Hybrid/Not a Hybrid (Cichlids) [Archive]

Rare Cichlids

05-13-2003, 8:38 AM

Originally posted by Z Man
Tightdog1, Thanks for your thoughts but it could also be Cross Bred. In any case neither is considered a hybrid as long as the Genus and Species of the fish are the same. So I will say that for discussion only that swordtails only found in the wild as Xiphophorus helleri are Green Swordtails and thus all other color morph swordtails found in stores are hybrids? I think not.

Your post makes no sense. When one species crosses with another, regardless of whether or not they are in the same genus, the result is a hybrid. There are several closely related species of Discus, Angels and Oscars. And those similar species have hybridized, creating hybrids.

Swordtails have often been mixed with Platies. Hybrid.

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 8:39 AM

I was waiting for Rex on this one: a portion of CB Red Devils/Midases are hybrid--am I right on this?

inxs

05-13-2003, 9:27 AM

rare cichlids - I think Z-man means that if both the species and genus are the same it will not become a hybrid even if you are breeding for colorform or finshape. It has to be a cross of 2 different species.

CD - I thought parrots and jellybeans were the same?

I feel that is has gotten to the point where it is ridiculous and something needs to be done.

Species need to be labled as such and hybrids as hybrids.

Dogs, cats and domestic farm animals have been hybridized as have plants and flowers. I don't see it ending nor do I see anyone banning it or putting an end to it.

However it may be high time to split the forum up for discussing species and a separate topic for discussing hybrids.

To most newcomers to the hobby who go to the mega petstore and buy a 10g tank with some fish for their kids , pretty fish like bettas (linebred and mutated) goldfish(just look at some of the monstrosities and tell me where they occur naturally), jellybean parrots, colored glassfish, any veiltail/fin fish etc... will seem appealing and the persons won't know and doesn't care about pure bred.

I don't see it ending just escalating.

If you want to keep pure species then promote it and educate about them - breed true and share . That way we can ensure the true wild species are preserved.

As far as telling the difference between a discus, angel , red devil or others which may or may not be different species, it will take and expert to figure it out and regular people won't just like I can't look at someones ring and say if it is real or fake.

I do agree that research is good and it should be sorted out but to endlessly discuss it doesn't seem to be leading anywere.

Hybrids are here to stay and rather then trying to stop it I feel that proper labeling of fish, promoting good sources like "Tangled up in Cichlids" and promoting the true beauty of the species will help keeping things sorted out.

My feeling is that there are some really nicelooking hybrids out there but a large part of cichlidkeeping is behavioral - to see the fish court eachother and raise their young . That part will be lost in hybrids and there is no way of artificially breeding that back into the stock.

JimG

05-13-2003, 10:01 AM

Originally posted by inxs
CD - I thought parrots and jellybeans were the same?

However it may be high time to split the forum up for discussing species and a separate topic for discussing hybrids.

I agree a separate hybrid forum might be nice. Actually jellybeans result from a further hybridization between a female blood parrot and a male convict (convicts seem to find blood parrots attractive even if some humans don't :D ). The offspring are usually white and the name comes from the sad common practice of then dying them jellybean colors :mad:

Cichlid hybridization has become a topic of interest to me since I started keeping blood parrots and I just wanted to take this opportunity to thank everyone on this forum for being so civil in the threads concerning blood parrots and hybridization. It seems to be a touchy issue for some in the hobby and I appreciate exchanges and debates that stick to facts and remain cordial. (unlike what has occured time and again in another forum I have been frequenting recently whenever someone starts a blood parrot thread).

Z Man

05-13-2003, 11:19 AM

I'm starting to really enjoy this. What I am saying is this: In any fish identification book or on the internet, look up the following. Pterophyllum scalare & find many different color morphs and finnage; Symphysodon aequifasciatus; Xiphophorus helleri and many more I could mention. You will see many different colors of each... that's selective breeding. Not Hybrids. Now if someone could give me the scientific names of Parrot Cichlids (not Hoplarchus psittacus) and Flowerhorn cichlids I will check the photo's out.

