# Aulonacara firefish



## nene

Here in italy two of the most respected importers sell this fish as aulonacara firefish...
Is this a pure fish?or a hybrid of some type? maybe the result of a selected line breeding?
if pure what's its origin?
Just curious, not going to purchase it


----------



## F8LBITEva

Its a Peacock hybrid also known as a strawberry peacock.


----------



## Guest

Looks real nice. I would buy it.


----------



## Dave

It is a hybrid.


----------



## cichlids _killer

aka dragon blood ..sure its a hybrid but nice as **** ...i do got one ..he's stunning


----------



## nene

Just like I supposed...
Does anyone have a picture of a female?


----------



## igetbombed1977

I breed these and have 3 females right now. I can take some pics tonight. If you are wanting to breed them, know that the European breeders/importers tend to hold the females. They don't want others breeding them.

Since you are in Italy I'm sure you'll have an easier time tracking these down - but I paid more for my females then I did the males because they are that hard to find in the states. They have the same shape and are actually a pale orange/red color themselves. Kind of cool to have females that still have color.

Note: If you breed these fish - they do not breed true! No one is 100% sure what fish are mixed to produce these hybrids (it's a trade secret), but the offspring is usually 75% orange firefish and 25% poop brown firefish. The poop brown fish are not automatically female either, I am currently growing out some brown ones that are about 2.75-3.00 inches now - they are turning red and I want to see what they will look like as mature adults.

Yes it's a hybrid, but IMO it's one of the nicest peacocks you can buy right now!!! I never have an issue selling the fry either.


----------



## nene

So i'll wait for the pics....
My interest keeps rising....mmmmmmmm    
whenever you discover something new about the brown offspring post the news!!!


----------



## igetbombed1977

Most certainly will!! My digital's batteries died last night! I'm going grocery shopping tonight and will buy some fresh ones (boy I need to buy rechargeables). I'll take pics of the poop brown guys, the males, and the females.

I actually have 3 more females coming in next week. I have 3 different blood lines of males - one is really cool. He is yellow/red/and white! I haven't seen a yellowish version before, so I couldn't say no! Stay tuned - my pics should be up today/tomorrow.


----------



## tires_6792

here are some pics of my ruby crystal peacocks. My females are pinkish-white. I had a female holding already at 1-1/2" to 2". got 13 fry from her. I too will see how they turn out.


















most recent pic - 2"


----------



## nene

Wow! I like it very very much


----------



## copasetic

Not to be confused with the dragons blood... Dragons bloods were recently made in asia hybridizing cichlids with a non cichlid.. Firefish/strawberry is at least a older line and u know what the fry will produce!


----------



## Number6

copasetic said:


> Not to be confused with the dragons blood... Dragons bloods were recently made in asia hybridizing cichlids with a non cichlid.. Firefish/strawberry is at least a older line and u know what the fry will produce!


 Do you have any evidence of this claim?

Call me a cynic but this looks like a clever importer's marketing strategy getting passed along as "fact".

Either way, it's a moot point now as I know many hobbyist's who have mixed the two to produce what they called the Firefish...


----------



## why_spyder

Number6 said:


> Call me a cynic but this looks like a clever importer's marketing strategy getting passed along as "fact".


You're a cynic! :lol: I did it!

As with many of manmade fish, there is a lot of ideas and myths going around about how a each of the "species" is made.


----------



## noki

I am very dubious of the idea that there are fixed distinct lines at this point, and that these names mean much of anything. They have a formula of various fish which involve OB mbuna and maybe albinos(?) of some sort, maybe Haps, and then they may breed that hybrid into an Aulonocara like a Red Shoulder so it looks more like a Peacock sometimes... a lot of the fry is probably culled cause they look different.

I've been looking into Koi and they cross the various mutant genes over and over again to get so many bizarre cool Koi. Every Koi is different thou and most of the fry are "junk". The idea of a fixed line is kind of an illusion, it is still a random process of breeding selected parents and picking out a few dozen that they want out of hundreds of fry, and maybe a few unpredictable oddballs that look good.


----------



## Number6

why_spyder said:


> As with many of manmade fish, there is a lot of ideas and myths going around about how a each of the "species" is made.


