# 'Ideal Specimen'.... For all fish 'collectors'



## CichlidWhisperer

I actually was answering another post and wrote this (well this has slight revisions.)

It is simply my opinion and I am not meaning it to judge or offend anyone, so please don't take it that way... discussion is great, but not disrespect.

I really have issues with people commenting about fish being "poor quality" or "poor examples." Each one is simply beautiful to the right person and they all have their own personality. Since when do we judge living creatures as if they were some sort of "prize." OK, so some people do it with dogs and other animals, but that is simply not how I see them. I really do see them as part of my family. I do not "collect" them either for that matter. And, if one dies, I am upset.. Not because I lost the money I spent on it, but because it was a life and one that I cared about. No, it is not the same as a human life, but it is a life and it makes the world a better place. And no, I am not a right-to-lifer either, but simply love animals and what they give us is more than simply something pretty to look at that should be "ideal." Ideal is something made up that others are supposed to follow??? I don't think the ideal fish is the one in the book for that matter either... individuality makes them much better!

OK, so I said my peace... I hope no one takes it personally, it is not meant that way, simply something I have been wanting to say for a long time.


----------



## naegling23

I think it all depend on what your trying to get out of the hobby. Personally, I'm on your side, but then again, im in it for a nice piece of living artwork in my house. Im not trying to develop a new strain. Dog breeders are obsessed with the "quality" because if it wins a show its pups are worth much more $. I would assume that that fish breeders want recognition for new strains, and more money for unique strains and things, much the same way that dog breeders do.

As for poor quality, there is some merit with all of it. A fish that does not look healthy likely is not healthy, and it could be a carrier of a disease, or it could just die. Your right, a fish is a fish, but I will not risk the health of my tank for some questionable fish from a non reputable fish store. And a fish that does not look like the breed standard may have some inbred characteristics, or hybridization. As for a pet, it doesnt matter, but it may be an indicator of a breeder that doesnt care, and I dont support that. A dog is a dog, but I'll be long dead before any puppy mill sees 1 dollar of my money.


----------



## Number6

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Since when do we judge living creatures as if they were some sort of "prize."


 Every day and in every single way... we do this from birth and we do it till death... 
studies of infants prove that even at "days old" we will stare at a pretty human face for far longer than we will at an "ugly" face... they must have used my photo for the latter! :lol:

I would even suggest you do it. You just haven't admitted it to yourself...

ask yourself... if you saw a male peacock with smaller fins, sort of brown... for $7 and a great looking one in the same tank with large showy fins and a great splash of vibrant color for $8... which one are you taking home? (assuming you can only buy one of course).

Be honest... you even said it yourself... you think your fish are great looking... what your beef seems to be is simply that some people use tougher criteria to id the $8 fish than you do...

In fact... some of us will plunk down $100 or more for a fish that makes you drool!


----------



## MalawiLover

I was going to not comment, but I I feel there is a point that you two are missing. Now I am not saying you are wrong in any way. But there is much more to whole quality issue than making money. Infact have the drive to make more money is one of the worst things that can happen to a species. The reasons we have poorer quality individual is directly because of the drive to make money. The breeders who are out for money want to sell every puppy and continue to make more regaurdless of the quality. Money should be the last thing on the mind of a breeder.

Wining shows is great (I show both dogs and horses), but it is not so that I can charge more for my puppies. Its a valedation from the experts of those communities world that my animals are in the absolute best condition and as close as possible to the "perfect specimen" Animals that are built (phyically and geneticly) more perfectly are healthier than those those that have defects. Every species of animal is shaped the way it is in order to do certain things. Specimens that are less physically perfect will not be as efficient or successful at those tasks. Should all the ones that don't make the grade be destroyed? Absolutly NOT. However they should not be used for breeding as that will perpetuate the problems.

Example: I have two dogs at the moment that are full littermates. One is my top show dog. His brother is not the right height (3/4in under the standard minimum) and cannot be shown. Does this make him any less of a great pet. Not at all. But I neutered him prevent his genes from going any further. I do agility and obedience competitions with him because he is still a fabulous animal, but just not meant for the show ring (the whole purpose of the show ring is for the selection and recognition of top quality breeding stock, nothing else).

With fish its is the same way. Because of the drive for the big distributors to simply make a buck, they very rarely cull any (it means less fish to sell). So in many LFS and definitely the big chain store (also only out to make a profit) everything that comes in gets sold. The problem for hobbyists is that you really can't spay and neuter your fish. Poorly bred mass produced and sold fish are diluting the good quality starins. The more low quality fish out there, the less and less do the fish look and act like their profile say they should. Eventually many species will not longer be able to be caught in the wild and we will have to rely on aquarium strains for our hobbies. Unless we are being very strict on quality and pure breeding, then in the end we will have a hobby full of mutts. They will neither look like nor act like they are supposed to and the lines between species will begin to blur.

One more point (and I promise this is the last one) is that physical imperfection is often accompanied by genetic imperfection. With multiple genes being responsible for multiple traits, unless we test the entire genome of every single fish, the only way to reduce the possibility of genetic defects is to watch for the physical ones. Even things as minor as even spacing of stripes and bars may be tied to defective genes that also play a role in the chemical balance of a fish. Very rarely are physical abnormalities isolated issues. The companion internal issue may not cause any significant problem for the individual fish, but in a few generations it could be. This is why females will almost always chose the more perfect looking male to mate with (when given a selection). She will also chose the largest male, because he has survived longer and has proven the quality of this genetic make up. On some preprogramed level she is looking for the best genes. In our tank, we are artificially limiting the selections of males, so the female will take what we give them. If we only provide imperfect mates for her to chose from she will spawn with the best she can get. Males on the otherhand will mate with anything that moves so again it is up to us to provide him with quality females. In the wild fish that aren't quite up to it will get get weeded out by natural selection. Yes there are imperfect fish that get to breed in the wild. But their numbers are so small in comparision to the whole size of the populations that is has very little impact on the whole.

Its just like the issue with hybrids. They can be beautiful fish ( I have several myself), but when they happen they should not be put back into the general population. If you hang out in the unidentified forum a lot you will see many people very angry at the fact that they bought a fish as one thing and it turns out to not be. You may be very up front about the family tree of you r fish, but you can't possible keep tabs on every fish you ever distributed and all of their ofspring, etc. It only takes one person down the line somewhere to sell it as a pure sepcies to seriously mess things up if it somehow finds its way to a mass breeder who just pops it into their breeding tanks and sells its fry as pure whatevers. They make thier money by praying on the uninformed person at the pet store. They don't care if 3 generation from now you start to get weird things show up in fry, or if the fish dies at an early age from some internal annomoly, they still made their buck on the original fish.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

This post started from a different post:

http://www.cichlid-forum.com/phpBB/view ... c&&start=0

In response to the last post by Number6 on that page:

I think you make some interesting points. And I am actually enjoying the discussion very much... Challenging your ideas makes you thik even deeper into them...

As for ideals.. I think the ideals we speak of are man-made. Fish have ideals as well and they select for them in ow they choose to breed. So if all were perfect, our ideals (being in theory based on what is "a wide sample taken" from the lake. Assuming we, as humans get it right and do figure out the average, this might be the ideal. But it is far fetched and rather man-centric to think we have gotten it right all the time. Furthermore, ideals set forth for judging, such as in dog shows, are very precise and do not accept much of a range of variation.

