# So.... Would these be hybrids?



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Dad is a midas that was caught in a pond on some island out out west... Mom is a barred midas.



















Look at all those eggs! :lol: I just picked her up this past Saturday! I think three days is some kind of record :lol: 









So, would they be hybrids?


----------



## Spoof (Apr 15, 2008)

My opinion would be no, they will not be hybrids. It's like pairing a pink con and a regular con, they are the same species. Unless these 2 midas are not the same species? But I'm going to have to say I believe they are..

Lets see what others think I guess. opcorn:


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

If I were to sell any fry from this batch I would definately inform people that they have a reccessive gene...

Has anyone else done this on this site?


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

The way I understand things... they are the same species so the cross would not result in hybrids...

I've toyed with crossing color morphs with Dempseys and Apistos... never Midas...


----------



## lil mama (Nov 24, 2007)

For sure 3 days has got to be a record  Nice looking fish very nice :thumb:


----------



## gage (Feb 7, 2007)

im pretty sure they are all hybrids of RD and Midas anyway, so what is adding more midas to the mix right? LOL


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

In the very least, it would be a hybrid of strains. For example a "pink" ( or 'golden') convict X Regular con is a kind of a hybrid; a hybrid of strains. Any cultivar of plant crossed with another cultivar is a type of hybrid and is called so. Pumpkin X squash, even if they are both the same species is called and considered a hybrid. Similarily, one breed of dog crossed with another breed of dog is a hybrid of strains. NOT a hybrid of species, but a hybrid of strains.

Now a midas cichlid is now classified as many species. Currently around 10 species or more; maybe eventully 40 or more species the way ichthyologists are classifying fish now days :lol: Is your barred midas a A. xiloaensis or maybe a A. sagittae? Or maybe one of the more recently described of the midas-cichlid complex? :lol: Who knows? Of course a lot of aquarium strain cichlids that use to be considered to be one species might be, based on the current classification, crosses of closely related species: convicts, JD, severum, festivum, blue acara, jewel cichlid etc.

Aquarium strain midas/RD are already, usually, a cross of both midas and RD. From my perspective the different midas cichlid type fishes are so similar that they are nothing more then different strains. Even midas and RD, from my perspective are probably nothing more then different strains. But ultimately the ichthyologists decide and like to split fishes up into seperate species, over small differences. So yes, even not considering its possible RD ancestory, this cross probably would be a cross of species; if it isn't yet, just give the ichthyologists some more time to classify more midas cichlid type fishes and it will be :lol:


----------



## straitjacketstar (Mar 8, 2004)

Is that female A. citrinellus? She has an odd pattern for a barred midas IMO.
Feral caught "Midas" from Hawaii (I'm assuming) x barred "midas"?
Yes, I would consider them hybrids.
Nice pair though! That's a hot little lady! 8)


----------



## Frameshift (Sep 12, 2003)

There is no way to tell what the mutt is that I caught and sent you. Assume hybrid.

Looking good. What size is it now? It's not as colorful as I would have guessed, as all the devils I pulled out of there were phenomenally colored.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

When he was put in the 185 Saturday nite he measured 10 and one quarter of an inch TL. And yes, it's true, Frameshift caught this litle guy from a pond in Hawaii and shipped em here when he was about 5" or so if I remember correctly...

I definately understand the whole midas complex issue with midas and RD, I don't consider the two different species either bernie, I'm right on the same page with you on that... What I'm getting at is... what are the fry going to look like when they get older. Do you think the same results will happen when breeding pink and grey cons? (Those results being a little of both grey and pink in the batch) Or will they be orange with stripes?

straitjacketstar, I'm not sure of lineage of this female but I'll try and find out. She brightened up considerably for this roll in the hay, bars becoming more pronounced and the grey becoming almost white... I'll keep you posted...


