# Yellow Labs and Red Zebras can cross breed?!



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

I just bought a couple Cherry Red Zebras to add to my tank, but I'm worried they might cross breed with my yellow lab, since I've read on this forum it is know to happen.

I might end up selling my lab if it is true.

But anyways, from what I remeber from bio class...
Different species can't breed with each other.

So if the Red Zebra is from the genus: Metriaclima, species: Estherae 
And the Yellow Lab is from the genus: Labidochromis, Species: Caeruleus 
... How would they breed together?

Maybe:
1. They are named wrong, they are same species
2. Have long history of hybrids, so they are so genetically messed up they breed together
3. They don't breed together

Can anyone explain it to me?!


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

it's not different species that don't interbreed, it's geni, wolves and domestic dogs can interbreed, they are apart of the same genus, but cats and dogs don't mate

apparently fish are one of the very few animals where different geni do interbreed. especially when you have two with very similar habits and body types as zebras and labs. so no they are not mislabelled, and even pure wc or f1's will cross breed in a tank so it's not a previously hybrid issue, but there are a lot of hybrids out there because of it


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

How are they not in the same Geni then? Shouldn't they be if they can breed?

Whites/Blacks/Asians are.

Not yellow/orange cichlids?


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

to me it's esier to accept it than to argue it


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Your science class was wrong. That's it. Sorry.

Different species can hybridize, resulting in fertile progeny.

The whole decision making process on naming species is rather humanly arbitrary, as are the rules surrounding them.


----------



## iplaywithemotions (Dec 18, 2008)

Yellow lab X Red Zebra is perhaps the most common mbuna hybrid. In fact, if you purchased your labs from Petco or Petsmart, there's a good chance they are hybrids.


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

> Your science class was wrong. That's it. Sorry.


I can accept that. Most of science is just hypotheses and Theories anyways. Ever watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)"? There is a professor that believes everything on earth evolved from crystals. Another that believes everything came from lighting bolts. Ha.

Biology definition for *species* from definition.com:


> the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.


Kinda interesting. I think whoever named these fish don't have a clue about following biology definition to name fish.

What you guys think?

I think Fungelhund is correct:


> The whole decision making process on naming species is rather humanly arbitrary


----------



## justinf67 (Jul 19, 2009)

just for fun for u, heres an actual video of it happening

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k4R78SZy ... &index=107


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

Guess my yellow Lab has to go... 

I think he was a hybrid anyway. :?

My red zebras don't appear to be.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

CichlidsTank said:


> Biology definition for *species* from definition.com:
> 
> 
> > the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.
> ...


I am fairly confident they are aware of the "old" Biological Definition of nomenclature, but have long since dismissed it as inaccurate, much the same way as most now acknowledge that the world isn't flat.

The definition of species, and perhaps even Genus are somewhat problematic, at least in my opinion. It has been called the "Species Problem". Wiki (ok has it's limitations) actually has a reasonable discussion listing all the different manners which scientists use to determine and describe "species". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

For the practical purpose of fish keeping, the hobby views that any unique fish, should not be bred with any other unique fish, or the result is a hybridization, even if they are "currently" described as being the same species, and most certainly if they are different species. The naming of species for human purposes is as mentioned previously somewhat fluid (changes over time) arbitrary and temporary in nature. If we take a look at the various Aulonocara stuartgranti for example, you can see that there are many very distinct and stable colour variants. For the purpose of the hobby, we consider them distinct, and encourage people not to hybridize these.

It seems as though a majority of mouthbrooding cichlids in African can hybridize, and produce viable progeny, in non-natural, captive situations. It certainly is good to challenge accepted practises, and learn more. I don't have the answers as to what should, or shouldn't constitute a species and I'm not certain that any singular answer can be used across all organisms.

Another question when it comes to speciation, is exactly at what point in evolution, do we have two distinct species? hmmmmmm opcorn:


----------



## ridley25 (Jan 5, 2008)

CichlidsTank said:


> Kinda interesting. I think whoever named these fish don't have a clue about following biology definition to name fish.


