# Hybrid or not?



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

*Are the fish from Thailand Hybrids?*​
Yes1152.38%No1047.62%


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Hello,
I would like to take a poll on what you think this is; would you consider it a hybrid or a "Rubescens"???? I have taken a lot of heat about the "Ruby" reds I have purchased from Thailand through the past 8 months and now I want everyone to look at the pictures and tell me if you think it is a hybrid....









This is one of the original males for the breeding program (origin Thailand)









2nd strain Ruby Red from a hobbyist I purchased them from.. (Origin USA)









3rd Strain Ruby Red in the breeding program... (origin Germany)

Do All 3 strains HAVE THE SAME physical colorations and markings? Look at the Dorsal fin on all three... You see how ALL 3 of them have the "white" tip on it???
Strain 1: Yep, definately white tip
Strain 2: Yep, definately white tip
Strain 3: Yep, white tip but broken white tip running through top of dorsal

Do ALL 3 strains have white tips on VENTRALS?
Strain 1: Yes, Definately a white tip on ventral
Strain 2: Yes, white tip on ventral
Strain 3: Yes, white tip on ventral

Do ALL 3 strains show similar veinage markings on the tail?
Strain 1: Very Similar
Strain 2: Very Similar
Strain 3: Very Similar

Do ALL 3 strains show egg spots on anal fin?
Strain 1: Yep, present
Strain 2: Yep, present
Strain 3: Yep, present, but not as noticeable

Lastly, Do ALL 3 strains show same blue dots on the dorsal fin near the back tip???
Strain 1: Yep
Strain 2: Yep
Strain 3: Yep

So, all three have been breed together to "perfect" the ruby red in which people are saying it is a hybrid?? My question is, if kept in the same family and the physical characteristics are pretty much identical, but, I breed to make the subdominant characteristics better in the other strains why is there so much fuss about it being a hybrid?

The offspring, have yielded 100% ruby reds (some are darker then others, however, that is too be expected b/c of genetics). The only thing that I have really ran into was genetic anomolies w/ the german strain and one Thailand female producing 30-45% physical deformities... The deformities are due to "line" breeding with in the same "gene" pool of fish.. Basically, you having offspring with your family members yields genetic deformities due to the DNA being relatively the same which doesn't allow for any change on a biological level (same thing)... ALL genetic deformities/anomolies were lost b/c of ALL 3 being able to be breed together... Strain one was for color, strain 2 was for physical characterstics, and strain 3 was for the head to become a fuller red; to Make it a TOTAL red fish much like Aulonocara sp. Maleri "Orange"....

So, you tell me what you think?


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

For every "yes" response, I would like your reasoning behind why you think it is a hybrid based upon the evidence I have presented.. No response means, your vote doesn't really count b/c you are not voicing your opinion... Thanks.


----------



## why_spyder (Mar 2, 2006)

I consider anything to be a hybrid/manmade fish if it isn't naturally found in the lake. I know a hybrid is a cross of two species, but I lump them with all linebred-'til-it's-not-like-wild-type (manmade) cichlids.

Is this what you were asking? Hopefully it is, otherwise I missed what you were asking. If that be the case, sorry for responding and voting "YES".


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Well for this debate I guess hybrid would mean 2 crosses of different species, not, if it is found in the lake or not as we are all aware this is a man-made fish.... Thanks for your reply


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Don't know. It is impossible to verify exactly how "Ruby Reds" were created, so they all could be hybrids. It is impossible to say from there, if they were crossed with "German Reds" or other fish to bring out the red.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Is anything important altered if indeed they do not turn out to be hybrids? Nope...

Is anything altered if they do turn out to have hybrid origins?

Nope.

What these are are either line bred oddities, hybrids, or mutations. Regardless of how they came to be, these fish breeds are no longer representative of the natural gene pool and do not really deserve the species name any more than a poodle deserves the same name as the wolf.

What they deserve is a good solid common name to represent the breed that they have become.

