# Discussion of F0



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

F0 is wild caught or is it Pond bred?
F1 to mean first generation from these?

Both terms are thus ambiguous. Kind of wish folk would stop using them.

Very good looking Tropheus though. 8)

All the best James


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

F0 means wild. Always. F1 means both parents were wild. If it's an F0-F1 offspring, it's F2. Same with F1-F1. Basically, you take the highest F# and add 1 for the subsequent generation.

Awesome Trophs! Love the close-up/silly shots, too.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

dielikemoviestars said:


> F0 means wild. Always. F1 means both parents were wild. If it's an F0-F1 offspring, it's F2. Same with F1-F1. Basically, you take the highest F# and add 1 for the subsequent generation.
> 
> Awesome Trophs! Love the close-up/silly shots, too.


So what are the pond bred Tropheus sold as? :wink:

Hate to be a pedant.

These are conventions used by cichlid keepers. I am afraid they hold no legal status and F0 and F1 can under the filial system be used to describe any cichlid you like. Be it hybrid or pond bred for generations.

For example a German F1 Aulonocara Red Rubescens may be a the first generation of a cross of two lines be they pure or hybrid.

Same with Tropheus.

Only wild caught means wild caught.
and only first generation from wild caught, means first generation from wild caught.

The terms F0 and F1 are ambiguous.

Sorry. 

All the best James


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

Wild caught doesn't mean wild caught, either, by those standards. You can say whatever you want. But if someone is being honest about what they're keeping/breeding/selling, that's how you'd go about it. F0 = w/c, F1 = their offspring, etc. By those standards, there's no such thing as an F0/F1/Fwhatever hybrid.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

24Tropheus said:


> These are conventions used by cichlid keepers.


Are we not cichlid keepers? You accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers, but wish to argue it on a cichlid forum. Pedant indeed.

We all know it is flawed, we all understand it's meaning within this hobby. Time to get off the pedestel.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Fogelhund said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > These are conventions used by cichlid keepers.
> ...


Quite clearly I do not accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers.
It is confusing and is being used in a silly made up way.
As you say I have argued this before and will contine I think.
The arrogance of cichlid keepers is quite staggering.
Now some even go so far as to claim folk who use it in its original form, Gregor Johann Mendel, a 1856 to 1863, I think it was, are wrong. It would be funny if it was not so sad.

All the best James


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

24Tropheus said:


> Quite clearly I do not accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers.
> It is confusing and is being used in a silly made up way.
> As you say I have argued this before and will contine I think.
> The arrogance of cichlid keepers is quite staggering.
> ...


For good or bad, it is the standard for cichlid keepers, and it isn't confusing in the least.

There is no need to bring this argument up, at any and every opportunity. Let's keep this argument out of discussions moving forward, unless they are specifically to discuss Mendel's system and the modified usage for the cichlid hobby.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

The problem is the refusal of some cichlid keepers to accept that other cichlid breeders use the system in its original form. Thus the confusion every time it is used without clarification. IE I have no problem with F1 from wild or wild caught. F1 and F0 alone means different things to different cichlid keepers. To deny this and discourage discussion of it is bizarre.

All the best James


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

24Tropheus said:


> To deny this and discourage discussion of it is bizarre.


A member wanted to show pictures of his/her Tropheus, and you wanted to turn it into your personal crusade against an accepted cichlid convention. This thread wasn't about Mendel's system, it was only derailed due to one members need to push their personal cause. I am stating that we need to keep discussions on topic, instead of this silly tired argument.

Perhaps submitting an article would be more productive?


----------



## Kerricko (May 26, 2010)

Fogelhund said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > To deny this and discourage discussion of it is bizarre.
> ...


Thats a great idea. That is something I would definately like to read.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Please note this discussion was split from another thread.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

F0 means wild caught animal past the normal stages of high mortality... in other words, breeding age captured animal.

If one captures fry or other juvies from the wild, then they are captive reared. If one rears them behind walls or netting in the lake, then they are captive reared.

In this hobby, no distinction is made between the above... unfortunately.

Any animal that is captive bred cannot be labelled "wild caught" no matter the circumstances of it being bred. Lake water pumped into a vat is meaningless. Raised pond side is tank raised, same as tank raised in North America...

Although I agree that it isn't necessary to harp on it on a cichlid-forum, I can also relate to those who get irritated by those who refuse to clearly communicate because of some selfish reason (like selling fish at some sort of premium). Hobbyists can be excused more than vendors! :thumb:


----------



## Kerricko (May 26, 2010)

Fogelhund said:


> Please note this discussion was split from another thread.


I was following that thread as well.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

There is an article on this already. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/c ... _terms.php
However it fails to mention some cichlid breeders use the Mendelian/filial system as originally intended.

Not a massive re write but a good one I would have thought.
As to me writing the articles well I guess I do not have a balanced enough approach. :wink:

Personal crusade. I have heard that one before.  Not really just like things that are written to be true.

The one question I have is. Who first (miss) used the filial system to describe distance from wild and when was it?