Not so much 'didn't have a clue.' More like 'unable to study underwater specimen accurately enough in habitat.'
Most of the people, scientists, adventurers and hobbyists alike, did the best they could with the information available. if I'm not mistaken, _every _open water cichlid in Lake Malawi was once grouped in the genus Haplochromis.
It's somewhat accepted that any mouth brooding Malawi cichlid could breed with any other mouth brooding Malawi cichlid - but I don't know anywhere near enough about biology or naming conventions to say when separate populations differ enough in colouration, feeding behaviour and body structure to become different species. But I'm okay with that since huge parts of the community can't agree on this either.

Take tradename: Maingano:
Melanochromis 'maingano', 1983, provisional name.
Melanochromis cyaneorhabdos, 1997, original combination.
Pseudotropheus cyaneorhabdos, 2002, new combination.

Or better yet, the Red Zebra:
Pseudotropheus estherae, 1995, original combination.
Maylandia estherae, 1998, new combination.
Metriaclima estherae, 2001, new combination.
Try googling "Maylandia vs. Metriaclima" if you really want to see the fur fly!

kevin


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

> Another question when it comes to speciation, is exactly at what point in evolution, do we have two distinct species? hmmmmmm


Probably when the two groups can't breed anymore, but that leads back to the first question... haha. Why can these two different species breed? lol

I didn't know names have been updated overtime. That is interesting. The more people learn about the species the more they change the name. Like the red zebra as ridley says:


> Pseudotropheus estherae, 1995, original combination.
> Maylandia estherae, 1998, new combination.
> Metriaclima estherae, 2001, new combination.


I think these cichlid names have lots of room for improvement. As probably alot of other animal's names do.


----------



## ridley25 (Jan 5, 2008)

CichlidsTank said:


> I think these cichlid names have lots of room for improvement. As probably alot of other animal's names do.


But I'm sure we can agree that even if they change, scientific names with collection points are a lot better than trade names!
It's pretty tough to keep a morph/strain/location point pure when five different Labeotropheus trewavasae are referred to as simply "Red Tops."

kevin


----------



## bma57 (Sep 16, 2007)

I realize I'm just anecdotal evidence and a sample of one... but my tank is now in its third year with no Lab x Estherae crossing.

In my initial stocking, I followed the "don't mix species from the same genus" rule of thumb, thinking I was protecting myself from hybrids. It wasn't until I had both Labs and Estherae in there for several months that I began reading how high a crossbreeding risk that was. I've had a number of clutches of fry of both species and have seen no signs of mixing yet. I think you significantly reduce the risk by having a sizable school of each species. When suitable same-species mates are absent or in short supply is when you run the highest risk of your fish resorting to "Plan B" and mating with similar looking other species. Good luck.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

But you would not see any signs of mixing, that's the problem.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

cjacob316 said:


> it's not different species that don't interbreed, it's geni,


 you can have hybrids at the genus level as well...

bma57, agreed... a large enough tank and enough suitable mates decreases your risk... as djransome points out though, sometimes one has to consider that any risk is too great a risk! :thumb:


----------



## Tinga (Nov 27, 2009)

Hmm was it me or, right around :40 into the video an egg drops from above. 

Didn't look like it came from the lab as you can see the vent.

It really looks like the Red dropped the egg...

Any thoughts?


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

I texted my friend a senior in zoology at Ohio State and asked this same question.

Her reply back was (in cell text language):


> if a population is seperated long enough it will develop characteristics more adapt for the area it is living in it is even true for people. the longer they are seperated and the fartherarpart the more likely they won't be able to reproduce together. so like people were seperated for a while and different areas have different distinct characteristics. for instance eskimos are shorter and chubbier, to maintain a warmer body temperture with a small surface area and those living on the equator are tall and skinny with a high surface area to release heat. but animals are the same, oor same idea at least. - what are mules? they are a hybrid of a donkey and horse, but can't reproduce.