I agree with your assessment of "pure/impure". The only reason I wonder on such things is prediction of the future. The biggest reason I want to know what I have in my tank is to try and know how they will change, partially physically, but also in temperment.

Saying the wild sustains abnormalities and welcomes them is definitely an overstatement. But, the diversity of the cichlids, and other animals, we see is due to mutations that either provided a benefit and thus were selected for, or did not cause harm and thus were sustained. It is a wonderful world we live in due to such diversity.

By the way, we have two dogs... We think the one is a Boxer-Yellow Lab and the other a Gordon Setter-Border Collie... They are both shelter babies and we could not love them more. The only reason we even tried to assign breeds to them is our need to label everything around us, not theirs.

In response to your post on this new page:

I definitely do judge others, people, animals, inanimate objects. It is simply human nature. I don't have to admit that to myself. I will even admit I do it at times based on others set standards instead of own. But, I try and choose fish, friends, and to as much extent as possible everything based on my personal preferences and not simply because it is "the best" as jsdged by others. A lot of what I have said is my ideals. Something to try to live up to... Our world is far from perfect and I belong to our world....


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Malawilover, I really disagree with you. You are talking about dog shows, but it is too close to **** theories (and I do not think you intend it to be or mean it in that way at all.) But, what if you apply those statements to humans????

What about hybrid humans? Should they be taken out of the gene pool as well?????

I know we are talking about fish, but the argument holds... Is one fish really superior to another of the same species based on slight color variation or is one dog really genetically superior to another based on it's head size???? Sorry, but I disbelieve in this.


----------



## Number6

CichlidWhisperer said:


> As for ideals.. I think the ideals we speak of are man-made. Fish have ideals as well and they select for them in ow they choose to breed.


Man made is not really what you mean then... man-identified or man-defined perhaps?

The species description (by intent) is to define the "fish chosen" norm. 
What gets cut off is the man-defined part...


----------



## Fogelhund

CichlidWhisperer said:


> What about hybrid humans? Should they be taken out of the gene pool as well?????


Yes, hybrid humans should be taken out of the gene pool. I have never heard of such a thing though in my life. What other species have humans hybridized with?



> I know we are talking about fish, but the argument holds... Is one fish really superior to another of the same species based on slight color variation or is one dog really genetically superior to another based on it's head size????


Yes, one fish can be judged/perceived/viewed as superior to another species based upon colour variation, finnage, shape etc. Yes, one dog really can be viewed as being genetically superior based on it's head size, body size, shape, in field capability... etc.

Everything, and everybody is judged in some manner in this world, and certainly fish will continue to be judged upon standards of that species. Most fish clubs have shows to judge these fish, and a very large majority of aquarists will continue to judge their fish, and select the nicest for breeding. I'm thankful that is the case.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Hmmm... I think that is a better way to state it.. Man-defined it is.


----------



## MalawiLover

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Malawilover, I really disagree with you. You are talking about dog shows, but it is too close to person theories (and I do not think you intend it to be or mean it in that way at all.) But, what if you apply those statements to humans????
> 
> What about hybrid humans? Should they be taken out of the gene pool as well?????
> 
> I know we are talking about fish, but the argument holds... *Is one fish really superior to another of the same species based on slight color variation or is one dog really genetically superior to another based on it's head size???? *Sorry, but I disbelieve in this.


Depending on what the purpose of that animal is, yes it does matter.

Before the movie 101 Dalmations came out in the 50's (I think it was the 50's) deafness was quite rare in the Dalmation population in this country (something like 1 out of 200-300 births). In the 10 or so years after that movie that rate became 1 out of 10 puppies born with either partial or complete deafness. This was a direct result of people indescriminately breeding the dogs to make a buck, because every little kid wanted one. Now the Dalmation Association of America is working very hard to repair the genetic damage by requiring breeders to have their breeding dogs tested and usually every puppy as well for hearing problems. Dogs that are found to be deaf in one or both ears were fixed right away to prevent the defective genes from doing any more damage. Devistating heath issues in other breeds can be traced to the same kind of thing.

Now the part that may get me beat up.

The huge increase in the occurance ans increase severity of many of the disorders we have today are soley because people who would not have survived to reproductive age 100 years ago, are now reaching adulthood and having children because of advances in medical care. I am *in no way *saying we should start euthanizing people with disorders. I also don't think we should always euthanize all culled fish. You can cull without killing. I am also *not saying *the government or some authority should step in decide who can and who can not have children. People need to use their brains. I personally know several couples who made the choice to adopt rather than have their own biological children, not because they couldn't but because of their family histories came to the realization that if they had children there was a greater risk of retardation, birth defects, etc. The fish only have instincts. If we must remove them from natures control, they we have to take the place of that governing force. Animals that would have never survived to adulthood in the wild are being helped along by special diets, lack of predators and medications.

one thing in your reply I have to correct. Currently there are no hybrid humans. To comare with the fish the hybrid produced by the crossing of an O. lithobates with a Sc. fryeri would translate to a current human mating with a chimp. All races of humans are still the same species _**** sapien sapiens_. The different races are simply color variatints created by different conditions at different locations. And don't we still refer to people whose oparents come from different races as "mixed race" and not considered white or black or asian etc. And are their not social pressures in many cultures to only marry and reproduce with in your own race? And are people not still punished in some soceties for breaking these societal boundaries?


----------



## MalawiLover

Fogelhund said:


> Everything, and everybody is judged in some manner in this world, and certainly fish will continue to be judged upon standards of that species. Most fish clubs have shows to judge these fish, and a very large majority of aquarists will continue to judge their fish, and select the nicest for breeding. I'm thankful that is the case.


Exactly! Do we not want to date the most attractive person with the best personality we can find to match or compliment our own. Why is it not ok to judge your fish on the way they look, but its ok decide who you are going to date based (in the begining atleast ...I know personality changes some things) on looks. Do we not want our children to be attractive and smart and healthy so they can go on to get the pest possible mate and so on?


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

OK.. I am going to try for the most part to stay off the subject of humans. I have never said that a disabled or deformed dog is one that should be breed by choice, although it should be cared for humanely and in a loving home. I am simply saying that based on color or for the most part head size, a dog is not deformed or disabled. I said for the most part head size, because I am sure there are certain diseases and deformities that can alter head size and I am not including these.

I am talking about healthy individuals. I would not buy a diseased fish, although I did take care of a cat with a chronic disease (asthma) and my mother has taken care of multiple cats with diabetes, thyroid problems, and other ailments.

You are right, there are no true hybrid humans and I stated it that way to get a response. But, lets not forget that we are talking about stating one animal is superior to another based on color.

As far as the concept of humans goes, I wish we could trust that all humans to have common sense. I have no idea how to give them that common sence either or what to do about those without it. I know of a very, very intelligent and well educated couple who choose to continue to have children (they have 4 and want at least 4 more), in spite of all the boys being congenitally deaf. Because they get cochlear inplants, the parents feel their children are not handicapped... I really do wish they would adopt children instead (so many children need good homes), but it is really not business and not my choice.

In any case, I wanted to comment on how amazing this discussion is... I am truly enjoying hearing peoples views. One of the things that I think is truly outstanding about it is that this is such a touchy subject and yet all participants have kept it on a mature discussion level!