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 12:13 PM

I can tell, Z Man, that you're enjoying this.

The fact remains that there are multiple Discus and Oscar species, and this was not known when breeding started with both species. Thus, there are some hybrids.

There are also Scalare X Altum Angels out there, as people purposely bred the two to reduce fin rot in the Scalares.

The RDs were considered to be monotypic (at least on the subgeneric level, when everything was a Cichlasomine), so they, too, have been hybridized to an extent.

There are no scientific names for hybrids, though some Discus/Angel/O/RD hybrids are recognized as the former monotypic species, b/c people did not know of hybridization back then, and most do not know about the Altum/Scalare breeding and the attempt to mitigate fin rot.

The Blood Parrot and Flowerhorn, among the other blatantly hybrid species, cannot and should not be given a scientific name. Just look up Blood Parrot to find them, and go to www.ddott.com for info on the Flower Horn, but be prepared for them to misuse the word "species" to describe their creation.

Rare Cichlids

05-13-2003, 12:19 PM

Oh, sorry. You just worded it a bit awkwardly, Z man.

You are 100% correct in stating that there are line bred strains of Pterophyllum scalare, Symphysodon aequifasciatus, and Xiphophorus helleri that are not hybrids in the least, but a pure species. On the other hand, all of the listed species have several close relatives that are very similar and that have been crossed intentionally and unintentionally to create some of the variaties we have today. There is no denying that many of our Discus variaties are intentional hybrids between 2 or more species. On the other hand, Goldfish and Koi are (as far as I know) pure species that have been line bred for centuries.

Correct, Childawg. You would hard pressed to find a pure Amphilophus labiatus or Amphilophus citrinellus without visiting a specialty shop or mail ordering Wild Caught or F1 fish from a trusted source. The common Red Devil is most definantly a hybrid.

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 12:28 PM

I thought that I'd seen you debate that before!

Folks, this thread is more for educational purposes than anything else, and I'm glad that we're keeping it on an educational level. I'm impressed! If you see any hybrids or want to know if a certain fish is a hybrid, this is the place to come, b/c a lot of people here have some really good contacts on this issue.

I never said that all of any of these fish were hybrids, but that there are some readily available, and I did not mean for it to be taken in any other way. RC knows what he's talking about when he says that it is impossible to find RDs that are not crosses within our normal means, so I'll accept that as true. I will not accept other such generalizations as true until I have a well-respected source backing me up...just so you know!

JimG

05-13-2003, 2:03 PM

Originally posted by ChilDawg
The fact remains that there are multiple Discus and Oscar species, and this was not known when breeding started with both species. Thus, there are some hybrids.

There are no scientific names for hybrids, though some Discus/Angel/O/RD hybrids are recognized as the former monotypic species, b/c people did not know of hybridization back then, and most do not know about the Altum/Scalare breeding and the attempt to mitigate fin rot.

The Blood Parrot and Flowerhorn, among the other blatantly hybrid species, cannot and should not be given a scientific name.

In chordate fauna no hybrid is a new species (in flora this can sometimes be the case though). I know in the common venacular when one group of discus with some preferred trait is bred to some other group of discus with another preferred trait the offspring are called 'hybrid'. But really if that offspring is itself capable of inline breeding with itself then the original two groups really should not have been labeled as separate species but were in effect subspecies. The label 'species' is quite a controversial one within biology and it seems the term 'hybrid' has a looser meaning in animal husbandry than it does in biology.

I must point out Chili that new discus and oscar species could come about simply by inline breeding though. This is how speciation occurs in nature. This is also why a true hybrid like the blood parrot can never be given a species name as they cannot be inline bred. I must admit I am startled that Flowerhorn males are fertile (they are right?). This can only mean the parent species are quite close together genetically and to their common ancestor and are only separate species by human convention.

