# New hybrid cichlid??



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

I am wondering if I stumbled upon a new species? I have a mostly Tanganika tank with some fairly aggresive fish, and as a strategy to disperse the aggression in the tank I put in a couple Malawi females that I got from a friend. What ended up was a mating between a Pundamilia Nyerei (python Island) male and a Copadichromis Azureus female. One of the babies has gotten pretty big and looks awesome! (I will put up a picture soon) Has anyone else seen this kind of interbreeding before? I have no idea if they are sterile either, like a parot fish, but I do have two of them, and the mom and dad, so maybe time will tell? The spawn looks really cool, I hope they are able to reproduce!


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

jdamon said:


> I am wondering if I stumbled upon a new species?


 it is not, nor ever will be, a new species. It is just a mutt now, and if you linebred for many generations to arrive at a true breeding population, you could call it a new breed, but never species.



jdamon said:


> Has anyone else seen this kind of interbreeding before?


 frequently.



jdamon said:


> I I have no idea if they are sterile either


 likely fertile as these cichlids are younger species... still quite closely related.

Why are you so excited about mutts? just curious...


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

because its sweet looking! And I will settle for a new hybrid.... When I asked if anyone had seen this before, I was talking about these two specific genus. As a side note, isn't the definition of species such that one can only produce viable offspring with another of the same species?

I can't figure out how to post a picture within the thread... maybe that is discouraged. I will have to post them on some other site and insert a link? That may take a little longer....[/img]


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

jdamon said:


> because its sweet looking!


Ah, gotcha. 1st generation hybrids are not always very stable, so fry may not be as "sweet" looking. They may even look just like a Copadichromis... be prepared to kill a large number of fish as you try to stabilize this new "breed".



jdamon said:


> I was talking about these two specific genus.


 I have seen Pundamilia /Copadichromis crosses.



jdamon said:


> As a side note, isn't the definition of species such that one can only produce viable offspring with another of the same species?


 No, not at all. Even if you find this sort of error in print, be assured that it is a very common and basic misunderstanding. It is a basic prerequisite to be a single species that a cross within the group produces viable offspring, but it is not correct to reverse that and say that if fertile offspring can be produced that they must have been a single species to begin or be some sort of new species.



jdamon said:


> I can't figure out how to post a picture within the thread... maybe that is discouraged. I will have to post them on some other site and insert a link? That may take a little longer....[/img]


 Yes, that is how you must post pictures.

Hope that all helps. :thumb:


----------



## shaguars7 (Apr 12, 2009)

well really any 2 mouthbrooding cichlid cold hybridize. So i doubt there are anything that kept in the same tank in your type of environment would not cross.


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

> I have a mostly Tanganika tank with some fairly aggresive fish, and as a strategy to disperse the aggression in the tank I put in a couple Malawi females


how did you end up with a victorian male? was it part of your "mostly tanganyikan"?


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

The only fish in the tank that are not tanganikan are the male python island and female chrysonatus that happen to be the focus of this thread.... but I assure you the rest of the tank inhabitants are from lake tanganika! I have an Mpimbwe Frontosa, a big Julie, a whole bunch of shell dwellers, a calvus, a gobie, and [/url]an angelicus synodontis 

Finally I posted the pictures of this hybrid. I am excited b/c he seems to be green in the middle with red and blue and yellow! He is still immature and has his dad to compete with, so I assume he will look even better in time, but you can see the potential.



I will try post the rest of the tank as well, I have some nice shots.


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

well you said mostly tangs, and that you added malawi females, i'm trying to figure out if you think the Nyerei was from lake tanganyika or malawi, if you thought he was actually a she, or if you actually knew he was a vic, and just never stated it


----------



## wadman (Mar 4, 2010)

jdamon said:


> I will try post the rest of the tank as well, I have some nice shots.


i can't even see the first pic you put up.


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

here is the fixed link

http://s7.photobucket.com/albums/y259/jdamon77/Tank pics

and personally i think it looks like a sp. 44 with bad genes


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

I always knew it was a victorian, and the malawi females were freebies from my friend who was overhauling his tank. You guys are pretty harsh, honestly. I've been at this a long time, and I am not out to prove anything, just share what I thought was an interesting unintentional offspring. What is a sp44?