 Oh you just said "species" to make me go mental now didn't you! :lol:

My pet peeve (and Why_spider knows this of course  ) is when these new man made mutt fish are passed off as other than what they really are... they are a designer man made fish.

When they get called a new "species" (when the only valid term is breed) or called aulonacara firefish like these importers did in this story... well, it really confuses people. They think this is some sort of new animal instead of just a neat looking mutt that some people might like to own...

Ok... rant over :lol:


----------



## why_spyder

:lol:


----------



## tires_6792

It doesnt matter to me if they are hybrid/line bred or whatever type of *"breed"* they are. As long as they look like the "breed" type, characteristics and can breed true id get them. I really like these guys and the pictures really dont show the true beauty. It's like everything thing else in life...personal taste etc. I like the red peacocks ... so thats what i get.

So far none of my fry look brown as claimed in this post. These were only 1-1/2" when i got them ... so i dont see them throwing any other colors .... het-hem...i hope. if they turn brown or whatever...i will update.


----------



## Number6

Don't get me wrong... I totally agree there Tires. 


tires_6792 said:


> As long as they look like the "breed" type, characteristics and can breed true id get them.


 The only thing I'd add is that they should only be sold under common names and/or breed names that do not attempt to mimic a Latin name... 
e.g. a Turkis Peacock should never ever be labeled Aulonacara sp. "Turkis"

The latter name is clearly intended to mislead and misrepresent...

True breeding and recognizable cichlid breeds are not a concern to me. I would own some as well... e.g the OB peacock or Dragon's fires bloods sunfire strawberry whatchamakallits


----------



## tires_6792

i agree with what your saying about the Aulonocara being listed. Most people or at least those new to the hobby may not understand that these dont come from the lake naturally.

Another point is that some sellers take advantage of it by claiming F1 rubescens peacocks...etc.


----------



## copasetic

Number6 said:


> copasetic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to be confused with the dragons blood... Dragons bloods were recently made in asia hybridizing cichlids with a non cichlid.. Firefish/strawberry is at least a older line and u know what the fry will produce!
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence of this claim?
> 
> Call me a cynic but this looks like a clever importer's marketing strategy getting passed along as "fact".
> 
> Either way, it's a moot point now as I know many hobbyist's who have mixed the two to produce what they called the Firefish...
Click to expand...

*** known of strawberrys/firefish as long as *** been in cichlids and dragons blood is a new type only showing up in last few years.. That is only fact i need IMO to believe they are different. As to where and who made them yes im only going on what *** heard.. but fact that strawberrys are much older is a fact! maybe what *** seen labelled as a firefish isnt just the standard old strain of strawberrys but sure looks like them.. Dragons bloods *** seen are very different, they look like gold fish coloring!! a koi/cichlid..


----------



## tires_6792

all i can say is that i will post them by the name i bought them as. as anyone should, if any doubt or it can some how be correctly....corrected.


----------



## copasetic

yes thats all you can do with any fish from pet stores with unknown strains.. Go by the label. Because thats what the breeder woulda have told them!


----------



## tires_6792

amen brutha!


----------



## Joea

copasetic said:


> I've known of strawberrys/firefish as long as I've been in cichlids and dragons blood is a new type only showing up in last few years.. That is only fact i need IMO to believe they are different. As to where and who made them yes im only going on what I've heard.. but fact that strawberrys are much older is a fact! maybe what I've seen labelled as a firefish isnt just the standard old strain of strawberrys but sure looks like them.. Dragons bloods I've seen are very different, they look like gold fish coloring!! a koi/cichlid..


Unless you know exactly which species were used for Strawberry Peacocks and Dragon's Blood Peacocks, you cannot state that it's a _fact _that Strawberry's have been around longer than Dragons Bloods or that one trade name is correct for one and not the other. They're all unknown hybrids of unknown origin and there is no set standard as to how they should look or what colour they should be.

Call them Strawberry's, call them Firefish, call them Dragon's Blood, call them 1978 Plymouth Volare's if you want, it doesn't matter.


