# Auratus & Gender Change



## JerseyGiant88

I have read from a variety of sources that auratus can change gender if they are in an exclusively female tank. the dominant female changes from being gold with black stripes and picks up the dark blackish/brownish/blue coloring of the male auratus. however, i am not clear if this is an actual sex change or just a change in coloration to show dominance in the absence of a male. in other words, can an auratus female that "becomes male" fertilize eggs? i looked at the species article on this site and it does not mention anything about a gender or sex change.


----------



## TKC747

I don't know about fresh water fishes doing this but some salt water fishes do this.


----------



## Kanorin

The alpha female does not change gender, she just can take on male coloration. I've even heard of a dominant female attempting to mate with a sub-dominant female. I've never heard of fertile eggs being the result, however.


----------



## TheFishFactory

females can change into males and fertilise eggs. i have experienced this many times


----------



## Rhinox

TheFishFactory said:


> females can change into males and fertilise eggs. i have experienced this many times


no you haven't. What you have experienced is a young male or subdominant male taking on adult male breeding coloration. True females can not turn into males.


----------



## TheFishFactory

i beg to differ!! Ii have had stock tanks full of females, witnessed the colour change, then had females holding!!


----------



## Rhinox

A color change and then females holding is not enough to prove that a female auratus actually turned into a male. It could have been a subdom male that finally felt comfortable enough to color up. It could have been a dominant female simply taking on male coloration (but remaining female). Also, is has been said that 2 females will attempt to spawn together with the result of one or both fish holding eggs afterwards, but the eggs are obviously not fertile.

To believe that a female auratus can actually change gender, I would have to see evidence that:

1) the female first has held fertile eggs at some point (produced fry), 
2) changed color to mate and fertilize eggs with another female, and
3) those eggs hatched into fry.


----------



## TheFishFactory

The tank was full of females who had all produced fry before with various males. After selling the males 2 ' changed' then fertilized eggs with the other females which hatched.
This is a good debate however and I appreciate your doubts as I found it odd too. I believe there has been studies on various cichlids that report this phenomenon.
:thumb:


----------



## TheFishFactory

here was one done with metriclima

www.bioone.org/doi/full/10.1643/CG-06-143


----------



## Rhinox

yeah, when I googled for any evidence to support your claim (to see if I was wrong), that abstract was the only thing I found too... Do you have the whole article by chance? I couldn't find it, but I would like to read it.


----------



## TheFishFactory

I'll try and find it for you, but I don't need to prove anything just because you haven't seen it!! By the way , why would a ' sub dominant male' not show his male colouration if there were no other males in the tank?


----------



## TheFishFactory

Rhinox, if you don't want to believe it then don't, that's up to you. All I can say is I have seen it occur in a stable environment. No, I didn't film it and I can't prove it to you, unless you pay for a flight to Spain and stay here a month or 2 to witness it.

I also have clients who have witnessed the same phenomenon, clients who, like me have over 30 years experience with Malawi's.

I am wondering what qualifies you to discount my claim?


----------



## JerseyGiant88

glad to have sparked such a heated debate.


----------



## TheFishFactory

LOL, Jersey, this isn't heated, believe me, it can get a lot worse!! I fully understand the scepticism as it's not as regular occurrence with freshwater as it is with my marines, but IMHO it does occur! I have no problem with Rhinox questions, just that I don't feel I need to prove anything to justify ' my' claim. If you google it many sites make the same claim. :thumb:


----------



## Kanorin

TheFishFactory said:


> By the way , why would a ' sub dominant male' not show his male colouration if there were no other males in the tank?


I've seen this happen - it occurred when I added a young male to an established group of larger females.


----------



## TheFishFactory

here is the full study
www.asihcopeiaonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1643/CG-06-143


----------



## lil_flame33

Wow, thats interesting.... *** heard it done with lizards.... cool to see cichlids can do it too......


----------



## GaFishMan1181

That doesnt prove they do.