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

I see the sp44, its close, but I think my will look more green and blue.


----------



## ashilli48 (May 14, 2006)

jdamon said:


> I always knew it was a victorian, and the malawi females were freebies from my friend who was overhauling his tank. You guys are pretty harsh, honestly. I've been at this a long time, and I am not out to prove anything, just share what I thought was an interesting unintentional offspring. What is a sp44?


Trust me, neither one of these members are being remotely harsh. I have seen some rude behavior when it comes to hybrids. Every single member of this forum is passionate about cichlids. Especially the hot button topic of hybrids. Hybridized fish water down the hobby and at the same time pose a risk, however negligible in the eyes of the breeder, to the species themselves.

Fish keepers need to keep in mind the concept of the power of one vote. Most voters do not believe that they can make an impact, not realizing what one single vote represents, not seeing the bigger picture. If we do not all, as fishkeepers, attempt to avoid cross breeding, then together we will bring down the hobby. Newcomers will be purchasing fish from stores, not knowing what they truly have, because what they truly have is some type of mutt.

This all sounds far fetched I know but for every LFS that strictly purchases stock from reputable breeders there is one that will gladly take in your home breed fish, sometimes knowing what they have and not caring and sometimes not having a clue. All it takes is a few "outlets" i.e. LFS, farms and online breeders to get careless or greedy and we will see a nose dive in this hobby with nothing but "dayglo" neons, and parrots, and flowerhorns, and tattoed fish, etc. to purchase.

Your initial statement had a hint of zeal in it that you had done something great that may create an opportunity to, at the very least, score some trade-in credit at the LFS. You did not say that but your excitement ellicited concern.

The members here care enough about fish and the hobby to shoot straight with everyone on here. Take the constructive criticism and grow as a fish keeper. and enjoy your hybrids, but by all means do not let them out of the house or distribution into commerce, clubs or local waterways.


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

I had no idea this was such a sensitive subject... I don't have any intention of selling them, just thought it looked cool, and could be a new fish (but apparently not).

ashilli48, are you saying that mutts don't make good pets? How do you control interbreeding in the wild (say two different malawi peacocks)? And who is to say how all these "different species" got here in the first place? I think most experienced cichlid keepers can tell (or look up) what kind of fish they may see in a pet store. And if it looks weird, it probably is. I think your statement of breeding hybrids as watering down the hobby is a little strong. Its not constructive criticism, its your opinion. If I was proposing to put these babies back into lake tanganika or victoria, then you could have a problem.


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

sorry i was just saying you never mentioned vics in your post, i was making sure you knew you had a vic there


----------



## ashilli48 (May 14, 2006)

you came off like you thought your discovery was such a great thing and a couple of members commented and you took offense. I was just explaining how most, if not all, of us feel. Believe me I have seen some less than polite things said to people on here as far as hybrids go.

As for your commen"what kind of cichlid is this" posts and you will see ALOT of fish are purchased and then an attempt to identify later is done.

I'm sure that hybrids in the wild are mathmatically possible, but highly unlikely. However, 55 to 125 gallons of water narrows your mate choices down a bit.

And it does water down the hobby if your fish get out into the populace. It doesn't have to be a rift lake.

Will you sell them? No. I never said you would. I just commented on your exhuberance.

And my statement may be my opinion, but the constructive criticism I was referring to was the feedback you received from the moderator. They are mods for a reason.


----------



## cjacob316 (Dec 4, 2008)

> I'm sure that hybrids in the wild are mathmatically possible,


this hybrid has absolutely 0 chance of happening in the wild :lol:


----------



## shaguars7 (Apr 12, 2009)

Jdamon....I have a question for you..Since the fish in question is no longer a juvie and there is no mention of any or multiple siblings from that brood. So my question is what happened to the rest of them.. I am guessing u must of culled them because u have no desire to unload any of these hybrids. Please enlighten us.!


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

Shaguars7,

As I was not actually trying to breed these fish, only one survived the first round... this is the one I have. Frankly, its a miracle it survived at all, my calvus is a pretty good hunter and there are some other big fish in there. They did breed one other time after, and 2 fry came out of that brood. But, one of them died when I moved the tank (thats how I figured out that any survived the second round), and the other is in my buddy's tank. The Python island is always trying to breed with the azures, but they haven't seemed to work it out again since September, or at least nothing has survived. Again, this was not a science experiment, I was just trying disperse some aggression and ended up with with a couple cool looking fry. I thought it may have been a unique combination, but apparently folks have seen this before. Whether you like them or not is completely subjective.