All the best James


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

It is NOT just a "standard for cichlid keepers"; these terms have actual meaning and definition within the world of science. F0 has nothing to do with Mendel; it is, however, a term used in scientific research to designate wild *captured* individuals (I had a scientific terminology reference for this, cannot find it at the moment). F1 and beyond do have definition as found in Mendel, and are used for all kinds of breeding, both plants and animals. This is not limited to how many generations from wild the fish might be, but how many generations from a given Parent generation they are. F1 does not always mean first generation from wild, so when it is used to indicates such, the proper term is "F1 from wild". The egotistical attitude of many in the cichlid hobby has corrupted the proper use of the term by insisting that it only be used "their way".

Fish that are raised in a pond or behind a net in the lake itself are still, as noted, cultured animals. But some people think they can play games with the proper labeling by raising them in their native waters. When such fish are called F0, the person may try to rationalize it, but they are just lying about what they are to use it as a selling point. IF they call the young from these fish F1, there is an argument to be made for that to be acceptable; however, it would require tracking every generation under culture.

Here's a brain twister: If you catch a female mouthbrooder in the wild, strip fry from her and raise them in an aquarium, are these still wild since that's where you caught them, or are they cultured, since that's where they were raised? If the latter, at what point are wild caught young still considered wild even though they might be raised to maturity in captivity? Collectors often bring in young fish, as they take up less space and allow the transportation of more individuals of a given species. But is an immature collected specimen still to be considered "wild" when it matures and spawns in captivity?

The obsession with how removed from wild a fish might be is something I do not understand. Knowing where a line originated I do consider important, but whether the individual fish actually grew up there, or whether it grew up in a glass box in Michigan, I find irrelevant.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Thanks to be honest I do not know. It kind of depends on what you want to follow. All I would say is things become a lot less clear if you use F0 and F1 rather than words to describe the cichlids origins and providence. I kind of think that that's why the system was miss used in the first place. To disguise rather than to clarify.
I do however disagree that it does not matter (if thats what you said) a wild caught Tropheus is different from a pond bred Tropheus and should command a higher price. A couple of generations down the line then it may not matter at all I agree.

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Chromedome52 said:


> F0 has nothing to do with Mendel; it is, however, a term used in scientific research to designate wild *captured* individuals (I had a scientific terminology reference for this, cannot find it at the moment). F1 and beyond do have definition as found in Mendel, and are used for all kinds of breeding, both plants and animals. This is not limited to how many generations from wild the fish might be, but how many generations from a given Parent generation they are.


Exactly!



Chromedome52 said:


> Here's a brain twister: If you catch a female mouthbrooder in the wild, strip fry from her and raise them in an aquarium, are these still wild since that's where you caught them, or are they cultured, since that's where they were raised? If the latter, at what point are wild caught young still considered wild even though they might be raised to maturity in captivity? Collectors often bring in young fish, as they take up less space and allow the transportation of more individuals of a given species. But is an immature collected specimen still to be considered "wild" when it matures and spawns in captivity?


They are not considered "wild caught" according to Cites and other recognized authorities... they are captive reared as I mentioned... they are (both legally and genetically) identified as different than wild caught.



Chromedome52 said:


> The obsession with how removed from wild a fish might be is something I do not understand. Knowing where a line originated I do consider important, but whether the individual fish actually grew up there, or whether it grew up in a glass box in Michigan, I find irrelevant.


 A "wild caught" specimen is considered to be the true genotype of the species.

Captive reared and F1 are considered as one step removed from that genotype. I, personally, might like a captive reared fish over a hobbyist bred F1 as I know that natural pairing of mom n dad still took place, so we avoid sloppy breeding practices by some dumb hobbyists who think that using unrelated individuals is the most important thing to do!!! Just today on this forum is a case of someone hybridizing some wild caught Tropheus with a different genetic population! Made me squirm...


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

24Tropheus said:


> I kind of think that that's why the system was miss used in the first place. To disguise rather than to clarify.


 :lol: You can't really be serious can you? You are suggesting that most of the hobby, ACA etc. are attempting to deceive people through using F0 originally?


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Ah well maybe the effect rather than the intention. Was it the ACA that started this (miss) use or was it the BCA as sadly I think it was?
Or older than iether of these associations?

All the best James


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

> A "wild caught" specimen is considered to be the true genotype of the species.
> 
> Captive reared and F1 are considered as one step removed from that genotype.


This is an incorrect use of the term "genotype". Genotype refers to the genetic characteristics of an individual, not a population. Wild fish are part of a gene pool, and young from two of those fish are equally related to other fish in the same gene pool, just as they would be if the parents had bred in the wild. However, they now make up a new gene pool because they were removed from the original. A new pool becomes narrowed as the captive fish are linebred, and adding new wild stock does not necessarily improve it; it simply modifies the pool. Genetically, F1 from wild are NOT different from wild young, that is the falsehood that is perpetuating this garbage. The real differences resulting are environmental - the way they are raised. F0 fish are only important if you are preserving them for ichthyological work.

James, the use of F0 was originally a shorthand way to let people know the fish were collected, rather than bred. Since the people doing the original collections were often scientists, they were familiar with the use of the term. 30-40 years ago it was actually preferable for the average hobbyist to get "tank raised", as they were expected to have grown up acclimated to aquarium life. That's why I do not understand the change in attitude, with everyone wanting wild fish. My only reason for wanting a wild fish would be if it is a new species/population, and having an opportunity to be one of the first to breed them. Wild specimens of fish that have been in the hobby for generations serve little purpose IMNSHO, contrary to the "genetic alarmists".