----------



## master chi

yeah my auratus changed color around 3 inches I ended up taking HIM!!! back to the lfs that I bought HER!!!javascript:emoticon(':zz:')


----------



## master chi

master chi said:


> yeah my auratus changed color around 3 inches I ended up taking HIM!!! back to the lfs that I bought HER!!!javascript:emoticon(':zz:')


 I don't think it changed sex I think it's color change just slow around my other fish.


----------



## Number6

GaFishMan1181 said:


> That doesnt prove they do.


 the study seems pretty convincing and turning from female into male isn't all that unusual... ever study early human embryonic development? I use it on my wife all the time... "I know what it's like to be female, you have NO idea what it's like to be male!" :lol:


----------



## GaFishMan1181

To prove it someone would have to recreate that experiment and get the same results.

Also if it was true we would hear more about malawi cichlids being able to change sex. People would discuss it at big cichlid expos. There would be more published articles on the subject.

Those people that wrote that could of made a mistake. They could of altered the results in some way to get a desired outcome to make themselves look better. So many things could of happened.

I need to see a bunch more evidence and articles and papers on this subject before i would ever say malawi cichlids (specifially mbuna) can change sex.

Not saying 100% that they cannot change sex but i do not think one article proves they can.


----------



## DJRansome

I had not seen the article and up until this post I thought it was pretty well accepted that cichlids did not do this. I did recognize the name J. Stauffer as someone who is cited by Konings in his books (nine listings in the references for Konings 4th Edition).

I asked around a little and it seems that some of those people that would be talking about it at big cichlid expos may be doing so at the next one. :thumb:

Thanks for posting it.


----------



## Fogelhund

GaFishMan1181 said:


> To prove it someone would have to recreate that experiment and get the same results.
> There would be more published articles on the subject.
> 
> Those people that wrote that could of made a mistake. They could of altered the results in some way to get a desired outcome to make themselves look better. So many things could of happened.
> 
> I need to see a bunch more evidence and articles and papers on this subject before i would ever say malawi cichlids (specifially mbuna) can change sex.
> 
> Not saying 100% that they cannot change sex but i do not think one article proves they can.


If you read the article in full, you will find this isn't the first study of it's kind, with similar findings. I know the level of these scientists... they didn't make mistakes.


----------



## GaFishMan1181

If you read the article in full you would of read where it said "Our experiments are the first
known successful attempts at documenting a Malawian cichlid that first bred as a female and later as a male.".

So i am still saying i would want to see more studies and to see someone else repeat the experiment and get the same results.

I am glad you know the level of those scientist but there still human and could possible make mistakes. That is why others need to recreate the experiment to prove that this is true.


----------



## a7oneal

GaFishMan1181 said:


> To prove it someone would have to recreate that experiment and get the same results.
> 
> Also if it was true we would hear more about malawi cichlids being able to change sex. People would discuss it at big cichlid expos. There would be more published articles on the subject.
> 
> Those people that wrote that could of made a mistake. They could of altered the results in some way to get a desired outcome to make themselves look better. So many things could of happened.
> 
> I need to see a bunch more evidence and articles and papers on this subject before i would ever say malawi cichlids (specifially mbuna) can change sex.
> 
> Not saying 100% that they cannot change sex but i do not think one article proves they can.


In order to "prove" (I try not to use that word) something can't happen, you need to test every possible individual (or whatever else you're trying to study). In order to "prove" they can (in essence, "have the ability to"), you only need one example. Whether they do it with significant frequency is questionable (not every tank here had a female change), and whether this occurs in their natural environment is another thing. This experiment was done under controlled conditions.

It would be interesting to see additional studies with different species, though it does certainly suggest that it could happen. We may even see a series of papers from these authors.

I'll be looking for more!


----------



## GaFishMan1181

Right on.

Still seems like they did it with realitive ease. Not sure why more people havent done it.