----------



## cage623 (Feb 2, 2008)

It is really hard to tell how they will come out. Mostly because you don't know the exact genetic make up of either fish. Plus most of us probably assume that the color is controlled by one gene. So a fish is either XX, Xx, or xx. But being that to my knowledge, nobody has yet to do a complete genetic map of a Midas/RD, the different color could be controlled by more than one gene (XxYyZz for example). I guess you will just have to let them grow and see how things turn out and let us all know. You could be the next Gregor Mendel! :lol:


----------



## straitjacketstar (Mar 8, 2004)

What most rd/midas keepers experience in crossing xanthic with barred is mostly xanthic offspring suggesting that the xanthic gene would be dominant but I'm not by any means keep on the subject of genetics so you'll want input from someone who is and preferably who is also familiar with rd/midas.
The color change in the female is normal.
Mine went from this








to this








when spawning. She's f1 cit.

The coloration in rd/midas is something I'm finding really fascinating. There are a number of colors in the complex (barred, red, orange, yellow, white, black & R/O/Y/W, red & white, piebald). It's cool to see what might turn up in a pairing of differently colored fish. opcorn:


----------



## illy-d (Nov 6, 2005)

I would guess that this cross will have the same results as crossing Pink Con x Grey Con - that being that you don't get marbled con (unless ones of the parents has the marbles gene I suppose).

That being said straitjacketstar already pointed out the various colour varieties that currently exist with midas - the fact that they can be piebald makes me take pause and wonder what these guys will look like...

So it's settled then. Your just going to have to raise these guys and find out for us!

:lol:

PS: My opinion regarding these being hybrids is that the resulting fry will be no more or less hybridized than the parents - being that they are ferrel and aquarium strain I guess one would have to assume hybrid? (but I agree RD/Midas could be the same for all I know)... Maybe you should market them as 'Honduran Red Devils'


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

It's really hard to say what the fry will turn out: like one or the other parent, a mix of the 2, or a certain ratio of each. I sort of doubt it would work like regular cons and 'pink' cons and simply be a dominant and recessive trait, as xanthic in RD and midas is a metamorphis that a fish can sometimes go through; they all start off barred and in most that change occurs at an early age in captivity, but doesn't always even occur in the wild, and they stay barred. So there are enviromental factors that affect the color transformation. Though if it is a dominant and recessive trait, one might expect all the offspring to be barred and remain barred, as the barred parent probably wouldn't carry the supposed recessive gene (?).


----------



## fishfreak317 (Feb 22, 2006)

just tuned in on this thread thefishguy. the female in question is a Amphilophus sp. "chancho". IMO the offspring between the two will be cross strain not a hybrid. unless your male is a rd/midas, then it would be considered a hybrid.

well just thought i would fill you in on her strain of midas. :fish:


----------



## Frameshift (Sep 12, 2003)

Here he is when I shipped him out!


----------



## Frameshift (Sep 12, 2003)

fishfreak317 said:


> just tuned in on this thread thefishguy. the female in question is a Amphilophus sp. "chancho". IMO the offspring between the two will be cross strain not a hybrid. unless your male is a rd/midas, then it would be considered a hybrid.
> 
> well just thought i would fill you in on her strain of midas. :fish:


How do you know it's a chancho? If she is a sp. "chancho" than the offspring would definitely be a hybrid, as the father is definitely a red devil possible mix.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

I guess it all comes down to is this ...

is the person you're selling too a lumper or a spilter?

I know you are a lumper TFG ... and another lumper wouldn't consider them hybrids. A spiltter would. So just to be safe, I'd call them hybrids (but then I'm a splitter  ) since you probably won't be asking each person if they believe the newly described species within the genus are valid or not during each sale.

And since most would probably be pissed if they bought them and later found out they were hybrids versus just not buying them if they knew before ... and those that would buy them as hybrids obviously have no issue with keeping hy's ... from a sales point I'd say it's the safer route regardless of personal opinions.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

So - according to some of the logic that I've read on this thread - crossing, for example, this:

Aulonocara stuartgranti (Hongi Is.) - http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=1396

with this:

Aulonocara stuartgranti (Ngara) - http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=685

wouldn't be a hybrid.

I think not.

Central American cichlids - of the same species - can vary just as much in morphology and behavior by geography as African ones. For example, two different "convicts" in two different streams in the same region of, for example, Honduras can exhibit different colors and different care of their fry. Same species. Different fish.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

The differance with the centrals versus the africans is that the centrals have been described as differant species ... ie convicts now consist of 4 differant species, midas consist of several species now too.

