Blood Parrots dont have any severum in them, just fyi.ScatMan;5061868; said:
What about fancy goldfish, short-bodied fish, albino fish and long finned types? I'm sure it's not natural either.
Why hybrids?
- Thread starter Chris E
- Start date
What about fancy goldfish, short-bodied fish, albino fish and long finned types? I'm sure it's not natural either.
MN_Rebel;5062077; said:
i intentionally used the word "probably" because i didn't produce blood parrots. therefore, i don't know for certain what species were used, and there is still much debate and uncertainty as to exactly which fish comprise them.
how are you so certain that bp's don't have severum? do you have any legitimate sources?
*it's most commonly thought that bp's are some mix of red devil, severum and/or redhead. that's why i said what i said.
See the thread in Hybrid Section talking about Creation of Blood Parrot as they have proof that it is not a severum hybrid. Someone in here bred Blood Parrots, used Red Devil and Syn.ScatMan;5062096; said:
Anyways the only hybrids that is endangering the hobby is similar-looking hybrids that looks like a pure species. Convict X HRP hybrids, Red Devil x Midas, Mixed African Cichlids, Low Grade Flowerhorn and few hybrid livebearers are few examples.
But no pure species that looks like a Blood Parrot or High Grade Flowerhorn. So I don't know why they get blamed on by the purists.
Since the dawn of fishkeeping (like 200 AD), man has been selectively breeding to "improve" on what is found in nature.
The foundation of the aquarium hobby is "fancy" fish, many of them hybrids, deformed "sports", and other anomolies. Aesthetics (and thus sale-ability) has come before "pure" bloodlines for a long, long time. Developing stable, healthy, attractive "fancy" fish requires a lot of skill as an aquarist and someone who understands genetics.
This hobby is big enough for people who both enjoy "fancy" and wild-type fish (or both). I've never understood why some folks seek to marginalize or demean people who have different interests than they do. Are mis-labled hybrids a problem? Sure. And so are mis-labeled "pure" fish.
Matt
The foundation of the aquarium hobby is "fancy" fish, many of them hybrids, deformed "sports", and other anomolies. Aesthetics (and thus sale-ability) has come before "pure" bloodlines for a long, long time. Developing stable, healthy, attractive "fancy" fish requires a lot of skill as an aquarist and someone who understands genetics.
This hobby is big enough for people who both enjoy "fancy" and wild-type fish (or both). I've never understood why some folks seek to marginalize or demean people who have different interests than they do. Are mis-labled hybrids a problem? Sure. And so are mis-labeled "pure" fish.
Matt
Chris E;5059058; said:Why do some aquarists find hybrid fish so appealing? What is the over-riding reason some aquarists (or breeders) go out of their way to mix together fish that in nature would never normally mate and produce viable young? Is it vanity on our part, or just a desire to see what happens?
I know a lot of the common hybrids originate is asia where profit seems to be the over-riding motive for the commercial breeders, but wonder about the motivations behind other less common and less commercial fish species i.e. various polypterid hybrids.
I don't necessarily see it as a bad thing, but do wonder why we make hybrids out of various fish.
BTW, I do realise that having an albino sen poly means that I have got an animal that would probably never survive in the wild and is just as man made as many hybrids are.
I think a lot of people getting into the hobby get confused as to the nature of these hybrids. I find fish being sold as "red devils" in my lfs are actually rejected flowerhorns. I agree that producing these fish is not the best part of this hobby but, if they are at least label them correctely.
As I pointed out I don't HATE hybrids but I don't see the added value that many people do in them. Hybridizing cichlids seems silly to me with how many there are and how varied they are in size, temperament, and color. I just don't see why a flower-horn is so valuable. Or what the appeal of a tsn rtc hybrid. I just find intentional hybridization pointless. Kinda like balloon belly rams and stuff just not at all as attractive as the real thing. I'm not a keep the tanks 100 percent natural kinda guy but I do try not to allow inbreeding or hybridization intentionally. I do think that when it comes to breeding even within any given species the amount of variance that typically occurs naturally is ridiculous and hybrids just come of as irrelevant or wasteful, like hybridization is the short cut or something.
rurry44;5062200; said:
But is the the fault of the hybridized or the store selling them? They could have labeled correctly in purchase but the store could have miss labeled them. I see mislabled pure species all the time.
kamikaziechameleon;5062207; said:
That's just the point. It doesn't matter if you do or not. obviously someone else does. I dont see the added value in 99% of the crap liberal politicians pass through, but obviously someone does if they keep voting them in. Point being, there is value, in someone's eyes.