*Hrmm riddle me this:* 
A long time ago in a lake far far away. Lived a species of fish that were red in color. A big rock pile fell in the middle of the lake seperating the species of 'red fish' into 3 groups, with no waterways connecting them, so they could not breed with the other fish.

Couple hundred years later the one group of fish has evolved into a yellow group of fish, the 2nd group has evolved into an orange group, the 3rd group are still red.

Then... the rock piles fall down and all the fish groups mix back together (orange,yellow,&red). Now the orange and yellow group's sexual funtions have not evolved or changed just their color so they can still breed together, but the red groups sexual junk changed as well as its color so it cant breed with the other groups, so... all these fish were the same species before, but now...
*which group isn't the same species as before?
or are they all still all the same species?
or are they all different species?*

*Now riddle me this:*
A long time ago on earth the same earth right under your feet. Lived a species of gorillas that were like the ones u see in the zoo. A big continental slide slid apart in the middle of them seperating the species of 'gorillas' into 3 groups, with no landways connecting them (seperated by water), so they could not breed with the other gorillas.

Couple hundred years later the one group of gorillas has evolved into White humans, the 2nd group has evolved into black humans, the 3rd group are still gorillas.

Then... people learn to build boats to get across the waterways and all the 'gorillas' mix back together (White,Black,&Gorillas). Now the White and Black group's sexual funtions have not evolved or changed (for the sake of this story) just their color so they can still breed together, but the gorilla's sexual junk changed, so... all these 'gorillas' were the same species before, but now...
*which group isn't the same species as before?
or are they all still all the same species?
or are they all different species?*

Hrrmm.. same story. Just called the groups different things. Did you get different answers to the same questions?

Vote for the right anwser here: http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=206851

*also interesting:*
Definition of Hybrid: an offspring of two animals or plants of different races, breeds, varieties, species, or genera


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

CichlidsTank said:


> A long time ago in a lake far far away. Lived a species of fish that were red in color. A big rock pile fell in the middle of the lake seperating the species of 'red fish' into 3 groups, with no waterways connecting them, so they could not breed with the other fish.


 side by side speciation can also occur, but ok... in your hypothetical, a major event forced possible speciation.



CichlidsTank said:


> Then... the rock piles fall down and all the fish groups mix back together (orange,yellow,&red). Now the red and yellow group's sexual funtions have not evolved or changed just their color so they can still breed together, but the red groups sexual junk changed as well as its color so it cant breed with the other groups, so... all these fish were the same species before, but now...
> *which group isn't the same species as before?
> or are they all still all the same species?
> or are they all different species?*


 IF, all three species were described by humans to other humans and the majority of the humans say "yup, them dere fish r different and don't seem to breed with each other much or at all" after rock pile left, then we have three species when the rocks vanish. If red and yellow keep breeding with each other and no human can draw a line saying that group vs that group, then all the humans have to agree that there are now only two groups of fish.

IF, however, someone pointed out that the reds and yellows would be interbreeding if it weren't for the rock pile and could prove it, then we had two species WITH the rock pile, and then 2 without it.

Sound a bit made up? congrats... you've learned something. :lol:

I find it more fascinating when a paper is refuted/rejected when it tried to claim two species exist. The reasons for rejection provide me more clarity than anything else.


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

> IF, all three species were described by humans to other humans


LMAO - that just about sums it up. too much human error

I think you explained it dead on, number6


----------



## cancichfan (Dec 23, 2009)

If you want to read an interesting story on this topic, check out Richard Dawkin's book "The Ancestor's Tale". In it, there is a chapter entitled "The Cichlid's Tale" in which he discusses how this sort of divergent speciation can occur. There's a neat story about two cichlid species (sorry, don't remember the genera or species) that don't hybridize due to the female's choice to only breed with males of a particular colour. When artifical light was introduced that removed the colour difference, the females bred with all the males.