----------



## LexBubble

I was actually going to post a topic about this very fish. I knew they were a hybrids but it looked to hot I had to but it! I just wanted to see a pic of the females. The pet store I bought it at had some similar to the pics you guys have posted and that's the one I bought. But they also had some that werevery similar but were tinted yellow. equally stunning. I really enjoy these fish even tho they are hybrids and I would like to breed them so if anyone can show a pic of a female and tell me what's up with the yellow tint that would be great.

Thanks


----------



## tires_6792

the yellow tint may be a female of the gold peacock variety.


----------



## Number6

I saw some female Strawberry peacocks for sale and quite a few females were that yellow appearance.

To Noki's earlier point, we do not know what fish are currently being culled versus passed by some breeders and the yellow females showing up sometimes could easily be explained by either the normal behavior of hybrid genes or by human criteria during the production phase...

If you like those gals, go ahead... just be warned that I doubt there's much info around to let you know if the kids will come out as Strawberry peacocks or as lemons! :wink:


----------



## igetbombed1977

Very entertaining post, and believe me I don't claim to be an expert on this species, but I have researched them probably more then most, so would like to chime in with my 2 cents.

#1.) I have kept both the strains from Germany and those from Thailand. I do not know what two fish are used to create the "fire fish" - but most breeders will tell you it's a red zebra mixed with a red flush peacock.

#2.)I don't know why, but the German blood lines throw more "true fry". What do I mean by "true fry" - simple. When you cross two fish to get a sought after offspring (in this case a very vivid red fish), inevitibly some of the offspring are going to display charecteristics of each parent!!! Assuming these fish are in fact part red zebra and part red flush - some of the fry will look like poop brown (just like a red flush peacock female would) - Period! To say "Mine don't throw any brown fry" is a bold face lie! It's genetics and impossible. You are basically saying you have magical fish if they are throwing 100% Dragon's blood. If you bought several from a breeder and they were "all orange", odds are the breeder culled the brown ones! If you breed these when they reach maturity - you will note that they too will throw some brown fry.l

#3.)As hobbyists work with the line, and get into f2,f3,f.....10 odds are by that point they will "breed true", but until then - expect poop brown fry. I have noticed that the German lines tend to produce about 80-85% orange, with 15-20% brown, where as the ones from Thailand are a little skewed. I'd say 60-70% orange and 30-40% brown. This is also another reason people pay more for the German Strains.

Again, I go on record by saying I'm not the authority on this fish at all!!!! I too saw them for an outrageous price, and just wanted a male. Then after having him for a while, wanted females and started breeding them. Any fish I breed, I research to the nth degree. Unfortunatley 90% of the information out there on these fish is either in German or comes from Thailand. I don't claim that the above two fish are the right fish either, just been told so by multiple breeders who I trust. There are other theories out there that this is part hap/part peacock. But if you ever see one up close, I tend to believe the red zebra/red flush peacock combo is in fact the case. But again - this is my Humble opinion.

I know I promised pics of the females - they are coming, I've had a ton of computer issues lately, and just got back up and running. I will try and take some tonight. I will also post pics of my 3 strains of this fish. You will see that even as adults - they look different.


----------



## zebra7

Here's some pic's of my fry @ 1.5in, German strain,


----------



## Joea

I find it interesting that people try to add some sort of merit to these fish and try to differentiate between what is believed to be a Firefish and a Dragon's Blood, as if there is some sort of notable, viable difference in which to base a convenient trade name on.

The fact is that there is no known lineage to these fish. Any and all claims as to what they are is factoid and has never been proven. Even breeders who claim to know; don't. The location of the "breeding-process" is irrelevant as well, Germany, Thailand, Kazakhstan... the fish are what they are; hybrids. Unpredictable, un-described and unimportant to the hobby as anything more than ornamental, man-made breeds that look pretty if you're into that sort of thing.

igetbombed, I'm not trying to call you out on anything you've said because I understand your stance, but I'm pointing out why some people (including yourself) can be mislead to think of these fish as a "species", based on some of the phrasing and terminology you've used.

Case in point:



igetbombed1977 said:


> #1.) I have kept both the strains from Germany and those from Thailand. I do not know what two fish are used to create the "fire fish" - but most breeders will tell you it's a red zebra mixed with a red flush peacock.