----------



## scrubjay

GaFishMan1181 said:


> To prove it someone would have to recreate that experiment and get the same results. Also if it was true we would hear more about malawi cichlids being able to change sex. People would discuss it at big cichlid expos. There would be more published articles on the subject. Those people that wrote that could of made a mistake. They could of altered the results in some way to get a desired outcome to make themselves look better. So many things could of happened. I need to see a bunch more evidence and articles and papers on this subject before i would ever say malawi cichlids (specifially mbuna) can change sex.
> Not saying 100% that they cannot change sex but i do not think one article proves they can.


I'm not certain you fully grasp what it means to have a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal like Copeia. Your work is reviewed by at least three independent scientists who are top experts in the field, and if there is anything, _anything at all_, that is questionable in experimental design, setup, statistics, or results, your paper is not accepted. At least one review will be anonymous so personal relationships can't get in the way of an objective review. The publication of the paper is considered confirmation of the scientists' findings that the sex change did occur under the conditions of their experiment. It may be a small sample size, but it's as close to "proof" you get in the world of science. Peer-reviewed scientific journals are _the _arena in which scientific findings are reported on an international basis. There is no higher bar for scientists to "prove" that something happened.

I wouldn't expect to see a lot of papers on the subject, actually. It is something that probably doesn't happen much in nature, so although it might be of great interest to hobbyists, it might not be of that much interest to most scientists. The literature review in the introduction is a great explanation of why sex-change in Rift Lake cichlids may not be so hard to believe. What is even wackier is parthenogenesis in vertebrates.


----------



## GaFishMan1181

Wow. I really thought there would be more skeptics on this topic but yall are all acting like it is common knowledge that African Cichlids can change sex. Well if this article is good enough for 3 moderators and an administrator then it has to be good enough for a mere hobbyist like me.

"African Cichlids can change sex." Now lets see how many people qoute that last line and tell me that well only a few can and in certain circumstances and it isnt as black and white as that. :lol:

Atleast now i have a good response to anyone asking about doing an all female tank. "Be careful or your females might turn into males and defeat the goal of your all female mbuna tank.

This changes everything.


----------



## 24Tropheus

GaFishMan1181 said:


> Wow. I really thought there would be more skeptics on this topic but yall are all acting like it is common knowledge that African Cichlids can change sex. Well if this article is good enough for 3 moderators and an administrator then it has to be good enough for a mere hobbyist like me.
> 
> "African Cichlids can change sex." Now lets see how many people qoute that last line and tell me that well only a few can and in certain circumstances and it isnt as black and white as that. :lol:
> 
> Atleast now i have a good response to anyone asking about doing an all female tank. "Be careful or your females might turn into males and defeat the goal of your all female mbuna tank.
> 
> This changes everything.


Yep read it. Yep have my doughts too. I dunno what species they used. What on earth is Metriaclima cf. livingstoni ? Why was this not picked up if it had a good peer review before apearing?

Standards seem to be slipping for what apears in scientific papers?
Read by a couple of academic folk before publication (freinds maybe) who have never vissited or checked the experiments (and for sure did not check the species name as being valid) would be my guess. :wink:

Long, long, way before (if proved) a sex change in this species (whatever it is) would indicate sex change is frequent in all Mbuna for sure. :wink: 
No evidence presented for sex change in auratus for sure.
All the best James


----------



## scrubjay

OK, understand I am not trying to pick a fight or anything here, but I want to go into this a little more. The reason is that part of my job is being a research librarian and doing review of scientific literature on topics related to fish ecology and biology. I have also edited scientific papers for people prior to their submittal to journals. I just want to explain why, although skepticism is a truly healthy outlook, especially in today's world, the results of scientific research published in academic journals is probably the last place you need to apply it. I am the biggest skeptic, so I should know!  


> "but yall are all acting like it is common knowledge that African Cichlids can change sex"


 Nope, not exactly. The publication of this article will be seen as empirical evidence that _sex change occurred in these particular subjects under these particular conditions_. You can't necessarily extrapolate the results to any other species or conditions. But you can continue to investigate the subject and see if this is common or not. 


