Peacock Interbreeding Question [Archive]

Rare Cichlids

03-08-2003, 4:01 PM

Originally posted by morleyz
Any fish of the same species can breed. That being said, I don't see any harm in interbreeding the same species of fish that could readily reproduce in nature too. If they're the same species they would not likely develop into their own separate species.

Like Childawg said, they are likely to be reclassified as separate species soon. And even if they aren't given "species" status, they still aren't exactly the same, and most likely would NEVER inter-breed in the wild.

I would not allow 2 different variantes of the same species to inter-breed ever.

morleyz

03-08-2003, 6:02 PM

So I suppose you've never bought a fish from a store? Obviously all the breeders are carefully mixing pure bred fish. That would explain why the fish we keep in our aquariums look nothing like their wild brothers more often than not. I suppose you're against interracial relationships too? Might cause a different species?

All those fish live together in nature, and they can interbreed in nature...and I'm sure they do. But I suppose you guys are the experts...so make sure you only keep 1 fish in a tank. They might have different genes you wouldn't want to mix.

ChilDawg

03-08-2003, 6:21 PM

Wow, we are anthropomophizing fish again. I said this for Malawian peacocks, not for people. I don't give a crap about ethnic heritage--if I cared about the purity of the race from whence I came, it would be pretty hypocritical, since I am not a "purebred."

The point is that these fish are GEOGRAPHIC variants, and thus would NOT occur in the same regions in the wild. They might interbreed, but it is not possible in nature because of lack of geographic proximity. If I want to know what type of cichlid I have in my aquarium, it would be nice to know that geographic variants are not mixed, since they could soon be different species. I don't care about mixing color variants from the same region, because they are (almost) 100% for certain the same species.

Also, just because different species can interbreed in nature doesn't mean anything. For some reason, they don't...maybe because they have access to members of the same species, and pass their bloodlines along that way.

I don't disagree with you on the fact that some of our captive-bred specimens are quite different from the wild ones, but then, at least, I know exactly what they are to the extent which I would like to know.

My statement, which you clearly misunderstood, is that geographic variants could soon be ruled to be separate subspecies or species. Any man-made cross between those is a hybrid, and would be left scientifically unclassified, so, even though you clearly misunderstood my statement, you reacted at least a little correctly when you said that the captive animals would not become new species or subspecies, but if they are already different variants/subspecies/species...we don't completely know the taxonomic status of all the geographic variants, so we don't want to interbreed them.

Does this help?

Matthew

morleyz

03-08-2003, 7:08 PM

Originally posted by ChilDawg
My statement, which you clearly misunderstood, is that geographic variants could soon be ruled to be separate subspecies or species.
Matthew

So now I guess it come down to that even though the scientists can't decides if they're different species or not...you're qualified to make that judgement. Exactly how do YOU know that they don't interbreed in the wild? I've read in several books that many of these "geographic" variants have arisen from interbreeding flocks moving to a more favorable environment for a particular niche feeding/breeding/etc. behavior.

ChilDawg

03-08-2003, 7:27 PM

Did I say that I was the expert here?

I am not qualified to judge specific status, but, from what I have read, it is very likely that many of these geographic variants could soon be elevated to higher taxonomic status.

From what I've read, it is impossible for geographic variants to interbreed in the wild since they have no contact with one another.

So we are at an impasse, what with our sources conflicting. At this point, I will maintain that my statement is valid because of probabilities with regards to taxonomic change. If I am wrong, it is because of what I read.

But none of this excuses your pathetic attempt to anthropomorphize fish by tying in racism.

oscarlvr

03-08-2003, 8:43 PM

the only thing i never like was when you end up with a ob peacock, i dont like them personaly but am sure others do, i guess personal preferance, that question is almost like will a pink convict and black convict breed. the same goes with severums, same fish differnt color variant , but peacocks are my favorite malawi, reading my post it seems sarcastic, but i dont mean it this way

bob

Rare Cichlids

03-08-2003, 10:53 PM

The bit about the black and pink Convicts, and the green and gold Severums isn't really valid to the discussion. Both the pink Convict and gold Severum are mutation variantes. Meaning these fish of a different color will naturally arise periodically in a group of normal colored individuals. The same goes for black backed Vieja regani, brightly colored Red Devil, and spotted Synspilum.