Which species make up a "Red Flush" Peacock? It's not a pure Peacock that I'm aware of. Any breeder who tells you this, has no idea what the fish are made up of, not that it matters anyway. Trade names are made up and to lesser experienced aquarists, it gives them some sort of validity to what they're buying.



igetbombed1977 said:


> 100% Dragon's blood. If you bought several from a breeder and they were "all orange", odds are the breeder culled the brown ones! If you breed these when they reach maturity - you will note that they too will throw some brown fry.


100% Dragon's Blood is an oxymoron to the highest degree. This would be the same as calling a mixed breed dog 100% Bark Monster, it makes no sense whatsoever and leads one to believe that "Dragon's Blood" is indeed a species.



igetbombed1977 said:


> #3.)As hobbyists work with the line, and get into f2,f3,f.....10 odds are by that point they will "breed true", but until then - expect poop brown fry. I have noticed that the German lines tend to produce about 80-85% orange, with 15-20% brown, where as the ones from Thailand are a little skewed. I'd say 60-70% orange and 30-40% brown. This is also another reason people pay more for the German Strains.


You cannot use Filial numbering with man-made fish. This is another misleading use of terms. There is no "F" anything with line-bred, man-made or hybrid fish. Furthermore, percentages like you're using are speculation. There would have to be years of documented research done by ichthyologists and breeders alike witnessing hundreds of generations of fry to obtain accurate numbers like the ones your claiming. If there are no accurate records of what species of fish are even used to _make _these fish, then how can anyone claim what the percentage of red and brown are?

Anyone trying to legitimize these fish as anything other than a nice looking, sometimes red, sometimes not-so-much fish is fooling themselves and anyone wishing to buy one. They are what they are; hybrids of unknown origin. They're not special, they're not rare, they're not even a species, and debating over a name, location or breeder of them is not only confusing and equivocal to a lesser experienced aquarist, it's simply a waste of time.


----------



## igetbombed1977

Awesome pix by the way. Yours look like mine do - but I noticed that there are also some paler orangey ones. Are they all the same fish? Just curious.


----------



## igetbombed1977

Confused - are you saying I was trying to legitimize these fish? Did I ever call them anything other then a hybrid?

As for filial numbering - I was merely trying to say, that the more your breed "firefish"with "firefish" as the generations pass - the blood lines may breed true. Or am I not allowed to say "generations" either?

By 100% firefish, I was indicating that no one can guarantee that a brood of these fish - even if bred 1m to 1f "firefish" will produce fry that look like the fish pictured here. I am the owner of a puggle - 1/2pug and 1/2beagle. I have friends with the same dog - yet some look more pug, other's more beagle. Same concept applies here. Whatever fish are used to create the "fire fish" will display characteristics in it's fry. I was trying to EDUCATE not legitimize.

Please don't misconstrue what I was saying as me trying legitimize anything. I prefaced my post with "I'm not the authority", however I have inquired a lot about these fish and learned a thing or two. Figured I'd post what I had learned so that others could benefit from the information, especially if someone was looking to breed these themselves. I meant no harm by my post whatsoever. These fish are in fact hybrids. I don't know if there is any difference between these fish, or strawberry peacocks, that point was not made by me. However, I wouldn't buy females labeled "strawberry peacocks" and breed them with a "firefish male" even if they look similar for fear that the offspring would look entirely different then what I was going for. Make sense?

I just don't want people wasting their time, effort, and money breeding these (if that's what they are looking to do)and not know what they are getting into. That's all I'm saying.

All in all - great information though.


----------



## Darkside

Joea said:


> You cannot use Filial numbering with man-made fish. This is another misleading use of terms. There is no "F" anything with line-bred, man-made or hybrid fish. Furthermore, percentages like you're using are speculation. There would have to be years of documented research done by ichthyologists and breeders alike witnessing hundreds of generations of fry to obtain accurate numbers like the ones your claiming. If there are no accurate records of what species of fish are even used to _make _these fish, then how can anyone claim what the percentage of red and brown are?.