> "Read by a couple of academic folk before publication (freinds maybe) who have never vissited or checked the experiments (and for sure did not check the species name as being valid) would be my guess."


 They reported the species name accurately. In binomial nomenclature, "cf." is used when identification has not been absolutely confirmed. The reason they used it is because the taxonomy of _Metriaclima _and many other Malawi cichlids has not been entirely worked out, and speciation continues. See: 
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/9/5107.full.pdf+html

You do not get to choose who reviews your work prior to publication in an academic journal.


> "Reviewers are typically anonymous and independent, to help foster unvarnished criticism, and to discourage cronyism in funding and publication decisions. Since reviewers are normally selected from experts in the fields discussed in the article, the process of peer review is considered critical to establishing a reliable body of research and knowledge. Scholars reading the published articles can only be expert in a limited area; they rely, to some degree, on the peer-review process to provide reliable and credible research that they can build upon for subsequent or related research. As a result, significant scandal ensues when an author is found to have falsified the research included in an article, as many other scholars, and the field of study itself, may have relied upon the original research."


In other words, to report something inaccurately, or to bias the experiment or results, would not benefit the authors in any way. Quite the contrary--it would ruin their reputations.



> "Why was this not picked up if it had a good peer review before apearing?"


Probably because hobbyists are not as likely to be members of associations such as the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists? http://www.asihcopeiaonline.org/ There are thousands of academic journals published every month. http://journalseek.net/bio.htm If you want to keep up on cichlid research, you could bookmark all those where such research is published and monitor the tables of contents each month. I monitor 50 journals related to salmon biology, river ecology, fluvial geomorphology, etc. as part of my job, but I pay for a service to have them emailed to me.

If you are truly interested in academic research on cichlids, you can do searches using GoogleScholar and find everything published on the subject that is in electronic form. The problem is that you need paid access to view the full text of many papers and subscriptions to scientific journals can cost hundreds of dollars each; therefore, it is best to have access to a university library to view the actual papers. 
For example, a search of "cichlids sex change" brings up quite a lot of papers on the subject, that similar results were found decades ago, and that maybe this is nothing to be surprised at:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q1g1q18w6564m13t/
http://www.springerlink.com/content/q63777pq170k3518/fulltext.pdf?page=1
http://filer.case.edu/rgo/OldfieldFAF2005.pdf
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2830890
Finally, although I knew that some fish could change sex, I did not know that cichlids did, and I did not know that it could result from behavioral interactions. But now that I see the research that has been done, it's enough to convince me that it can happen under certain circumstances.


> "Sexual differentiation in teleost [bony] fishes is characteristically labile. The most dramatic form of sexual lability is postmaturational sex change, which is common among teleosts although rare or absent in other vertebrate taxa. In many cases this process is regulated by social cues, particularly dominance interactions."


 http://www.pnas.org/content/90/22/10673.full.pdf+html


----------



## fox

scrubjay said:


> >snip< although skepticism is a truly healthy outlook, especially in today's world, the results of scientific research published in academic journals is probably the last place you need to apply it. >snip<


Unless of coarse it has to do with GW and data is conviently omitted to get the results wanted. :roll: 

All research needs to be scrutinized and put to the test or we might just be fed someones view in a conviently accepted report. 'just sayin


----------



## scrubjay

Oh really? Do you know the results of that "scandal"? Obviously not. Because it was politically driven sensationalism and had nothing to do with the research conducted. The results of independent investigation of the "scandal" came out this week, as a matter of fact, the scientists were exonerated. They are not guilty of your charge.
http://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/news/national/clean_bill_of_health_for_climate_centre_1_505641
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618024.stm
http://www.uea.ac.uk/mac/comm/media/press/CRUstatements/Report+of+the+Science+Assessment+Panel
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7097234.ece


> "The report of the independent Science Assessment Panel was published on 14 April 2010 and concluded that the panel had seen "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit." It found that the CRU's work had been "carried out with integrity" and had used "fair and satisfactory" methods. The CRU was found to be "objective and dispassionate in their view of the data and their results, and there was no hint of tailoring results to a particular agenda." Instead, "their sole aim was to establish as robust a record of temperatures in recent centuries as possible.""