Cheers

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 2:14 PM

Not necessarily. Some of the BPs are fertile, though their parentage stretches across genera.

FH males are fertile, for the most part, but that does not make for speciation (though I suspect that we might hear of the other species involved in making the FHs soon...and we will hopefully learn that they are just special Trimacs!)

I know that new species can come about through inline breeding...the goldie used to be a Crucian Carp, I believe, but it is now distinctly separate. Unfortunately, the Oscars and Discus are now being seen as separate species in the wild...and these types were made available to us in the past, but we didn't look carefully enough at the idea of multitypical genera.

We may very well see new species through inline breeding in the near future, but, in order to do that, we would have to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, and figure out the exact genetic makeup of lines of these species and/or hybrids in order to work from a pure strain and inline breeding our way to speciation.

caz

05-13-2003, 2:30 PM

so your saying there is more than one species of oscar?

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 2:32 PM

I'm going to defer to Herbert Axelrod, and say yes. Jeff Rapps thinks so as well, because he sells Astronotus crassipinnis from time to time and A. ocellatus almost all the time.

caz

05-13-2003, 2:44 PM

wow! thanx for the info. i think this might help me to explain this little oscar that my girlfriend has. it thought it was a gold oscar, but its not solid gold like the ones i have seen. its like a normal tiger oscar, except where there should be red, there is a beige color. no red whatso ever on this fish.

caz

05-13-2003, 2:48 PM

heres a bad picture, but youll get the idea

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 2:48 PM

Just know, please, that the Tiger Oscar is not necessarily a species...they thought that Astronotus was monotypic at the time, so, more accurately, you would be looking at a crossbreed involving the Tiger Oscar and another similar one...but there may be some hybridization going on with her fish, too!

caz

05-13-2003, 2:51 PM

i know it wasnt a different species, just different color patterns.

Rare Cichlids

05-13-2003, 8:37 PM

Originally posted by JimG

In chordate fauna no hybrid is a new species (in flora this can sometimes be the case though). I know in the common venacular when one group of discus with some preferred trait is bred to some other group of discus with another preferred trait the offspring are called 'hybrid'. But really if that offspring is itself capable of inline breeding with itself then the original two groups really should not have been labeled as separate species but were in effect subspecies. The label 'species' is quite a controversial one within biology and it seems the term 'hybrid' has a looser meaning in animal husbandry than it does in biology.

Cheers

The vast magority of Central American Cichlasoma are so closely related that they can readily produce fertile, healthy, offspring.

Most if not all Parachromis sp., Amphilophus sp., Vieja sp., Chuco sp., Herichthys sp., and many others can hybridize and create offspring that are capable of inline breeding. Does this mean that the 50+ distinctly different fish in these groups which have been previously been classified as separate species (not to mention separate genera) should really be lumped together and given a single species name?

Its obvious that these fish are closely related, but each species has distinctly different physical characterists and habits than the next. Each species breeds with its own kind and no other, and each species breeds true.

If I misunderstoof your statement, and wrote this in vain (like my other post), please let me know ;)

inxs

05-13-2003, 10:08 PM

Rare C & JimG - interesting twist.

I think what JimG is saying is that species that are too close in apperance may just be varieties of the same species while more distinct looking ones are not.

For example where do you draw the line between the different pterophyllum species? Scalare yes, altum yes but leopoldi and dumerli ? I think there may be a few more. How far do you split the hair?

I can't tell the difference between a RD-Midas-Citronellus-labiatum and it doesn't appear that many others can either. Frankly the fish don't seem to be able to tell themselves as it supposedly exsists crosses of them in the wild.
If nobody can easily tell and everybody is guessing doesn't that mean that they could be one and the same with just local variation?

Now don't jump all over me and tell me that I shouldn't lump all cichlids together - I am mearly pointing out that some species may just be color/local variations and may need to be classified back together while others may merit new species lable.

