Hybrid/Not a Hybrid (Cichlids)

[caz]

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

 

[Rare Cichlids]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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