Not that all of these changes have been accepted yet though. Some might be and some probably won't. Ironically if they are excepted they will be hybrids, but if the changes aren't accepted it would simply be a color cross much like the african you described would be.


----------



## fishfreak317 (Feb 22, 2006)

Frameshift said:


> fishfreak317 said:
> 
> 
> > just tuned in on this thread thefishguy. the female in question is a Amphilophus sp. "chancho". IMO the offspring between the two will be cross strain not a hybrid. unless your male is a rd/midas, then it would be considered a hybrid.
> ...


yeah i'm sure she is a chancho, because she came from me.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

"if they are excepted they will be hybrids, but if the changes aren't accepted it would simply be a color cross much like the african you described would be."

...which I think just about anyone would consider a "hybrid"...

But the word "hybrid" has many contexts.

One is intentional hybrids: flowerhorns or bettas or "swordtails", etc. that are intentionally different than what's found in nature

Another is random hybrids: The offspring resulting from an mbuna community tank or a convict breeding with a sajica. Or a citrinellus red devil and a labiatus red devil.

The final type of hybrid is a little more difficult: The offspring resulting from different varients of the same species. This would be two different types of stuartgranti peacocks or two different populations of red devils (Lago Nicaragua and Lago Managua). Crossing the two fish could produce fish that are different than either of the native populations (in both morphology and behavior)...even if they are the same "species".

This sets a very high standard: too high for the average hobbyist (A red devil is a red devil or a peacock is a peacock to 99% of the world)...but not too high (my opinion) for those who claim to have "wild type" fish.


----------



## bernie comeau (Feb 19, 2007)

dwarfpike said:


> The differance with the centrals versus the africans is that the centrals have been described as differant species ... ie convicts now consist of 4 differant species, midas consist of several species now too.


That's not really any different then the Africans. A "zebra" cichlid use to be one species and is now described as many. A "jewel" cichlid use to be a few species and is now around 10 or more. A banded jewel ( 5 star general or 5 spot) use to be one species and is now 3. etc, etc, etc :lol:

Of course they have to draw lines some where but if every different strain of CA cichlid gets described as a seperate species (much the same way they have done with rift lake cichlids), they will probably end up with around a 1000 or more CA species :lol:

Ultimately, us aquarists will end up accepting what the ichthyologists decide and agree apon. I think splitting is a perspective that really comes out of the aquarium hobby as small differences are very apperant and are more significant to those who keep these fishes. The rest of the animal kingdom seems to me, to be very 'lumped' in comparison :lol:

Getting back to TFG's fish, since we now know what TFG's fish are (or likely are) and since a Chancho is now classified as Amphilophus chancho, TFG's fish is: Amphilophus chancho X (Amphilophus citrenellum X Amphilophus labiatus). A hybrid but then so are most aquarium strain RD or midas.


----------



## illy-d (Nov 6, 2005)

*dogofwar wrote:*



> This sets a very high standard: too high for the average hobbyist (A red devil is a red devil or a peacock is a peacock to 99% of the world)...but not too high (my opinion) for those who claim to have "wild type" fish.


Agreed, but those that buy, breed, and sell the offspring of their wild caught fish generally do so under the title of F1 (or something along those lines)... From what I have seen the people selling wild or F1 fish to other enthusiasts are pretty ethical as they have their reputations to uphold (if Rapps says it's an F1 for example I take him at his word)... From what I know of TheFishGuy he seems pretty ethical and I don't think he would deceive anybody.

*berine comeau wrote:*



> I think splitting is a perspective that really comes out of the aquarium hobby as small differences are very apperant and are more significant to those who keep these fishes.


I think it also comes from the scientific communities 'publish or perish' mantra... Identifying and describing a new species probably goes a long way in defending a Masters or Phd thesis (for the up and coming ichthiologist)... and for the established ichthiologists indentyfing & describing a new species can go a long way to securing future research grants!


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

I agree. And many of us have been (unknowingly) keeping hybrids for years 

Cichlids that are very, very close genetically can be very different morphologically and behaviorally. For whatever reason, they've been able to evolve very rapidly to adapt to different conditions and niches.