Also, I agree with everything Childawg has said. And uh, no. I actually don't buy fish that might have mixed parentage from my LFS. The vast magority of my cichlids are wild, with many F1's and a few LFS bought fish.

And the part about the scientist not being able to decide if they are different species is also not valid. The situation isn't that the scientist can't decide if the fish are separate species. The problem is that there has not been very many people to work with these fish. Thus few studies have been done.

The situation with the peacocks is similair to the situation with the red devils. For 100 years they were classified as 2 species, Labiatus and Citrinellus. Only until 30 years ago was Zaliosum described. And only until the last couple years were Sagittae and Amarillo described. But now we know there are actually 15-30 separate species. When will these be described? It may be a while, but they will most definantly become separate species.

morleyz

03-09-2003, 8:10 AM

Originally posted by Rare Cichlids

And the part about the scientist not being able to decide if they are different species is also not valid. The situation isn't that the scientist can't decide if the fish are separate species. The problem is that there has not been very many people to work with these fish. Thus few studies have been done.

That's exactly my point...how can you support him in saying that they're likely to split into different species when you even know that they just simply don't know that much about them. Childawg is stating as fact something that NO one could possibly know.

And as far as the accusation of me introducting racism into the argument...that's total BS. It had nothing to do with race and everything to do with genetics. The point was that people from all over the earth have mixed genes for thousands of years as we overcame geographic hurdles. No one seems to see that as a problem. And to tie back to fishkeeping...many of the "geographic" variants are just as likely to be an example of divergent evolution as closely related separate species.

It is my opinion that if you want to interbreed any fish, that's your perogative (sp?), but if you want to breed different colors/variants of the same species...I'm all for it. It's always nice to see a new variety of color without the "physical deformities" of some of the more distant interbreedings.

ChilDawg

03-09-2003, 8:22 AM

I guess that I support you in the prerogative thing, but I would like to be able to know that what I am buying is that which I have expected. The point is that peacock names with different geographic regions attached to them will interbreed. If you are going to sell peacocks as simply the species name, I guess that would be okay, but, as long as you have gone out of your way to buy certain geographic variants of your fish, why would you interbreed them?

I did not realize that the thing about humans was meant to deal with genetics and not racism, so I apologize.

morleyz

03-09-2003, 12:50 PM

Now you bring up something I do agree with. I would be disappointed if someone was trying to sell me an interbred species as pure bred. I guess I wasn't thinking about this from a breeder/sales point of view.

Rare Cichlids

03-09-2003, 2:58 PM

Originally posted by morleyz

That's exactly my point...how can you support him in saying that they're likely to split into different species when you even know that they just simply don't know that much about them. Childawg is stating as fact something that NO one could possibly know.

I said that the research has not been done to determine whether the fish are separate species or not. But that does not mean that we (and many professional) can't speculate, from the information about size, coloration, and behavioral differences, that they likely are separate species.

Luca Brazzi

03-09-2003, 7:41 PM

I say, "Breed and let breed!". By placing fish in our tanks we are already altering nature, so what the heck? Just think of that Peackock who had his eye on that cool little hottie chillin at the other end of the tank? Is anyone thinking about his desires? If we must take these animals from their natural habitat to display in our living rooms, the least we can do is let them get a piece!

Of course thats just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Habaceeba

03-10-2003, 2:28 PM

I have been keeping Malawians for a long time, but I still consider myself a novice. We do "take these animals from their natural habitat to display in our living rooms," but as a novice, I don't always know what species are pure-bred unless they are F0s or F1s. So my point is I would like to think that my little slice of nature in my living room is as close to an exact biotope of the lake as possible; therefore, I absolutely do not support the interbreeding of any species.