For anyone using "hybrid" as an instant reason to reject a man made breed shows a good chunk of ignorance IMHO. If one took a pure species and linebred the heck out of it until it resembled something completely alien to the species standard then it doesn't deserve to be categorized in the same bucket as the normals for the species.

A great example of this would be Balloon Rams... these fish are "pure"... anyone out there think that the Balloon Ram still deserves to be called Mikrogeophagus ramirezi?


----------



## cater20155 (Jun 16, 2008)

I believe it should be classified as a hybrid due to the fact that those fish are line breed to get the brilliant red colors. If it doesn't occur naturally in nature and had to be produced through man made line breeding, it can no longer be considered a pure species, where a common name is suitable to describe it like Number6 had said.


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

cater20155 said:


> I believe it should be classified as a hybrid due to the fact that those fish are line breed to get the brilliant red colors. If it doesn't occur naturally in nature and had to be produced through man made line breeding, it can no longer be considered a pure species, where a common name is suitable to describe it like Number6 had said.


Hybrid has a very specific definition though, most often (the offspring of two parents belonging to different species). Line breeding doesn't make something a hybrid.

We can't verify either way if it is a hybrid or not though.


----------



## why_spyder (Mar 2, 2006)

Number6 said:


> For anyone using "hybrid" as an instant reason to reject a man made breed shows a good chunk of ignorance IMHO. If one took a pure species and linebred the heck out of it until it resembled something completely alien to the species standard then it doesn't deserve to be categorized in the same bucket as the normals for the species.


These are my feelings exactly - and why I have a problem with some show fish that I have seen that have been so linebred for certain characteristics (abnormally intense colors, elongated fins, etc.). Even though they are pure (and I don't like them), they aren't like their wild counterparts (yet many times these are sought after because of their charactieristics...).


----------



## chapman76 (Jun 30, 2004)

Ruby Reds have an unknown lineage. Some claim they're hybrids and others claim they're line bred. Until the first people who released/bred the cichlid can come forward with what they did, they're hybrids. An accepted, man made hybrid, but one none the less. They're beautiful fish.


----------



## matt1321 (Jun 27, 2008)

The lake malawi display at the Shedd aquarium in Chicago shows that it is believed all of the fish in the lake originated from one or so species -- Through certain characteristics forming to become more prevalent as a means of survival ( EX: maybe the n. linni developed a longer nose to feed easier) or later through hybridization many unique species formed and found their niches in the lake -- I am sure this form of evolution has not stopped and occasionly new species will develop to this day from hybridization in the lake itself -- So would we reject these fish from the lake as hybrids? I doubt it -- I would argue we should enjoy these fish for its beauty and worry more about getting bad genetics out of the population instead -- If line breeding makes better looking, healthier fish and removes the bad genes then it should be considered a better Ruby Red.


----------



## Dave (Feb 9, 2003)

Apples and oranges. A man made hybrid, which is very common, is not the same thing as a new species developing from the hybridization of two different species, which is very uncommon.


----------



## why_spyder (Mar 2, 2006)

Hybrids in the wild seldom go farther than one, maybe two, generations. The problem is they take on the look of both parents and then not recognized by either species as a potential mate - so the "line" dies.

Most new species probably develop through morphilogical adaptations rather than hybridization between two different species. These adaptations take many, many years to develop.


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Well,
I wouldn't consider a "line-breed" fish a hybrid due to a few reasons; you are trying to make the line better, and you are trying to bring out characteristics that are present in a few fish more dominant so the offspring will show those characteristics. I mean, if you consider a "HYBRID" being if it isn't in the lake, then I guess this would be considered a hybrid.. So, you are saying that test tube babies are essentially "hybrids" b/c they didn't happen naturally rather in a test tube, then, implanted in the mothers uterus?


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

So, what you are saying is that ALL ruby reds are hybrids, not excluding the origin?


----------



## cater20155 (Jun 16, 2008)

The definition of a Hybrid: the offspring of two animals or plants of different breeds, varieties, species, or genera, esp. as produced through human manipulation for specific genetic characteristics.