ChilDawg

05-13-2003, 10:10 PM

inxs, you bring up a valid point. I am just going by what the scientific literature has at this time, and I think everyone else is as well...however, some of the lumpers may see it as you see it and we might return to monotypism in Astronotus and possibly Symphysodon.

It'll be interesting to see where this debate will be headed in the next five years!

Rare Cichlids

05-13-2003, 10:41 PM

Take a look at a wild Citrinellus and Labiatus and you will see distinct differences. There's 15-30 distict "Red Devil" species, and I can easily identify any of the species I know of, without a close look. Once you have seen many pure individuals the differences will be clear.

Harry Tolen

05-14-2003, 12:22 AM

Oh, aargh. I leave you people alone for a few days (because I'm travelling), thinking "how much trouble can they get into? And you start a thread on hybridization.

Oddly enough, however, no fisticuffs have ensued (so far). So do carry on. I'm very interested in the points being made here.

In particular, Rare Cichlids, do you mean that interbreeding between the genera you mentioned will yield genetically stable offspring? Or merely that you can cull a fairly stable group of fish out of a geneticaly variable spawn? I would tend to think the latter, but am willing to listen.

inxs

05-14-2003, 7:00 AM

Rare Cichlid - I am a fan of the A Labiatus and can not for the life of me separate it from some of the others.

15 species?:eek: Is there any documentation that they are really distinct species? I would love to see it as I have particular interest in the fish.

This isn't intended to be rude or instigating but, how do you tell the difference for certain? I would love to know as I can't.

I also wonder if the variability isn't what Harry T is refering to as genetic instability in hybridizing. Or perhaps just species variability.

I would again like to point to the goldfish exhibit where you have the lionhead, veiltail, celestial eye, etc...

Also at what point are you able to tell the difference (size/age).

Again , I am asking this as I am really interested in getting some bright red labiatus with thick lips and breed them and as I cannot tell the difference (apperently a lot of experts can't either if they don't know the parentage) and it is annoying to grow out a fish for a long time only to have it turn out to be a citronellus or a hybrid. I also don't want to grow something out as a labiatus, breed it and after I give a bunch away , find out they aren't true.

ChilDawg

05-14-2003, 8:14 AM

Harry, I just started it for informative purposes because there were a lot of queries with regard to "Is this a hybrid?" Everyone understands this, though, and we have a wonderful discussion, as you noticed, and I thank you for that.

Rare Cichlids

05-14-2003, 8:22 AM

Harry, first let me say that I'm not an Ichthyologist or any kind of trained professional (yet). But in most of the cases of hybridization that I've seen you can "cull a fairly stable group of fish out of a geneticaly variable spawn".

However in several other cases of genera crossing, the result is "genetically stable offspring". The offspring look the same, their offspring look the same, and so on. I know this has happened several times with Amphilophus x Parachromis in particular. I hope I answered your question.

INXS, the fish ae being studied currently, and several have been asigned species names. I'll get back to you this evening, I must go now.

JimG

05-14-2003, 9:56 AM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids
The vast magority of Central American Cichlasoma are so closely related that they can readily produce fertile, healthy, offspring. Most if not all Parachromis sp., Amphilophus sp., Vieja sp., Chuco sp., Herichthys sp., and many others can hybridize and create offspring that are capable of inline breeding. Does this mean that the 50+ distinctly different fish in these groups which have been previously been classified as separate species (not to mention separate genera) should really be lumped together and given a single species name?

Very possibly they are in effect sub-species though I know that seems mind boggling. If you look through old fish books you will see species splitting and lumping falling in and out of favor. When the Panama Canal was finished it was found shrimp from the Atlantic on one end and shrimp from the Pacific on the other, even though they looked exactly alike, not only would not mate but their eggs could not be fertilize by the others' sperm. A hybrid genetics test was run between the two groups (this is the same test used to find the % of homologous DNA between for example chimps and humans) and it was found they were truly two separate species distanced from their common ancestor by scores of millions of years to the point where accumulated mutations had rendered them infertile with each other. Yet they looked just alike! Appearances can be very deceptive and a single mutation can either have no effect or create drastic changes in phenotype. More often than not the concept of species is a superficial guess.

