But trimacs are said to be the base of the flowerhorn hybrid and Midas is not. So it makes sense to assume Fh. Where Midas does not fit the bill. Maybe a little thinking would help. I'd say low quality fh.
Trimac or Flowerhorn?
- Thread starter prashan
- Start date
- Status
But trimacs are said to be the base of the flowerhorn hybrid and Midas is not. So it makes sense to assume Fh. Where Midas does not fit the bill. Maybe a little thinking would help. I'd say low quality fh.
Actually midas cichlids have been used as part of the foundation of many Asian hybrid crosses, including flowerhorns and blood parrots. But the reality is that many of the lower quality flowerhorns that one can find in the ornamental fish trade, have a LOT of trimac in them, so simply eye-balling them and attempting to determine their genetic make up is impossible.
The fact that the OP has to ask what they are should be a clear enough reason alone to question their genetic make up. In this hobby, when in doubt it is always best to assume the worst. Some people just don't like to hear that, especially those who keep hybrid crosses.
The fact that the OP has to ask what they are should be a clear enough reason alone to question their genetic make up. In this hobby, when in doubt it is always best to assume the worst. Some people just don't like to hear that, especially those who keep hybrid crosses.
I hate these threads and FH just because of this.
Sent from my LGL55C using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Sent from my LGL55C using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Another hobbyist from Sri Lanka that apparently can't face reality. 
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=14&t=229879
No reason to hate FH's, the vast majority of people that keep FH don't keep low grade specimens that can easily be confused with a trimac. If you want to hate someone, hate the retail vendors that buy these fish and flog them in their shops. Remove those idjits from the equation and you wouldn't be reading threads such as this one.
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=14&t=229879
No reason to hate FH's, the vast majority of people that keep FH don't keep low grade specimens that can easily be confused with a trimac. If you want to hate someone, hate the retail vendors that buy these fish and flog them in their shops. Remove those idjits from the equation and you wouldn't be reading threads such as this one.
Another hobbyist from Sri Lanka that apparently can't face reality.
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?nomobile=1&f=14&t=229879
No reason to hate FH's, the vast majority of people that keep FH don't keep low grade specimens that can easily be confused with a trimac. If you want to hate someone, hate the retail vendors that buy these fish and flog them in their shops. Remove those idjits from the equation and you wouldn't be reading threads such as this one.
This is nothing about being unable to face the reality. This is a my hobby and I like to know what the my fish is. New world Cichlids are not that famous in Sri Lanka. My fish seller even didn't know that there is a species called trimac. He doesn't know even dovii. He told me the same that it is a flowerhorn. We just don't want to believe just because they say. They say it is a flowerhorn because it is a famous fish name. These fish sellers are not the original breeders of these fish using different cihclid species. I have also posted another thread in this forum about that before without pictures.
Are you a tamil in Canada?
just ignore then. good for your health than hating
Its just because what fh have done to trimacs in the hobby.
Sent from my LGL55C using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Of course it is. You have the seller calling it a flowerhorn, yet you expect some hobbyists on a fish forum to tell you otherwise by simply looking at some digital images? It doesn't work that way. I could post pictures of hybrid fish all day long and call all of them pure, even make up collection points and refer to them as wild caught, and no one on this forum would be the wiser.
That was the point that Modest Man was attempting to make from the get go. One cannot simply "look" at a fish and determine its genetics, or purity, so in the case where a fish lacks any type of provenance, or the genetics are at all questionable, then the only reasonable option is to consider the fish to be a potential hybrid, and treat it & any potential offspring created by it as the same.
And I have no idea what or who tamil is.
- Status