> Speaking at a press conference to announce the report, the panel's chair, Lord Oxburgh, stated that his team had found "absolutely no evidence of any impropriety whatsoever" and that "whatever was said in the emails, the basic science seems to have been done fairly and properly." He said that many of the criticisms and allegations of scientific misconduct had been made by people "who do not like the implications of some of the conclusions" reached by the CRU's scientists.





> "...the panel reserved its strongest criticism for the climate sceptics who had accused the unit of manipulating its findings. It said the attacks on the unitÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s work had been Ã¢â‚¬Å"selective and uncharitableÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## fox

Believe whatever agenda floats yer boat. Makes no never mind to me.

Someone tells me the world is flat I question it, you wanna believs it fine by me.


----------



## 24Tropheus

I can not find a reference elsewhere To Metriaclima livingstoni.
I find Pseudotropheus livingstonii and Maylandia livingstonii but no Metriaclima.
I dunno did the name lose an i and get moved again when I was distracted?
cf. means have no reason not to believe it is not this species or a similar one, as described.
If Metriclima livingstoni has not been described it is kind of meaningless.
We the readers, have no idea what species they are talking about.
Dunno but any Ichthyologist should have spotted this?
Kind of makes me warry about giving credence to anything else in there has been reviewed and tested when the title or titel :lol: has such a glaring error.

All the best James


----------



## scrubjay

No, They are not wrong and the title has no error. The hobby doesn't generally keep up with changes in nomenclature, and fish shops tend to use the names people have become used to. You are sort of missing the point by focusing on trivia that don't change the conclusions of the research.

The nomenclature of these cichlids has not been worked out, meaning that the scientific names have not been settled on. They have been revised more than once. I believe all were once grouped in the genus _Pseudotropheus_. Although _Maylandia _was proposed and used for this genus, there is some support for using _Metriaclima_ and I believe this is the currently accepted name for the genus. They all refer to the same species. Common and scientific names of species get changed all the time and DNA research will continue to ensure that this will be the case. The complexity associated with determining species in Lake Malawi stems from the fact that more than 800 species seem to have evolved from possibly one or very few ancestral species in only 2 million years (this is very fast in geological time). And they are still evolving and speciating. Evolution hasn't stopped, and the whole idea of species in such an environment is a difficult subject. 
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/m ... landia.php

The subject of their evolution and taxonomy is well-represented in the literature. 
http://www.jstor.org/pss/4065053
http://www.repository.naturalis.nl/document/148949
http://www.springerlink.com/content/95505615362m72h2/
http://pinnacle.allenpress.com/doi/abs/10.1643/0045-8511(2002)002[0146:DOANSI]2.0.CO;2
http://planet.uwc.ac.za/nisl/Biodiv...002 species concepts individuation Mayden.pdf
http://www.aqualog.de/news/web74/74-18-19e.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w0g1117651v871r0/
http://www.pnas.org/content/96/18/10230.abstract
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/mecol/2001/00000010/00000003/art00023
http://nature.umesci.maine.edu/pubs/ME2003.PDF

If you go to Chapter 14 in this book, you can read some of the chapter on cichlid speciation.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en...ZFw2Yw3pA1f0mD4Vlva6cNdCQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/10/5/1060

If you really want to understand all of this fun nerdy stuff, I suggest this book
http://www.amazon.com/Cichlid-Fishes-Behaviour-evolution-Fisheries/dp/0412322005


----------



## 24Tropheus

The conclusion of that research (I think) is that one species of Mbuna can change sex from female to male based on a couple of individuals in a single trial in cirtain circumstances. We have no idea how common this is or wheather it can be inferred that it can happen in other Mbuna. I would like to know which Mbuna species they observed this in. My guess would be the species described as Pseudotropheus livingstonii (Boulenger, 1899) but I can not be sure because of this name problem. It could be Metriaclima lanisticola (Burgess, 1976) (assuming that that is not the same species) or maybe something else.

