# Cross breeding in the wild ??



## swamphntr (Oct 21, 2011)

OK I have read a ton of posts about not crossbreeding and keeping the hobbyist strains as pure as possible. I have zero problems with that goal. I also am well aware of how diluted a species can become and how quickly in a hobby. I watched the designer cornsnake market developed in the reptile hobby and the outcome. In this particular case it wasn't all that bad as new lines of the wild original are still easily available and the designer morphs expanded an otherwise dead hobby market. After a full 360 trip down designer lane I happen to have what I consider some of the most valuable animals in an adult pair of wild caught Okeetee locale corn snakes. In the hobby a proven pure strain okeetee is probably about impossible to find unless you buy from someone who has actually collected the adults in the wild as I have.

One of the things I am still a bit confused about in terms of cichlids is whos to say the wild stock isnt crossbred/hybridized in the first place? It only seems sensible to think that if crossbreeding occurs in the fish tank it also occurs in the wild even if it is at a diminished rate. It certainly happens in the reptile world all the time when ranges overlap.

As a hobbyist it has also occurred to me that many of the sub species defined are extremely similar and by all accounts up for argument to some extent. Locality seems to be a big defining point as in other species. I have heard more than once that certain groups are where they lump undefined sub species until they come up with the right place for them. So the question I really have here is where is the line drawn in terms of hybridzation in wild stock? When does a yellow lab from point a that crossed with point b just become a yellow lab? As well if yellow labs from point a cross naturally with red zebras also from point a why is this hybrid any more acceptable to the hobby than a hobby tank hybrid? And finally if there is wild crossbreeding who is to say that any hobby stock is pure in the first place?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

swamphntr said:


> whos to say the wild stock isnt crossbred/hybridized in the first place?


The scientists who dive there several months out of every year report that they almost never observe a hybrid fish.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

swamphntr said:


> As well if yellow labs from point a cross naturally with red zebras also from point a why is this hybrid any more acceptable to the hobby than a hobby tank hybrid?


It is not generally thought of as acceptable. Did you read somewhere that it was?

Malawi are not a great example... hybridization is rare. Switch to Lake Tanganyika and say cyprichromis leptosoma and we have a whole new ball game. Now this is a naturally hybridizing species. Variants from around the lake show many many intermediaries. When I have seen wild caught cyprichromis leptosoma passed of as a popular variant like "black bee" just because it was caught in that area, well... let's just say that an argument begins that neither the buyer nor the seller walks away from happy. 
opcorn:


----------



## jon1417 (Dec 20, 2011)

The way i see it, if they cross breed in the wild, It's natural. It's a part of the evolution of cichlid. for some reason, they decided to cross with another fish therefore it is acceptable. In a tank, youre almost forcing them to do it depending on the stock you have. so its very unnatural and and unwanted in the hobby. Thats just how i see it. Crossing isnt really creating a hybrid in the wild but a whole new species. just my 2 cents!


----------



## swamphntr (Oct 21, 2011)

> It is not generally thought of as acceptable. Did you read somewhere that it was?


Not in those exact terms, however I have read the underlying thought by many posters that if it is a wild specimen it is a viable fish and not a threat to hobby stock. case and point jon1417's interpretation. My point is a hybrid is a hybrid is a hybrid. Wild or tank raised there is no difference.

My main purpose of starting this thread is to better understand the threat to hobby stock. I do realize stuffing 3-5 species into a confined space in unnatural gender groups can cause hybridization that wouldn't typically occur. But, there is little doubt hybridization does occur in the wild even if it is a rarity. I also understand that in a hobbyist enviroment, elapsed time is turbo charged and great changes can be inflicted in a much shorter time than in a natural setting.

The gist of the question is, how do we really know when we have viable stock and not some hybrid or off color variant of a known fish? What is the real risks involved in hybrid stock getting into the hobby, isnt there fresh stock to be had in the wild? Also at what point does line breeding for specific color traits and intensity constitute, altering the natural blood lines?

By the way thanks to those that are diving in on this, I am very much interested in the topic. Please excuse my ignorance to what may be very obvious to some. I have seen the reptile hobby go absolutely nutty over designer morphs and I personally never cared for it. It was nice to come to this site and see folks proactive about keeping stock as close to the original as they can.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Yes there is a chance you could get a wild hybrid. The chance is much lower with a wild fish than one from a hobbyist. Nothing is perfect and there are no absolute guarantees, you go with the best odds and most trusted sources.

Yes some people also prefer a natural fish to a line bred fish. Depends on whether you just want a pretty fish or you want to feel what you see in your tank you could also see on a dive. The natural fish are pretty fantastic even without man's "improvements". My red peacock is my least favorite fish (too fake looking) but I really do like my turkis!

If you hang out in the Unidentified forum or the Lake Victoria forum you will understand better the harm to the hobby. A newbie all thrilled to have a certain fish posts a pic to determine gender instead hears they have a hybrid. He becomes discouraged between that and a couple other things and leaves the hobby or switches to goldfish. Lake Victoria fish are not so available in the wild and it is becoming difficult to get pure fish in the hobby. Wild fish are not as available from the Lake Victoria basin these days either.

Labidochromis caeruleus Lion's Cove is a good example of a fish that is really difficult to get as a wild fish.


----------



## swamphntr (Oct 21, 2011)

I hadn't noticed that forum but I will go to browsing.