----------



## noki (Jun 13, 2003)

jmexoticafricancichlids said:


> So, what you are saying is that ALL ruby reds are hybrids, not excluding the origin?


What people are saying is that nobody seems to know for sure. And if you have no reason to be sure, you cannot assume that the fish is 100% bred from one location/ race/ species. The fish should be considered of unknown/ uncertain parentage, a "cultivar" not a species.

Also, fish breeders from that part of the world have a reputation of not being concerned with "natural" fish, they want unnatural fish. I doubt the breeders really cared if they had fish lineage from one specific location, they were interested in making an unnatural fish that was more colorful.

The names "Rubescens" and "German Red" are kinda meaningless, as far as a pure breed. They are just trade names for "improved" fish. I wonder what they call these fish in Europe, where suppossedly they originated from.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

noki said:


> What people are saying is that nobody seems to know for sure. And if you have no reason to be sure, you cannot assume that the fish is 100% bred from one location/ race/ species. The fish should be considered of unknown/ uncertain parentage, a "cultivar" not a species.


To add to that; I'm suggesting that it shouldn't be important either 

The fish you've got are shiny bright red Peacocks... I don't care what you call em, Rubescens, Ruby Red, Dragon's blood, Supercalifragilistic redder red reds or whatever... they are a man-made breed and easily distinguishable from species of "peacocks"...

I say you smile politely at those who would scold you and tell em that they are free to avoid all the man made breeds if they like...

my beef with hybrids will remain the mutt fish that are hard to tell apart from the real species... I buy species, not fish! :thumb:


----------



## Fish_Dude (Aug 13, 2006)

I wouldn't say Hybrids... I would say that they may or may not be dyed in some way.. and not all of them. I tend to distrust things out of Thailand for good reason, but I think the argument in this case is moot.

Ruby Red, German Red, Rubesens are supposedly line bred from a naturally occuring Stuartgranti maleri orange. Since it's not an naturally occuring strain, you have to have a lot of faith in the previous breeders that they didn't mix in another fish from time to time to beef up the red. No one can say for certain. So you could argue that all of them are.

Now.. as for the Dye.. Wuddy said that they were not hormoned, but he didn't answer me directly when asked if they were Dyed. I can just say that I had one take some fin damage and it grew back a pale yellow/orange. I own 4 of his fish. I have one male and 1 female that are awesome. The other 2 have yellowish patches that come developed on their body over time. But I think to get the best of these fish, they need to be in a colony, or by themselves. They do fine in a community tank, but it's the only difference between my fish that would explain the coloration issue, other than dyes.. and i don't get this issue with me 'traditional' ruby reds.


----------



## smidey (Mar 15, 2007)

for those of you who have said that line breed fish are hybrids, does that make electric yellows tat arent F1 strain a hybrid?


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Very good points...


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

I have a hard time believing that they could be dyed.. First of all, you would need a needle to penetrate under the scales, in which, over time would eventually wear off and you would be able to see the puncture holes. I have had a Ruby red also, that got his butt kicked, and he did also have a oranges spots where he took a beating, however, after about 2-3 months of healing and babying, it eventually came back to natural color, defying the "dyed" procession. I also, had one, in which, had a terrible internal parasite in which grew out of his abdomen and left a small circle in his side by the fin... This took months to heal, and when it did, it came back regular which again, defies the odds of dyed procession...


----------



## why_spyder (Mar 2, 2006)

smidey said:


> for those of you who have said that line breed fish are hybrids, does that make electric yellows tat arent F1 strain a hybrid?


Electric Yellows are hybrids of Yellow Labs X Red Zebras - therefore the issue of being F1 is a non-issue. F1 is a referal to first generation from wild stock.


----------



## Dave (Feb 9, 2003)

Electric yellow is a trade name, usually used for L. caeruleus, but trade names in general have little meaning. All-yellow or double yellow labs are also trade names, usually used for red zebra x yellow lab cross.

Being line bred does not mean hybrid. Let's use these terms properly because their misuse only confuses matters even further.