Thanks for the links, keep me happy for hours. :wink:

I notice in the references Hale, E.A., J.R. Stauffer, Jr., and M.D. Mahaffy. 1998. Exceptions to color being a sexually dimorphic character in Melanochromis auratus (Teleostei: Cichlidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 9: 263-266.. Perhaps that might be worth chasing up to give a good answer to the original post?
http://malawicichlids.com/_popup_abs_hsm98.htm
I can only get the abstract perhaps you can show us the whole study?
I suspect that there is no firm answer yet to the original post but it might be nice to check.

All the best James


----------



## Number6

24Tropheus said:


> The conclusion of that research (I think) is that one species of Mbuna can change sex from female to male based on a couple of individuals in a single trial in cirtain circumstances. We have no idea how common this is or wheather it can be inferred that it can happen in other Mbuna.


sort of splitting hairs me thinks... sure, you couldn't definitively say that all mbuna have this capability but you have to remember the hypothesis prior to the study and then think about the fact that the species selected turned out to have the trait exactly as expected!

Probability says that there are other mbuna that will share this capability. If I were a betting man, I know what color I'd put my money on!


----------



## DJRansome

Metriaclima livingstoni is listed in Konings 4th Edition, was Metriaclima lanisticola.

GaFishMan1181, I *was *a skeptic. And I thought many of the knowledgeable members here were too. But I recognized the name J.Stauffer so I asked around. What a cool thread. I also learned a lot from ScrubJay about peer reviewed papers, etc.

I imagine I will never see this in a tank of mine. And I would not be totally surprised to see a paper in the future with a differing point of view. But at least now I know better than to say it's impossible.


----------



## 24Tropheus

Number6 said:


> 24Tropheus said:
> 
> 
> 
> The conclusion of that research (I think) is that one species of Mbuna can change sex from female to male based on a couple of individuals in a single trial in cirtain circumstances. We have no idea how common this is or wheather it can be inferred that it can happen in other Mbuna.
> 
> 
> 
> sort of splitting hairs me thinks... sure, you couldn't definitively say that all mbuna have this capability but you have to remember the hypothesis prior to the study and then think about the fact that the species selected turned out to have the trait exactly as expected!
> 
> Probability says that there are other mbuna that will share this capability. If I were a betting man, I know what color I'd put my money on!
Click to expand...

I would agree with that. Its sure going to be interesting (as the gates are open) how many Mbuna this might be found in. I see quite a lot of anacdotal evidence from hobbiests, would it not be nice for many of em to be proved right after being scoffed at. :wink: 
So sex change for sure in a species similar or the same as lanisticola, we think (thanks for that) and who knows what other Mbuna. 8)

All the best James

Arg one more thought. lanisticola is quite unusual in being a Mbuna shelldweller. I take it this does not make it more likely to be different/unusual in other respects?

I can kind of see a special advantage in a species that meets up in shells far apart to have the ability to change sex (two random fish far more likely to be able to breed), more than say a species that lives in large multi sex groups. Or a fish that lives in widely separated single male dominated hareems being able to replace a lost male from within.


----------



## scrubjay

The motherlode bibliography appears to reside here:
http://www.malawicichlids.com/mw14001.htm
with a list of journals that have open (free access):
http://www.malawicichlids.com/mw14500.htm



> I notice in the references Hale, E.A., J.R. Stauffer, Jr., and M.D. Mahaffy. 1998. Exceptions to color being a sexually dimorphic character in Melanochromis auratus (Teleostei: Cichlidae). Ichthyological Exploration of Freshwaters 9: 263-266.. Perhaps that might be worth chasing up to give a good answer to the original post?