I would note that the organizations have nothing to do with the use of F0, F1, etc. It is people within the organizations, and those who concluded that they could find a profit in pushing the concept of wild fish as more valuable. I would also note that this "push" seems to have started with Rift Lake Cichlid sellers, though New World seems to have eventually caught the bug. Profit motive may not be everything to a lot of the keepers, but the sellers certainly seem to have smudged the edges of ethical behaviour for these reasons. Profit is also the reason they developed the concept of stripping female mouthbrooders. Take the eggs/wiggler stage young, the female is back in breeding condition in a fraction of the time. This "F0bsession" is simply the latest in marketing tools.

As a longtime Killifish hobbyist, the importance of not mixing populations is ingrained in my psyche. Mixing _Tropheus _and lying about it, while directly of no importance to me, has an underlying ethical dissonance that the hobby does not need. Shoot the ********. :x


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

F1 as described by most breeders (or maybe just most breeders I know) is not a reliable term. Hence Chromedome52 wild caught are not the same as F0 given that folk breed stuff in ponds. A new type or old is best represented as a wild caught fish (I think). F0 and F1 kind of just confuses the issue.
For sure most of my fish are well past any of these definitions. I could cross two lines and sell em as F1 and call the parents F0. And no one could say I am not honest. Its kind of the point I was making because of the two or more uses of the system, F0 and F1 gives no clarity.
As to wheather there is a real significant difference between wild caught or pond bred or TB then I think that's up to the customer to decide. But they must be given the fish clearly labeled to make this decision. Not stuff labelled as F0 and F1 which is not helpfull to them.


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Unfortunately, the ignorance is not limited to just the breeders you know. Cichlid keepers in general I find to be lemmings, following the leader to their doom.

If you took two tank bred fish and labeled the young as F1, the term might be applicable, but they would not be F1 from Wild as most cichlid hobbyists have been conditioned to believe, and the parents would not be F0 (Mendel used P, for parental generation), which is a *SCIENTIFIC *term *SPECIFICALLY *meaning wild caught. That would be lying, and those who use these terms in this way are lying, though they may simply be ignorant of the proper use of the terms.

I should mention that my "brain twister" was actually a facetious attempt to demonstrate the absurdity of the perceived importance of wild caught vs. tank raised from wild caught fish. Apparently I was too subtle, not a common occurence for me! :roll:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Chromedome52 said:


> > A "wild caught" specimen is considered to be the true genotype of the species.
> >
> > Captive reared and F1 are considered as one step removed from that genotype.
> 
> ...


You are my new favorite poster... :thumb: 
It is nice to see someone who shares my frustrations.

to watch folks purchasing one random wc male and one random wc female and calling that pairing's fry "superior" (genetically?) to perfect line bred representatives of the species holotype...

well... :x


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

You can call any generation of any species F0... really it denotes the first individuals in a pedigree. I do, however, agree that its convention in the cichlid hobby to refer to WC individuals as F0 regardless of the misuse of the original term. The only reason people complain about fish that are generations (F1, F2, F3.... TR) removed from the lake is that some people refuse to cull undesirable offspring, where in the wild these fish are more apt to get picked off. Or that some tank raised offspring aren't given the best environment to develop in and these fish can be stunted or deformed accordingly.

I use filial designations in pedigrees I make for my other hobby (gardening) and I know that those plants are far, far, removed from the wild. As far as chilis are concerned F0 is just your starting point for trying to make a jalapenero. :lol:

Line bred fish do go through a bottleneck and should be different genetically from the wild fish population, as we put selection pressure on the fish. But, if you're linebreeding you probably know this and you can use the F0 designation in the pedigree accordingly. :thumb:


----------



## eric (Jan 1, 2002)

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/c ... _terms.php

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/glossary/f.php


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

> You can call any generation of any species F0... really it denotes the first individuals in a pedigree.
> 
> I use filial designations in pedigrees I make for my other hobby (gardening) and I know that those plants are far, far, removed from the wild. As far as chilis are concerned F0 is just your starting point for trying to make a jalapenero.


That is incorrect usage. In genetics, F0 is never used for the Parental generation, the starting point is P for Parental generation. However, when breeding stock, F0 can be used to designate that the Parental generation consists of wild caught fish, but ONLY to designate wild caught. F1, first Filial, is used to designate the first generation of young from any parental crossing. That is why F1 from wild caught fish must use the words "F1 from wild". Most Flowerhorns are F1, but not F1 from wild.

I will tell you a little story. When I first saw F0 being used by Cichlid collectors in 1995, I started a personal campaign to explain that the term was, I thought, nonsensical because it did NOT EXIST IN GENETIC TERMS. I even threatened Killifish hobbyists with ridicule ("as dumb as a cichlidiot" is a serious insult in Killie circles) if they used the term. Around 2004, I was directed to a dictionary of scientific terms, in which F0 was defined as "a Wild Caught specimen". I then checked with a couple of much older sources (at the Smithsonian NMNH), and learned that the term had been in use by scientific researchers long before the cichlidiots first heard it. At that point I publicly admitted that I had been ..... mistaken. :wink: Now I still have to try and explain the difference between F0 and P. And I'm still dealing with a bunch of cichlidiots!