VoodooChild

03-10-2003, 5:35 PM

Whoah whoah whoah. Go back to the dividing of Amphilophus. Could you direct me to a site that has a cladogram posted or at least quickly describe it to me?

Faramir

03-11-2003, 2:49 AM

The reason I don't go with letting peacocks interbreed is the danger of ending up with a homogenous captive population, where they all look the same. Whether they are different species or subspecies is not the point; they are different populations that do not interbreed in the wild. It's not just about some principled desire to keep the line "pure" - it is about maintaining a range of distinct types with which to grace our tanks.

If you took 100 different peacocks and bunged them in a huge tropical pool, what would you have in 10 generations' time? Probably a homogenous gene pool, with every fish looking like the Heinz 57 it is.

morleyz

03-11-2003, 10:06 AM

However, selective interbreeding can result in more unique and interesting patterns and colors. There's definitely a flip side to that story.

ChilDawg

03-11-2003, 10:41 AM

Agreed, but from what I have read, Faramir's outlook, while less rosy, is more likely to occur.

Luca Brazzi

03-11-2003, 9:27 PM

Yeah Faramir... and Blacks and Whites shouldnt marry either right?

ChilDawg

03-11-2003, 9:29 PM

What the hell, Luca? How are we getting that fish and humans are the same here?

Luca Brazzi

03-11-2003, 9:47 PM

Well... Faramir said

"the danger of ending up with a homogenous captive population, where they all look the same."

The DANGER... is that they will all LOOK THE SAME...

Whats wrong with that? So what... they all look the same... congradulations... your a success... you win!

Ummmmmm...

:D Yeah... I got a bit carried away with that one... heh, heh, heh.

Rare Cichlids

03-12-2003, 7:41 AM

Voodoo, maybe this site will help a bit.

http://hcgs.unh.edu/Staff/kocher/pdfs/McKaye2002.pdf

Faramir

03-12-2003, 7:59 AM

I'm not sure I should dignify this bull$#!+ with a reply, but I will.

People are people. Fish are fish. Aquarium fish are kept for various reasons; one is the interest generated by the endless variety. This variety will be lost if the individual strains are not kept seperate. From the hobbiest's viewpoint, this is a danger. Simple as that.

People are not kept as pets, and doing so would be unthinkable. The value of people is not their value as inhabitants of an aquarium, but is intrinsic in their humanity. Their racial origin does not effect this.

Harry Tolen

03-12-2003, 10:14 AM

As a moderator, I am always torn as to how best to deal with situations like this. On the one hand, I can just go in and delete all the offending posts, but if I do that no lessons will be learned.

So instead I will just say KNOCK IT OFF. Arguing against interbreeding (and thus destroying) color variants of a species is NOT the same as advocating racial separation in humans, and to suggest that is emotionally charged, logically false, and a cheap shot to boot. If you can't see that the cases of fish and humans are different, both ethically and physiologically, you need to get some glasses.

Having said that, any further cracks in that vein in this thread will be summarily edited.

morleyz

03-12-2003, 7:31 PM

Harry...you are certainly correct in what you say...and I didn't really mean for the subject to go beyond genetics. What brought those two subjects together is something I'm going to reiterate and stand by.

Humans are an excellent example of what happens when there is no restriction to mass interbreeding. Having 4 children, it never ceases to amaze me at how much each child has some parts of them that are easily identified as coming from their parents. However, each of them is so genetically unique (well...I guess aside from having a set of identical twins). Genetics in fish as well as humans is way to complicated to sum up that every fish would end up brown over time. The neat thing about genetics is that mutations occur frequently enough, that the odds of losing a genetic trait are just as good as developing a new one.

For those of you who want to keep your family lines pure...have fun, but I don't find it nearly as interesting as finding out what happens when you let nature take it's course. I hate to say it, but putting to geographically separated but same species of fish is no different than when north america was settled and intebreeding with native americans took place (just as an example).