I'm not familiar with the journal and can't find a free electronic version, unfortunately. If someone has access to a university library in Europe, they might be able to get a copy. Some journals haven't scanned all the older articles though, and 1998 may be too early.
http://www.pfeil-verlag.de/04biol/e9902d9.html

You know, after scanning the methods used in the Stauffer paper, it wouldn't be all that hard to reproduce their experiment at home with other species. I suggest somebody try it! Not all research has to be published in a journal; there are other outlets for amateur research, like this site!


----------



## LongIslandCichlid

Yes auratus can change their sex. yes Gafishman i was just like you I would of never believed anyone but it happened to me (I will post photos) I had one large Auratus male and 3 females all 3 females held eggs and raised fry about a year ago the male died and 2 of the females changed teams within a month the colors changed and they started displaying Ã¢â‚¬Å"maleÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## LongIslandCichlid

Holding Female









dominant male was a female at one time








subdominant male was also a female at one time








150 gal tank








6 week old Auratus








close up of a 6 week old Auratus









not an Auratus but it is a mom and her.....








fry


----------



## scrubjay

LongIslandCichlid said:


> Yes auratus can change their sex. yes Gafishman i was just like you I would of never believed anyone but it happened to me (I will post photos) I had one large Auratus male and 3 females all 3 females held eggs and raised fry about a year ago the male died and 2 of the females changed teams within a month the colors changed and they started displaying Ã¢â‚¬Å"maleÃ¢â‚¬Â


----------



## Kanorin

Very interesting thread - I also stand corrected that this cannot happen. And clearly, this is not a phenomenon isolated to just a single species. Go Science!

I had a tank with only 3 female melanochromis cyaneorhabdos for about 4-5 months (after I got rid of the male for being too aggressive). Pretty soon after getting rid of the male, one of the females definitely took over as the dominant member of the species. She never spawned with the other females, but I wonder if she was going through a sex-change and if I would have kept them around longer if she would have :-?

I wonder if this phenomenon has any developmental limits. In other words, can a three year old female change sex with the same facility that a 6 month old female can?

Also note that they observed male : female ratios in their F1 broods of approximately five to ten females per every male. Those high female to male ratios are not common in most tank-raised african cichlid broods. Perhaps it suggests that the Met. Livingstoni species has more hormonal cross-talk (or whatever factor is mediating these gender changes) than the average cichlid.


----------



## 24Tropheus

Kanorin said:


> Also note that they observed male : female ratios in their F1 broods of approximately five to ten females per every male. Those high female to male ratios are not common in most tank-raised african cichlid broods. Perhaps it suggests that the Met. Livingstoni species has more hormonal cross-talk (or whatever factor is mediating these gender changes) than the average cichlid.


Very good point I wonder is there anything about auratus that makes it a likely candidate. Ie a naturaly scewed sex mix towards female and females turning into males only after finding the males to be in short supply? Nope not on my keeping of em males seem to be quite (maybe too) frequent.  

But the selfish gene theory might suggest that any Mbuna that can breed as a male (can exert dominance in the case of auratus) should sex change from female (when domininant) for its own breeding advantage. They can get an awful lot more fry as a male with very little extra effort if already dominant as long as there are willing females available and not too much in the way of other male competition. :wink:

For sure auratus is not a shy peaceful Mbuna afraid of a high risk high reward strategy for reproduction and dominance.

All the best James


----------



## BlueEagle

Rhinox said:


> no you haven't. What you have experienced is a young male or subdominant male taking on adult male breeding coloration. True females can not turn into males.


I have just had a female, which has produced 2 batches of babies. She's also the only auratus in the rank. She cross bred with a Kenyi. She has now changed to a black and white (color wise) male. Of course I can't tell if she has totally converted to full male unless she cross breeds again. However she hasn't had any batches of babies in several months.


----------



## Fanie's Fishroom

Rhinox said:


> no you haven't. What you have experienced is a young male or subdominant male taking on adult male breeding coloration. True females can not turn into males.