It would be preferable to refer to wild collected fish as WC, or WF (German, means the same thing), or Wild Caught. Then call the young Tank Raised, or Cultured, as that's what they are. Forget about generations, they are an unnecessary distraction and not generally relevant, contrary to the "Genetic alarmists".


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Chromedome52 said:


> > You can call any generation of any species F0... really it denotes the first individuals in a pedigree.
> >
> > I use filial designations in pedigrees I make for my other hobby (gardening) and I know that those plants are far, far, removed from the wild. As far as chilis are concerned F0 is just your starting point for trying to make a jalapenero.
> 
> ...


Nope you can use F0 just like you use P to denote the first step of a pedigree. This is done all the time with lab rats and lab mice (and those are definitely not wild caught). I have the benefit (detriment?) of being a molecular biologist. P is a more commonly used term, but F0 is used as well, particularly in toxicology.


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

F0, WC, whatever you want to call it, seems to demand a higher price. I can see the desire. If the collector is being honest and that fish was actually from Lake Malawi (or wherever) I can understand the desire to say, "That fish swam in Lake Malawi." thus a WC fish demanding a higher price. One would think the price came from exporting alone.

AFAIK, generations from WC don't really matter though. The genetic traits lie with the individual, so applying that theory, if you have good looking parents, they, in theory, should product good looking young. Anomalies are going to occur, in which case the undesirable young should be culled. I agree, it is important for collectors, breeders, distributors, and hobbyists alike to be responsible in identifying their fish as accurately as possible. I won't argue whether people are using these terms correctly or not, but this seems pretty straight forward to me. The biggest issue lies with the integrity of individuals distributing fish.

I personally like to see the use of the terms WC, F1, F2, etc. In this context, I expect WC to mean that fish swam in the wild. Not behind a net. Not in a vat. Not in a pond. A natural offspring who's genetic parents spawned on their own accord and selection. WC animals are not bred, they are naturally occurring. F1 would be one generation removed from WC and so forth. If there is no designation, then the fish should be considered tank raised and judged on their traits as individuals alone.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*Chromedome52*
I have to agree with Darkside... I've seen F0 used to denote a starting point, especially for plants... perhaps that is where it came from because saying a "parent plant" sounded strange to botanists?


----------



## Chromedome52 (Jul 25, 2009)

Well, back in the stone age, when I was first learning about genetics, F0 was never mentioned, only P. If it is used in research, then I guess it has multiple meanings, and James (24Tropheus) is right that the terms should not be used by ignorant hobbyists. But then, many old style ichthyologists don't believe ignorant hobbyists should be using scientific names, either.

The problem is general usage, changing the definitions by using the terms to mean something that they didn't use to mean. But under general usage, F0 *in the cichlid hobby *reverts to meaning wild caught fish, as that is how 99% of cichlid hobbyists use it. Anyone who pretends to not know that so as to present pond raised fish under that label is dishonest.

Retreat, but no surrender!  :lol:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

So the modified system has no way of coping with pond bred cichlids?
The next problem with the modified system is what do you call progeny from WC?
Say a WC x F1 from wild?
Or WC x F2 from wild. etc etc.

Is a F2 from wild from unrelated F1s from wild? Or just the fry of a WC group bred again?

The unfortunate thing is not only is the modified system confusing as it runs beside an older system but it also fails to help describe many real cichlids.
Kind of doubles the temptation of folk to label stuff up wrong as there is no accepted right way?

In mouthbrooders its kind of believed because of female selection in the wild to breed with the best coloured males, that without this selection (too few males to choise from in tanks) they generally lose colour each generation. Even if selected they become line bred as we have no way of duplicating natural selection. That is why cichlid esp mouthbrooder cichlid keepers and breeders are obsessed about distance from wild. Its more important to them than in other cichlids and fish. 8)

But then we all knew that anyway?

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*24Tropheus*
I discussed those issues in my article... I won't rehash here.

Pond raised, vat raised, tank raised... these fish don't usually get labelled with any filial designation.

As for the assumption that captive bred cichlids will lose their color and/or vigor...

If you put a dozen cichlids into a very large aquarium with many line of sight breaks, you will be very surprised to see who the females pick and sneak off with... it is not always the dominant or prettiest male. When I have raised the fry from such a pair, they always turn out better than "my choices". If you continued that breeding strategy, I have little doubt that you would 'linebreed' some very attractive fish. I do know of one breeder who hit F10 (yes, he tracked it) and I linebred for 3 more generations and had 100% perfect fish with very brilliant coloration.

Unwilling is not the same as unable.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Chromedome52 said:


> But then, many old style ichthyologists don't believe ignorant hobbyists should be using scientific names, either.


I agree with them... 
I'm sorry, but if folks are incapable of using any label correctly, then in the spirit of communication, they should all settle back onto easily understood labels.

Not all yellow labs deserve to be labelled as Labidochromis caeruleus . Labidochromis caeruleus should be reserved for labs that can be 'trusted' to be a true lab. I've mentioned this before, but I'm largely ignored... when I see unknown cichlids getting Scientific labels attached to them by hobbyists, I want to cry...

IMHO and IME, a scientific name should be reserved for animals where the Filial designation IS known and some sort of pedigree exists from the collection event... otherwise, it shouldn't get the label...

Labidochromis caeruleus (Albino)... I mean really... :roll: what the @&$^ is that?