Yes many of these fish you and others cite are called hybrids and they are bred between two groups that appear distinct but in biology whether they actually are hybrids and their parent groups actually separate species is debatable.

Cheers

Rare Cichlids

05-14-2003, 8:59 PM

Rare Cichlid - I am a fan of the A Labiatus and can not for the life of me separate it from some of the others.

15 species? Is there any documentation that they are really distinct species? I would love to see it as I have particular interest in the fish.

There are several people working to distingiush the species in Nicaragua. So far the fish in the following list have been separated and will reach species status if they haven't already:

Amarillo
"Apoyo Amarillo"
Barlowi
"Big Lips"
Canchoro
Citrinellus
Hogaboomorus
Labiatus
Sagittae
"Short"
Zaliosum

Thats just off the top of my head and most of those are from only 3 lakes. The estimates are that in total there will be 15-30 species, most endemic to a single small lake. The differences between most of these is readily apparent. Usually much more than Citrinellus and Labiatus.

This isn't intended to be rude or instigating but, how do you tell the difference for certain? I would love to know as I can't.

I also wonder if the variability isn't what Harry T is refering to as genetic instability in hybridizing. Or perhaps just species variability.

The differences between most of the species I listed are obvious in color, pattern, and body shape. As far as I know, hybridizing between and of the "Red Devil" species has never been reported. Even fish like the "Big Lips" which is endemic to little Lago Xiloa, and scarce, has never been documented mating with another species or variante.

I would again like to point to the goldfish exhibit where you have the lionhead, veiltail, celestial eye, etc...

Also at what point are you able to tell the difference (size/age).

I can separate Midas and Red Devil fry at 2".

Again , I am asking this as I am really interested in getting some bright red labiatus with thick lips and breed them and as I cannot tell the difference (apperently a lot of experts can't either if they don't know the parentage) and it is annoying to grow out a fish for a long time only to have it turn out to be a citronellus or a hybrid. I also don't want to grow something out as a labiatus, breed it and after I give a bunch away , find out they aren't true.

Lip size varies from population to population of both species, and even in the same lake. Color varies also, but is not fixed on location, I think. There are bright yellow, simple lipped wild labiatus, and they genetically the same as the large lipped Red fish.

The large lipped Red form is scarce in the wild, and in captivity, more rare than the Striped. Where are you located, I might be able to recommend a source depending on where you are (although it seems like you've told me before). Hopefully I'll be getting some this summer. If your in the US, I may be able to get extra, and send them your way.

JimG, anything is possible. But the real experts, such as Azas, Kullander, and Konings seem to think quite differently.

inxs

05-14-2003, 9:51 PM

Rare Cichlids : you got mail.
Also thanks for the info.

Marcus

05-14-2003, 11:12 PM

I was under the impression that the big lips on A. labiatus were due to environmental conditions and that once these fish are removed from their natural environment, the lips change into a more normal form.

From what I recall, the big lips act as a 'gasket' that is placed over a hole in the mud and then the fish sucks out fish/crustaceans in these holes. Once this feeding behaviour is suspended in captavity the lips shrink due to lack of use.

ChilDawg

05-15-2003, 7:17 AM

Marcus, I've heard that, too, about the lip regression, but never the reasoning behind it, so I thank you for that. :)

Rare Cichlids

05-15-2003, 7:29 AM

Although the lips are bound to shrink somewhat, if you are able to get a wild Labiatus that has enlarged lips, they will stay to a good extant as long as the bottom of their aquarium is layered with large pebbles. I have even thought of trying to recreate the natural feeding conditions in hopes of enlarging the lips of some captive Labiatus.