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

The whole concept of species is actually quite complex and can happen in different ways.

Here is one answer, quite a good one: "The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956)



> Quote from Wikipedia:
> It is surprisingly difficult to define the word "species" in a way that applies to all naturally occurring organisms, and the debate among biologists about how to define "species" and how to identify actual species is called the species problem.


Most textbooks follow Ernst Mayr's definition of a species as "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups".

*Various parts of this definition serve to exclude some unusual or artificial matings:
* Those which occur only in captivity (when the animal's normal mating partners may not be available) or as a result of deliberate human action.
* Animals which may be physically and physiologically capable of mating but do not normally do so in the wild, for various reasons.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_concept#Definitions_of_species
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_problem
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species

"One common disagreement is over whether a species is defined by the characteristics that biologists use to identify the species, or whether a species is an evolving entity in nature. Every named species has been formally described as a type of organism with particular defining characteristics. These defining traits are used to identify which species organisms belong to. But for many species, all of the individuals that fit the defining criteria also make up a single evolving unit. These two different ways of thinking about species, as a category and as an evolving population, are quite different from each other."

To clear up one point--you cannot "create" a species yourself. Under artificial conditions, two species mated and the offspring were hybrids. It seems to be very common with mouth brooding cichlids. Most hybrids are sterile. The whole subject of evolution in Rift Lake cichlids is a fascinating one that provides material for many a scientific journal paper.

You can, however, create a breed, variety, or strain of a species, like people do with plants (e.g., plumXapricot fruit, varieties of flowers, vegetables). It takes more than one generation though.

:fish:


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

Thank you scrubjay! Finally a post with some useful info and references! I was definitely excited and probably misused species in the title of my post, but I believe more in the species as an evolving entity theory than a couple people deciding which animals belong to which group. That was a great start, but the longer we look, the more apparent that things may be a little different than we believe.

It totally makes sense that it is a hybrid, similar to breeding plants, but plants are not sterile. And another moderator mentioned that it probably wasn't sterile either. This point to me seems very important, as successfully breeding to produce viable offspring is a world away from producing sterile offspring. And in my mind (opinion) you have to have similar enough DNA to produce viable (able to reproduce themselves) offspring, i.e. within the same species group. I will have a hard time figuring out whether mine are able reproduce, especially since as of now there are only two males in existence. But, for discussion sake, isn't there a big difference between say a Parrot fish (a product of two very different looking fish, a severum and a red devil), that is most certainly sterile, and an offspring of two for the most part Haplichromis? Remember, it was a couple guys who discovered these fish that decided on the names. I realize the naming has changed quite a bit recently, no more haps, but this raises an interesting question. How similar are these different species? Some common sense says, fish with similar body shapes probably should be in similar categories, and all the minor differences that warrant different species to some, may just be inter-species differences, say like humans. If you named humans like fish, every race and hair color would be a different species, but we all know that not to be the case. My point is that all this naming stuff is completely subjective, and our idea of "interbreeding" may be flawed.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

jdamon, you seem to have made up your mind before you even began this discussion and are now willing to twist scrubjay's reply to something it is not in support of your odd notion that since you forced these fish to hybridize that you are now poised to turn the scientific world on it's head.

Please reread the last two paragraphs of scrubjay's excellent reply and tell me what you think the links and info was meant to reinforce.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

This isn't a species, this is a hybrid. All you've done is removed the reproductive isolation. :lol:


----------



## the_shedding_reptile (Sep 17, 2008)

jdamon said:


> My point is that all this naming stuff is completely subjective, and our idea of "interbreeding" may be flawed.


The "naming stuff" is totally subjective when it comes to any other category, but species. Species are the only ones that exist in nature, represented by populations. Everything else is just a classification, but species are real and objective.
While sometimes it is hard to decide if two populations belong to the same species or not, that is a different problem. Mostly because all species start in evolution as subspecies of the same species, that evolve separately.
But creating in captivity a hybrid, be it sterile or not, is definitely not a new species, no matter how you look at it. Plenty of species have the capability to hybridize in captivity, but most never do that in nature (with some exceptions).
And, finally, hybridization does not equal new species.