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

I've already mentioned, 24Tropheus, how it's convention that you add 1 to the F# when you cross any variety of generations. Yeah, I know, there's no legal/whatever basis for it, but it's what cichlid-keepers (honest ones, anyway) do. F1xWC = F2. F13xWC = F14. F104xF32 = F105. Lowest common denominator.

At that point though, as it's already been established, it doesn't really matter, since once you're past WC, you're getting a smaller genetic pool that's completely reliant on the individuals involved. You're no longer getting a truly random (and perhaps representative) specimen of the species.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

dielikemoviestars said:


> I've already mentioned, 24Tropheus, how it's convention that you add 1 to the F# when you cross any variety of generations. Yeah, I know, there's no legal/whatever basis for it, but it's what cichlid-keepers (honest ones, anyway) do. F1xWC = F2. F13xWC = F14. F104xF32 = F105. Lowest common denominator.


That's incorrect as well, which is possibly why breeders should shy away from using the filial naming convention. What's the point in using the proper terminology of this convention if no one understands it anyway? This entire thread brings up a point that my good friend always says, "A little bit of information is a dangerous thing."

I don't see what the fuss is about most people use common sense anyway. WC should be reserved for fish wild caught. What's wrong with calling pond raised fish "pond raised"? Most people refer to F1 and F2 generations of fish from proven stock, after that point the fish are usually referred to as tank raised. The only time I ever see the F3 designation is in a line breeding pedigree and this pretty uncommon in the cichlid hobby, aside from some individuals who produce fancy angels and flowerhorns.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

dielikemoviestars said:


> I've already mentioned, 24Tropheus, how it's convention that you add 1 to the F# when you cross any variety of generations. Yeah, I know, there's no legal/whatever basis for it, but it's what cichlid-keepers (honest ones, anyway) do. F1xWC = F2. F13xWC = F14. F104xF32 = F105. Lowest common denominator.
> 
> At that point though, as it's already been established, it doesn't really matter, since once you're past WC, you're getting a smaller genetic pool that's completely reliant on the individuals involved. You're no longer getting a truly random (and perhaps representative) specimen of the species.


Thanks. I dunno about only honest guys doing this this way. Some are I think genuinely confused by the modified system. Run a poll on your site if you do not believe me. What should a F1 from wild x WC cichlid be labelled as? You might be suprised how many say F0 or F1 from wild. :wink:

To be honest I have no real breeding strategy. I kind of just select against poor colour and bad barring or anything that does not look natural. But it is a very poor substitute for natural selection. 

All the best James


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

24Tropheus said:


> What should a F1 from wild x WC cichlid be labelled as?


It should be labelled as a fry from a F1 x WC breeding.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Seems Fogelhund and Darkside are more like me and would label em as WCxF1 or in my case WCxF1 from wild? Not as F2 which I guess we think of as a F1 from wild x F1 from wild.
If using the original system then they would be described as F0. If from two unrelated fish.
I have read the article and think it needs a bit of work.

You know, surly someone could come up with system that does not have these faults?
I do also understand why folk are fed up with folk like me (or maybe just me) who keep bringing this up. But its just such a rubbish system.

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

24Tropheus said:


> Seems Fogelhund and Darkside are more like me and would label em as WCxF1 or in my case WCxF1 from wild? Not as F2 which I guess we think of as a F1 from wild x F1 from wild.
> If using the original system then they would be described as F0. If from two unrelated fish.
> I have read the article and think it needs a bit of work.
> 
> ...


There's been attempts to change the system in the past, but its too difficult to get the majority of hobbyists to adopt a different system.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> I have read the article and think it needs a bit of work.


I'm open to feedback about the article, but so far... not one thing has been said in this thread that I did not cover in the article.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Ultimately my point on this is simple.

This is simply a label, to communicate to other hobbyists, the origins of a fish. It doesn't need to be 100% correct in usage to it's original purpose, or those used by other hobbies. For the cichlid hobby, it is simple to understand and explain. Sure, we could come up with a more accurate labeling system, but would it make things simpler to understand, or would it complicate the hobby?

Even if you hate it, you understand what someone is trying to tell you, when the fish are labeled F0. Any other descriptor is not going to make the communication more clear.

In the English language, words and terms have often taken on different meanings over time. This is simply an example of that, an imperfect communication medium, that is perfectly understood.

You can argue about it's validity all day and night if you want, but it won't change anything.

F0, F1, F2 are here to stay... Enjoy. :thumb:


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Darkside said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > Seems Fogelhund and Darkside are more like me and would label em as WCxF1 or in my case WCxF1 from wild? Not as F2 which I guess we think of as a F1 from wild x F1 from wild.
> ...


It would probably help if a widlely respected group were attempting to make the change.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Fogelhund said:


> It would probably help if a widlely respected group were attempting to make the change.


True, but if it ain't broke don't fix it. :lol:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside said:


> True, but if it ain't broke don't fix it. :lol:


I think that Trophs point though is it is broken. The nature of the beast though is that no labelling system would work without becomming more complex than is worth it to seller or to buyer.

Go on... anybody care to try?

WC x WC = F1. New label could be C1 ?

WC x F1 - CITES F1, hobby F2. New: ?
WC x F2= CITES F1, hobby F3. New: ?