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Who is to say that physical beauty is the best way to judge someone. Don't intelligence, kindness, and other below the surface traits matter? Yes that is judgement too, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what the ideal beautiful woman is to one man is not the same to others and I hope is not soley or even mostly based on physical beauty.

I know for myself, I have a first impression and my view of that person changes as I get to know them.

Thankfully we are all individuals and can be appreciated as such. Lets appreciate our animals and fish as such too????


----------



## MalawiLover

CichlidWhisperer said:


> OK.. I am going to try for the most part to stay off the subject of humans. I have never said that a disabled or deformed dog is one that should be breed by choice, although it should be cared for humanely and in a loving home.


I agree with you 100% here. Its not the dogs fault and every dog should have a have home.



> I am simply saying that based on color or for the most part head size, a dog is not deformed or disabled.


We are not say that either, just that should not be used as breeding stock. It does not cause them to be any less a good loving pet, just unsuitable for reproduction



> I am talking about healthy individuals. I would not buy a diseased fish, although I did take care of a cat with a chronic disease (asthma) and my mother has taken care of multiple cats with diabetes, thyroid problems, and other ailments.


Diseased is very diferent. A disease is something you get as a result of an outside force (bacteria, virus, etc - even things like cancers have some sort of trigger) We are speaking of imperfections in the genetic makeup, present from birth and cannot be cured. My dogs heigh issue is not a disease or a deformity, but it is an imperfection based on the standard for his breed. The standard having been created to keep the breed in the best possible form to do the work they are specifically bred to do. Wrinkles on a blood hound are an example. There are strict guidelines (like actual measurements) in the standard for the wrinkles. They are required fo retention of the scent to allow this breed to do its job. Too little and they can't trap as much scent to much and it hinders their movement both of which prevent the animal from doing the job it was developed for.



> You are right, there are no true hybrid humans and I stated it that way to get a response. But, lets not forget that we are talking about stating one animal is superior to another based on color.


If that color is one of the defining aspects of that species, then yes. If you were a breeder of Golden Retreivers, would you still use a dog that was born dark brown in your breeding program just because both his parents were "normal" Goldens?



> In any case, I wanted to comment on how amazing this discussion is... I am truly enjoying hearing peoples views. One of the things that I think is truly outstanding about it is that this is such a touchy subject and yet all participants have kept it on a mature discussion level!


This one is going very well. Its awesome. Lots of good points and counter points that have been well thought out and delivered. I wish everyone was always this mature when "hot topics" come up.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

First of all, you are stating that disease is something you get as a result of an outside force. That is an incomplete definition. There are certain diseases that are caused by pathogens, like the flu or HIV. There are certain diseases caused by environmental factors, like asbestosis or mesothelioma. There are certain diseases that are caused by genetics, like Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs. Then there is the gray zone, various cancers, heart disease, ect. which definitely have both envronmental and genetic factors.

At what point do we draw the line for what we should select for?

I totally disagree that a dog who is slightly shorter than "the breed standard" should not be breed. Ny the way, how tall are you? The breed average for a human male is 5 ft 10 (I may be slightly off, but the exact number is not the issue, or is it?)

I simply have to say I disagree with you here.... You are entitled to your opinion and i am entitled to mine. No need to beat it to death.


----------



## dwarfpike

A fishy example:

You find an _Amphilophus labiatus_ that doesn't have those uber over developed lips that the species is known (and scientificly described because of) for. Would the fish make a great wet pet despite the lack of enlarged lips? Absolutely. Should you breed it? No.

Even though I would enjoy an example with lessened lips as I see them as ugly, much like nuchal humps ... those lips were evolved for a feeding purpose. One in the wild would never survive becuase it can't eat the prey it evolved for. In the extreme case we ever need to repopulate the species in the wild, this sort of 'deformity' would lead to failed efforts.

Color in fish a lot of time (but not all) serves a specific purpose. Camoflague (sp.?), breeding ... not keeping the colors to the scientificly described standard could lead to problems such as hybrids and again, in extreme cases, lead to a failure to reintroduce the species. The reason female apisto's only color up for breeding is becuase their bright yellow would get them noticed by fishies that would eat them more. So breeding out the dull colors to replace them with yellow species would be just as bad as breeding less colorfull ones that wouldn't color up, the pattern on the colored up fins is how they comminucate with the fry.

Obvious if you aren't breeding fish, it's a mute point and I've been known to take less colored specimens that had more personality. But if breeding a species, I tend to pick the ones that are closest to the described specs of that species, which are usually the prettiest.


----------



## MalawiLover

CichlidWhisperer said:


> There are certain diseases that are caused by genetics, like Down Syndrome or Tay-Sachs.


Technically things like Downs, and Tay-Sachs are officially dissorders (syndrome is a popular synonym) and not diseases. It the layman on the street taht has broadened the term disease to cover all of them.



> At what point do we draw the line for what we should select for?


It all depends on what you goal of the mating is. If you want a certain result you are going to select for it in the breeding stock. If you don't have a criteria for the offspring then you don't have to. However, you also can't say that just because you are not interested in a specific trait that is completely ok for you (I am only saying you to make the grammar work not poking my finger at you) that flood the pools of of my potential breeding stock with animlas that no longer meet the standard and expect me to have no problem with it.

Every person is entitled to their own opinion on the issue, but no one has the right to force others to accept it and or to deal with it. People who allow those who may not know any better to perpetuate something that is detrimental to the species in any way (phisical or not) ar doing the same disservice as those how knowing pass off an imperefect specien labled as perfect.

Humans are different when it comes to the height (and many other tratits). We do not have a for specific purpose. Humans did not evolve to do a specific task. There is no heigh requirement to do our jobs. Though we are different heighs, we can still work at a desk just the same. A dog the size of a chihuahua cannot hunt lions and a komondor who is the wrong color and size cannot blend in to a heard of sheep completely unnoticed. You could not use an Alaskan Malamute to bull your sled if he has a short silky coat. He would freeze.


----------



## Darkside

Beautiful people pick up easier at the bar. Beautiful fish pick up easier as well. When we don't apply selective pressure in our own aquariums, we're not being true to nature. Who wants to own an all brown male peacock? Arguing this is a moot point because some people anthropomorphise their pets and become attached to their "personalities" and others keep them for their physically or behaviorally attractive features. Either you keep your fish as pets, or as specimens and most would like their pets to be excellent specimens (examples) of their given species.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Malawilover: 
The definiton of disease from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

a condition of the living animal or plant body or of one of its parts that impairs normal functioning and is typically manifested by distinguishing signs and symptoms : sickness, malady

The definition of disease from Stedman's Medical Dictionary:

An interruption, cessation, or disorder of body function, system, or organ. Syn: illness, morbus, sickness 
A morbid entity characterized usually by at least two of these criteria: recognized etiologic agent(s), identifiable group of signs and symptoms, or consistent anatomic alterations.

And yes Down Syndrome is a disease and Tay-Sacks Disease is a disease as it's name states!

Dwarfpike, I think you make a good argument with the lips. Where do you draw the line though? I guess it is a matter of what the purpose of the animal is. If they needed to go out in the lake and find a mate there, then breeding to be most attractive to a mate would be important. The fish we breed in captivity are for the most part for peoples fish tanks though (excluding those for food).... I want fish I find attractive and personable. Some people find those parrot fish attractive (I for one do not.)


