Just to go on about goldfish, the ones i find sick are the ones with the bubbles under there eyes. I think it is terriable and i feel bad for the goldfish. I also have a problem with the fish that have the long tails. Some of them are ok, and i dont have a problem with it as long as it does not hurt there swimming, but if the fish fins are to long and have trouble swimming thats where it should be stoped.
Good article by the way..
I honestly never understood why people like those stupid looking goldfish. I always thought that they looked ugly but now this even adds to my dislike for them.
Although I didn't think the bubble-eyes suffered much aside from a slight loss of vision.
But on the subject of hybridisation what counts as making something breed? If you, for instance, put a platy and a swordtail in 10 gallon tank in spring, gave them more live foods, preformed a lot of water changes and in general promoted breeding and they breed are you making them breed?
SIX OR MORE MAN TO THE RESCUE!
That is natural breeding. Forcing them is when you do something like inject hormones because natural methods aren't working, or literally stripping eggs from a female of one species and fertilizing them with the milt of a male from another when they wouldn't breed on their own.
Putting them together and allowing them to breed on their own under natural triggers is not forcing them to breed.
Aquarist since 1995
Biologist and Published Author in Multiple Aquarium Magazines
Owner: Aquarium Maintenance Company
Advanced Aquarium Concepts:
Articles about many aspects of aquarium care.
I think Fishguy did a good right up on a topic that always comes up and will continue to. I myself don't care for hybrids, but I sure don't want someone telling me what to put in my tanks so I usually keep my opinions to myself. The only time I say anything is when someone buys say an African cichlid from a mixed tank then wants an id on the fish. I will usually say you can't be possitive so assume it is a mixed fish. Although I wouldn't have one I think there are some interesting fish out there like the flowerhorn, I myself try to get wild fish for better color and such, but once again that is just what I prefer. If flowerhorns or ballon fish are your thing, right on enjoy, they just aren't for me, as some of the fish I keep may not be your thing.
Hopefully fishguy doesn't mind here is one of the better write ups I have come across on the subject.
I have to break this into 2 posts as it is too long.
Hybrids and other 'threats' to the hobby by Willem Heijns
Lately there has been a lot of discussion about hybrids and line breeding with regard to the question if these form a threat to the hobby of cichlid keeping. Most of that discussion was on Internet forums both outside and within organizations like the American Cichlid Association. I myself have participated in a few of them. As these discussions went on I started to lose track of what had been said by whom (or sometimes even what I had stated myself). Therefore I felt the need to summarize my opinion on the subject in this article.
Problems with definitions
It is very difficult to formulate an opinion on whether one is in favor of or against a thing like hybridization or line breeding. For hybrids this sounds odd, because the definition of a hybrid seems rather clear. If the parents of a cichlid belong to different species then this cichlid is called a hybrid. The problem however lies in deciding to which species the parents belong. That partly depends on the species concept you use and on your view on taxonomy. As a "splitter" you are more likely to encounter a hybrid than as a "lumper". Take the convict cichlid. For those who believe they all belong to one species Cryptoheros nigrofasciatus, breeding specimens from Nicaragua with specimens from Panamá or Honduras is no problem. If you believe all these populations to belong to different species (as Schmitter-Soto (2007) proposes) you are likely to produce hybrids.
With line breeding it is even worse. Whenever a hobbyist selects fry from a brood to grow (and maybe later use for breeding), in other words whenever natural selection is replaced by artificial (=human) selection we are line breeding. This is to say: everybody does it!
From this we can conclude that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to express a straightforward opinion on whether hybridization and/or line breeding should be allowed in or banned from the hobby. It is very hard to define the phenomenon you are regulating. In the case of hybridization you might issue a rule, but then enforcing it is practically impossible because you cannot always determine which species have been used.
Basics of the hobby
So, if hybridization and line breeding are such difficult concepts, what is the real issue? Well, I believe it is all about ethics. It’s all about what we do and why we do it. To start off: why do you keep cichlids?
Here’s my personal answer. I am fascinated by the natural world in general and by cichlids in particular. This fascination drives me to want to learn about cichlids in every way I can. How do I go about that? First, I read anything I can get my hands on. This can be both scientific work and publications by hobbyists. Second, I visit the countries where cichlids occur (in my case Central America) and study them. And last but not least, I keep cichlids in my home trying to recreate part of their habitat as best I can and hoping to see as much of their natural behavior as they care to show me.
We share the same hobby. But we are not the same people
Other people might keep cichlids for other reasons. Maybe just because they are beautiful, or big, or aggressive, or cute, or just because. These people are in the hobby too, like me. We share the same hobby. But we are not the same people.
Being hobbyists of a different type, we do different things. I will always try to keep as close to nature as I can, both in decorating my tanks (or choosing tank size for that matter) and in selecting the cichlids to keep in those tanks. I want to stay as close as possible to "wild type" fish. And I marvel at the sight of cichlids showing their wonderful "natural" behavior. Much of my enjoyment comes from the fact that my cichlids apparently feel "at home".
Others may take a different view. Wild types are not special to them. They may keep Flower horns, hybrids, veil tailed Angels etc. And get their joy out of those. Mind you, this is not to say that they will never keep wild types at all. They may and in fact they do. And they also care about their fish and want to give them a good home. It’s just that they start from a different viewpoint.
It is very important to point out that there is nothing ethically wrong with both ways of keeping cichlids. People who keep Flower horns, etc are not doing anything wrong. There shouldn't be any repercussions for them and their way of practicing the hobby. Nor should there be any for me. And all of us should be able to join organizations where we can share our experience and our joy.