I cannot come up with a single label that works... so, you'll likely end up with having to exceed 2 characters. If you exceed 2 characters, then why not just label your pairings in full?

E.g. I'm selling these fry... they are WCxTR. Why is that hard? 5 characters isn't possible?


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Number6 said:


> I think that Trophs point though is it is broken.


My point is that it isn't broken, except in the opinion of those who are trying to compare it to something that it isn't pretending to be. It is simply a communication device that is easily understood.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Sadly I think you are right. The system is broken but fixing it with another system may well not catch on.

I guess I am stuck with asking anyone who puts that a fish is F0. Is it pond bred? Is it Wild caught ? Can you please prove that it is what you say it is?.
And if they label it F1. Is it really from a breeding of two Wild caught fish from the same location? Can you please prove that?
And if they label it as F2. What do you mean by this label please?
This is pretty much what I did at the beginning of this discussion. Asked what the poster what he meant by F0 and F1.

To cut out the problem of it being unclear. Yep stick to using words. By far the best way of communicating anything complicated. :wink:

The seeking to shorten is what gives the inaccuracy I think. As well as there being two systems using the same letter (just an unfortunate choice to use F when it was already being used for a different system and thus confusing) but kind of too late to change now? 

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

Fogelhund said:


> Number6 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that Trophs point though is it is broken.
> ...


+1 :thumb:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> I guess I am stuck with asking anyone who puts that a fish is F0. Is it pond bred? Is it Wild caught ? Can you please prove that it is what you say it is?.
> And if they label it F1. Is it really from a breeding of two Wild caught fish from the same location? Can you please prove that?
> And if they label it as F2. What do you mean by this label please?
> This is pretty much what I did at the beginning of this discussion. Asked what the poster what he meant by F0 and F1.


Or you can do what I do, and what Fogelhund, Darkside and the vast majority of others 'in the know' do... ignore those labels as the meaningless things they are.

"Wild caught"... sheesh... what good is it to buy something labelled as wild caught and breed with something else labelled "wild caught"?

What can you now assume that you have avoided?

Hybridization? Inbreeding?


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

What I think I would avoid, is the lack of natural selection for the generations that the cichlid has been tank or pond bred.
And any mistakes that could have been made by the breeders crossing various variants.
Luckily I can go to suppliers that only get cichlids that are from reliable sources.
Sure they do cost a lot.

Are you saying you think general tank bred or pond bred cichlids are the same as wild caught variants or first generation from wild variant pure cichlids? :-?

I guess you have not seen the rubbish in my LFSs. :lol:

Would be a sad world if only "those in the know" (a bunch of self serving W*&^*&^ it rather sounds) could get hold of good cichlids. :wink:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

On a more serious front. If the labels are meaningless then why have an article describing what they mean esp an article that only describes what they mean to "those in the know"?

Arg getting dragged down..............

The labels should mean something that is agreed. Using F is not a good start. We are stuck with it. Thus if using it then it is best to describe how we are using it. IE use wild caught and F1 from wild. Rather than tell folk that F1 is the same as F1 from wild (which it often is not). Kind of getting fed up about this now.

Can we change the subject to the off side rules in football? :lol:

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus, you make many assumptions based on a label IMHO.



24Tropheus said:


> What I think I would avoid, is the lack of natural selection for the generations that the cichlid has been tank or pond bred.


What is natural selection?

A wild collected hybrid (as is commonly found in some species out of Lake Tanganyika)... has it had natural selective forces at play on it?

and are natural selective forces "better" for a fish that is about to live and breed in captivity over the 'new natural' forces at play in a pond?



24Tropheus said:


> And any mistakes that could have been made by the breeders crossing various variants.


 I've had more than one friend who imported wild caught cichlids... I've had to go to Ad Konings for some Identifications on some imports... mislabeled, etc. 
At the collection point!!!



24Tropheus said:


> Are you saying you think general tank bred or pond bred cichlids are the same as wild caught variants or first generation from wild variant pure cichlids?


I'm going to make a very bold claim... I believe that they can be far superior in some cases...

I apologize in advance for this accusation, but random forced pairing is IME one of the worst animal husbandry practices that I have seen in action. This is a VERY common occurance with "wild caught" animals where the price tag and rarity can often mean that a breeder manages to get 2 or 3 animals... I've seen the adult offspring of those pairings.... owned some as well... garbage in a number of cases...


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

It sure depends on what you want. I want a cichlid as close to wild as possible that displays wild type behaviour and has not been messed about by stripping or selection for generations. How it looks colour wise and fin wise I fully accept line bred now far outstrip wild caught in many cases. Kind of glad it has. Kind of a waste of time for 100s of years if it had not. But to compare the two and say one is superior, well its all about quality. Quality = what you like. I like wild type cichlids with all there faults.

I kind of like the price tag too. It kind of makes me feel better that some of the money is going to poor African countries rather than into a breeders pocket.

I dunno how it is in the US but the cost of keeping cichlids equipment wise and power wise well enough to breed them, is far far greater, than the cost of most wild caught cichlids. There are a few types that command very high prices. And the young from them give no significant comeback money wise. But its a hobby to be enjoyed not a business. :wink: 
Its folk who treat it as a money making business only that kind of ruin it?

