Whats your take on hybrids???

[Hudson Ensz]

i am really concerned. hybrids seem to be eating up our hobby i have seen cichlids in there natural habitat, i have seen one eyed geophagus interact with schooling satanoperca in groups of up to 30 or more. i have seen baby peacock basses among reeds and am convinced that a red mutilated and tatooed parrot cichlid is haveing a bad impact on the hobby i will never buy a hybrid and would never recommend one to anybody... am i the only one who thinks like this??? please reply.

[Hudson Ensz]

Yes!!! in the poll 7 people have voted against hybrids sorry for posting in the wrong forum.
Ps if you could state your reason it woud be nice too!

[Dan Woodland]

Simple, if they were meant to be they would occur in nature!

[Lisachromis]

Simple, if they were meant to be they would occur in nature!

Careful with that Dan. There are occasions of hybrids happening in nature. There are also occasions where people bring in species where they shouldn't be, and then they cross with the native fish. Effectively occuring in nature....
Technically it's man created but it does happen.

[Hudson Ensz]

Wow i am so relieved this is a lot better then what i had hoped for 16-0 in the second day.

[Bas Pels]

Simple, if they were meant to be they would occur in nature!

Careful with that Dan. There are occasions of hybrids happening in nature. There are also occasions where people bring in species where they shouldn't be, and then they cross with the native fish. Effectively occuring in nature....
Technically it's man created but it does happen.

Not that long ago I raised the question somewhere whether introducing species into a new habitat where they hybridize with local fish (such as Parachromis managuensae with P fridrichsthalli) would be a natural hybrid or not

My guts say they are wrong, period. However, I also think we can hardly forbid fish expanding naturally, if the opportunity arises, can we? So I think, we ought not to detest natural hybrids

What if a hurricane would relocate some Vieja fenestratus 100 miles?

This hobby of ours can give one a headache

[dogofwar]

I think its critical to differentiate between INTENTIONAL hybrids (like flowerhorns) and the random offspring of indiscriminate breeding of closely related cichlid species.

While some on this board might find the former (flowerhorns) freakish, these fish are the result of many years of dedicated, skilled breeding. The crazy colors, big heads, short bodies, and furious temperment are ON PURPOSE...and desired by those who keep and breed them. There is a market for flowerhorns, so people will produce fish to satisfy the market.

The latter (random hybrids) - for example crossing a convict with a sajica - I find more dangerous to the hobby. Often, the offspring of two closely related species, especially when young, can be confused with one of the parent species. Having such crosses in the market, especially when mis-labeled, can result in people buying and passing on fish that they believe are one species but are actually hybrids...which is not good. There's no real market for randomly crossed cichlids, so this should really be the focus of hobbyist ire.

Keeping fish in glass cages is inherently different than nature. Since the beginning of when people have kept fish, they have sought to enhance the beauty of what is found in nature. This has resulted in koi, goldfish, bettas, livebearers, discus, and all sorts of other fish that have been hybridized and/or line bred to appeal to man's sense of aesthetics (vs. reliable to what's found in nature). Flowerhorns follow this tradition.

That some people PREFER flowerhorns over natural cichlids reflects variations in taste. And you can't regulate taste.

DISCLAIMER: I do not nor have I ever kept flowerhorns, although I have intentionally created random hybrids (which I fed to stuff).

[Dan Woodland]

Simple, if they were meant to be they would occur in nature!

Careful with that Dan. There are occasions of hybrids happening in nature. There are also occasions where people bring in species where they shouldn't be, and then they cross with the native fish. Effectively occurring in nature....
Technically it's man created but it does happen.

Not that long ago I raised the question somewhere whether introducing species into a new habitat where they hybridize with local fish (such as Parachromis managuensae with P fridrichsthalli) would be a natural hybrid or not

My guts say they are wrong, period. However, I also think we can hardly forbid fish expanding naturally, if the opportunity arises, can we? So I think, we ought not to detest natural hybrids

What if a hurricane would relocate some Vieja fenestratus 100 miles?

This hobby of ours can give one a headache

I have no problems with "natural hybrids" it happens, I understand it happens and accept it, sometimes it's for the best but not very often. That being said, I am a purist, period. I have never kept or will I keep a hybrid, intentionally. If I find out a fish I am keeping are hybrids I destroy them. For example, I've done this twice with yellow labridens. I have seen too many people see dollar signs when it comes to fish or hybrids. As a matter of fact a large part of my problem with hybrids is they are only alive because someone is trying to make money. Call it intentional versus unintentional, call it natural versus unnatural, either way I'm on the natural side of the fence. Rant over, have a nice day.

[dogofwar]

Pungu maclereni (from Lake Barombi-Mbo in Cameroon) is another example of a natural hybrid.

This paper describes that natural hybridization is one path to development of new species (like Pungu): "Our findings show that sympatric hybrid speciation is able to contribute significantly to the evolution of complex species assemblages even without the prior formation of hybrids derived from allopatrically differentiated lineages."

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articl ... d=15679917

That said, Pungu and flowerhorns are totally different situations.