As I belong to the category of hobbyists that want to keep as close to nature as possible, an important question for me is: what are the "wild types"? This question isn't exactly new. Science has struggled (or still is struggling) with it too. An example. In pre-Darwinian times it was believed that species were unchangeable. A popular philosophy in those days held that an organism is nothing more than an imperfect reflection (a copy if you will) of the essence of a species. This essentialism was largely based on ideas that go back to Plato. Variation is nothing more than the result of this imperfect copy process. Is the wild type then the same as this essence?
You may argue that essentialism is not longer an adhered philosophy in natural sciences. And you are right. But taxonomy still has the type concept. The name bearing (holo)type of a cichlid species is the specimen other cichlids are compared to in order to determine if these belong to the same species. Very much like the essence. Is the wild type thus equal to the holotype?
I can hardly believe that. The holotype might very well be an aberrant example of the variation within a species. And we all know this variation can be very broad. Again the convict cichlid as an example. I brought home seven specimens from the island of Ometepe in Nicaragua. I kept these in a 800 liters (200 gallons) tank by themselves until maybe the third generation. The variation in the resulting group (about 40) was such that I could easily have described three new species if I would have used the criteria Schmitter-Soto (2007) did in his revision. Therefore I think it is difficult to define a wild type for many cichlid species. Another problem with definitions.
On a short sidestep: I have had the pleasure of being a judge at a few shows. Although judging instructions were scarce (and never written) it was always clear that we had to judge against something like the "wild type". That appealed to me because I am on the "wild side" as a hobbyist. But apart from the problem with defining a wild type, I always wondered how these cichlids are kept to get them in show condition. I assume most of them are kept as solitary fish in order not to have them damaged by tank mates. So these fish may look like wild types, they certainly don't have the opportunity to live like wild types. No social behavior, no sex for them. Food for thought?
Enhancing your fish
The only real wild types in the hobby are the fish that were captured from their natural habitat and subsequently put in an aquarium. This will only last for one generation. As soon as we start breeding, natural selection is replaced by human selection. And changes to the wild types are introduced. As I stated before: there is no way to prevent this from happening. The big question here is: what do we want to achieve?
If we are acting in the interest of the fish (i.e. selecting for strong and healthy fry) that is perfectly OK. But if we want to try and enhance certain characters in our own interest (more colors, longer fins, etc) well, that is OK too. There is only one restriction in my opinion. We should always take into account the well being of the fish. If veil tailed guppy of angelfish can barely swim, something is wrong. The same goes for parrotfish that can hardly close their mouths. Once I've heard the argument: but it can still eat, can't it? That might be true. Fish can cope with many physical problems. I used to keep a male Archocentrus centrarchus that had lost its upper jaw in a fight. He was able to eat. But saying that that’s the same thing as deliberately selecting for specimens lacking an upper jaw would be unethical.
From the ethical point of view there is no real difference between hybridization and line breeding. Both are done with the aim of creating cichlids that are considered "more beautiful" and/or sought after. That is in the interest of the hobbyist (and not the fish) but nonetheless ethically acceptable, though not to everybody’s taste. It’s also OK to make money with it.
One final word. It might seem that I consider both approaches to the hobby as separate. They are not. They are very much intertwined, not only because one hobbyist can keep wild types and hybrids at the same time (or even in the same tank) but also because hobbyists of both sides meet all the time (and should be able to) at their local clubs, at conventions/shows and of course on the Internet. After all it is one hobby.
So where is the real threat?
Above I stated at length that there is nothing wrong with keeping wild types, hybridization and line breeding from an ethical standpoint. All are part of this great hobby of ours.
Depending on perspective it can be considered to at least indirectly forcing them to breed (maybe promoting them to breed is a better term).
Originally Posted by Fishguy2727
For example, keeping two species together which do not co-exist geographically in the wild but are capable of interbreeding is in a way promoting/enabling 'un-natural' hybridization to occur when both are kept in the same tank (and more so under skewed gender ratios).
don't worry I LOVE hybrids, i can't imagine anyone who wouldn't either.
Death Is A Once In A life Time Experience.
A lot of people wouldn't including me ,however that is circumstancial. What I and a lot of other hobbiest dislike is not the hybrid itself but rather that they often pawned of as a pure fish when they are not. On there own there is nothing wrong with them . I happen to like flowerhorns but I know it's a hybrid. What I don't like is when low grade flowerhorns are sold as Trimacs (Amphilophus trimaculatus) which happens quite a bit. The unsuspecting buyer thinks he has one thing and has in fact got something else. In many ways this practice weakens the hobby by allowing the hybrid traits to enter the gene pool of the captive raised fish and changing them . It also is destructive in the sence that once that happens that line is forever contaminated. Midas and Red Devils (Amphilophus Citranelus and A. labiatus) are good examples of this. At one point breeders hybridized them to create a more colorful strain and it worked . The problem is that now it is very difficult to obtain a pure Midas or Red devil without purchasing from a reputable breeder or obtaining wild specimens. If you know that the petsmart Midas is a hybrid then great if that's what you want, but if you wanted or thought you were getting a pure one then you'd be sadly disappointed when you learned the truth . It's not that hybrids are wrong, it's the sale of them as something they're not that is.
Originally Posted by red eyes
Never under estimate the power of stupid people in large numbers.
If everyone is thinking alike , then no one is thinking.
Play ban the person above you Here
Dogs/Wolves, do it all the time. I have a massive book on dog breeds. Most came about through hybridization. Sometimes in the wild. I don't think hybridization is bad unless the fish that is born is more prone to disease, illness, etc. But in dogs, hybrids actually tend to be healthier than purebreds. But of course, they breed differently so it may be forced.
10 gallon Tank
1 Neon Tetra(1 in Isolation)(4 just died in a sudden mass death)
( Paracheirodon innesi )
1 Apple Snail
( Pomacea bridgesii )