[/quote]I bet if someone did a thorough analysis of the genome of the different species of cichlids, we'd find that they may be more related to each other than we think. Chances are some already has or there's some grad student out there doing it. Calling something a species, especially based on on gross morphological difference as early characterization did, is pretty arbitrary as others have said.


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

CichlidsTank said:


> > Your science class was wrong. That's it. Sorry.
> 
> 
> I can accept that. Most of science is just hypotheses and Theories anyways. Ever watch the movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed (2008)"? There is a professor that believes everything on earth evolved from crystals. Another that believes everything came from lighting bolts. Ha.


To one rather narrow semantic definition, all science is hypotheses and theory. Of course this relies on the mathmatical definition of provable facts, which doesn't exist outside the minds of human beings. A better definition of fact (with respect to science) is 'something for which the evidence is so overwhelming that it would be perverse to belive otherwise'. Scientific theories can be facts too.

Expelled is a terrbile film, using ridiculous selective editing, underhand tactics to get interviews and all to promote a politcal agenda. Created entriely by a Fox News fatmouth talking about things he does not understand. Please do some googling on it to learn the real story.... To base any of your views of science of this crass film would be a real shame. You wouldnt take politics lessons from Michael Moore, please dont take science lessons from Ben Stein.


----------



## MCKP (Aug 17, 2009)

It is more than just yellow labs and red zebras that can breed too..... my late Metriaclima Greshakei and my Yellow Lab had 16 little babies.... even though I had other male yellow labs...

I think evolution creates different species..... Because the "species A" changed their sexual organs..... they have evolved from "Species B" and become their own species.... It doesn't really matter WHAT changes..... you can have subdivisions of species(different colors, etc) and then you can also have different species.... I think it is just a matter of WHAT evolves based on different living requirements.....

What you are proposing would suggest that all mbuna could have evolved from the same fish.... and that is not impossible, since all mouth breeders CAN breed with other mouthbrooders... given the right scenario.......

As was explained in a previous post, we do not allow "nature" to naturally occur in tanks, we throw in fish together that would normally not breed together in the wild, and are surprised when they do.... Fish are primitive enough to think of 'sex' as only a means of reproduction..... and when it comes down to it, anything is better than nothing...... so they will take what they have available..... so to speak. Where in their natural lake, chances are ALOT slimmer, based on population, and geographical amount of space, that these species would breed together....

Fish don't typically create hybrids, humans do.

Look at dogs..... Take a Cocker Spaniel, and a Poodle.... totally different dogs, both different breeds, from different areas, yet they can and will breed together....

I think if people looked at fish as more like 'breeds', things would be alot less confusing...

Think of Yellow Labs as one breed...... Red Zebras as another...... Both look different, both come from different areas, yet they are able to breed in the right conditions(hehe, in their case just seeing each other)

Animals are prolific based on the instinct of survival and reproduction.... only humans care about what they look like.


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

MCKP said:


> What you are proposing would suggest that all mbuna could have evolved from the same fish.... and that is not impossible, since all mouth breeders CAN breed with other mouthbrooders... given the right scenario.......


Actually thats near enough exactly what happened  . And hybridisation is thought to be a major driver in the speciation of rift cichlids. Plenty of papers on it if you want to look for them!


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Dakuan said:


> . And hybridisation is thought to be a major driver in the speciation of rift cichlids. Plenty of papers on it if you want to look for them!


How about some hints as to where to start? This certainly runs contrary to the readings I have done so far, with a couple of exceptions.


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

Hello, i have a stack of papers on it at home, will find the journals when im there and post them back later...


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Dakuan said:


> Hello, i have a stack of papers on it at home, will find the journals when im there and post them back later...


Thank You.


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

Fogelhund said:


> with a couple of exceptions.


Indeed, I put 'thought' in my post as i realise its hardly a consensus, but heres something for starters:

http://hcgs.unh.edu/Staff/kocher/pdfs/Streelman2004.pdf


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Dakuan said:


> And hybridisation is thought to be a major driver in the speciation of rift cichlids. Plenty of papers on it if you want to look for them!


