# Labidochromis together?



## MCKP (Aug 17, 2009)

Why is it suggested not to put Labidochromis together??

For Example: Having appropriate male/female ratios of both Yellow Labs and Hongi's.... is it a breeding/hybrid issue, or an aggression issue??

I have not found any reason for the suggestion, just a "don't do it". But I would like to know why not?


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

A general rule for not combining fish of the same species in a tank is to prevent both hybridization and fighting.

However, not all fish of the same species have high odds of cross breeding or fighting. I don't know about the combination you mention. Maybe others will chime in.

Finally, with the fact that any mouthbrooder can crossbreed and many fishkeepers believe the only way to create pure mouthbrooder fry is to breed in species tanks...

It's all a question of how sure you want to be. :thumb:


----------



## D.T.M (Sep 10, 2009)

The hongi's and Labs are unlikely to cross as they look very different to each other


----------



## RDTigger (Jul 4, 2009)

Whether they LOOK like each other or not... it's called CROSS-breeding for a reason....

Please do not keep 2 genus together in the same tank

----------------
Now playing: *Pseudotropheus lombardoi Male kenyi cichlid ! !!!*
via FoxyTunes


----------



## Dakuan (Apr 16, 2009)

RDTigger said:


> Whether they LOOK like each other or not... it's called CROSS-breeding for a reason....
> 
> Please do not keep 2 genus together in the same tank


Do you think the fish open up a copy of ad konnings 4th edition before choosing a mate? Decide, well its not my species, but at least its the same genus, GAME ON! :roll:


----------



## MCKP (Aug 17, 2009)

That was kind of my point in asking.... is there better/worse odds off hybridization having same genus together.....

For instance, Yellow Labs and Red Zebras are just considered ones that will breed together. Different genus but still accepted that if you have them in the same tank, there is a VERY high probability of hybrids to be born......
In the same instance, say you have the Hongis and Yellows together and they breed.... same genus.... but nonetheless hybrids....

So, is there any OTHER reason why two Labidochromis should/could not go in the same tank??


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

It's a sliding scale. Say labs/estherae are 75% likely and labs/hongi are 25% likely and labs/demasoni are 1% likely.

I'd rather go with the 1%. Different appearance AND different genus.

I just made the numbers up to make a point...don't quote me, LOL!


----------



## Fischfan13 (Jun 12, 2003)

Just for the record, I have kept and bred, in the same tank, Yellow Labs and Hongi...never have I ever had these two fish cross or even show interest in each other.


----------



## Afishionado (Jun 6, 2006)

Ditto for myself with yellow labs and Lab sp. mbamba. Good m:f ratios and good size tank help a lot.


----------



## MCKP (Aug 17, 2009)

The reason I was asking is in the 'cookie cutter' area it says(taken from the 55gl link):

Select any 3 species (max 12 fishes):
â€¢ Metriaclima estherae
â€¢ Pseudotropheus saulosi
â€¢ Pseudotropheus sp. "Acei"
â€¢ Labidochromis sp. "Hongi"
â€¢ Labidochromis caeruleus
â€¢ Labidochromis sp. "Perlmutt"
â€¢ Labidochromis chisimulae
â€¢ Iodotropheus sprengerae
â€¢ Cynotilapia afra
Do not mix any Labidochromis species.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I fully understand the interbreeding issue, I just can't see why not to mix those particular species when interbreeding can happen with others too.... lol I guess I am just not getting it.

I do like the Hongis and will have to do some more research before I decide if I want to risk adding them....


----------



## Fogelhund (Dec 3, 2002)

Genus names are classifications created by certain rules, in order to group fish/animals/plants. The problem is that these groupings are not necessarily accurate indicators of how related they might, or might not be.

The problem is that are these similarities that fishes have, due to similar ancestors, or a parallel evolution? Parallel evolutions are where fish (in our discussions) evolve to look like each other, due to their enviromental conditions, but have no common ancestry (at least on a reasonable term). Easy examples of this could be Petrochromis, and Petrotilapia, who have both evolved to have extreme teeth to scrape rocks of aufwuchs.

Essentially this is an argument of genetics vs. morphology.

We now have genetic testing available for scientific usage, and it has been found that in some cases, there are some American cichlids, that are much more closely related to fish in other Genus, than their own. These fish in different Genera have evolved to have specific characteristics used to create a Genus classifications, through similar environmental parameters, yet don't seem to share similar ancestry.

I think we seem to become fixated on the Genus, as if it is a permanent classification. The reality is they aren't permanent, at least for now. When I first started in the hobby, there were two Genus categories for Malawian cichlids. Haplochromis and Pseudotropheus. Now that we have many categories, are fish less likely to hybridize, than they were when all mbuna were one genus? Pseudotropheus is still a "catch all" genus, for fishes that in many cases have not a permanent home.

It might be an easy rule to tell new hobbyists to avoid mixing fish of the same genus, but then it is a generality that upon further examination proves to be inaccurate.

For example, you have a Labidochromis caeruleus female in a mixed tank, with no caeruleus males. You have a Labidochromis "mbamba" and a Metriaclima estherae male in the tank as well. I would suggest that in almost every test incident, the caeruleus would be far more likely to breed with the estherae than the "mbamba".

These fish have been grouped by the way they feed, the type of teeth they have... but these things could easily be due to parallel evolutions..

It is my suggestion that you utilize common sense, and ask questions where necessary. In the end almost anything can hybridize, and we do our best to limit those probabilities, and ensure that where such a hybridization might occur, it appears obvious in looking at the fry.

Keeping a Lab. "mbamba" with a Lab. caeruleus seems to lead to a low probability in hybridization, when proper group sizes of each are kept.

Keeping Barred Metriaclima zebra types, with non-barred types also seems to lead to a very low probability of hybridization.

Also keep in mind that for every situation where an outcome is expected 99% of the time... there will always be someone with that 1% outcome story.


----------



## D.T.M (Sep 10, 2009)

Fogelhund said:


> I think we seem to become fixated on the Genus, as if it is a permanent classification. The reality is they aren't permanent, at least for now. When I first started in the hobby, there were two Genus categories for Malawian cichlids. Haplochromis and Pseudotropheus. Now that we have many categories, are fish less likely to hybridize, than they were when all mbuna were one genus? Pseudotropheus is still a "catch all" genus, for fishes that in many cases have not a permanent home.


exactly! Just look at the reshuffling in Melanochromis! Repeating 'DO NOT MIX FISH FROM SAME GENUS' like a mantra is pointless


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

So then we need a chart with every combination of mbuna and a percent likelihood that they will crossbreed. Or at least a high, medium and low. I'll start: Labidochromis caeruleus and Metriaclima estherae=high. Labidochromis caeruleus and Pseudotropheus=low. Who else has some? :lol:


----------



## Afishionado (Jun 6, 2006)

Hmm, could take awhile... :lol:


----------