Well one party say he has evidence and the other deny that. I can go even further and say you never had auratus, where is the evidence. Many have claimed that they had female only tank, and that they were vented to garauntee that, but still ended up with fry, not eggs only. 

This could be that it is true that one female turned male, the locals in malawi belief that. The 2nd option is that the eggs were fertilised before splitting the males and females. Remember, the eggs hatch after 3 weeks, not 3 months


----------



## agentbar

I had a stressed tank with Auratus and learned firsthand that male Auratus will remain yellow until they dominate, or the dominant male is gone. This appears as though females have changed into males, and in early experiments, that was the conclusion (absolutely false about changing sex). The actual females would brood often and the larger yellow ones would resist doing so at all.


----------



## dstuer

I have had female Alcolapia alcalicus change gender once all males in the system were gone.
They come from one specific very saline lake in Africa, that has very high temps. When mine spawned, all young started out as female, probably because my water conditions weren't quite up to the norm.
In Lake Natron pH is often 9, and water temps around 90' F.
My pH was 7.8, and temp only around 80.
After the dominant died, one females changed to male.








The shot above when she was female, carrying eggs.
Later after the only remaining dominant male died, she changed to male, and below after the change (which included color and even body shape) she is spawning with one of the many females from a previous spawn.























Im not sure why this is so surprising, marine species closely related to cichlids (the wrasses) do it all the time.
Sex-switching super powers of a tropical fish might be due to ...https://www.abc.net.au › news › science › bluehead-wra...


----------



## EricTheRed

It’s hard for us as humans, whose sex is determined before birth by chromosomes, with males having XY chromosomes and females having XX chromosomes, to understand this. Science has demonstrably shown humans cannot change their sex by simply altering a person’s hormones, ie testosterone and estrogen. The chromosomes are decisive. Unlike humans, a fish’s sex is determined by its hormones which are relatively easy to change. Experiments, which are readily repeatable in a controlled setting, have shown some fish can change their sex, by altering their hormones, in as little as ten days. It’s an actual physical transformation. Fascinating stuff nature is capable of doing with fish to help a species survive in a very competitive world.


----------



## sir_keith

Just to set the record straight here, sex determination in humans is determined by genes, not by chromosomes. Male sex-determining genes are usually located on the (male-specific) Y chromosome; thus, the karyotype of normal human males is 46,XY. In the absence of male-determining genes, as in 46,XX females, multiple genes on the X-chromosome specify female gonadogenesis. Intersex individuals, such as phenotypically female 46,XY individuals or phenotypically male 46,XX individuals are rare, but they do exist. In those individuals, specific sex-determining genes from the X or Y chromosome have been translocated to one or more autosomes.


----------



## EricTheRed

Just to set the record straight here, in human beings two of the chromosomes, the X and Y chromosome determine your sex when you are born. They are called sex chromosomes.


----------



## sir_keith

EricTheRed said:


> Just to set the record straight here, in human beings two of the chromosomes, the X and Y chromosome determine your sex when you are born. They are called sex chromosomes.


Obviously you didn't understand what I tried to explain, but that's OK. The human X and Y chromosomes were first called 'sex chromosomes' more than 100 years ago because they segregated concordantly with the female and male phenotypes, respectively. Since that time it has become apparent that it is not the X and Y chromosomes themselves that determine sex, but rather a small number of discrete genes that reside on those chromosome that determine sex. These conclusions are supported by observations that- (1) If you move sex-determining genes from the X or Y to any of the autosomes, then those autosomes become 'sex determining,' (2) If you inactivate the sex-determining genes on the X or Y by mutation, then those chromosomes are no longer sex-determining, and (3) The vast majority of DNA sequences on the X and Y chromosomes have absolutely nothing to do with sex determination. That we still call the X and Y 'sex chromosomes' is simply a historic relic from an earlier time when mechanistic studies of sex determination were not yet possible.


----------