Yep wild caught hybrids have been found. Yep it has also lead we think to the formation of new species over time. To say they are common is I think not true. But they are part of the game of wild caught cichlids and a natural cichlid none the less. Never believe a label is perhaps a good idea for everyone. 

As to natural selection erm maybe read a few post Darwin books and take a PHD in natural selection and you still will have just scratched the surface of how wonderfully complex this can be.

All the best James


----------



## dielikemoviestars (Oct 23, 2007)

"I want a cichlid as close to wild as possible that displays wild type behaviour"

You will never see wild-type behavior in a tank that's not the size of a swimming pool. You may see approximations of it, but in the wild, many of these fish claim territories that are larger than the footprint of any practical fish tank. Curtailing that is, by definition, curtailing wild-type behavior.

"has not been messed about by stripping or selection for generations"

Erm, that's the whole concept of survival of the fittest. Nature selects the best traits via rate of survival and those traits are passed on. Many traits are "stripped" in the process.

You're basically saying that you want to interfere in a fish's natural life (by keeping it) without interfering in its natural life... By owning a fish tank and fish, you're inherently accepting the fact that you've taken over for nature. You provide food, you provide the water, you provide the lighting/temperature/whatever cues that will signal it's time to breed.

I don't even know why I keep reading this thread.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> It sure depends on what you want. I want a cichlid as close to wild as possible that displays wild type behaviour and has not been messed about by stripping or selection for generations.


 stripped once is ok, but stripped 4 times is not? Hmmnnn
An F1 hybrid within the species is ok, but bred tight but right for four generations is less desirable?



24Tropheus said:


> How it looks colour wise and fin wise I fully accept line bred now far outstrip wild caught in many cases.


 I'm saying that the fry from properly bred fish are more like the "real fish" as compared to poorly bred (but closer to wild). Behavior, color, vigor, resistance to illness, etc.

Oh... and take note of what I said... in some species, wild caught hybrids in Lake Tanganyika for SOME species ARE common. It was a surprise to the researchers as well. Read up on it! Hint... shelldwellers.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Kind of wondering why you guys keep and breed cichlids at all.
If what you argue is true then there is no enjoyment or interest in keeping Rift cichlids? (No interesting wild type behaviour? No wonder at the forces that created them? No joy in seeing what they do in the environment you create for them?). Surely you may as well keep and breed man made stuff like Koi or Discus or Angel fish or Blood Parrots or Flowerhorns or Dragon Blood Aulonocara? 

All the best James


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Kind of wondering why you guys keep and breed cichlids at all.
> If what you argue is true then there is no enjoyment or interest in keeping Rift cichlids? (No interesting wild type behaviour? No wonder at the forces that created them? No joy in seeing what they do in the environment you create for them?). Surely you may as well keep and breed man made stuff like Koi or Discus or Angel fish or Blood Parrots or Flowerhorns or Dragon Blood Aulonocara?


You assume so much... you assume that an F1 acts differently than an F10. You assume that the F1 is closer (genetically, etc.) to it's wild cousins than an F1. What I am suggesting is that you are not considering the causes of genetic drift and just how slowly or quickly you can get there all depending on your actions as the hobbyist.

I have owned WC, F1, F2s, all the way to F12s, and tank raised. I've had crummy F1s, I've had great F10s. I've even had tank raised that acted more their part than a wild caught fish I owned of the same species.

So, I feel like I am repeating myself on these last few posts... I say that a well bred F10 could easily be more like a "WC" then an improperly bred F1, and your replies keep talking about the F10s being unlike a wild. I see no significant difference between a well bred F1, and well bred F10s in any behavior, coloration, disease resistance, etc. I might even be tempted to give the well bred tank raised the nod in terms of overall health and vigor, but that might also be attributed to the breeder's abilities so I'll refrain. My point, (and I'm giving up if your reply still ignores me) is that the assumption that an F1 is closer to the "wild" or "natural" cichlid, isn't something I have found to be true... ever.


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

F1 fish will experience the same environmental pressures that any TR fish would. Assuming there is little genetic difference the behaviours of all tank raised fish regardless of generation would essentially be the same. Its a fallacy that F1 fish behave differently because they have greater genetic purity or are somehow closer to wild type fish. People seem to forget that phenotype = genotype + environment. As long as you cull deformities from your breeding stock good tank-raised fish are every bit as good as first generation from wild caught and are likely to make better display fish than most WC imports.
Aquarium fish are living in an artificial construct that we create for them, just as 24tropheus mentioned are we to assume these are natural behaviours? :lol: We put fish is a glass box because their aesthetically pleasing. We do it for colour and we do it for behaviour. Who's to say that koi angels don't exhibit interesting, natural behaviour? They may be line bred, but they still care for their young just as their WC relatives do.


----------



## GTZ (Apr 21, 2010)

opcorn:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Number6 said:


> you assume that an F1 acts differently than an F10. You assume that the F1 is closer (genetically, etc.) to it's wild cousins than an F1. What I am suggesting is that you are not considering the causes of genetic drift and just how slowly or quickly you can get there all depending on your actions as the hobbyist.
> 
> I have owned WC, F1, F2s, all the way to F12s, and tank raised. I've had crummy F1s, I've had great F10s. I've even had tank raised that acted more their part than a wild caught fish I owned of the same species.
> 
> I say that a well bred F10 could easily be more like a "WC" then an improperly bred F1, and your replies keep talking about the F10s being unlike a wild. I see no significant difference between a well bred F1, and well bred F10s in any behavior, coloration,


Number 6 Sorry I find myself in agreement with most of your posts. Just not many of the others. :wink: 
I guess we see different TB fish. The F10s well bred just do not seem to exist here. The poorly bred F1 from wild sure do though and yep I try to avoid those.