Originally posted by Marcus
I was under the impression that the big lips on A. labiatus were due to environmental conditions and that once these fish are removed from their natural environment, the lips change into a more normal form.

From what I recall, the big lips act as a 'gasket' that is placed over a hole in the mud and then the fish sucks out fish/crustaceans in these holes. Once this feeding behaviour is suspended in captavity the lips shrink due to lack of use.

ChilDawg

05-15-2003, 7:35 AM

Maybe the pond will help with that, Rex!

It sounds like a good idea, and I'd love to see a photo album with the Before and After pictures! :)

Rare Cichlids

05-15-2003, 7:43 AM

Childawg, thats what I'm hoping for. I think that the lips should enlarge quite a bit, and that the red coloration will be brought out a little more by being kept in a pond. And I will take pictures of before and after.

ChilDawg

05-15-2003, 7:45 AM

Thanks! :)

JimG

05-15-2003, 9:27 AM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids
JimG, anything is possible. But the real experts, such as Azas, Kullander, and Konings seem to think quite differently.

Sorry differently about what? I am not quite sure what you are referring to. I am not familiar with any of these names though anthropology is more my gig than ichthyology so if they are ichthyologists that is probably why. Among taxonomists though regardless of what Class, Order, etc of beastie they are focusing on there are many who just love to dole out the species nomenclature.

A working definition of a species is a group of fauna or flora which will not mate with other groups of its genus. Generally species specific traits arrive because of some sort of breeding isolation between groups. If people stick fish together which are isolated from breeding in the wild but then the fish breed in captivity are they separate species? What makes them so if so?

There is no such thing as a pure species, species is a fluid human construct.

Rare Cichlids

05-15-2003, 9:50 PM

Originally posted by JimG

Sorry differently about what? I am not quite sure what you are referring to. I am not familiar with any of these names though anthropology is more my gig than ichthyology so if they are ichthyologists that is probably why. Among taxonomists though regardless of what Class, Order, etc of beastie they are focusing on there are many who just love to dole out the species nomenclature.

A working definition of a species is a group of fauna or flora which will not mate with other groups of its genus. Generally species specific traits arrive because of some sort of breeding isolation between groups. If people stick fish together which are isolated from breeding in the wild but then the fish breed in captivity are they separate species? What makes them so if so?

There is no such thing as a pure species, species is a fluid human construct.

JimG, you said "Very possibly they are in effect sub-species though I know that seems mind boggling".

If you were to do some research on American cichlids you will run across articles and websites by those people, and others who are now working to divide and join previously known species. Not to mention trying to asign newly discovered species. Do some research on the subject and you will see what they are talking about.

Rare Cichlids

05-15-2003, 9:53 PM

"A working definition of a species is a group of fauna or flora which will not mate with other groups of its genus"

In the wild none of these species cross with each other. Only in the unatural environment of the home aquarium can you see such behaviour. Just as lions and tigers do not mate together in the wild, but do in captivity.

inxs

05-15-2003, 11:30 PM

Actiually hybridization does occure in the wild. Having kept orchids some time back I do remember reading about some commonly occuring hybrids where species overlap - as a matter of fact I think there was a few instances of hybridization between not only different species but different (closely related) genera.

As for animal hybridization not occuring in the wild - just ask anyone who has ever seen a jack-a-lope and they will tell you different:D .

Rare Cichlids

05-16-2003, 2:50 PM

I refering to these Central American cichlids only.

Haggisman

05-16-2003, 4:08 PM

They will hybridise in the wild, they may not be found in the same area but they would hybridise if they were.

scholar

05-16-2003, 8:05 PM

At least I am learning the definatin of species and sub-species. I know that it is tough to call what is sub and what is original fish. And, that's OK! :)

Rare Cichlids

05-16-2003, 10:38 PM

Actually, no. Many of these fish are found in the same rivers and lakes and they have NEVER been reported to cross. As a good example, many species of the Midas Complex are found in the same small lakes. Yet even those who are low in numbers and may ahve trouble finding a mate (sp. "Fat Lips" for example) are not known to breed with any other fish. Where have you heard otherwise?

