Poll: Hybrid Fish
- Thread starter Watcher74
- Start date
Hybridization is one of the oldest tricks in man's husbandry handbag. As has been stated here before, mules are probably the best known hybrid. Perhaps you don't realize that this also goes on in the plant world too. You wouldn't have the delicious sweet corns that we have today without hybrids. Same goes for modern popcorn varieties. And dent corn with high yield and a narrow footprint to increase plants per unit area. We feed the world with hybrids.
However, with hybrids, there comes a price. Typically, they're genetic dead ends. Most mules can't reproduce. Hybrid corn doesn't come up with the same plant if you allow it to cross pollinate. And hybrid fish are no different. They most likely can't reproduce, or if they can, you'll end up with something you didn't plan on.
I don't think there's anything wrong with hybrids. If two organisms are genetically similar enough to generate viable offspring, why not give it a shot? The results can add to the wonderful variety of fish we already have. And they're also interesting to people to see what husbandry can do.
I think sometimes people get hybrids and genetically altered organisms confused. I'm not totally for genetically altered hobby fish. It seems like your using a powerful tool for something relatively frivolous. Glowing danios? Why do we need them? Although I think the reason they were developed is more vital than just pretty fish. I don't recall why they were developed.
Genetic design has it's place. Food crops designed to thrive in sub-saharan Africa could change the face of the continent. Hungry people are not happy people, hence the civil wars and such over there. (It's obviously more complex than that, but you see my point.)
I will probably not buy fluorescent danios. Why? Because the ones I've seen don't always look so healthy. It makes me wonder if the alterations are the root of it. So I'll just stick to buying normally bred fish.
And maybe the odd hybrid...
However, with hybrids, there comes a price. Typically, they're genetic dead ends. Most mules can't reproduce. Hybrid corn doesn't come up with the same plant if you allow it to cross pollinate. And hybrid fish are no different. They most likely can't reproduce, or if they can, you'll end up with something you didn't plan on.
I don't think there's anything wrong with hybrids. If two organisms are genetically similar enough to generate viable offspring, why not give it a shot? The results can add to the wonderful variety of fish we already have. And they're also interesting to people to see what husbandry can do.
I think sometimes people get hybrids and genetically altered organisms confused. I'm not totally for genetically altered hobby fish. It seems like your using a powerful tool for something relatively frivolous. Glowing danios? Why do we need them? Although I think the reason they were developed is more vital than just pretty fish. I don't recall why they were developed.
Genetic design has it's place. Food crops designed to thrive in sub-saharan Africa could change the face of the continent. Hungry people are not happy people, hence the civil wars and such over there. (It's obviously more complex than that, but you see my point.)
I will probably not buy fluorescent danios. Why? Because the ones I've seen don't always look so healthy. It makes me wonder if the alterations are the root of it. So I'll just stick to buying normally bred fish.
And maybe the odd hybrid...
Last edited:
I have written too many post over the years on this topic. I am sort of rabid against the practice. in my mind hybreds have no place in the hobby.
Here is a link to the topic with some very nice points made by Ron Coleman (he is a hell of a guy--join the ACA, attend the annual convention. you may get to know him).
http://malawicichlids.com/mw01013.htm
Here is a link to the topic with some very nice points made by Ron Coleman (he is a hell of a guy--join the ACA, attend the annual convention. you may get to know him).
http://malawicichlids.com/mw01013.htm
I have no basic problem with hybrids, so long as they are labeled and sold as such. But there are lots of not-quite-right ideas floating around in this thread. Species crosses in the wild are not common, but do occur where "normal" species barriers to cross breding break down, whether that happens naturally or by man's invervention. Both cases happen.
Man also selects for desired traits, sometimes by simple selection, most commonly by back- and cross-breeding of different "strains" or of mutations. We would not have long-finned varieties of fish if this were not done, nor albinos, nor the many varieties of Angelfish or Discus, or even the handful of forms of Tiger Barbs. Since fixing of mutations occurs in the wild as a basic part of evolution, I see no basic issue with using that to our own needs or desires. It has been done historically with dogs, cattle, horses, sheep, goats - all of the domesticated animals - and is on-going. As ornamental fish become domesticated, it is bound to occur and already has history for goldfish and koi, only modern history for tropicals.
I object strongly to sale of hydrids without the information being supplied that they are hybrids - mixed cichlids are very common, and few folks understand what they are dealing with when they buy them. These are "pound puppies" at the worst - individually they may look and act great, but breeding is iffy if someone thinks they have a species.
Genetically altered fish were done as indicator fish, whether as markers linked to another hard to detect gene or as biological pollution indicators. It in no way different than the modifications which have historically for domesticated species other than the sophistication of the techniques used. Humans have and will continue to modify their domestic stocks. Whether you approve or disapprove of a particular product of the manipulation is unimportant other than to you personally - the modifications themselves have historic and wide acceptance and will not stop on either animals or plants even single-celled organisms (bacteria, yeast,etc.).
I pesonally do not like long-finned versions of fast schoolers, such as Danios and Barbs. Fine, I don't buy them. I don't like distorted Cichlids. Fine, I don'y buy those either. Those that do like them are free to vote with their dollars and their care. End of discussion.