----------



## dwarfpike

*Cichlidwhisperer* - it is a very slippery slope as the saying goes. Perhaps it's becuase I'm an old pessimist, but I think we will at some point need to repopulate most of our species becuase of how fubar'd we are making our planet. So I tend to keep fish with this in mind.

parrot cichlid = http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... php?id=518 = pretty, especially the last pic, but not everyone likes green.

fake parrots = icky. But even them, not even everyone agrees they are deformed!! They are popular due to color and their deformity. Which shouldn't be encouraged. But because they are a trispecific fish (made from 3 differant species) that is a whole differant arguement. I agree with you though, in fish their 'personality' (nothing more than awareness of their surroundings really) is more important than color. But like most humans, given two fish with equal personalities, I'll pick the redhead, erm I mean the one I think is prettier. That being said, an ugly fish that amuses me is far superior in my estimation than a dumb, pretty one that just sits there.

But then I keep cichlids for their interesting behaviors.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Dwarfpike,

You make me laugh.. you sound like my friend in New Hampshire. But, you have the best argument yet, to repopulate the world...

As far as repopulating the world, I think the theory is that microbes will be the only things to survive, or at least that is what is supposed to have been the case in the past history of the world.... Maybe you should switch to keeping microbes.. Two drawbacks to that though.. Microbes are way less fun and secondly you would have to post on Microbe-Forum instead of Cichlid-Forum and I hear they are kinda nerdy.. LOL

I also keep cichlids for their personality and interesting behavior... Most interesting fish I have found!

Good luck with the Microbe thing... LOL


----------



## dwarfpike

Heh, I'd fit right in then.

But it's not too far in the future though. Take blue eye plecos, twenty years ago you'd trip over them in a LFS and they were cheap.

Now they go for $2000-3000 a piece becuase they just aren't finding them in the wild, and when they do it's only one. This is very sad state of affairs in brazil ... if I had the money, I'd start buying them up and try to breed these beauties. (jet black pleco, golden sparkles over plates, bright blue eyes). I'd hate to see such a pretty species die out.

Then there's lake victoria, if you really want to depress yourself, read up on what happen to the cichlids that lived there.

I'll head back to my bomb shelter/fish room now. 8)


----------



## edburress

dwarfpike said:


> I tend to pick the ones that are closest to the described specs of that species


That is exactly what I look for also, a fish representative of its wild form. Personally, I am no more interested in man-made color variants than I am blood parrots. I understand the immense difference but to me, they are all equally unlikely to be in my tanks.

I think coloration and morphology evolve for a purpose, particular to each species, and I don't want fish that have deviated from their natural form. I suppose I like to think my fish could survive in the wild. Sometimes this means having less colorful F0 fish and forgoing "double red" variants, etc. that are more colorful. But for whatever reason, I am more attracted to wild forms.

I have bred a lot of my fish, but I do not select for anything. If my fish breed then great, if they do not, then great. They are allowed to pair themselves because I trust their mate selection abilities are superior to my own.

I enjoy their color, morphology, behavior and "personality", I just prefer them all them be as natural as possible, so I look for wild forms, and attempt to recreate natural environments so I can observe something reminiscent of their real behaviors, as limited as that may be.



Darkside said:


> Either you keep your fish as pets, or as specimens and most would like their pets to be excellent specimens


Thats how it seems to me as well.


----------



## Toby_H

In natureâ€¦ the SA/CA Cichlids that I keep have 1,000+ fry up to 7 times per year (this is arguable but a fair â€˜averageâ€™)â€¦

By design most of these offspring are not meant to live, if they were then overpopulation would choke the species (and environment) almost instantlyâ€¦

Dogs have litters of under a dozen (again an arguable but fair average)â€¦ humans most commonly have one child per spawnâ€¦

To not mimic natures removal of the less than perfect specimen can be validly considered irresponsibleâ€¦ I do not advocate this to the extreme (although I believe in culling/killing the weaker portions of a spawn), but itâ€™s a fair argument with valid pointsâ€¦

Iâ€™m currently attempting to breed Blue Dempseys which is a fish that has known weaknesses. I believe that by breeding only the strongest fish with unrelated strong fish many of these can be overcome. So by culling/killing the weaker fish and spawning the stronger fishâ€¦ we can provide you with a healthier and prettier fish to love as your ownâ€¦

If the philanthropic view of â€œsave every fishâ€


----------



## nimboman

:thumb: I have enjoyed reading this thread , but in my opinion african cichlid standards should not be compared to dog standards. Dogs are man-made and there standards are our standards but african cichlids are 100% natural and if we are to take them from the wild then we need to keep them the way they are. If you have a problem with that then go get you some goldfish. You can compare goldfish to dogs all day long. People like the minor imperfections(GOLD SCALES) in their carp and so they bred the imperfect ones and what do you know they created the goldfish. Just my opinion but if you are not breeding these fish of so called poor quality then enjoy them for what they are PETS!


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

OK.. so I know you just gave a great argument against comparing fish to dogs... But there is another reason not to compare them. Correct me if I am wrong, but aren't all domesticated dogs the same species, Canis lupus familiaris. So breeding two dogs of diffent breeds will end up with a mix that is not deformed. In fact there are reasons to get mixed breeds. Many pure breeds have been so inbread that they tend to carry a lot of health problems and by getting mixed breeds you avoid some of those issues. Furthermore as you said, these breeds are man-made (man-designed may be a better way to describe it) and so in their history, there are cross breeds that went into developing the "pure" breeds in the first place.

Fish, on the other hand, Fish are a family(Cyprinidae), under which there is a group and then a species, and various subspecies exist too. [Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Group, Species] So, if you are able to breed two totally different groups within the fish family, you will often get a distorted wierd thing. I totally think this is a bad idea.... It's like comparing the domesticated dog to a Jackal (both of the same family) and I actually think these are probably closer than many fish to one another.

But now, what about breeding fish within a species. I understand the purist (must be identicle to nature) argument, but in nature, some of this is probable to happen too... this should not cause deformities...

Just wondering what you think about this.....

Another interesting concept is that of dogs being man-made/Man-designed versus fish being wild. The concept is that man breed dogs selectively and purposefully to acheive certain goals, while with fish, nature breed them selectively (not sure about purposefully) and acheived certain things, ie. filling various ecological niches. We have two dogs and totally adore them almost as if they were our children, but the fish are different. I enjoy the beauty of the fish, but also their behavior, which in essence is more natural behavior than dogs. With your comment about them being natural (although I don't think once you breed them in captivity or even once you put a wild caught fish in your tank that they are still 100% natural), it occurs to me that these are one fo the few ways of having a little nature in your home... Pretty Cool!


----------



## nimboman

I can respect your points because you are correct in the thought that fish of the same species group can breed together in the wild but it is less likely to happen out in the wild then in a cramped little aquarium.The offspring ,how ever little amount survived predation, would not stand a good chance of breeding because the females have higher standards then we do when selecting a suitable male. This new fish would die out with no offspring or years of mating with the correct species would push this accidental crossing out of the bloodlines. If you think about it all cichlids from Malawi are thought to have evolved from I think one fish so you could debate that they are all hybrids.