One can use the filial designation with anything. All the F1 designation describes is the first generation from known parents. If you're you breeding from a line, the original parents will become the "F0" generation and then the pedigree is filled out accordingly. Its not quite the same as how the F1 numbering system is used in the hobby (where it has been taken out of its original context), but if anything this is indeed the scenario where the filial numbering system is most useful; for tracking line bred fish. If there were years of documentation where many generations of fry were observed and the statistics recorded I can guarantee that the researchers would be using a pedigree with the filial numbering system. :lol:


----------



## Joea

igetbombed1977 said:


> Confused - are you saying I was trying to legitimize these fish? Did I ever call them anything other then a hybrid?


Nope, I didn't claim that you were trying to legitimize these fish as anything more than hybrids. My point was that some of the phrasing you used, is what causes a lot of the confusion to people who are unfamiliar with Malawi cichlids. Let me expand on that:



igetbombed1977 said:


> As for filial numbering - I was merely trying to say, that the more your breed "firefish"with "firefish" as the generations pass - the blood lines may breed true. Or am I not allowed to say "generations" either?


Regardless of the point you were trying to get across, using filial numbering even as an example is incorrect. It's a term reserved for fish distanced from the lake by generation. To you and I, it may be understood that you simply mean generation removed from the breeding group you purchased, but to someone without this know-how, it can lead one to believe we are talking about naturally occurring fish. Moreover, the breeding group that you would be considering as the "first" generation would be invalid because they would be hybrids as well, so what generation are they?



igetbombed1977 said:


> By 100% firefish, I was indicating that no one can guarantee that a brood of these fish - even if bred 1m to 1f "firefish" will produce fry that look like the fish pictured here. I am the owner of a puggle - 1/2pug and 1/2beagle. I have friends with the same dog - yet some look more pug, other's more beagle. Same concept applies here. Whatever fish are used to create the "fire fish" will display characteristics in it's fry. I was trying to EDUCATE not legitimize.


A pure "Pug" and pure "Beagle" are just that; pure. There is no such thing as a pure Firefish or pure Strawberry or pure Dragon's Blood. Mixing what you call a Firefish and what I call a Strawberry produces only one thing; 100% hybrid, nothing more, nothing less.



igetbombed1977 said:


> Please don't misconstrue what I was saying as me trying legitimize anything. I prefaced my post with "I'm not the authority", however I have inquired a lot about these fish and learned a thing or two. Figured I'd post what I had learned so that others could benefit from the information, especially if someone was looking to breed these themselves. I meant no harm by my post whatsoever. These fish are in fact hybrids.


I know you meant no harm, most people don't mean any harm, but trying to differentiate between a Firefish and a Strawberry Peacock is futile and it causes confusion. There is no helpful information that anyone can give regarding breeding of these fish, other than "look for some nice colourful specimens, and hope for the best!"



igetbombed1977 said:


> I don't know if there is any difference between these fish, or strawberry peacocks, that point was not made by me. However, I wouldn't buy females labeled "strawberry peacocks" and breed them with a "firefish male" even if they look similar for fear that the offspring would look entirely different then what I was going for. Make sense?


See, that _doesn't_ make sense, because the names of the fish are irrelevant. They're made up by the sellers. Because they're hybrids of unknown origin, you can breed whatever you want with whatever you want. The fear of what the offspring will look like will _always _be there, even if you pick two stunning specimens that are both called Firefish by two different sellers. The names are not recognized and have nothing to do with the genetic make-up of the fish whatsoever. You can take them home and call one "Propane Powered Super-Fish" and the colour of the offspring will still be whatever the genetic recipe spits out.


----------



## lotsofish

I was sold a "Dragonblood" and a "Firefish" from the same dealer. I know they often use hormones to give these fish a redder color so be cautioned since the fish may not stay so red. I don't care if they are hybrids since they are going in an all-male show tank. I also plan on getting an OB peacock.

This is the fish sold as the firefish









This one sold as the dragonblood


----------



## igetbombed1977

I'm calling my offspring propane powered super-fish. LOL. Who wants some. LOL. Thanks for the education, even I learned some today. Much appreciated. LOL. Propane powered super-fish, that is priceless.

New to the hobby - f1 propane powered superfish - who wants em?? LOL. I'll take it a step further. F1 Aulonocara Strawberry-Firefish-Propane Powered Superfish. From the Basking Ridge Locale - LOL


----------



## lotsofish

> A pure "Pug" and pure "Beagle" are just that; pure.