Man also selects for desired traits, sometimes by simple selection, most commonly by back- and cross-breeding of different "strains" or of mutations. We would not have long-finned varieties of fish if this were not done, nor albinos, nor the many varieties of Angelfish or Discus, or even the handful of forms of Tiger Barbs. Since fixing of mutations occurs in the wild as a basic part of evolution, I see no basic issue with using that to our own needs or desires. It has been done historically with dogs, cattle, horses, sheep, goats - all of the domesticated animals - and is on-going. As ornamental fish become domesticated, it is bound to occur and already has history for goldfish and koi, only modern history for tropicals.
I object strongly to sale of hydrids without the information being supplied that they are hybrids - mixed cichlids are very common, and few folks understand what they are dealing with when they buy them. These are "pound puppies" at the worst - individually they may look and act great, but breeding is iffy if someone thinks they have a species.
Genetically altered fish were done as indicator fish, whether as markers linked to another hard to detect gene or as biological pollution indicators. It in no way different than the modifications which have historically for domesticated species other than the sophistication of the techniques used. Humans have and will continue to modify their domestic stocks. Whether you approve or disapprove of a particular product of the manipulation is unimportant other than to you personally - the modifications themselves have historic and wide acceptance and will not stop on either animals or plants even single-celled organisms (bacteria, yeast,etc.).
I pesonally do not like long-finned versions of fast schoolers, such as Danios and Barbs. Fine, I don't buy them. I don't like distorted Cichlids. Fine, I don'y buy those either. Those that do like them are free to vote with their dollars and their care. End of discussion.
I probably wouldn't buy one, but I wouldn't be opposed to it either as long as it's clearly marked and is only cross "breed" rather than cross "species," as has been clarified above. Although, personally, assuming they're genetic dead-ends I probably don't even have a problem with the cross-species thing, as long as it wasn't resulting in painful birth defects or some such.
The problem, I guess, is these (cross-species and cross-breeds) just aren't going to be marked as hybrids in the vast majority of stores unless mandated by law. As a result, they're probably going to be foisted upon unsuspecting consumers. Most consumers probably aren't looking to breed or perpetuate the natural "breed," so I suppose that's not too much of an issue, but for folks like Roan and others who are looking to preserve and protect the naturally occuring variants, I can see how this is an issue.
I don't think it should (or could) be banned, but I think this is one instance where a common-sense law requiring "hybrid" labelling may be appropriate. After that, it's really a decision up to the consumer and LFSs whether they want to cater to that sort of market.
The problem, I guess, is these (cross-species and cross-breeds) just aren't going to be marked as hybrids in the vast majority of stores unless mandated by law. As a result, they're probably going to be foisted upon unsuspecting consumers. Most consumers probably aren't looking to breed or perpetuate the natural "breed," so I suppose that's not too much of an issue, but for folks like Roan and others who are looking to preserve and protect the naturally occuring variants, I can see how this is an issue.
I don't think it should (or could) be banned, but I think this is one instance where a common-sense law requiring "hybrid" labelling may be appropriate. After that, it's really a decision up to the consumer and LFSs whether they want to cater to that sort of market.
Just a note that if you do see a hybrid fish for sale that has a scientific name, such as that "marci" that watcher was referring to, that is fraud --
1. intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
2. an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,
In Canada and Euro that person could and probably would be prosecuted for doing this. These countries have very plain, laid out laws as to what constitutes Truth in Advertisting. Europe also has a very staunch fish community over there from what I've seen and they don't take kindly to hybrids being sold under false pretenses.
I have no idea what the laws are in the US are on Truth in Advertising. I would like to know, yes, but frankly, I don't want to get into a huge debate on whether the customer should have known beforehand or not or that it's not up to the retailer to educate the customer. The fact of the matter is that the fish is being misrepresented as something that exists -- an actual specie -- and it is not and that is fraud.
If my LFS were to sell any fish in a misrepresented fashion such as this, I would definitely have a little talk with them.
Just my 2 cents
Roan
1. intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right
2. an act of deceiving or misrepresenting,
In Canada and Euro that person could and probably would be prosecuted for doing this. These countries have very plain, laid out laws as to what constitutes Truth in Advertisting. Europe also has a very staunch fish community over there from what I've seen and they don't take kindly to hybrids being sold under false pretenses.
I have no idea what the laws are in the US are on Truth in Advertising. I would like to know, yes, but frankly, I don't want to get into a huge debate on whether the customer should have known beforehand or not or that it's not up to the retailer to educate the customer. The fact of the matter is that the fish is being misrepresented as something that exists -- an actual specie -- and it is not and that is fraud.
If my LFS were to sell any fish in a misrepresented fashion such as this, I would definitely have a little talk with them.
Just my 2 cents
Roan
Swordtails and platys will readily interbreed in the wild and produce a hybrid (forgot the name of the thing...) Point is that it exists in the wild successfuly.
However, to scientifically and genetically cross a jellyfish with a neon tetra is completely absurd. I disagree with anyone "creating" their own species by genetically crossing two completely different species. IMHO, if the organism exists in the wild, then it is acceptable.
However, to scientifically and genetically cross a jellyfish with a neon tetra is completely absurd. I disagree with anyone "creating" their own species by genetically crossing two completely different species. IMHO, if the organism exists in the wild, then it is acceptable.
Sorry, but mules do not exist in the wild, and have been historically very useful animals. Nothing absurd there to me.