----------



## nimboman

Did someone say your fish was deformed because they are wrong for that. I know you love your fish as much or more then me and can agree with you on taking up for him.


----------



## Number6

I thought about quoting and correcting many of the posts... seems like a lot of work.

All I am going to point out is that you guys need to understand what a species is, what a hybrid is, and what inbreeding actually does vs what outcrossing actually does.

Without truly understanding the above, it is easy to not follow why a genus level hybrid often has more issues than say a intra-species hybrid. It's even easy to misunderstand that a hybrid within the same species is still a hybrid.

Hybrids are the crossing of previously unmixed gene pools... species doesn't enter the accurate definition.

Inbreeding is a species reinforcement tool and moves towards homozygosity.

Outbreeding moves towards heterozygosity and introduces new genes.

There is NO such thing as hybrid vigor, inbreeding CAUSING deformities, or hybridization CAUSING deformities...

So far... I do not see a solid argument why abnormal fish (or at least fish I would label as abnormal) deserve consideration as normals. Is that not what this thread was supposed to be about?


----------



## Darkside

Number6 said:


> So far... I do not see a solid argument why abnormal fish (or at least fish I would label as abnormal) deserve consideration as normals.


Is that a layer of subjectivity in your argument? This argument will continue forever without a solid ground on which to base "normalcy". lol


----------



## bernie comeau

Number6 said:


> There is NO such thing as hybrid vigor


I know this is a little off topic, but I'm not sure why you say there is NO such thing as hybrid vigor? My understanding is that this term, "hybrid vigor" is used to describe crosses in which desireable traits of both parents are dominant in the offspring and the undesireable traits of both parents are recessive and therefore not expressed.

Certainly there are, for example, crosses of plant strains, of which the innitial cross will significantly out-yeild either parent, because desireable traits of both parents are dominant in the offspring. Now of course, since the hybrid is heterozygous for many traits, subsequent crosses result in a "mish- mash" of traits and the "hybrid vigor' is lost in the next generation. In other words, the hybrid is a superior crop, producing higher yeilds for consumption, but is useless for breeding stock to produce seed. Unless, that is, a select few are line bred over many generations to produce a new homozygous strain.


----------



## Number6

Darkside, normal is by definition: conforming to the standard or the common type. The only subjectivity to the term normal is what degree of variance is acceptable enough to be called similar to the holotype.

Can mistakes be made when the holotype is described? sure... does time change the holotype description? you betcha... but at a point in time, the holotype is real and is the norm.

Bernie... you are correct in your definition of where the term hybrid vigor arose from... perhaps instead of saying that there is no such thing as hybrid vigor I should have stuck to my usual line of "hybrid vigor is largely a myth". There is a short term boon to hybrid offspring in the first few generations in some cases followed often by a longer term decline in overall fitness. :wink: so you got me on this one... I wasn't being very precise.


----------



## Darkside

Number6 said:


> (or at least fish I would label as abnormal)


Subjectivity enters the equation when you personally ascribe "your" definition to the condition of being normal. Hence when "you" label something as abnormal, that by nature is subjective. This is why I didn't criticize your use of the word normal. What I meant to point out were the conditions that you used to describe the quality of "being normal".


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Number 6, You stated "So far... I do not see a solid argument why abnormal fish (or at least fish I would label as abnormal) deserve consideration as normals." But, I am not truly what you think is abnormal... But yes, defining what is abnormal is what my initial post was about. As far as I am concerned, a simple cross of fish within a species creating a new 'morph' is not an abnormal fish... Crossing between species on the other hand, depends on the species and their offspring. To me, a fish is not 'abnormal' based on it having a slightly different color pattern than the text book says. I am not saying to take abnormal fish (for an acurate look at what I consider abnormal, check out those wierd cat fish things that someone posted warning not to buy) and breed them by any means.

This post was intended to develop the discussion of what abnormal really is and peoples individual opinions about what should and should not be breed. It was not intended to come to any definitive conclusions, but merely hear other peoples opinions... It is and will always be up to the individual to decide what they want in their tank and what they wish to do with them.

One other point, I think most people comprehend the general concept of Family, Group and Species based on high school biology. Hybrids can be within a species or outside of it as you pointed out. However, the more distantly related two fish are, the more likely they are to have truly abnormal offspring, such as those 'catfish' things.

I am actually very happy with how people have discussed this matter.. I am really starting to understand where some people who want very 'pure' fish are coming from. I still disagree, but I can at least see why they would feel this way.


----------



## Fogelhund

Dictionary.com

Normal - conforming to the standard or the common type; usual; not abnormal; regular; natural.

By definition, if something does not conform to the standard, or is natural, it is abnormal. Improper markings, colour, shape, hybridization of geographical strains, hybridization of species... by definition are abnormal.


----------



## Number6

Darkside said:


> What I meant to point out were the conditions that you used to describe the quality of "being normal".


 Yup... I understood that.

This is really what the conversation boils down to. Cichlidwhisperer is very lenient on just how abnormal a fish can be and it would still be acceptable for breeding...

as you can see from Fogelhund's post and mine, improper markings, shape, color or any hybridization deserve the abnormal label.


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn

[quote=â€


----------



## dwarfpike

*PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn* - unfortunately most pics you see are hydrids with _Amphilophus citrinellus_ which don't have the enlarged lips, which seems the more dominate trait. But since WC individuals would be exposed to the enviromental effects you described. Though the F1 babies usually get them too so hard to say. Most midas and red devils now a days are a mix of the two species or even some of the newer species.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

LOL... now I have a wierd image of a fish-dog (half boxer dog, half yellow lab fish.) And yes, I think that is very abnormal...

In any case, what do you all think about the OB Peacock?


----------



## dwarfpike

I'm bias on the OB peacock, as I've yet to see a OB fish I liked no matter what lake it comes from natively and in wild types.

Yet I like calico cats, go figure.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Hey, I just got an awsome picture of my OB Peacock Literally about 10 minutes ago.) I am still having a few issues (mostly lighting and glass issues) learning to take perfect pictures, so give it a little slack. But, this is the first time I caught a pic of a fish yawning.


----------



## DJRansome

If I'm going to make more fish whether I want to or not, where possible I'd like to replicate the conditions of healthy specimens living in a healthy environment in the lake. I'm told a healthy female on her own will chose the healthiest male of her own population if one is available. Most often this means bright colors and fabulous fins, without bars or beards or mustaches.

No matter how fabulous the "new fish", I do not want to create an environment which will alter the choice the fish would make in the lake.

I necessarily have to limit the choices, and I'm not as smart as the fish, but the best I can do is try to provide bright colors and fabulous fins, without bars or beards or mustaches.


----------



## Number6

CichlidWhisperer said:


> In any case, what do you all think about the OB Peacock?


It is a man made breed and not a rift lake cichlid. It is a pet fish that I consider to be in the same league as a pigeon blood Discus or a Blue Diamond Discus. Pretty to look at, but not the real deal.

I have had OB peacocks as a pet, and I've had Blue diamond Discus as pets.

What annoys me to no end is the disdain some people have against an OB because of it's hybrid ancestry yet something like a blue diamond Dicus gets a pass an is allowed at fish club shows etc. because it's a line bred abnormal breed. Seems hypocritical.