I'm not sure that it is a driver. I believe the point behind the papers is that it is a contributor to the genetic diversity that then allowed for such rapid speciation and overall diversity
http://smartech.gatech.edu/dspace/handle/1853/16118

That is different than saying driver IMO.

Hope that helps


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

Number6 said:


> Dakuan said:
> 
> 
> > And hybridisation is thought to be a major driver in the speciation of rift cichlids. Plenty of papers on it if you want to look for them!
> ...


Perhaps, although the if i remember correctly the paper you quote didn't find much in the way of evidence of hybrization at all. The the zebras and labeotropheus were studied for that one wasn't it?


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

oh, and I think it's interesting to read the conclusion of that paper I linked to and I think Fogelhund will be pleased to have his prior understanding confirmed!


----------



## kuni (Nov 8, 2009)

Hybridization may or may not be important to speciation in Malawi cichlids. One other thing to consider is that the lake was formed only 1 million years ago. Usually, it takes a longer time than 1 million years for closely related species to evolve incompatibilities that prevent crossbreeding. Even then, sometimes crossbreeding can occur, but it's usually marked by sterility and/or inviability of hybrids, which is why crossing South/Central American cichlids is quite difficult, whereas "crossing" Malawi cichlids is so easy that hobbyists go to great lengths to avoid it.


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

Dakuan said:


> Expelled is a terrbile film, using ridiculous selective editing, underhand tactics to get interviews and all to promote a politcal agenda. Created entriely by a Fox News fatmouth talking about things he does not understand. Please do some googling on it to learn the real story.... To base any of your views of science of this crass film would be a real shame. You wouldnt take politics lessons from Michael Moore, please dont take science lessons from Ben Stein.


 ya, I agree. All documentaries are one sided, I was just using it as an example.



MCKP said:


> I think if people looked at fish as more like 'breeds', things would be alot less confusing...


 Ya, breed or races. Not different species, unless they actually are. Then it be easier to cookie cut a tank mix, without the risk of hybrids! :thumb:


----------



## kuni (Nov 8, 2009)

CichlidsTank said:


> ya, I agree. All documentaries are one sided, I was just using it as an example.
> 
> 
> > Generally, most documentaries are trying to make a particular case. Expelled actually uses deceit, though - it's anti-evolution propaganda with no scientific merit.


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

*Maybe this is the problem. There is no clear cut definition of what a species is. *



encarta.msn.com said:


> 1. biology taxonomic group: a subdivision of a genus considered as a basic biological classification and containing individuals that resemble one another and may interbreed


Just a classification of fish that look like each other and may breed?



merriam-webster.com said:


> (1) : a category of biological classification ranking immediately below the genus or subgenus, comprising related organisms or populations potentially capable of interbreeding, and being designated by a binomial that consists of the name of a genus followed by a Latin or latinized uncapitalized noun or adjective agreeing grammatically with the genus name


A classification of fish that don't have to look like each other, just are related in some way, and potentially capable of interbreeding?



dictionary.com said:


> Biology. the major subdivision of a genus or subgenus, regarded as the basic category of biological classification, composed of related individuals that resemble one another, are able to breed among themselves, but are not able to breed with members of another species.


 A classification of fish that resemble one another, are able to breed together, and can't breed with other species?

:-?


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

kuni said:


> Generally, most documentaries are trying to make a particular case. Expelled actually uses deceit, though - it's anti-evolution propaganda with no scientific merit.


O. haha. Stupid documentaries. You can never trust them.


----------



## kuni (Nov 8, 2009)

Genus is not a biologically meaningful term, period. Nor is family/order/etc. They're just tools used to easily identify and sort species. Species IS a biologically meaningful term, though in cases like Malawi, there's no clear-cut line between what is a species and what isn't.

Basically, life is complicated, and doesn't always neatly fit into boxes. Species definitions work 99% of the time, but Malawi is a very special case.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

CichlidsTank said:


> Maybe this is the problem. There is no clear cut definition of what a species is.