I'm not sure you can say pure unless you are talking about wolves. Dogs have been crossed over and over to come up with "pure" lines. Eventually they seem to produce predictable off-spring. I suspect the same can be achieved with fish. Just look at the varieties of goldfish.

The real question is whether we want a bio-type of what we would see in Lake Malawi or we just like having beautiful fish (not that bio-types aren't beautiful}. I think there is room in the hobby for both.


----------



## Joea

lotsofish said:


> Joea said:
> 
> 
> 
> A pure "Pug" and pure "Beagle" are just that; pure.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you can say pure unless you are talking about wolves.
Click to expand...

It was merely an example in response to his analogy, all three breeds of dogs are actually of the same species. igetbombed1977 knows the lineage of his dog, he is fully aware of which two breeds created it. The two or more species used to create these fish is unknown, which means breeding any two will always yield a variety of results.


----------



## igetbombed1977

Amen


----------



## Number6

Darkside said:


> One can use the filial designation with anything. All the F1 designation describes is the first generation from known parents. If you're you breeding from a line, the original parents will become the "F0" generation and then the pedigree is filled out accordingly.


 I'm not sure you would ever try to use the filial naming system for linebreeding simply because you do not tend to stay within a single bloodline... you usually outcross as desired. As soon as you outcrossed you'd need something more advanced than Filial naming...

E.g. 
P1XP2= F1
F1xF1=F2

But as soon as you take one of the F2s and outcross you get P1 and P2 again... 
P1XP2=F1

So I have F1s and F1s that are different and the tracking needs have just grown... I'd have to at least add a Group name or something...

In the case of Firefish or whatever we call this thing, you know it's been outcrossed to Peacocks at least once or twice since they are predominantly like Peacocks...

just thinking out loud...


----------



## Joea

Darkside said:


> One can use the filial designation with anything. All the F1 designation describes is the first generation from known parents. If you're you breeding from a line, the original parents will become the "F0" generation and then the pedigree is filled out accordingly. Its not quite the same as how the F1 numbering system is used in the hobby (where it has been taken out of its original context), but if anything this is indeed the scenario where the filial numbering system is most useful; for tracking line bred fish. If there were years of documentation where many generations of fry were observed and the statistics recorded I can guarantee that the researchers would be using a pedigree with the filial numbering system. :lol:


A couple of fellow Mods pointed this out to me as well.

I agree that it can be used loosely for any generation removed from the parents. However, my concern was that it was used in this discussion. In this hobby, we associate an F1 to be the offspring of WC parents, whether it's used incorrectly by us or not, it's the norm and it's the designation that sometimes means the difference between a $5 fish and a $50 fish.

That said, I wanted to make it clear to anyone who hears these terms used when dealing with these fish, that there is no connection to any naturally occurring fish when they are used. My calling the use of it "incorrect" was unwarranted. I should have said "using it in regards to these particular fish, may be misleading".

It may be a slippery slope if we abandon _our _definition of the filial numbers in our hobby, even if we use it incorrectly as "exclusive" to our hobby. It opens the door to sales of F1 Eureka Reds and F1 Flowerhorns. It's bad enough we have so many fish that can't be identified due to hybridization, trying to determine what is a "real" F1 or a "man-made" F1 is a scary thought.


----------



## Darkside

Number6 said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> 
> One can use the filial designation with anything. All the F1 designation describes is the first generation from known parents. If you're you breeding from a line, the original parents will become the "F0" generation and then the pedigree is filled out accordingly.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure you would ever try to use the filial naming system for linebreeding simply because you do not tend to stay within a single bloodline... you usually outcross as desired. As soon as you outcrossed you'd need something more advanced than Filial naming...
> 
> E.g.
> P1XP2= F1
> F1xF1=F2
> 
> But as soon as you take one of the F2s and outcross you get P1 and P2 again...
> P1XP2=F1
> 
> So I have F1s and F1s that are different and the tracking needs have just grown... I'd have to at least add a Group name or something...
> 
> In the case of Firefish or whatever we call this thing, you know it's been outcrossed to Peacocks at least once or twice since they are predominantly like Peacocks...
> 
> just thinking out loud...
Click to expand...