Fish clubs should post a list of recognized species and breeds and if they accept breeds then they should post a breed standard... same as the AKC, CKC or any other hobby where animal husbandry has become organized and tracked.

Of course, that would allow me to call ugly OB peacocks as a "lower quality specimen" so perhaps you won't support my idea on this front :lol:

DJransome... great post. :thumb:


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Makes me think that maybe there should be two grades (not sure I like the term grade) of fish and they should be labeled as such in stores. It would be hard to enforce the labeling though. Fish could be breed specifically for pets (Pet grade) or show (Show grade.)

I would think it would not only benefit those who wanted "pure," natural fish, but also thsoe who wanted fish with ideal temperments who played well with others. My OB peacock is such a fish. Can hang out with any other fish in the tank and does not get bothered or bother them.


----------



## Darkside

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Makes me think that maybe there should be two grades (not sure I like the term grade) of fish and they should be labeled as such in stores. It would be hard to enforce the labeling though. Fish could be breed specifically for pets (Pet grade) or show (Show grade.)
> 
> I would think it would not only benefit those who wanted "pure," natural fish, but also thsoe who wanted fish with ideal temperments who played well with others. My OB peacock is such a fish. Can hang out with any other fish in the tank and does not get bothered or bother them.


There is no reason for stores to implement and enforce a policy like this. Those of us who want to have show fish or wild caught fish have already taken special precautions to secure fish from reliable breeders and importers. I don't believe the average buyer would benefit from a two tiered system described as above. Also its not like large fish farms will be encouraging this sort of grading, considering the small market that this "show grade" would be targeted towards. Rather it'll continue on the way it is now, with most lfs selling average fish (including hybrids and other man made morphs) while the more concerned hobbyist looks elsewhere for their "pure", natural fish.


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

> Rather it'll continue on the way it is now, with most lfs selling average fish (including hybrids and other man made morphs) while the more concerned hobbyist looks elsewhere for their "pure", natural fish.


If this is true, why are people so upset about the breeding and selling of fish that will be kept as pets?


----------



## lloyd

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Makes me think that maybe there should be two grades...


 we already have two grades...normal....and cull.


----------



## Darkside

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Rather it'll continue on the way it is now, with most lfs selling average fish (including hybrids and other man made morphs) while the more concerned hobbyist looks elsewhere for their "pure", natural fish.
> 
> 
> 
> If this is true, why are people so upset about the breeding and selling of fish that will be kept as pets?
Click to expand...

Obviously this is the condition that forces them to take the precaution in the first place. I don't think it can be changed, but with the ability to educate people on "proper" fish keeping practice why not make the effort?


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Darkside said:


> ...but with the ability to educate people on "proper" fish keeping practice why not make the effort?


And that is just it... Different people have different ideas of what "proper" fish keeping practice is. It is not a matter of effort, but a matter of disagreeing on this issue. There is a tremendous amount of people judging others because they have different views on this matter; I don't think there needs to be people insisting that they are right and others are wrong when it is a subjective issue with a lot of different view points. I don't think anyone is wrong in their opinion on this. I am happy to say we live in a society where we are allowed to disagree with one another!


----------



## Darkside

CichlidWhisperer said:


> Darkside said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...but with the ability to educate people on "proper" fish keeping practice why not make the effort?
> 
> 
> 
> And that is just it... Different people have different ideas of what "proper" fish keeping practice is. It is not a matter of effort, but a matter of disagreeing on this issue. There is a tremendous amount of people judging others because they have different views on this matter; I don't think there needs to be people insisting that they are right and others are wrong when it is a subjective issue with a lot of different view points. I don't think anyone is wrong in their opinion on this. I am happy to say we live in a society where we are allowed to disagree with one another!
Click to expand...

I don't entirely agree, with this topic differing opinions seemed to be formed from differing levels of education and involvement. "Opinions" by nature cannot be either wrong or right because of their personalized nature. There is no reason to argue their merit because of their intrinsic subjectivity. The problem here is a far deeper moral issue that is attached to not only fish keeping but farming practices and biotechnology. "Man made" fish are bred for a specific purpose, and this purpose usually goes against natural design, same as with pigs in the pork industry and more significantly with GMOs.
The issue here isn't with the creation of synthetic fish, but with their distribution and as is the case with GMOs its not possible (and the public may not want to know or lack the tools to understand) educate every buyer on the type of fish they're buying. Most won't care if they buy hybrids, painted glass fish or even GMOs (those glow in the dark fish now being produced in asia). If back-crossed hybrids are released back into the common market place there arises a moral issue that the fish now being sold are being misrepresented (i.e. yellow labs). This means that the lfs or chains are selling to hobbyists mislabeled fish (perhaps through ignorance, maybe on purpose) and that this is unknown (to some) hobbyists. Its morally objectionable to sell a lie, so where along the line do we try to regulate this behavior?


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Darkside, I agree with almost everything you said, and I think it at least in part supports the idea of different labels on fish as "pet" or "pure", or whatever is chosen to properly tell buyers what they are buying. I have to admit, I am questioning some of my fish which I bought to be one species from a reputable LFS. I am questioning the species, not because I personally insist on a "pure" fish, but because I want to know what it's temperament will be once it matures (and also, my innate curiosity in knowing what it is.) I have two fish in my tank right now who seem to have personalities uncharacteristic of the fish they are supposed to be and I am worried about aggression issues between them. Furthermore, I bought some synodontis thinking they were petricolas and they were Lucipinnis (in this case I was happy because I wanted them to remain small.) But in paying the price I did for them, it would have been nice if they were acurately labelled.

I do think fish sellers have the moral responsibility to label their fish properly or at least put the generic "Africans" label on them. This is not specific to fish though.. All sellers have the responsibility to represent their products legitimately. Unfortunately, our reality is "buyer beware."


----------



## 24Tropheus

No matter how you try and get round it we practice eugenics on our fish. (Without selection you soon get problems) Bringing in natural selection etc just clouds the issue. We can not get it to work in our tanks. I know, tried for long enough. :wink: . Just breed from fish that exhibit the traits you like, not those pre set by some standard. My traits are no clear abnormality, no clear behavior oddity, breed in the most natural way I can given the species. If I have the choice I select for the ones that look and act most wild type (whatever that may be) No way is this the way for everyone.


----------



## wmayes

I took this exactly from the other topic when I responded there and then realized that the discussion had been relocated. Please forgive me for whatever else has been covered in the thread prior to making the post here. I'll do my best to catch up and edit this as I see fit:

Yes, CWhisperer, in the wild any species of fish may diverge and become two distinct species. This, however, occurs usually between seperated populations NOT between different colorations of a species. It can also occur where a species traits present them the opportunity to take advantage of more than a single ecological niche - I.E. the one species can then seperate into different species designed to take up only a single niche of the niches it occupies.

Furthermore this process takes thousands of years and, as such, species are very resilient to change in the short-run. This is where colorations are taken into account. Fish will typically NOT mate with a specimen that has imperfections in their color when presented with more suitable mates. This is the same across all types of animals - humans do it, chimpanzees compare every individual to a kindof "perfect example" that is built into their brain and if an individual differs to much from that perfect example they will refuse to pair with them, birds do it, etc. This fish is imperfect not only in our eyes but also in nature, evolution, and the fishes eyes.