Honestly, whether they are line breed or hybrids or both the only thing that really matters is if the fish represents the wild phenotype or not.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I thought the point that was made was that the original "founding father" fish may not have been pure, line bred fish as claimed. And this cannot be proven one way or the other?

A line bred fish is not a natural fish. I don't think anyone is saying line breeding creates a hybrid. However if you start with purity in question, you end up with purity in question.

I like the idea of a natural fish (not wild, just representative of the best that is in the lake) better than line bred and way better than hybrid. Maybe I just haven't seen that perfect hybrid as yet, LOL.


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Technically,
You don't need to know anything about the previous breeder if you want to do the work yourself. If you have 2 seperate lines, and you are sure the other breeding group is pure (in which I know for a fact it was), breed the questioned one to the for sure pure line and raise the offspring. If the offspring come out 100% the same species then you have a pure breed w/o any kind of hybridization... This is what I don't understand.. Technically, these ruby reds are true to the species. Whether or not they were created using a hybrid method is the question that everyone wants to know; you don't know unless you go to the creator and the origin of the Ruby Red itself. I know that these specific fish breed true to their species, as I have done all the necessary research to back the claim. I have 3-3.5" babies that are true to the parents. 
So, these fish wouldn't be considered "hybrids" in my eyes, rather, a man-made line breed version, IMO...

Hybrids vs. Line breed (selectively breeding) stuff is two different things. I believe that a lot of people think these are the same, in which, they are not. Hybrids are breeding 2 different species together to form another species (hybrid ex: ob mbuna x peacock= OB peacock) (line breed ex: red empress x red empress=super/line breed red empress). The line breed stuff is true to the species genetics.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

jmexoticafricancichlids said:


> If you have 2 seperate lines, and you are sure the other breeding group is pure (in which I know for a fact it was), breed the questioned one to the for sure pure line and raise the offspring. If the offspring come out 100% the same species then you have a pure breed w/o any kind of hybridization...


 You are mushing purebred and species into one category which is not correct and quite misleading... breeds are not species. Never will be either...



jmexoticafricancichlids said:


> Technically, these ruby reds are true to the species.


 Which species standard are you referring to? IMHO, this breed does not match any species standard. The main thing that bothers me is the white in the top fin but there are other characteristics that are inconsistent with the species I thought they were "supposed" to be derived from.



jmexoticafricancichlids said:


> Hybrids vs. Line breed (selectively breeding) stuff is two different things. I believe that a lot of people think these are the same, in which, they are not. Hybrids are breeding 2 different species together to form another species (hybrid ex: ob mbuna x peacock= OB peacock) (line breed ex: red empress x red empress=super/line breed red empress). The line breed stuff is true to the species genetics.


Linebreeding is usually done regardless of variant and species boundaries... purity is never a goal of linebreeding (or at least in no case I've heard of... )

Hybrids are not ONLY two species crossing... they can be at the variant level or even lower in some cases. So you might want to consider that IF these fish were linebred from many peacocks from around the entire lake then the variant boundary or species boundary could have been crossed by someone, sometime in the past. It is the fastest way to linebreed after all...

and no... breeding true to a breed standard proves absolutely nothing regarding the origins of a bloodline... I've seen many generations of a strain suddenly throw out a single genetic throw back. One fish out of many generations and many hundreds of fry... blink and you could have missed it!

The Ruby Red has a very high probability of being a hybrid, and a very low probability of being able to still be grouped within a species. The thing is, we cannot ever turn these probabilities into fact with just hobby level knowledge... sorry.

Your Ruby Reds are a man-made breed, very likely from hybrid origin and if this bothers you, I suggest you get over it. I did... ages ago :thumb:


----------



## gmaschke (Aug 23, 2008)

Now here is a debate I've been wanting to see. I am now a hybred fan with exception of these of in fact they are if they are line bred then it just seemed to work very well. Isn't line breeding what most breeders try to do to get the best looking fish of a species. I would venture to say anything that isn't wild is not necessarily man made but man-messed with anyway. But as hobbiest if we see 2 fish in a tank 1 showing bright vivd colors and 1 subdued we would certainly wish to obtain the more colorful 1 yet if we knew the subdued 1 was wild we would want that 1 thus except him as the most natural representative (coloring due to dominance taken out of coarse).