Now you can argue ethics or anything else, but this is a discussion of genetics...and I don't think you can rule out the fact that humans of many different genetic backgrounds have been interbreeding for a very long time...and looking around, it doesn't appear as if we're all drifting to some sort of limited gene pool.

Luca Brazzi

03-12-2003, 8:11 PM

Geez... where's your sense of humor?

I just find it funny, how folks completely disturb nature by taking the fish from the wild in the 1st place, and then... attempt to subdue their own internal guilt for doing so by trying some half-assed, and completely impossible method of "keeping it natural". That's all. Nature is like an Atom, you cant observe it without disturbing it. But, to each his own I always say.

Rare Cichlids

03-12-2003, 9:38 PM

Originally posted by Luca Brazzi
Geez... where's your sense of humor?

I just find it funny, how folks completely disturb nature by taking the fish from the wild in the 1st place, and then... attempt to subdue their own internal guilt for doing so by trying some half-assed, and completely impossible method of "keeping it natural". That's all. Nature is like an Atom, you cant observe it without disturbing it. But, to each his own I always say.

I feel no internal guilt for keeping fish. If you do, well, thats your buisness. And the reasons for not letting geographical variantes interbreed is not half assed, nor impossible. Basically, your post made no sense. Cross breeding of Aulonocara species and variantes is not a huge problem at the moment (as far as I know). But if measures are not taken to prevent it, later on in the future, there will be serious problems. This again is comparable to Red Devils and Midas. They were allowed to crossbreed freely when they were first imported. And now you cannot be garanteed a Labiatus or Citrinellus unless you buy wild or F1. This is not a desirable situation, but it is one that Peacock enusiasts will be faced with later on if people let their fish cross freely now.

Luca Brazzi

03-12-2003, 9:56 PM

No matter what you do, there will be differences between fish bred in the wild, and those bred in captivity. It is unavoidable. Your method of not interbreeding will NOT lead to the complete preservation of the the species traits you desire to achieve. You... are only dealing with the appearances of the fish, not the total fish. A fish (or any living creature for that matter) is far, far more than its "Appearances". Just because it LOOKS right doesn't mean it ACTS right. That's why I said that what you are attempting to do is impossible. You may be able to keep them LOOKING correct, but what about the subtleness of behavior, attitude, etc.? Guaranteed... your correct LOOKING peacock will stick out like a sore thumb to a real, wild peacock if placed in the wild after spending a couple of years in your tank, maybe not by looks, but by the simple fact that YOUR peacock expects to be fed. So hence... you are changing the species anyway, if not by looks, then by other means.

Thats just my opinion though... I could be wrong.

CyberDrgn

03-12-2003, 10:23 PM

Ok this is kind of off topic and perhaps a bit wierd. I believe that the posts about human interacial uh...breeding wouldn't be a direct comparison anyhow. Human "races" are all socialized differences. There is really only one race. We are all the species homosapiens.
So anyhow what I was thinking would be a better comparison would be humans crossing with neanderthals.

None of what I just wrote was intended to be offensive or racial, this topic just got me thinking of odd scientific stuff of human evolution, and neanderthals becoming extinct?....or did they end up mixed in with us?

If this isn't making sense let me know and i'll try to think of a better explanation.

Luca Brazzi

03-12-2003, 11:02 PM

Nice thought CyberDrgn. Sounds nice... but... wrong. There are actually 5 races (according the man who made up these classifications to begin with... Johann Friedrich Blumenbach), and they have nothing to do with social structure/culture/etc.

Check out

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~jlynch/Frank/People/blumen.html

You can also check out Discover Magazines article: The Geometer of Race

Harry Tolen

03-13-2003, 12:18 AM

Morleyz: I understand your point, and your thoughts related to genetics were not what I had in mind in any case. But the different races of humanity are not separate species. They don't even get as far as being recognized as sub-species. In any case, we can leave it to the planet's six billion humans as to whether or not they wish to interbreed.

But comments implying that a fishkeeper who wants to keep his color variants true to their line breeding would somehow be in favor of racial segregation among humans are right out of bounds. That is what I was attempting to discourage.