Exactly. But we discussed this earlier.


----------



## CichlidsTank (Sep 27, 2009)

Fogelhund said:


> Exactly. But we discussed this earlier.


O yeah. ha


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

Number6 said:


> cjacob316 said:
> 
> 
> > it's not different species that don't interbreed, it's geni,
> ...


with fish yes, but most animals of different geni in this world cannot interbreed, for some odd reason african cichlids seem to be the exception


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

kuni said:


> Genus is not a biologically meaningful term, period. Nor is family/order/etc.


 Grouping into a genus quickly tells us this about 2 or more species: 
they came from a common ancestor and they are distinct from other genus because of something biologically significant. So I don't think I agree with you... arbitrary at times to be sure, but not useless.



cjacob316 said:


> with fish yes, but most animals of different geni in this world cannot interbreed, for some odd reason african cichlids seem to be the exception


 anything that is a young species/genus might be able to interbreed with it's distant relatives. Fish are not the "exception"; the ages of the groups is the "exception" if we want to use that word.


----------



## MalawiIceberg1010 (Feb 5, 2011)

i think a clear example of this would be the Sciaenochromis fryeri "Iceberg" and the Sciaenochromis fryeri they are almost identical but a slight colouration change due to a diferent location...


----------



## TribalTwinSC (Mar 28, 2011)

So let me get this right....I may have a yellow lab impregnated by a Metriaclima estherae but if the lab is a hybird, the egs will not hatch? I know for a fact they were mating as I saw them....I am waiting exciteldy for the babies...it's day 20 now...but now I am afraid she has a mouth full of rotten eggs....is that right?


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

TribalTwinSC said:


> So let me get this right....I may have a yellow lab impregnated by a Metriaclima estherae but if the lab is a hybird, the egs will not hatch? I know for a fact they were mating as I saw them....I am waiting exciteldy for the babies...it's day 20 now...but now I am afraid she has a mouth full of rotten eggs....is that right?


You can't bring threads back from the dead... it's just not a pretty sight!

Ok, fine... do so...

To answer your question, the eggs WILL hatch and you will have tiny baby hybrid fry. My suggestion is to let the mom spit into the tank and let the hybrid fry get eaten or mostly eaten. Having one or two hybrid fry survive is often manageable.


----------



## TribalTwinSC (Mar 28, 2011)

I guess I don't understand...why is it bad to have hybrid fry? Why do you recommend letting them get eaten? We have the mom in a holding tank in anticipation of the arrival. We were going to give all but one away to a friend who has a tank set up for his little girl. Sorry to be so ignorant...but want to understand


----------



## GTZ (Apr 21, 2010)

'As aquarists we have the responsibility of maintaining nature's diversity and for this reason we should refrain from hybridizing or raising crippled individuals.' - Ad Konings
It's an attempt to keep the species pure outside of it's natural habitat. Hybrids can make their way into stores where consumers purchase and continue breeding an impure species.


----------



## TribalTwinSC (Mar 28, 2011)

Thank you for all the info.  I am learning alot


----------



## TribalTwinSC (Mar 28, 2011)

Update...and very confusing...but we found a tiny baby Cichlid in the main tank. Not sure how that happened....Female in holding tank is still holding. The baby is the cutest thing I have ever seen! I wonder how long he/she will make it before it gets eaten. I guess I am not concerned w/ cross breeding as I never indend to sell my fish or put them back in a pet store. The family who will adopt the babies is not concerned with this either. I belive that if the different species can cross breed in nature, they should be allowed to in captivity. I guess I won't be very popular after this comment but hey...they are too cute to 'terminate'!!!


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

TribalTwinSC said:


> I belive that if the different species can cross breed in nature, they should be allowed to in captivity.


They pretty much don't crossbreed in nature. The problem is caused by humans confining them in little glass boxes with inappropriate mates. :thumb:


----------