----------



## the_shedding_reptile (Sep 17, 2008)

Oh yeah, and taking Wikipedia as the absolute truth in scientific matters is a bit ... well ...


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

the_shedding_reptile said:


> Oh yeah, and taking Wikipedia as the absolute truth in scientific matters is a bit ... well ...


Wikipedia is great for the layman and this particular article is pretty well cited.


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

the_shedding_reptile said:


> Oh yeah, and taking Wikipedia as the absolute truth in scientific matters is a bit ... well ...


I have found these particular articles very well written and good for people interested in these topics. Wikipedia used to be very suspect in terms of providing information, but I think it has become much more sophisticated over time. Of course, you have to look at each individual entry and evaluate it in terms of its accuracy. The citations do help in that regard.



> species are real and objective


Yes and no; there are species which are in the process of splitting into two species, species that hybridize where a previous barrier has been removed, etc., indicating the active nature of evolution, which does not stop when taxonomists name species. These things are generally influenced by geological features and events. See article on "Ring Species." Examples of what I am talking about include Townsend's and Hermit Warblers in the Pacific Northwest, which were isolated by a glacial lobe long enough for two species to evolve, but now they hybridize extensively where their populations overlap. Over millenia, they could become a single species once again.

Thus the great quote: "The concept of a species is a concession to our linguistic habits and neurological mechanisms" Haldane (1956). Humans like things to fall into neat categories so they can label them, but the reality doesn't always lend itself to such organization.


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

jdamon, what you are talking about is producing hybrid fish created from two species that would normally not interbreed. Most people frown upon this practice for reasons presented above. I would say this is particularly true for Lake Victoria cichlids, many of which may become extinct in their natural habitat in our lifetime. Fish present sort of a unique situation in that they can produce hundreds of fry from one mating. If hybrids are given or sold to anyone else, there is a great likelihood that they in turn will breed, creating hundreds more hybrids, that are given or sold to someone else, until it is difficult to find a pure individual of a species. Many fish stores already appear to be selling such "mutt" Rift Lake cichlids.

Because there is such an incredible variety of African cichlids, there seems no good reason to create hybrids on purpose. Most find the wild forms to be the most beautiful and would consider hybrids to be basically "trash."

Creating hybrid Rift Lake cichlids for the purpose of selling them or distributing them is an idea that should never be put into practice because of the risks to the hobby as a whole. Keeping a few for your own enjoyment is fine, but once you let even one out of your tank, you cannot control how far the "bad" genes may spread.


----------



## ashilli48 (May 14, 2006)

Like I said before, no one is trying to beat anyone up here. We are just tired of an otherwise fine LFS (and sometimes the only one in town) having nothing to offer but a tank of flowerhorn, a tank of parrots and a tank of "assorted" Malawi. Did you cause this problem? No. Were you planning to create a "species" and profit from it? No. Were we scared by your comments and hoped to help shed light? Yes.

I said it before and it bears repeating, enjoy your cross bred fish, but keep them in YOUR tank.


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

Well, you guys are certainly passionate!

I was definitely miss understood in my last ramble by everyone except scrubjay. I was proposing that most of these fish are actually the same species, or derived from the same species. I am not knocking "pure breeds" and certainly would like to preserve extinct species, but I think that many of these so called pure breeds or strains or whatever, are actually wild hybrids, especially some of the mbunas and peacocks (like the regional versions of many "genus"). If you don't like flower horns and parrot fish, don't buy them. I honestly think the only true problem with my particular hybrid, would be introducing it back into the lakes. My two fish are geographically isolated, so the likely hood of them mixing in the wild is 0%, i get that. And putting them back into the wild would be a catastrophe in the sense of preserving wild species/genus/strains.


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

I think you still have some misunderstandings about Rift Lake cichlids. Most of these fish are _not _"actually the same species," no matter if they are descendants of one species or not, and whether or not they can hybridize in captivity. They are no more "wild hybrids" than you are a hybrid of chimps and bonobos; they are closely related species, like humans and bonobos. The taxonomy of Lake Malawi cichlids is still in flux, but I would not expect a huge amount of change in the species divisions themselves. These divisions are based on more than just color; behavior is also part of the equation.