Well of course you'd have to add a group name to keep track of all the different lines, but you'd still be using the basic F system to trace the pedigree back to the original P generations. In your example you'd have to group the original parental generation as a single designation i.e. Q and J. Then in the last cross you'd have F2-(QxJ) x with whatever designation you grant the outcross say R. Then you'd have F2-(QxJ) x P-R and you'd end up with that as the tag for the progeny, which could be shortened as desired assuming you can still trace the lineage backwards along the pedigree. I suppose you'd have F1-(F2-(QxJ)P-R) progeny, I think its bad practice to leave out information especially when its just so easy to take down especially seeing that you may need to reference what you've done in the future. I mean, hey if we had the pedigree for these peacocks we'd be able to tell if they were different and in what way. :lol:


----------



## CICHLUDED

Darkside said:


> Well of course you'd have to add a group name to keep track of all the different lines, but you'd still be using the basic F system to trace the pedigree back to the original P generations. In your example you'd have to group the original parental generation as a single designation i.e. Q and J. Then in the last cross you'd have F2-(QxJ) x with whatever designation you grant the outcross say R. Then you'd have F2-(QxJ) x P-R and you'd end up with that as the tag for the progeny, which could be shortened as desired assuming you can still trace the lineage backwards along the pedigree. I suppose you'd have F1-(F2-(QxJ)P-R) progeny, I think its bad practice to leave out information especially when its just so easy to take down especially seeing that you may need to reference what you've done in the future. I mean, hey if we had the pedigree for these peacocks we'd be able to tell if they were different and in what way. :lol:


WOW..........

Now I see why my kids call us "fish geeks" ...

I hope they dont see this....

:fish: :lol:


----------



## Fish_Dude

Firefish, Dragons Breath, ruby crystal, strawberry. ... they're the same. Looks like a good 'strain' of this hybrid! I'd buy him.

But even so, I've seen good and bad stock. I lost my nice male... I don't usually do hybrids, but I would keep this guy. Awesome fish!


----------



## tires_6792

EXcellent post!!! Gotta live these debate posts and you really can come away with learning & or being corrected a little bit w/o harm or foul.


----------



## why_spyder

And this conversation is a positive reason why going with the natural (occuring in the wild) specimens is best! :lol:


----------



## noki

The term "F1 Hybrid" is commonly used with plants. I suppose if you breed fish A + B, then saved the fry with the desirable characteristics and breed them, each generation saving and line inbreeding the same generation you could call them F5... etc. The fish would get horribly inbred thou. Isn't that what they do with Discus? Discus are not dimorphic thou, the dimorphism really makes it harder with Malawi cichlids.

I doubt that most of these hybrids they sell are that carefully bred... heck, they know that all you have to do is hormone them and they will sell, why go to all the trouble of line breeding carefully? Easier to hormone.


----------



## tires_6792

i heard that in the instance of the ruby crystal peacocks they are hormoned at the time of sell because of their small size. i believe its to make the females more colorful. This will fade and in the case of males, & depending on the line of course, will tend to color up the older they get like typical peacocks. Not sure how much truth is to that but just figured id share what i had heard in reference to this part of the topic.

In the case with mine the males have not faded and the females are pink. But i do supplement their diet of with some Cyclopeeze to aid the the bright color.


----------



## Number6

Darkside said:


> I suppose you'd have F1-(F2-(QxJ)P-R) progeny, I think its bad practice to leave out information especially when its just so easy to take down especially seeing that you may need to reference what you've done in the future.


 I burst out laughing at this so the wifey read it only to tell me flat out "that's not funny..." with a sort of pitying look...

Fishgeeks rule!!!! :thumb: :lol:


----------



## Darkside

Number6 said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose you'd have F1-(F2-(QxJ)P-R) progeny, I think its bad practice to leave out information especially when its just so easy to take down especially seeing that you may need to reference what you've done in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> I burst out laughing at this so the wifey read it only to tell me flat out "that's not funny..." with a sort of pitying look...
> 
> Fishgeeks rule!!!! :thumb: :lol:
Click to expand...

Imagine what the designation would look like in a couple more generations...


----------