Repost:
1) Flowerhorns aren’t cichlids
FALSE - All of the fish used to create the
Flowerhorn are from the family Cichlidae. Although they are - intentionally - different from what is found in nature, flowerhorns are "cichlids" every bit as much as the hybrid livebearers in the hobby are still "livebearers" or the (hybrid) tilapia available at your grocery store are "tilapia"
2) Flowerhorn keepers and breeders are irresponsible and only in it for the money
FALSE - Just like anything else you have ethical hobbyists and seller as well as unethical hobbyists and sellers. This problem is not isolated to the flowerhorn community. The vast majority of flowerhorn hobbyists keep and breed these fish because they like them. Don't kid yourselves that every person that keeps or breeds wild-type cichlids cares nothing about money. For every irresponsible hobbyist willing to sell poor quality flowerhorns as "trimacs" there are just as many (intentionally) mis-labled fish sold in the "traditional" hobby.
3) Flowerhorns destroy conservation of cichlids in the hobby and in the wild
FALSE - Responsible care and breeding of flowerhorns neither harms the conservation of cichlids in the hobby or the wild. As flowerhorns are - obviously and intentionally - different in appearance than wild-type cichlids, erroneously including them in a captive breeding project would be less likely than erroneously including a similar but different wild-type fish. In the wild, flowerhorns represent no greater threat to cichlid natural habitats than the many (irresponsibly) introduced non-native cichlids.
4) Flowerhorns are random creations or accidents
FALSE - While flowerhorns are the result of the hybridization (and line breeding) of more than one species of cichlid, this does not mean that flowerhorns are the result of random crosses of common cichlids. As an example, the Golden Monkey flowerhorn strain took 12 years to create. The more that the myth that randomly crossing one cichlid with another will result in something either attractive or valuable is dispelled, the less likely that less educated or more irresponsible hobbyists will attempt such crosses. Those who keep flowerhorns are often the first to discourage indiscriminate hybridization of cichlids.
5) Flowerhorn keepers only keep flowerhorns
FALSE - Many ACA members...and even more cichlid-keepers keep both flowerhorns and wild-type cichlids. A (unscientific) survey in the Central and South American forum of Monster Fish Keepers found that nearly as many hobbyists keep flowerhorns AND wild-type cichlids as those who ONLY keep wild-type cichlids.
6) Flowerhorns are a passing fad
FALSE - Flowerhorns are well-established in the hobby in both Asia and the United States. Evidence of the popularity of flowerhorns can be found in the activity and rate of growth of flowerhorn websites, the availability and high cost of quality flowerhorns on the market, and the number of traditional cichlid hobbyists who keep these fish.
7) Flowerhorn keepers aren’t advanced or serious hobbysist
FALSE - Proper maintenance of flowerhorns requires all of the skills required in keeping large, aggressive wild-type cichlids. While just about any hobbyist can keep a flowerhorn, not everyone can keep a Flowerhorn in show or breeding condition. Developing attractive strains of flowerhorns requires all of the expertise in genetics and husbandry that developing attractive captive strains of livebearers, bettas, angelfish, discus, goldfish, koi, and other ornamental fish has required...which is considerable
8) Flowerhorns are disfigured or dyed
FALSE - The vast majority of flowerhorns on the market are not physically manipulated with chemicals or surgery and the vast majority of flowerhorn hobbyists find mutilation of fish as reprehensible as the vast majority of those in the traditional cichlid hobby.
While some flowerhorns are physically dyed, tattooed or otherwise mutilated, these activities are far from unique to flowerhorns.
9) Flowerhorn keepers don't care about conservation, education, or fellowship with other hobbyists
FALSE - Many who keep flowerhorns also keep wild-type species and classify themselves as "cichlidiots". Some are also members of cichlid associations, albeit some "in the closet" about the fish that they keep. I've yet to hear a responsible flowerhorn keeper seek to eliminate the availability of wild-type cichlids in either the hobby or the wild...although the opposite is not true of wild-type cichlid enthusiasts. Participation in flowerhorn forums and chat rooms will reveal an array of hobbyists of all levels of experience and a strong willingness to share experiences and tips to educate and help others. Flowerhorn keepers are more than willing to educate traditional hobbyists on the origins and care of the fish that they keep...as well as dispel the myths that others might have about them and the fish that they keep. The more that those in the traditional cichlid hobby isolate and erect barriers (often based on myths) between themselves and those who keep flowerhorns, the more that those who keep one type of fish or the other will lose out on opportunities for education and fellowship.
10) Flowerhorns are "bad" because they're different than what is found in the wild
IT DEPENDS - If flowerhorns are "bad" because they're different than what is found in the wild, all of the other "ornamental" fish in the hobby are "bad" because they also differ from what is in the wild. Cosmetic changes to wild-type fish, whether they're longer fins, more color, less color (albinism) or larger size - each would probably detract from their viability in the wild. If flowerhorns are "bad" then the vast majority of people who keep fish are keeping "bad" fish...and the available membership of an organization dedicated to fish that aren't "bad" is quite small.