It's up to the icthyologists of the world to determine how to organize this diversity into our man made taxonomy. It will never be perfect, as evolution (and extinction) are ongoing processes.

I personally enjoy observing the differences...that are probably unique to a particular population of a species from a particular area of a lake or stream. Who knows whether these unique differences will "survive" several generations of aquarium breeding...even with extremely concientious selection of breeding stock from a particular wild population.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

dog of war - agreed, but hybrid in this specific instance is about cross species. TFG was asking if he should sell them as 'hybrids' or not. I think so

bernie - I was refering to dog of war's use of Aulonocara stuartgranti color morphs in his example, not african's in general. :wink: but who knows, as DNA test are used perhaps more of the color morphs of rift lakes will be split up.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

My point is that the definition of "hybrid" doesn't need to rely on the current taxonomic status of the fish in question.

Crossing one fish with another fish that is "different" from it - whether currently classified as different varients or geographic populations of the same species or different species - creates fish that shouldn't be sold as either of the fish that produced it.

This is a mighty high standard, but...


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Very interesting fellas, very interesting indeed. I'm not sure if this batch will even make it though, they are both first time parents (unless the chancho has been bred) BUT for first time parents they have made it past the egg stage and the eggs are now wrigglers as of late this morning. I left the house at 7:30 am and the eggs were all still in the pot. By 10:30 most of the eggs hatched and the parents were still busy tending them. As of now, 12 hours later all are hatched and from what I can see are being well taken care of. Weather the parents decide to eat them at some point is up to them, I like to let the parents raise fry and keep the fry with them for 10 days or so after they're free swimming. So far you can set a watch to them. eggs for three days then wriglers for three days.... We'll see...

As for the hybrid situation, I will gladly share their lineage with any expected buyers or takers if you will... I don't like to hide anything 

Here's a shot from the surface as the stainless 185 does not have glass from end to end:


















Incidently the water params are perfect and the temp is 82.3*. The ph is 8.

Now I just need to figure out something to cover the filter intakes with


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Ok, figured out what to cover the intakes with, I used some whisper filter bags 

Good news, so far so go ,the fry are free swimming today! and there's a TON of them :lol:




























It's kind of strange though, they've got the fry split up into two groups, and they take turns caring for each group....


----------



## fishfreak317 (Feb 22, 2006)

ahh real nice. :thumb:

that's crazy that there is 2 clusters of them. :fish:


----------



## illy-d (Nov 6, 2005)

I wonder if they can tell which are striped and which are not? (presuming it happens that way)


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Oh, I doubt it... But, check this video out, they're all in one big giant cloud now :lol:


----------



## fishfreak317 (Feb 22, 2006)

wow that is a crazy amount of **** you got there.


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Isn't it awesome? I'm lovin' every minute of it. I just can't believe it happened so fast :lol:


----------



## Big Vine (Feb 26, 2007)

Holy smokes, that's awesome! 8) 
How are they all still doing in there---still playing mommy and daddy daycare separately? :lol:

BV


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Yeah it's a pretty sweet site. I haven't had a spawn of this size in a long time :lol: And no, they're all in one giant group now...

The last time I had a huge huge spawn was jaguars 385 years ago :lol:


----------



## fishfreak317 (Feb 22, 2006)

385years huh 

i am glad she brought you some joy :thumb:

did her forehead pop anymore?


----------



## cage623 (Feb 2, 2008)

I am guessing you ment: ...385 jaguars, years ago. Otherwise, man you are old! :lol:

Also I was wondering what happened to the other guy that got all beat up? (Sorry if you already answered this.)


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

The other guy didn't make it. I didn't get to him in time.... and it feels like 385 years ago.... that's what I meant...


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

A little update.... It seems as if they've eaten 90% of the fry and her ovipositor is out again and they're both acting like they want to spawn again...


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

Small update for anyone that cares.. they finished off the last batch on the 10th. and they spawned again last weekend. Here's the results :lol: They laid eggs on 5/23/08.




























Incidently the last time they laid eggs was 4/20/08......


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

I just moved a few hundred fry to a ten gallon...


----------