Yep it is a small glass box.

Kind of why I at least try to keep them in numbers and space and decore that alows them to show at least some interesting behaviour.

An Altolamp breeding in a shell in a group of 9 in 48" of water is a poor shadow of an Altolamp finding a cave too small for the male to get in and wedging itself there untill the eggs hatch. Or a group of 24 Tropheus in 84" tank with just a few dominant males breeding and the females looking after thier own young for weekks poste release is a poor shadow of the space and numbers in the wild I know. But to me far more interesting to me than a crossed Angel fish which may well eat its own eggs though the wild fish have just as developed pairental behaviour as wild Altolamps.
I guess it would be sad for Altolamps to go the same way as Angels?

I find it odd I seem under attack for enjoying my hobby, my way. :-? 
The assumptions I make seem to agree with my limited 20 years or so experience of keeping Rift cichlids.

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm not sure where you get the assumption that WC fish make better parents than TR fish. WC angles are just as likely to eat their spawn as TR fish. Years back when I had altums, I never, ever had a successful spawn (can't cross them off my list), my WC fish always ate their own eggs where as my TR scalares had no problems. TR discus have the same behaviours as their wild counterparts which are arguably some of the most complex among cichlids.

The way you experience they hobby is innately subjective. If little fish in a large tank is your cup of tea, then by all means enjoy your hobby your own way. I don't think anyone here has any issues with how you enjoy your fish. The issues are with the disconnect you're drawing between genetics and behaviour, which are false. If you see low quality TR fish then I can almost guarantee that its a result of environmental factors rather than genetics. That being said, anyone who's been in the hobby for 20 years knows better than to buy stock that's of low quality.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Darkside", :thumb:

I think this is it in a nutshell... 24Tropheus, you experience what you experience... I have no doubt about that. In your area/ country, life sure is different. My Liverpudlian cousins and my London cousins often mention how space and resources are at such a premium over there and I should count myself lucky... well, having now moved from Canada to America, I also see huge differences. Space, water, cost of wild caughts, disposable income... they are all different in Florida than they were back home.

It is entirely possible that the effects of a life in England affect things you might not expect them to including the calibre of the cichlids you see around!


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

I guess I have taken a plausible scientific argument (that matches the evidence I see) and expressed it as fact.
I have no evidence to give, nor were these scientific hypothesis my own but quite widely held in the UK I think.
Kind of see where you are coming from.
I need evidence before describing a hypothesis I have believed to be true is actually fact.

I guess I am now looking for that evidence.

Wish me luck? 

All the best James


----------



## Darkside (Feb 6, 2008)

First thing that you need to do before you even attempt to collect evidence is do the background research. Otherwise, you'll probably find that you're simply wasting your time on suspicion. Science is slow and qualitative observations are subjective. :lol:


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

Darkside said:


> First thing that you need to do before you even attempt to collect evidence is do the background research. Otherwise, you'll probably find that you're simply wasting your time on suspicion. Science is slow and qualitative observations are subjective. :lol:


Like Watson and Crick and the structure of DNA? :wink:


----------



## jkulysses (Apr 5, 2003)

24Tropheus said:


> Kind of wondering why you guys keep and breed cichlids at all.
> If what you argue is true then there is no enjoyment or interest in keeping Rift cichlids? (No interesting wild type behaviour? No wonder at the forces that created them? No joy in seeing what they do in the environment you create for them?). Surely you may as well keep and breed man made stuff like Koi or Discus or Angel fish or Blood Parrots or Flowerhorns or Dragon Blood Aulonocara?
> 
> All the best James


Are your meds out of whack or something or are you actually this annoying all the time??? Really the bottom line is this is how it is and it's been working for years so why keep trying to argue about it?? Makes no sense at all.


----------



## 24Tropheus (Jun 21, 2006)

jkulysses said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> > Kind of wondering why you guys keep and breed cichlids at all.
> ...


Try reading the thread :wink: and not quoting folk out of context.  That bit was a direct answer to the post above. (this thread has been cut away from its origins so the start is a little odd and no my title iether) That bit is not about the system its about his assertion that line bred and hybrid cichlids are the same as wild caught and first generation from wild cichlids and the labelling makes no difference.

All the best James

PS Happy for this thread to RIP. 8)

The system does not work here in the UK because we get cichlids from Germany using the real system and we have hobbiests using the modified system. Buy a F1 fish here and you could be buying a first generation from wild fish or the first generation of a new hybrid cross. Hardly ideal?

And a F0 could be a pond bred and raised fish and not cichlid collected from the lake. Hardly ideal?

Boy all this started with me asking a guy what he ment by labelling up a photo as F0.
And the answer was never given.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*jkulysses*
insults will NOT be tolerated. I will expect better behavior than this in the future.

Insults are normally deleted in their entirety, however... Tropheus' reply is a great example of being a good sport and worth leaving up as an example of great forum behavior. Removal of your insult would make his reply make no sense. :thumb:


----------