The fish is pretty though just not what everyone looks for


----------



## why_spyder

DJRansome said:


> If I'm going to make more fish whether I want to or not, where possible I'd like to replicate the conditions of healthy specimens living in a healthy environment in the lake. I'm told a healthy female on her own will chose the healthiest male of her own population if one is available. Most often this means bright colors and fabulous fins, without bars or beards or mustaches.
> 
> I necessarily have to limit the choices, and I'm not as smart as the fish, but the best I can do is try to provide bright colors and fabulous fins, without bars or beards or mustaches.


I agree whole-heartedly with this. By selecting the standardized males/females, I can aide in the "natural process" of mate selection even though the fish are in artificial environments. By not using males/females that are abnormal, I'm actually helping to keep the norm - as it would probably occur in the wild. And yes, sometimes abnormal ones spawn - but there's a good chance the offspring from that spawn wouldn't. By selecting the normal to begin with, you are actually saving time, energy, and lives... :thumb:



Number6 said:


> Fish clubs should post a list of recognized species and breeds and if they accept breeds then they should post a breed standard... same as the AKC, CKC or any other hobby where animal husbandry has become organized and tracked.
> 
> Of course, that would allow me to call ugly OB peacocks as a "lower quality specimen" so perhaps you won't support my idea on this front :lol:
> 
> DJransome... great post. :thumb:


I would love to see a club/group start a showing standards for species of Cynotilapia - that might make it easier to help people with unknown variants of Cyno's (though with so many geographical variants out there - its just easier to buy from a breeder and use the name they provide  ).


----------



## dogofwar

Most aquarium keepers value the characteristics of bright color and large size in their fish.

Fish that appear less colorful or smaller than max size are deemed "poor quality" based on a set of man-defined values.

In nature, there is a range of colors and sizes of fish in a given population. Less colorful or smaller examples of a species aren't necessarily poorly adapted to their natural environments. They might even be better adapted.

Reconciling what's "natural" and what's appealing to aquarium keepers is just not possible.


----------



## Number6

dogofwar said:


> Reconciling what's "natural" and what's appealing to aquarium keepers is just not possible.


 I don't agree here... I wouldn't say that the majority of aquarium keepers always want bigger and prettier, else there would be NO market for little brown Tanganyikan cichlids...

shell dwellers are a prime example... so far, and without exception in my experience, every fan of shell dwellers I have ever met value two things along... straight faces and living in shells. For that group of cichlids, reconciling the norm of the species and what aquarists want sounds bang on.

Not all cichlids are Haps.


----------



## bmills

I have been watching this thread for a while, and with great interest. Firstly congratulations to all on an interesting and well-conducted discussion.

I thought I'd throw in the following opinion, and I'm being deliberately a little provocative but not intending to cause any offence.

Fish-keeping is essentially an aesthetic pursuit. The starting point for someone's interest in keeping fish is appearance. The physical appearance of the specimens, and the enjoyment of the aesthetics of their behaviour. The appearance of a functioning mini-biotope in one's home.

While we cichlid-keepers enjoy a group of species that are very characterful relative to other aquarium-fish, nevertheless aesthetics is the starting point for the hobby. If it were not so, we would not keep fish in glass display tanks, and rather would house them in conditions that controlled external stimuli and stresses much better (eg in large, densely planted and/or aquascaped black plastic tubs).

Aesthetics provides two related goals for aquarists.

The first, especially for those interested in fish breeding, is to continue AND better the blood-lines that are kept. One way of achieving this is to breed a species using as a benchmark the natural 'best-of-breed', that is, an objective based on the morphology of the very best specimens observable in the wild. Another is to create new appearances through articicial strains and breeds - in my opinion an undesirable outcome due to the second goal I'm about to suggest.

The second aesthetic goal is one which references the biotype back to the fish's location of origin. The question to be asked is whether what is seen in the tank relates to what would be seen if one donned a snorkel and flippers and took a dip in Lake Malawi or Lake Tangankika. (Clearly this rules out, for me at least, any liking for artificially created strains and breeds, however superficially beautiful or not they may be).

Using Number6's little brown Tanganykans as a real example we can see how these goals interact. A serious hobbyist keeping these will want the most beautiful little brown Tanganykan fish they can possibly have (or be breeding toward this goal) while remaining true to type. And they will want them enjoying a life and displaying their behaviours in a biotope that makes sense, and relates to Lake Tanganika. Those two things will be the basis for the hobbyists prolonged enjoyment in the tank they have created.

Coming back to CichlidWhisperer's views, I do understand that people can grow affection for any fish - especially cichlids which have such character. Indeed I have great affection for my 16 slippery little suckers - some of which, I should add are not perfect specimens! I also firmly believe that every living thing deserves a humane existence. It's not a fish's fault if it is hybrid, scungy or even deformed - though one must be realistic and understand on the other hand that such specimens are likely not to have a humane existence in the wild...

But where I diverge, and the reason I have started with aesthetics, is that I don't think that character is the primary goal. It seems self-evident to me that having healthy, beautiful fish that make sense both within themselves as 'true-to-form' specimens in a consistent tank environment is what the hobby is all about. Hence the two goals I suggest above, which can be simplified into the phrase "providing the best possible environment for the best possible fish".

And that is kind of where I end. Undeniably most cichlids are fish to which one can become very attached, and which one can value as pets due to their wonderful behaviours. But if one can become attached to a cichlid that is bred to be a magnificent specimen and a fine example (physically and behaviourally) of its species, and that thrives in an environment that makes sense for it, then surely that is a fantastic outcome and one that aquarists should aspire to.

PS : In relation to the comparison with dogs. People get dogs for all sorts of personal and psychological reasons. It is far easier to interact meaningfully with a dog, and to anthropomorphise a dog's behaviour, and to derive all sorts of benefits from a dog not related to their appearance or genetic purity. Nevertheless, there are clearly breed standards, and also attempts to breed out undersirable conditions (eg. deafness in dalmatians, hip dysplasia in Alsatians, white boxers with a litany of problems...). So even for an animal where aesthetics is a far less important issue, and where hybrids are very commonly accepted, there is an acceptance that some degree of visibility, planning and control over the genetic makeup and characteristics of the various breeds is a desirable outcome.

Apologies for the long post - an indication of my interest in, and respect for, the views put on this thread.

Cheers from Sydney.


----------



## Toby_H

impressively well put...


----------



## Darkside

"Aesthetics" is a decent descriptor, but man is that a loaded term.


----------



## Number6

Excellent post bmills.


----------



## why_spyder

bmills said:


> While we cichlid-keepers enjoy a group of species that are very characterful relative to other aquarium-fish, nevertheless aesthetics is the starting point for the hobby. If it were not so, we would not keep fish in glass display tanks, and rather would house them in conditions that controlled external stimuli and stresses much better (eg in large, densely planted and/or aquascaped black plastic tubs).


I keep mine in plastic tub (for now) and still enjoy the looks of the fish - I just have to scoop them out to see it better. :lol:

Very good post - well worth the read. :thumb:


----------



## dogofwar

Great post bmills.

I think a better way to put it is:

Reconciling what's "natural" and what's aethetically appealing to aquarium keepers is just not possible.

Even in the case of little brown Tanganyikans, people tend to select (and assume are "more pure" or "higher quality") those small brown fish that have a more vivid pattern (vs. those with a less distinct or muddier pattern) and are large for their species.