I have some srt hongi. The breeder told me they were exceptional stock and indeed they are. Then came the day when the male had a throat that swelled up and all of the sudden he became a she. These fish have been bred for tremendous color to the point that dimorphic isnt as obvious as it should be. My females can color up and look better than most of the male stock photos I see online. Since the holding incident ( she ate her eggs on day 12) I have gotten more keen to the slight differences with some help from this board( rounded fins rust colored find instead of super red more barring) I'm personally not disappointed but its obvious that hobbyist breeding has affected what swims in my tank to a great degree. This fish doesnt appear to be a dimorphic species at first glance.

I think I will fall into the line of hobbyists that would prefer an example that you could also see in a dive.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*swamphntr*
Excellent questions, and i agree with all of them. Those that are anti hybrid but ok with sports, mutants, albinos or line bred whatchamacallits strike me as very arbitrary. I frequently hold to the opinion that there are breeding quality representatives of a species, and then everything else is simply a pet quality fish.

Your hongi experience os oh so common. Poor breeding is a big problem in this hobby and when the breeders screw up, they blame inbreeding, claim its normal, line breed for some odd trait, etc. 
*** even listened to friends brag about 100% of their fry reaching selling age!

Oh well... I have to remember, you cant fix stupid. :lol:


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Number6 said:


> Switch to Lake Tanganyika and say cyprichromis leptosoma and we have a whole new ball game. Now this is a naturally hybridizing species. Variants from around the lake show many many intermediaries. When I have seen wild caught cyprichromis leptosoma passed of as a popular variant like "black bee" just because it was caught in that area, well... let's just say that an argument begins that neither the buyer nor the seller walks away from happy.
> opcorn:


Intermediaries don't mean hybrids..


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Fogelhund said:


> Intermediaries don't mean hybrids..


Well, see there is the rub. If I find one or two examples of a cross in the wild, then I get to say that the two gene pools are still distinguishable from each other and therefore the individuals are hybrids.

If there are many, they get called intermediaries and there is but one gene pool.

So, to swamphunter's point... when are wild intermediaries accepted but a captive (similar) mix is not?

My thoughts are that even the wild caught intermediaries (and hybrids of course) aren't generally approved of in this hobby if one looks at reactions of buyers and sellers. So to answer his question, neither wild nor artificially mixed individuals are considered "ok" by many. There does seem to be some posts that say "if it happens in the lake it's ok in our tanks" but I wonder if they would feel that same way as a buyer on short end of a deal where they pay for "x" and receive "y".


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Searching for a black and white answer, when there are only shades of grey in some instances.

We are talking about distinct isolated populations, versus continuous. With the continuous population, such as the Cyprichromis, we are talking about divergent evolution, that hasn't been complete. It isn't hybridization, as for practical purposes, they are the same population.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Fogelhund said:


> It isn't hybridization, as for practical purposes, they are the same population.


 if you accept that there are definable variants, then the intermediaries are hybridizatiom events. Shades of grey indeed!


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Number6 said:


> Fogelhund said:
> 
> 
> > It isn't hybridization, as for practical purposes, they are the same population.
> ...


There are definable collection locations......


----------



## swamphntr (Oct 21, 2011)

> Intermediaries don't mean hybrids..


I am not sure i understand why this is true. Could you elaborate?



> We are talking about distinct isolated populations, versus continuous. With the continuous population, such as the Cyprichromis, we are talking about divergent evolution, that hasn't been complete. It isn't hybridization, as for practical purposes, they are the same population.


This really kind of highlights my thoughts. It seems a snapshot of the wild fish stock has been taken and thats the picture of species/locales that the hobby is claiming viable. My original questions center around the idea that if these fish are crossing in the wild and producing breeding offspring than it is natural and we are in fact just witnessing a tiny tiny piece of evolution in the lakes and our tanks. The same situation that created the diverse representation in the first place.

Granted what happens in the tank can be turbo charged, easily manipulated, and abused. Im not making an argument for haphazard breeding in our hobby. But the mad scientist in me cant help but wonder where these wild hybrids or intermediaries are going.....


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

swamphntr said:


> The same situation that created the diverse representation in the first place.
> 
> Granted what happens in the tank can be turbo charged, easily manipulated, and abused. Im not making an argument for haphazard breeding in our hobby. But the mad scientist in me cant help but wonder where these wild hybrids or intermediaries are going.....


Its not the same situation though... Not at all. And hybridization alone didnt make each seperate species. If hybridization was the norm, we would have a lake with one single species.

As you say, in our tanks, the genetic drift is turbocharged, manipulated and abused... Is that wanted needed or helpful? Not to me. A portion of me is curious about hybrids.... I am also curious about a great many other things in life but dont pursue that curiousity.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

swamphntr said:


> if these fish are crossing in the wild and producing breeding offspring than it is natural and we are in fact just witnessing a tiny tiny piece of evolution in the lakes and our tanks. The same situation that created the diverse representation in the first place.


I think this is the opposite of what happened, at least in some scenarios at Lake Malawi. The fish were initially more homogenous and the habitat changed. For example, the water level dropped and due to underwater geography, populations were cut off from each other. The individual populations evolved separately and became distinct. Why would we not want to preserve this?


----------



## swamphntr (Oct 21, 2011)

At this point in my life I have never caved into the Frankenstein urges. LOL 

Just prodding to find out more about these fish, their origins, how they came to be and how not paying attention can ruin hobby stock and or wild species. A think a book that include the geographic history of the lakes might be a good start . Any suggestions?


----------