I didn't vote due to lack of experience but regardless if it is a hybred its beautiful and en exception to the general hybred is evil rule.

I have enjoyed the opinions of other here though.


----------



## why_spyder (Mar 2, 2006)

gmaschke said:


> Isn't line breeding what most breeders try to do to get the best looking fish of a species.


Yes and No.

I'll use myself as an example here. When I choose my breeders, I am looking for consistency to the wild-type and the best looking qualities (even barring, correct coloration, healthy appearance). What I don't look for is longer fins, super-bright colors, large size - if wild-type counterpart doesn't have them.

Right now I am raising up offspring from my breeders (which I raised from 1") to be my new breeders. The offspring will be sorted through to find the best looking individuals, but I won't be keeping anything that doesn't have the best wild-type qualities.

So yes I look for the best looking fish, but it has to be relatively close in resemblance to the wild counterparts.

Once a specimen starts to fall away from the wild counterpart - it is has been too linebred for me.


----------



## GBSTEVE (Dec 10, 2007)

I'm afraid I didn't vote - without knowing the true origins of the fish it's impossible to say. A phrase that seems to have disappeared in recent years is "aquarium strain" which would seem to define it perfectly.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

GBSTEVE said:


> I'm afraid I didn't vote - without knowing the true origins of the fish it's impossible to say. A phrase that seems to have disappeared in recent years is "aquarium strain" which would seem to define it perfectly.


 =D> well said... well said.


----------



## Dave (Feb 9, 2003)

GBSTEVE,

I might just start using that term. :thumb:


----------



## jmexoticafricancichlids (Oct 19, 2006)

Well,
I am not a "serious" breeder per say, however, I do breed fish. With line breeding, the whole point is to make that specific "species" look a lot better compared to the other fish. You take the top 2 looking males for the characteristics you are looking for (fins, color, <color>, anything that will make it "unique") and breed those to males back to the females. Then you keep on doing that to make those "characteristics" more dominant. I mean, to each their own and they do their own things, but, this is the way I do it.

My other argument is what are the "inconsistencies" you find with the physical markings of the Ruby Reds (thailand, or german, or US strain)? They all seem pretty equal in physical characteristics to me.

Species to me, Aulonoara Rubescens is what this would be to me. If you look under the species forum, it says this is a "line-breed" variant.. I do not know the origin of the breeders before my breeders, all I know is where I got them from.

I have produced at least 100 babies and all of them seem to be "pure" to this specific strain. No color changes, and all physical characteristics remain intact. I am NOT saying these haven't been hybridized, however, my PHYSICAL research has led me to believe they are not.


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

*jmexoticafricancichlids*

Aulonacara Rubescens is the bane of ALL common names because it mimics a species name. 
It's a crock though... Rubescens is a made up name.

The variant found in the wild that MAY be the origin of this breed is here: http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/s ... hp?id=1409

As you can see, if you look at the variant that is hoped to be labelled as a species and compare your three fish to the photos, you will quickly see just how off pic #2 might be... now look at your pic 3 and match the german bloodline to the photos of the naturals... see how it looks like it matches? body shape - check, blue pattern on head, check, white stripe in top fin- check, pattern of stripes on body- check.

So you can quickly see how justifiable it is to look at the German strains and try to claim direct lineage to the wild form...

now look at your pic 1 and pic 2... anything strike you as incorrect? I see a couple... not enough to say aha, but enough to say hmmmmm

Now... one could read into my words that I believe the tales that the German line is a direct descendant of the wild form... I remain very unsure. To my eye, it would not have been difficult to introduce the super red pigmentation gene via hybridization to some other variant or species and then cross back to Chipoka repeatedly until you had a stable chipoka like fish with a super red gene.

Could it also have been a mutation, or just extra red fish? Yup... do I care? Nope...

It's no longer a Chipoka...

it's a Rubin Red.

Simple as that...


----------