Back to lions and tigers (which may not be the best example, but still), which can be found in the same area (atleast in the recent past, if not still), but do not cross.

Originally posted by Haggisman
They will hybridise in the wild, they may not be found in the same area but they would hybridise if they were.

Haggisman

05-17-2003, 9:49 AM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids
Actually, no. Many of these fish are found in the same rivers and lakes and they have NEVER been reported to cross. As a good example, many species of the Midas Complex are found in the same small lakes. Yet even those who are low in numbers and may ahve trouble finding a mate (sp. "Fat Lips" for example) are not known to breed with any other fish. Where have you heard otherwise?

Back to lions and tigers (which may not be the best example, but still), which can be found in the same area (atleast in the recent past, if not still), but do not cross.

This is a good example and in my home country.You could say that the feral cat shouldnt be there in the first place but they do hybridise regularly and are actually causing the wildcat genepool to be polluted.If it happens with cats then I'm quite sure it will happen with fish, does it not happen with wild african cichlids(I think I heard that somewhere).
Scottish Wildcat Hybridisation (http://www.scottishwildcats.co.uk/Scottish%20wildcat%20hybridisation.htm)

Rare Cichlids

05-17-2003, 1:04 PM

Thats interesting webpage, but still as irelevant as my lion x tiger comments.

When it comes down to it, we're not talking about cats, or orchids or any other form of life. The most professional studies that I have ever come across concerning Cichlids of all regions (including African cichlids) state that hybrids never occur in the wild. Although one article goes as far as to say that the Amphilophus species may have hybridized in the distant past. Yet none of the cichlid collectors that I have ever heard of have spoke of hybrids occuring in the wild.

"If it happens with cats then I'm quite sure it will happen with fish,"

Why?

JimG

05-17-2003, 1:10 PM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids

JimG, you said "Very possibly they are in effect sub-species though I know that seems mind boggling".

If you were to do some research on American cichlids you will run across articles and websites by those people, and others who are now working to divide and join previously known species. Not to mention trying to asign newly discovered species. Do some research on the subject and you will see what they are talking about.

OK I just didn't find your remark very clear, by the rest of your post though it is quite clear you have as poor reading comprehension as you often have the ability to make yourself clear. I have been saying all along that 'species' is not a solidly definable thing and that taxonomists argue back and forth. If YOU were familiar with their published articles over the past century you'd see the species and even genera fall in and out of favor, as I have stated multiple times.

Perhaps you should put your high horse out to pasture before you end up looking even dumper, OK?

JimG

05-17-2003, 1:14 PM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids
"A working definition of a species is a group of fauna or flora which will not mate with other groups of its genus"

In the wild none of these species cross with each other. Only in the unatural environment of the home aquarium can you see such behaviour. Just as lions and tigers do not mate together in the wild, but do in captivity.

It really doesn't matter whether the species are in captivity or in the wild, if they would recognize each other's sex cues and breed in captivity they'd do so in the wild. Though the offspring between lions and tigers are true hybrids, the male offspring are all sterile. Do some research.

Rare Cichlids

05-17-2003, 1:34 PM

Originally posted by JimG

OK I just didn't find your remark very clear, by the rest of your post though it is quite clear you have as poor reading comprehension as you often have the ability to make yourself clear. I have been saying all along that 'species' is not a solidly definable thing and that taxonomists argue back and forth. If YOU were familiar with their published articles over the past century you'd see the species and even genera fall in and out of favor, as I have stated multiple times.

Perhaps you should put your high horse out to pasture before you end up looking even dumper, OK?