1) Flowerhorns aren’t cichlids
FALSE - All of the fish used to create the
Flowerhorn are from the family Cichlidae. Although they are - intentionally - different from what is found in nature, flowerhorns are "cichlids" every bit as much as the hybrid livebearers in the hobby are still "livebearers" or the (hybrid) tilapia available at your grocery store are "tilapia"
2) Flowerhorn keepers and breeders are irresponsible and only in it for the money
FALSE - Just like anything else you have ethical hobbyists and seller as well as unethical hobbyists and sellers. This problem is not isolated to the flowerhorn community. The vast majority of flowerhorn hobbyists keep and breed these fish because they like them. Don't kid yourselves that every person that keeps or breeds wild-type cichlids cares nothing about money. For every irresponsible hobbyist willing to sell poor quality flowerhorns as "trimacs" there are just as many (intentionally) mis-labled fish sold in the "traditional" hobby.
3) Flowerhorns destroy conservation of cichlids in the hobby and in the wild
FALSE - Responsible care and breeding of flowerhorns neither harms the conservation of cichlids in the hobby or the wild. As flowerhorns are - obviously and intentionally - different in appearance than wild-type cichlids, erroneously including them in a captive breeding project would be less likely than erroneously including a similar but different wild-type fish. In the wild, flowerhorns represent no greater threat to cichlid natural habitats than the many (irresponsibly) introduced non-native cichlids.
4) Flowerhorns are random creations or accidents
FALSE - While flowerhorns are the result of the hybridization (and line breeding) of more than one species of cichlid, this does not mean that flowerhorns are the result of random crosses of common cichlids. As an example, the Golden Monkey flowerhorn strain took 12 years to create. The more that the myth that randomly crossing one cichlid with another will result in something either attractive or valuable is dispelled, the less likely that less educated or more irresponsible hobbyists will attempt such crosses. Those who keep flowerhorns are often the first to discourage indiscriminate hybridization of cichlids.
5) Flowerhorn keepers only keep flowerhorns
FALSE - Many ACA members...and even more cichlid-keepers keep both flowerhorns and wild-type cichlids. A (unscientific) survey in the Central and South American forum of Monster Fish Keepers found that nearly as many hobbyists keep flowerhorns AND wild-type cichlids as those who ONLY keep wild-type cichlids.
6) Flowerhorns are a passing fad
FALSE - Flowerhorns are well-established in the hobby in both Asia and the United States. Evidence of the popularity of flowerhorns can be found in the activity and rate of growth of flowerhorn websites, the availability and high cost of quality flowerhorns on the market, and the number of traditional cichlid hobbyists who keep these fish.
7) Flowerhorn keepers aren’t advanced or serious hobbysist
FALSE - Proper maintenance of flowerhorns requires all of the skills required in keeping large, aggressive wild-type cichlids. While just about any hobbyist can keep a flowerhorn, not everyone can keep a Flowerhorn in show or breeding condition. Developing attractive strains of flowerhorns requires all of the expertise in genetics and husbandry that developing attractive captive strains of livebearers, bettas, angelfish, discus, goldfish, koi, and other ornamental fish has required...which is considerable
8) Flowerhorns are disfigured or dyed
FALSE - The vast majority of flowerhorns on the market are not physically manipulated with chemicals or surgery and the vast majority of flowerhorn hobbyists find mutilation of fish as reprehensible as the vast majority of those in the traditional cichlid hobby.
While some flowerhorns are physically dyed, tattooed or otherwise mutilated, these activities are far from unique to flowerhorns.
9) Flowerhorn keepers don't care about conservation, education, or fellowship with other hobbyists
FALSE - Many who keep flowerhorns also keep wild-type species and classify themselves as "cichlidiots". Some are also members of cichlid associations, albeit some "in the closet" about the fish that they keep. I've yet to hear a responsible flowerhorn keeper seek to eliminate the availability of wild-type cichlids in either the hobby or the wild...although the opposite is not true of wild-type cichlid enthusiasts. Participation in flowerhorn forums and chat rooms will reveal an array of hobbyists of all levels of experience and a strong willingness to share experiences and tips to educate and help others. Flowerhorn keepers are more than willing to educate traditional hobbyists on the origins and care of the fish that they keep...as well as dispel the myths that others might have about them and the fish that they keep. The more that those in the traditional cichlid hobby isolate and erect barriers (often based on myths) between themselves and those who keep flowerhorns, the more that those who keep one type of fish or the other will lose out on opportunities for education and fellowship.
10) Flowerhorns are "bad" because they're different than what is found in the wild
IT DEPENDS - If flowerhorns are "bad" because they're different than what is found in the wild, all of the other "ornamental" fish in the hobby are "bad" because they also differ from what is in the wild. Cosmetic changes to wild-type fish, whether they're longer fins, more color, less color (albinism) or larger size - each would probably detract from their viability in the wild. If flowerhorns are "bad" then the vast majority of people who keep fish are keeping "bad" fish...and the available membership of an organization dedicated to fish that aren't "bad" is quite small.