Species are not synonymous with "breeds" and I don't know how you propose to "preserve extinct species." "Breed" refers to animals that have been selected by humans for particular traits. Once again I will be lazy and use wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breed
"Strain" generally refers to a species being bred for a particular characteristic, usually color. Thus you have all the ornamental angelfish and discus strains, and African cichlids that have been line bred for more intense coloration.

Many African cichlids exhibit only color variation within one species from location to location, likely due to sexual selection. Thus they are labeled by the specific location of their collection. There is just as much passion regarding the genetic conservation of these local color varieties as there is for the species themselves. It's a unique and incredible resource and people want to be able to preserve this in their home aquaria. In some cases these varieties may be interbreeding where barriers have disappeared, and in some cases the varieties may be growing further and further apart genetically, leading to the formation of new species over the long term.

The most important thing for you to understand though, is that allowing hybrid African cichlids "out of your tank" is _very much_ a critically important concern for the preservation of the hobby, regardless of how closely related the species are and regardless of the fact that they won't be introduced back into the lakes, which is what people are trying to explain. Species are still species when correctly raised in home aquaria using common techniques to reduce the potential for hybridization. Their genetics are unchanged from those of the wild fish they came from. But distributing African cichlid hybrids into the hobby can only result in negative consequences to captive populations of African cichlid species. Let's say, for example, a person contracts swine flu. Before they are diagnosed, they have already infected ten other people. Those ten people will then infect another 100 people before being diagnosed, and so on. Expecting aquarists to keep hybrids permanently goes against all the evidence there is. People change their tank inhabitants all the time, trade fish with each other, sell back to stores, etc. All it takes is for _one individual hybrid fish _to dilute the genetics of a captive population. Thus the reason why people have a hard time finding a "pure" yellow lab unless they buy wild fish. The more captive populations become genetically polluted, the more people will insist on buying only wild fish, increasing pressure on wild populations and ecosystems.

This is already happening at retail fish stores--cichlids are being sold as particular species, when in fact they are hybrids. But many buyers will not know, and the genetic degradation can spread from there.

People are not trying to bash you; but they are passionate about keeping this from happening in captive African cichlid populations. It is not the same situation as flowerhorns and parrot fishes where you are dealing with obvious mutations. But the main point is to not release any hybrids from your own tank to avoid them falling into the hands of unscrupulous people. Because of the reasons listed above, even if you "infect" only your best friends, and they infect only their best friends, things are soon out of your control. :?


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

scrubjay said:


> I think you still have some misunderstandings about Rift Lake cichlids. Most of these fish are _not _"actually the same species," no matter if they are descendants of one species or not, and whether or not they can hybridize in captivity. They are no more "wild hybrids" than you are a hybrid of chimps and bonobos; they are closely related species, like humans and bonobos.


Baboons and humans cannot breed and produce viable offspring that can then breed with themselves or anything else. This is my rational for believing that certain fish are closer genetically than you are proposing, as they are capable of interbreeding and producing viable offspring that can then produce offspring. Find me a paper that describes how baboons and humans are capable of producing offspring, and I will buy your argument.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

jdamon said:


> Baboons and humans cannot breed and produce viable offspring that can then breed with themselves or anything else. This is my rational for believing that certain fish are closer genetically than you are proposing,


Scrubjay did not suggest what you are now trying to "refute"...

What Scrubjay attempted to point out is that the definition of species is unaffected by degree of relatedness. In fact, the ability to interbreed and produce viable young but CHOOSE not to do so is evidence that this is in fact a wonderful miracle of Nature that fish should choose to avoid mating with something that would create fry with the maximum genetic diversity! Forcing fish into the confines of an aquarium causes a disruption to their "normal" choice and causes a breakdown of something that has evolved through give and take over countless generations...

Who are you to ignore that?


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

jdamon said:


> scrubjay said:
> 
> 
> > I think you still have some misunderstandings about Rift Lake cichlids. Most of these fish are _not _"actually the same species," no matter if they are descendants of one species or not, and whether or not they can hybridize in captivity. They are no more "wild hybrids" than you are a hybrid of chimps and bonobos; they are closely related species, like humans and bonobos.
> ...


If you won't believe a professional fisheries biologist, then I doubt anyone is going to change your mind, so I will stop trying to explain it to you. :?


