There are several Aulonocara species of cichlids that have the same scientific name usually followed by the island in the lake from which they come. That doesn't necessarily mean they can interbreed does it?
Peacock Interbreeding Question
- Thread starter Habaceeba
- Start date
Yeah, it does. And it is important that they not be allowed to do so because it is likely that they may become separate subspecies and possibly even full species in the not-too-distant future.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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
bob
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.
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.