Like fancy livebearers, fancy bettas, and fancy discus, fancy goldfish, flowerhorns (and parrots, Red Texas, etc.) are fancy cichlids. They're not natural...and that's the point. They're intentionally SUPER-natural... That people are willing to pay hundreds of dollars for them demonstrates that there is a demand for them and people appreciate such fish.

I don't fault people for producing and selling fish that people are willing to buy....not that I believe that the sinister profit motive is the only thing motivating the production of flowerhorns. Like fancy livebearers, bettas, discus, goldfish, koi, etc, etc., a lot of the people who produce these fish are doing it as much for art/the hobby as much as anything else.

[Hudson Ensz]

At 22-1 this is great!!! unfortunately some might be going with the flow and vote against hybrids instead.in other forums most people voted in favor of hybrids .
I must admit i currently have seven guppies and three bettas (breeding project) i feed all the offspring to my pike, apistos, oscar and others .

[Bas Pels]

in other forums most people voted in favor of hybrids .

Why do you think I don't visit them? I know I meet people here with opinions I value. I've been looking on other fora, but very often I don't think the people on these fora share the nescesary basis views. I can go there to annoy myself, and annoy them, I can also decide to tel them be and ignore them

[dogofwar]

So I've read the arguments "against" intentional hybrids (parrots, flowerhorns, etc.) as follows:

- They'll contaminate native populations of fish in the wild
- They'll contaminate captive populations of fish
- People sell hybrids as pure fish
- They're un-natural
- I don't like them
- People produce them to make money

Am I missing any?

[Alex Odesit]

I have no problems with "natural hybrids" it happens, I understand it happens and accept it, sometimes it's for the best but not very often. That being said, I am a purist, period. I have never kept or will I keep a hybrid, intentionally. If I find out a fish I am keeping are hybrids I destroy them. For example, I've done this twice with yellow labridens. I have seen too many people see dollar signs when it comes to fish or hybrids. As a matter of fact a large part of my problem with hybrids is they are only alive because someone is trying to make money. Call it intentional versus unintentional, call it natural versus unnatural, either way I'm on the natural side of the fence. Rant over, have a nice day

Dan, I couldn't say better, good write up.
I also think that purism in this meter comes to most hobbyist with experience and understanding of serious fish keeping and preservation of naturally occurring fish.
Alex

[dogofwar]

So are people who keep and produce hybrids like flowerhorns not SERIOUS fishkeepers?

Is there something inherently sinister about producing / selling fish that people want to buy?

Does the production / sale of flowerhorns and parrots preclude the preservation of either wild or captive populations of cichlids?

Again, I'm someone who doesn't keep flowerhorns / parrots because I don't enjoy the aesthetics of them....but I've yet to hear a valid argument that flowerhorns / parrots and the like are detrimental to the hobby (and should be opposed)...

[Hudson Ensz]

So are people who keep and produce hybrids like flowerhorns not SERIOUS fishkeepers? yes many are VERY serious about the hobby but are ignorant of the bad effects they are or will have on the hobby.
Is there something inherently sinister about producing / selling fish that people want to buy? not really but deliberately harming and massacuring hundreds of fish for every ten orange fish is really crossing the line i am talking about dyed fish here but i think i answered you question if its not clear, it really matters about how they go about doing it.

Does the production / sale of flowerhorns and parrots preclude the preservation of either wild or captive populations of cichlids? actually it does some fish may become extinct and the hobby could help save them but unfortunately it is being so choked with hybrids that is almost impossible for most fish.

those are good questions and i dont know if i really answered any of them but i am only a noob really...

So I've read the arguments "against" intentional hybrids (parrots, flowerhorns, etc.) as follows:

- They'll contaminate native populations of fish in the wild
- They'll contaminate captive populations of fish
- People sell hybrids as pure fish
- They're un-natural
- I don't like them
- People produce them to make money
i think thats most of them

in other forums most people voted in favor of hybrids .

Why do you think I don't visit them? I know I meet people here with opinions I value. I've been looking on other fora, but very often I don't think the people on these fora share the nescesary basis views. I can go there to annoy myself, and annoy them, I can also decide to tel them be and ignore them

wow i really didnt mean to offend... i simply meant that is a little hard to believe that only one person is for hybrids in the 23 that bothered to reply. i dont doubt dan, alex or any others that that have replied of course. i dont doubt you have WAY more experience then me as i am only on two forums (i have lurked in over 6 other forums however) and know that you have tons more experience then i have.
well thanks for voicing your opinions everyone.

[Bas Pels]

So are people who keep and produce hybrids like flowerhorns not SERIOUS fishkeepers?

Is there something inherently sinister about producing / selling fish that people want to buy?

Does the production / sale of flowerhorns and parrots preclude the preservation of either wild or captive populations of cichlids?

Again, I'm someone who doesn't keep flowerhorns / parrots because I don't enjoy the aesthetics of them....but I've yet to hear a valid argument that flowerhorns / parrots and the like are detrimental to the hobby (and should be opposed)...

I think it is a pity you put parrots (the red ones) and flowerhorns on 1 pile

Parrots are fish, produced with a full disregard of any well being. They are descendends of citrinellums / labridens (very close relatives) which are active swimmingfishes, but genetically abused, and now they do no breath very well, so they lack the energy to swim actively.