You need to do some serious research before you comment any farther. But as Mr. Tolen feared, you are turning this into an argument and making personal attacks at me. In respect to Mr. Tolens request I will not be commenting any more, and I also feel that your attack at me is not worthy of a true response. Besides, I'd hate to look even "dumper".

Haggisman

05-17-2003, 4:48 PM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids

"If it happens with cats then I'm quite sure it will happen with fish,"

Why?

Because they want to I suppose.

Read this site(near the bottom of the page), I myself have fished for bream, roach and rudd.From time to time I have caught a hybrid(usually roach x rudd).These fish are closely related and are often found in the same areas(gravel pits, slow moving rivers).

http://home.planet.nl/~zoete004/cypriniform.htm

Rare Cichlids

05-17-2003, 5:10 PM

In response to Haggisman only;

Again, another well written webpage showing evidence of hybridization, concering species other than the ones being discussed.

Just as there are well written webpages on the hybridizing of European Cyprinids, and wild cats, there are well written studies and DNA tests that suggest that hybridization is not something that occurs with most Central American Cichlidae. For instance
http://hcgs.unh.edu/Staff/kocher/pdfs/McKaye2002.pdf

jimbo

05-17-2003, 8:32 PM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids
Just as lions and tigers do not mate together in the wild, but do in captivity.
You couldn't be more right.
Fore as far I know, lions live in Africa and tigers in Asia. (Or did I missed the point here)
Unless they have some form of transportation I guess they will never see or meet up with each other.
A crossbreed between M.Johannii and M.Estherae is swimming in my tank.
Crossbreeding is (my opinion) a result of an overcrowded tank (or the lack of males or females) and would never happen in the wild between the very same two species.
In the wild, each one would have many more opportunities to meet a specimen of the opposite sex but SAME “species” instead of one of a DIFFERENT “species”.
We all know that it is possible to get hybrids so there is nothing new to discover by producing those unfortunate creatures.
However, things are far more worse if the aim of crossbreeding is commercial. I would just refer to the Red Blood Parrot. As in this case, the result will be the distribution of something that could never exist in the wild. The only reason for
those “crossbreeding addicts” is pursuing easy money.
I had to get this off my chest.

Jimmy

Haggisman

05-17-2003, 9:13 PM

Well the lions and tigers thing seems to be a weak argument, since they dont live together in the wild.But if they did its possible they may breed(as the ferals and wildcats do).

As for the cichlids, well there may not be any evidence to say they do crossbreed but theres no evidence to suggest they dont.

As for parrots never being able to exist in the wild...well thats another one that can be debated.After all they may not even be hybrids.In fact these days many people tend to belive they are inbred red devils/midas cichlids.I guess its possible for fish to inbreed in the wild so you never know eh?

*edit*I dont have acrobat installed so I cant read that link you poster rarefish.

Rare Cichlids

05-17-2003, 10:08 PM

"As for the cichlids, well there may not be any evidence to say they do crossbreed but theres no evidence to suggest they dont."

If you were able to read the link you would see some evidence against crossbreeding.

I suppose none here have heard of the Asian Lion, which is most likely extinct by now. I honestly can't remember a lot about the species, and it may have been extinct for a little while now, or may still be present in small numbers. The comment would have been pointless if the species were not present together in the wild, either now or in the recent past.

Tiger15

05-18-2003, 1:00 AM

There is actually one kind of live bearer that is reported to hybridized naturally in the wild. The scientists couldn't figure out why they only find one sex of a fish and how it is possble to mulitply until they discover that it is actually a sex-biased hybrid of two distinct species.

If two closely related species exist in the same water, they will hybridize. But then in time they will be so blended in that scientists will call them the same species or variants of the same species. The distinction between species is a line drawn by the scientists who change the definition back and forth. Many Pseudotropheius zebra variants were one time considered a single species until recently they were divided up. Since they do cross breed given the opportunity, do you call them hybrid?