# American Cichlid Association: Hybrids



## chc (Jul 28, 2004)

Hello everyone! I'm looking for some feedback on a topic that's been discussed for some time now in the ACA.

_1. Do you think the ACA should BAN hybrids from its annual convention, trading post, and auctions?

2. Do you think the ACA should ALLOW hybrids to be shown in its annual convention, sold via its trading post, and at its auctions?

3. Do you see it as inconsistent that currently Flowerhorns are not allowed but line-bred and otherwise manipulated fish such as Electric Blue Jack Dempseys, fancy discus, unnaturally occuring OB morph Africans and the like are allowed?

4. If the ACA were to take a definite stance either way on hybrids, would it affect your likelihood to become or remain a member?_

Thanks in advance for any and all responses!!!


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

Not a member...but for the sake of everyone else...could you define 'hybrid'?
Is this a mixture of two species, color variants...or what?
If you could clarify that...I would be much obliged (maybe to the point of sharing my opinion  )

Manoah Marton


----------



## chc (Jul 28, 2004)

Thanks for the quick response! Here are the definitions you're looking for:

HYBRID: any animal that is the spawn of two different species.

LINE-BRED or ORNAMENTAL: any animal that is derived from breeding just one species, usually intentionally, for the purpose of intensifying or altering color, body form, or similar characteristics. This would include color variants (e.g. fancy discus, electric blue Jack Dempseys), albinos, long or veil finned fish, short-bodied fish, etc.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

chc said:


> HYBRID: any animal that is the spawn of two different species.


If this is the definition of a hybrid according to the ACA then that organization is a disservice to all cichlid enthusiasts world wide.

If the ACA would take a consistent stance on hybrids and accept the valid scientific definition of the word hybrid, then I would consider rejoining. (I used to be a member, and even a moderator of their forum).

To answer your 4 questions...

1. yes
2. yes
3. yes
4. yes

The consistent stance is IMHO the only stance that has a basis in fact. 
There are two classes of cichlid: Pure Populations, and pet quality cichlids. Cichlids should be labelled as such at ALL times.

Pure Populations are cichlids that conform to the locale, variant, or species holotypes (the phenotype shown is standard and conforms to a written description of that population).

Pet Cichlids are any line bred, sports, mutations, intra-specific hybrids, inter-specific hybrids, etc. If man has manipulated the bloodlines, then they are pet fish.

What I see today at ACA shows and the like is a very arbitrary ban against fish like flowerhorns, but the most distorted line bred hybrid Angelfish is allowed. What gives? 
The truth is that many cichlid enthusiasts allow their personal preferences to turn into some sort of pseudo-science. I don't like Flowerhorn hybrids, I do like the wild Angelfish hybrids... now, to justify that, many enthusiasts try to claim there is no inconsistency in that personal preference. They try to claim that some hybrids are "real" and "bad" mixes where as some other hybrids are "natural" or still within that lovely man made label called species, so they don't count. :roll:

Hybrids are NOT just mixes of 2 species... get that through to the ACA! :thumb:


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

chc said:


> Hello everyone! I'm looking for some feedback on a topic that's been discussed for some time now in the ACA.
> 
> 1. Do you think the ACA should BAN hybrids from its annual convention, trading post, and auctions?


_Given the ACA's stance on conservation, and place in the hobby, Yes._



> 2. Do you think the ACA should ALLOW hybrids to be shown in its annual convention, sold via its trading post, and at its auctions?


_
No_



> 3. Do you see it as inconsistent that currently Flowerhorns are not allowed but line-bred and otherwise manipulated fish such as Electric Blue Jack Dempseys, fancy discus, unnaturally occuring OB morph Africans and the like are allowed?


_Yes_



> 4. If the ACA were to take a definite stance either way on hybrids, would it affect your likelihood to become or remain a member?[/i]
> 
> Thanks in advance for any and all responses!!!


_No_


----------



## chc (Jul 28, 2004)

Thanks for the responses. I'd be happy to see as many more as possible!

Number6, I agree with your comments (especially those about "pet populations"), but I'm confused by your answers to the 4 questions. For instance, #1 and #2 seem to contradict themselves. Is that because of your understanding of or disagreement with the use of the term "hybrid?" Please explain.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

1. Do you think the ACA should BAN hybrids from its annual convention, trading post, and auctions? 
Yes. They should be banned (along with line bred and mutations such as the EBJD) for sale/showing under a species name. Ad hoc cichlids (non-recognized breeds) should be banned outright, pet breeds of cichlids could be allowed in specific situations IF clearly labelled. On the tradingpost, there could be a section for Pet breeds, the show could have generic classes for "pet" cichlids, etc.

2. Do you think the ACA should ALLOW hybrids to be shown in its annual convention, sold via its trading post, and at its auctions? Yes. See above. Provide a mechanism for new breeds to be identified by the ACA, etc.


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

In response too question one...given your definetion of 'hybrids', I would have to say yes. When two cichlids of different species spawn and give fry, then those fry are raised and sold for more than the parent fish, I think that sends the wrong message to many fishkeepers, who could be thinking..."Hey, if I spawn my (fill in the blank) with my (fill in the blank) I can sell them for a lot of money!!!" There are so much room for error there, you could end up ruining a great line of fish, and replacing it with hybrids. So, in an attempt to discourage people from spawning DIFFERENT species of fish, I would ban hybrids from the ACA.

In response too question two...
No (see above answer)

In response too question three...
Sorry all, but I have to say no. Given the definetions provided, it's my personal opinion that there is a distinct difference between 'hybrids' (result of two different species) and 'color variants' (different colors bred within a species). My reason is that when you mix two different species, you get an entirely different fish. If you just, by selecting breeding, alter the colors on a fish species, it doesn't change the fish, and essentially you could breed your color morphs back to the original fish. With hybrids, no can do.

In response too question four...
If I was, or would become a member, heck I probably wouldn't care. I'd read their reasons, probably disagree, and life goes on. I tried to have my opinions made known and made official rules, but it doesn't always happen like that. And, I think you'll all agree with me on this (even if you've been gnashing your teeth so far :lol: ), there are FAR more significant issues to be resolved than whether or not hybrids are allowed to participate in ACA things. Even inside the hobby. Like big box stores in general. They are hoards of bad information, and the cause of many a premature fish death. And then outside the hobby...well, I could spend the rest of my life here writing. So I really think that their stance wouldn't really change whether I become a member or not.

Thanks for reading, I now stand open for cross-examination... :lol: :lol: :lol: (probably only funny to me),

Manoah Marton


----------



## chc (Jul 28, 2004)

Manoah, I really like your answer to #4!


----------



## Manoah Marton (Feb 17, 2009)

thanx!


----------