As much as I try to respect otrher peoples opinions, I can not repect people who keep them

Flowerhorns is an other matter all together. As far as I'm aware, the fishes themselves can be very well (no harm in the well being line), however, I don't know this for sure. Many of them are very agressive, ad can not be kept with others. I wonder whether any fish (apart from the predators, but flowerhorns are mainly trimaculatus or citrinellum, not really predators) would like to be alone

Another matter, fully unrelated to fish well being, is the general effect these have. I would not know whereto get pure trimac in Europe, all offered trimacs are in fact rejected flowerhorns. I think that is a shame. Cichlids are not very well suited to keep in tanks, as the tanks need to be big. Not many people have big tanks, and thus not many sellers offer cichlids.

If the offered cichlids are not the real thing, we will have to look even further. So what do I have against hybrids? I think it might come down to the fact they will make it hard for me to have my hobby

Like a cicken breeder who finds out his neighbor breeds large dogs

[dogofwar]

I feel the same way about parrots as I do about bubble eye goldfish, celestial goldfish, extremely long-finned bettas, long fin swordtails, "bubble" rams, and the like: man's desire to have an interesting looking fish has impacted the health of the animal. I won't defend it as either "good" for the animals or aesthetically pleasing. But it's what a lot of people who keep fish tanks want to buy. Same with tatooed and died fish.

The main focus of my post is on flowerhorns.

That you can't find pure trimacs in Europe isn't the fault of people who keep flowerhorns. It's the fault of people who keep trimacs...not keeping them pure/maintaining a provenance, breeding them, and distributing them to other people who want to keep trimacs.

It's hard to confuse any other fish than a trimac with a flowerhorn, so I don't understand the concern about contamination of other species.

I don't keep hybrids, but I' guess I just don't understand the antipathy and blame heaped on people who keep flowerhorns and the flowerhorns themselves....as if the problem of people breeding and passing off hybrids and mis-labeled fish is the fault of flower horn keepers.

[Dan Woodland]

Hudson,

Don't worry, your post and survey are not the problem here. I think it was simple enough to understand.

[Hudson Ensz]

So are people who keep and produce hybrids like flowerhorns not SERIOUS fishkeepers?

Is there something inherently sinister about producing / selling fish that people want to buy?

Does the production / sale of flowerhorns and parrots preclude the preservation of either wild or captive populations of cichlids?

Again, I'm someone who doesn't keep flowerhorns / parrots because I don't enjoy the aesthetics of them....but I've yet to hear a valid argument that flowerhorns / parrots and the like are detrimental to the hobby (and should be opposed)...

I think it is a pity you put parrots (the red ones) and flowerhorns on 1 pile

Parrots are fish, produced with a full disregard of any well being. They are descendends of citrinellums / labridens (very close relatives) which are active swimmingfishes, but genetically abused, and now they do no breath very well, so they lack the energy to swim actively.

As much as I try to respect otrher peoples opinions, I can not repect people who keep them

Flowerhorns is an other matter all together. As far as I'm aware, the fishes themselves can be very well (no harm in the well being line), however, I don't know this for sure. Many of them are very agressive, ad can not be kept with others. I wonder whether any fish (apart from the predators, but flowerhorns are mainly trimaculatus or citrinellum, not really predators) would like to be alone

Another matter, fully unrelated to fish well being, is the general effect these have. I would not know whereto get pure trimac in Europe, all offered trimacs are in fact rejected flowerhorns. I think that is a shame. Cichlids are not very well suited to keep in tanks, as the tanks need to be big. Not many people have big tanks, and thus not many sellers offer cichlids.

If the offered cichlids are not the real thing, we will have to look even further. So what do I have against hybrids? I think it might come down to the fact they will make it hard for me to have my hobby

Like a cicken breeder who finds out his neighbor breeds large dogs

Could not agree more but for me with so many wild caughts at my finger tips it doesnt directly ruin it for me thankfully.
Yesterday i got flamed for thinking this guys fish was a flowerhorn he says it was a wildcaught trimac. is this possible?

[James Shingler]

Just a note on how far Flowerhorn breeding has gone. The old ones were not all that strange or malformed but this appears to be changing.
Once a trend starts it just seems to gain pace. Folk are taking it too far?

e.g. http://picasaweb.google.com/FlowerFish360
http://picasaweb.google.com/flowerfish3 ... 9016017138

I am sure there are ones with bigger humps and stranger shapes if I cared to look.

please tell me its not true.

I used to be able to show my dislike of these hybrids by walking out of LFS that sold hybrids.
Taking my money with me.
I am running out of shops.

What irritates me most is the labeling on many hybrids. There is nothing to say what they are and folk can buy them (especially young fish that for the young cichlid keeper with less money to spend are the only option) by accident.
These are I guess cast offs from the breeding programs in which thousands of fish are dumped on the market or killed.

Sadly I reckon loads of cichlids which are hybrids are owned by folk believing they have wild type fish e.g. trimac because it was miss sold at a shop.