting with hybrid crosses, and more to do with a genus that had yet to be fully understood or properly classified before commercial breeders began pumping them out by the millions. While some might consider these actions as being reckless, I personally believe that this takes place by the so called purists much more than realized. In the case of the earlier midas/rd mixes, that bell can't be unrung.
Fugupuff's comment about Heiko Bleher had me laughing, but it reminded me of an area in Lake Malawi that's referred to as "the aquarium", where some of the earlier collectors/exporters would dump fish from various locations in the lake, which I would assume was done for easier collection, vs spending 2 days in a boat to get to the original collection locations.
A former exporter on Lake Tanganyika (Mark Young) once stated to me that some collectors simply make up "sexy" names for certain fish, and that this very thing has taken place within the industry for years. He even stated that unless you go out with the native divers they will often collect certain variants closer to home, in safer waters (as in non crocodile infested waters), and then BS as to where they were actually collected. In their minds the variant/species looks close enough, it shaves off several hrs in the boat to get to the location, and is much safer, so why not? For this reason he always went out on every dive so he knew exactly where each variant or species was being collected. Other exporters do not take part in the collection process.
Then you have exporters on the same lake as above that breed fish in concrete vats, and list the offspring as (cough-cough) wild caught. To make matters worse, from those I have personally spoken to that have been there, and seen these vats, it was stated that one species could easily jump from vat to vat and cross breed with each other. But again, everything & anything was sold as wild fish. One can only imagine what type of genetic drift is taking place in these types of situations.
IMO one can either choose to keep & enjoy some of these "unpure" fish for their beauty, and their personality/behaviour, or not. I don't see the planet being destroyed by the fish one chooses to keep or breed in a glass box. 