Not sure about shell dwellers without straight faces, but I've seen people spend lots of time selecting (from wild) multies for "uncrossed stripes" in their pattern...which is a purely aesthetic trait.

Small, "Ugly" individuals might be better adapted in a natural population...but less aesthetically pleasing to aquarists.



Number6 said:


> dogofwar said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reconciling what's "natural" and what's appealing to aquarium keepers is just not possible.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree here... I wouldn't say that the majority of aquarium keepers always want bigger and prettier, else there would be NO market for little brown Tanganyikan cichlids...
> 
> shell dwellers are a prime example... so far, and without exception in my experience, every fan of shell dwellers I have ever met value two things along... straight faces and living in shells. For that group of cichlids, reconciling the norm of the species and what aquarists want sounds bang on.
> 
> Not all cichlids are Haps.
Click to expand...


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn

why_spyder said:


> bmills said:
> 
> 
> 
> While we cichlid-keepers enjoy a group of species that are very characterful relative to other aquarium-fish, nevertheless aesthetics is the starting point for the hobby. If it were not so, we would not keep fish in glass display tanks, and rather would house them in conditions that controlled external stimuli and stresses much better (eg in large, densely planted and/or aquascaped black plastic tubs).
> 
> 
> 
> I keep mine in plastic tub (for now) and still enjoy the looks of the fish - I just have to scoop them out to see it better. :lol:
> 
> Very good post - well worth the read. :thumb:
Click to expand...

I've kept mine in rubbermaid containers before (usually as a temporary measure and it drags on for a period) though these are the "transparent" ones, so you can see the fish, but looks a little foggy


----------



## Toby_H

I've been using a 300 gal Rubbermaid tub as a fish tank for years...

They fish are easy to keep healthy, grow quite large and show very nice coloration... although the tank is ugly the fish are pretty...

Which even keeps this in line with the priority of aesthetics...


----------



## bmills

Hehe, I've just returned from a 3-day executive "love-in" for my company in the Australian bush and have just seen the various replies to my comment - and they have made me smile.

I did not intend to provoke a discussion about the value of RubberMaids as suitable aquariums (although, like many of you, I have had reason to test them for temporary periods, and yes they are awesome!). Just to make the point that our hobby has to strike a fine balancing act between:

1. the ethical - which is the provision to the fish that we keep of an environment in which they can thrive, and do not suffer (i.e. the respecting of them as living creatures); and

2. the aesthetics - which is the provision to us as the hobbyists of the utilitarian benefits and pleasures of keeping beautiful fish in beautiful tanks... and for some like me - but sadly not all - of keeping the best 'pure' fish in the best 'pure' environments that one can attempt to recreate

I would be interested to hear again from CichlidWhisperer given the evolution of this thread since her last post. I guess what I spent a lot of words trying to say is that I agree with her focus on the intrinsic value of ANY fish as pets and living things once we have them - once we have accepted a responsibility of care for them.

But I think that a different standard applies when we are breeding or buying fish, or creating new tanks, and in those circumstances where one is creating/importing NEW specimens and new environments, one can be more focused on those more aesthetic considerations of breed/strain purity and physical excellence - ie if we don't already have them, we shouldn't be aiming to buy/breed sub-optimal or even worse hybrid/unnatural specimens. I would argue similarly for consistency of environment in terms of providing aquaria with a setup and water chemistry and tankmates that are as true as possible to the kept fish's ideal habitat. Even from CichlidWhisperer's welfare-driven view, surely that provides for the best possible conditions - not the least hobbyist care and attention - in which the fish will thrive.

:fish:


----------



## CichlidWhisperer

Sorry for the delay in replying, but I have been dealing with a few unexpected females in my male tank.  In otherwords, I am ending up with some definite unplanned hybrids :roll: (for which I have homes already.. well hopefully have enough homes, but hoping under 20 fish...) I am still looking for good homes for the two adult girls though. The Afra is a textbook beauty for a female (actually thought she was a male based on her coloring) and the fish that started the entire thread, a Lab Perlmutt, is also a female. Maybe that is why 'he' was not a textbook looking male perlmutt???

In any case, I agree with what BMills has said about the difference between which fish are appealing to humans versus which fish are appealing to fish. Appeal is more than simply asthetics, and those adorable little tangs are good examples of that, although I find most of them absolutely beautiful with very subtle color (vibrant colors may not be what everyone likes in a fish either.) I would also like to add that what characteristics are beneficial to wild survival may in fact be (and probably are) totally different than what characteristics are beneficial to fish tank survival. I have my fish to live in a fish tank, not the wild.

Just my thoughts though... and I have to get back to trying to figure out what to do with the ladies... :? LOL...


----------



## Darkside

While in general I agree with bmillsâ€™ stance Iâ€™d like to deconstruct his argument and add a couple of things to it.



bmills said:


> Fish-keeping is essentially an aesthetic pursuit. The starting point for someone's interest in keeping fish is appearance. The physical appearance of the specimens, and the enjoyment of the aesthetics of their behaviour. The appearance of a functioning mini-biotope in one's home.


I donâ€™t necessarily believe that the reason people begin keeping fish is entirely based upon the physical appearance of their specimens. There is a second factor which permeates this discussion, the idea of control over a detached environment. One of the reasons that fish keeping is so popular is the idea that when you have fish in a glass box, you have deliberately removed them from their natural environment and put them into a construction of your own making. There is a compartmentalization of â€œnatureâ€


----------



## why_spyder

Darkside said:


> Iâ€™d also like to add to this. Another prevalent influence for the keeping of fish, especially for those who have been in the hobby for a number of years is the subject of rarity and a sort of avant-garde. In order to keep the hobby fresh, experienced keepers are always looking for something different, a fish they have not tried before or a method of keeping the fish that is relatively new. There are very few hobbyists who keep the original aquarium they set up long term without the addition of more fish, different fish or different aquariums. There are few in the hobby who have yet to feel the pressure of MTS (multiple tank syndrome) as theyâ€™re always looking for something new, and there is something else that they havenâ€™t tried but would like to keep. For those who have been in the hobby for many years, there are few commonly available fish that they havenâ€™t kept so in their search for something different they broach the concept of rarity. The concept of the avant-garde while more applicable to discussions of art and music has a place here in a manner of speaking (we are talking aesthetics right?). What I mean by this is the concept of â€œthe new newâ€


----------



## dogofwar

Very good discussion!

Put simply, aquaria represent idealized representations of nature.

Aesthetics is more than just "beauty". It's also about appeal. Aquarists choose to include aspects of nature in their aquaria that appeal to them....and exlude those that don't.

Some aquarists seek to replicate nature...as much as is practical (as actual replication in the confines of a fish tank - 10g or 300g - is not possible).

The hair algae and detritus layer that characterize many central american cichlid habitats don't appeal to me. So my tanks don't include them  And I don't include silver brycons in many of my tanks...although those are common fish in these habitats.

For the record, I find multis (and brichardi) both beautiful and interesting. They're (relatively) common fish but appealing to me.

Others find rare fish appealing. I laugh when I see people extoll the beauty of Blue Eye Plecos...not so much because of the fish itself but because of its rarity (in the hobby...not nature) and price. There was no such clammoring a few years ago when you could buy a nice one for about $30.


----------