----------



## jdamon (Jan 26, 2004)

I thought this was a place for discussion, not, "I am right as I have a degree in fish," or just a job in a fish hatchery... I have a fancy degree too, but I don't need to lean on it cause I am out of counter points.... Find me an article outlining how baboons and humans can procreate, and i will be convinced of your idea. Until then I will continue to question the naming system, because I believe there are flaws in it. If you want to continue the friendly argument, I am all for it, but don't expect me to cave to your "knowledge!"


----------



## scrubjay (Oct 25, 2009)

jdamon said:


> I thought this was a place for discussion, not, "I am right as I have a degree in fish," or just a job in a fish hatchery... I have a fancy degree too, but I don't need to lean on it cause I am out of counter points.... Find me an article outlining how baboons and humans can procreate, and i will be convinced of your idea. Until then I will continue to question the naming system, because I believe there are flaws in it. If you want to continue the friendly argument, I am all for it, but don't expect me to cave to your "knowledge!"


I am not quite sure I understand what your argument is. You have a problem with the scientific names of Rift Lake cichlids because two fish of different species can breed and have offspring? or you have a problem with the definition of species?

I apologize if I sounded like a "know-it-all." None of what I am saying is "my idea." I am not trying to make you believe _me_; I was trying to explain the definition of the word "species." I didn't have any part in coming up with it. 8) The fact that humans and baboons can't have offspring doesn't change the definition, any more than the fact that donkeys and zebras can have offspring. It is true that Rift Lake species are often very closely related genetically and can produce hybrid offspring. Are you saying that means they must be the same species for this to happen? Or that their offspring are a new species if they can reproduce?

Are you familiar with the creation of the new "house" cat breeds called the Bengal and Savannah? They were/are created by crossing domestic cats with African and Asian wild cat species called the Serval and Asian Leopard Cat. They may be a more useful example than humans and baboons  Breeding two species of cichlids to create a new cichlid can be done, but the creation wouldn't be a new species; it would be considered a man-made "breed." Thus, the Savannahs and Bengals are breeds, not a species. Do you agree with that?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_cat

There is a fascinating explanation of hybrid viability and inviability on wikipedia. I've never taken the time to understand or question hybrid viability, which is why discussions are good--I usually learn something new.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybrid_inviability


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*scrubjay*
I admire your patience... 
Jdamon is trying every logical fallacy out on you one by one. The simple fact remains, there is no proof offered in this thread by jdamon on his theory so if I were in your shoes, I would demand some before continuing.

jdamon's arguement is:

Fact: if a male and female cannot breed and produce viable young then they are different species

Conclusion (false obviously but...): therefore, if two animals do produce viable young then they are the same species or could be, if the splitters in the naming game were outnumbered by the lumpers.



jdamon said:


> I was proposing that most of these fish are actually the same species, or derived from the same species. I am not knocking "pure breeds" and certainly would like to preserve extinct species, but I think that many of these so called pure breeds or strains or whatever, are actually wild hybrids, especially some of the mbunas and peacocks


Jdamon, here is your challenge: in the scientific world, you are called a lumper and are in the minority. To the majority of the scientific world it is beneficial to say that wolves and coyotes are different breeds as there are enough differences in those two animals to classify them into separate groups. The overall genetic diversity is viewed as a great thing and something to be preserved. We split wolves into many species, and also split up coyotes.

You would have us lump them all back together to what end? What intent do you have? How are we (mankind) benefited? We are benefited by the current splits as we celebrate the diversity we find in nature and love to study the differences in groups of wild animals... the animals derive no benefit from being named, labelled, grouped.... they are just out there in nature breeding like with like based solely on instinct, so all this naming is for mankind's own pleasure and benefit and it is designed to simply reflect the very real and obvious natural differences we want to draw distinctions around. Get that? very real differences... like breeding with like...

So... what intent do you have for lumping? trying to pretend your captive bred hybrid is somehow natural?

It is not in my opinion... so I challenge you to find some actual evidence for your promotion of the lumper position. 
:thumb:


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

I'd like to lump the brichardi complex back together. :lol:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> I'd like to lump the brichardi complex back together. :lol:


 :thumb: 
Even I might support that one! :lol:


----------

