64 replies to this topic

[Scat]

Hey Den

Sorry if my prior post came out wrong as text is harder to convey than a face to face conversation, to which Tony summed it up better for me, As far as my liking , well i like all discus that are available and if anything my choices have been what i find appealing to myself.

Barry as far as you buying those fish from the auction for myself i had no idea that they were hybrids if that is the case and this will need to be discussed also.

Anyway Den would like to catch up and chat and am hoping you will come to the meeting this tuesday so we can talk about this further

Cheers
Craig

[Tucunare]

i dont have that much interest in this subject so i choose not to read to much into it but heres a question. every week i get sent stocklist from peru and south america and nearly every list has a NEW species on it, now these being all wild caught fish straight out of the amazon (el natural) but yet peviously undescribed in any literature or forum, how does anyone know that two fish havent crossed up to breed this new species - corydoras inparticular and seen as theres so manyt new species comming out every week how do we know then that the fish caught isnt a cross between a previously recignised fish and a yet to be discovered one if no information or genetic maps exist???, freshwater rays are in a very similar way most that are offered in say the US are wild caughts yet a cross between two species does this make them ethically incorrect even though its mother natures doing??? or do we just wait till science gives them a name and makes it all ridgy didge. i spose simply my question is, is the problem with man made fish or hybrids (natural included)
again my interest doesnt lie with this subject so i could be missing the point intirely

[Den]

Firstly could a mod please move the Treckrider posts and the repsonse to him to another thread as they are of topic, as the title suggests this topic is on Discus, not hybrids in general, many thanks --- EDIT: Done by Dazza

Hi Steve

every week i get sent stocklist from peru and south america and nearly every list has a NEW species on it, now these being all wild caught fish straight out of the amazon (el natural) but yet peviously undescribed in any literature or forum, how does anyone know that two fish havent crossed up to breed this new species - corydoras inparticular and seen as theres so manyt new species comming out every week how do we know then that the fish caught isnt a cross between a previously recignised fish and a yet to be discovered one if no information or genetic maps exist???

This highlights my point exactly, we dont know much about the wild natural forms of discus, the current mentallity of the discus hobby is more interested in talking about the new man made Malborough, more than the beauties from the wild. I believe simply because the man made stuff has taken over the hobby through the mass marketing of them and their support through our clubs.

Being saturated with man made stuff and no exposure to natural forms is keeping us in a state of complete ignorance and we are all really missing out on seeing and learning about a fantastic group of fish species.

Hobbiests like me are not interested to get involved with discus right now as we feel the discus hobby is currently a polluted and dirty place for us, dominated by hobbiests who dont share our value for natural forms of fish.


Cheers
Den

[Tucunare]

Hobbiests like me are not interested to get involved with discus right now as we feel the discus hobby is currently a polluted and dirty place for us, dominated by hobbiests who dont share our value for natural forms of fish.


Cheers
Den

so my question remains is it a natural form if its concived in the wild with no outside influence from man?but yet still from two different species, location, colour varient parents this question is across the board with all fish likefor example potamotygon motoro and a potamotrygon Henlii being that motoros are found all over the amazon

[Den]

Hi Steve

Wether 2 different species mate in the wild or in captivity its simply classified as a hybrid, scientific name x scientific name, it cannot be classified as a new species either way as far as Im aware.

Although there is work happening to find out how many discus hybrid poulations exist in the wild and their locations, the way the discus industry currently works its all about making more of their own hybrids using fish from distant locations most of which would never normally get close enough in the wild to cross breed and hybridise.

Whether a hybrid is made in the wild or in captivity makes little difference, I believe the importance is in knowing which fish are a natural species and which are hybrids, so that we as hobbiests can get a better understanding of our fish and make informed choices when selecting the fish we want to keep.

Cheers
Den

[FishGal]

Wether 2 different species mate in the wild or in captivity its simply classified as a hybrid, scientific name x scientific name, it cannot be classified as a new species either way as far as Im aware.

How does a new species get classified then?

If two different species of Discus mate in the wild and then someone was lucky enough to obtain one of these new naturally (as in no human interference) "hybridised" wild Discus, would they still be looked down upon (for lack of better words) as much as if they had a man made hybridised Discus? After all these two species found each other in the wild and decided to mate, would we call that nature taking it's course?

[Tucunare]

ok i get that thats a hybrid, but my point is much the same as fishgals, IMO thats natural selection and why could that not be recignised as a new species which again takes me back to my original point, how would one know its a hybrid and not a new species al together?? now i do get genetics, fin ray counts, scale formation and numbers but i just see to much of this NEW Sp on pricelists, that ive gotta ask myself who , what when and how do we classify new species without knowing its true background (unless ofcorse someone witnessed the mating ritual).
I just think the argument about this one species is going to spill over into nearly every sub species of fish and gonna become the biggest contadictory debate going around - again though only my opinion

By the way i got some Flowerhorn X parrots on friday - doesnt get more hybrid than that

[Den]

Hybrids from the wild (provided that there is no man made interference) is nature taking its course, but at the end of the day they are still hybrids, and would be classified as such.

Whether natural hybrids should be shunned by the hobby is a matter for our society to decide, in my opinion it will take some time for us to work out what is what(though the info is mostly out there already, we just need to track it and become familiar with it), alot of important fish information actually comes from the hobby, and regarding discus we haven't really started in getting to know them like we know our other fish so well. I think if the club allowed only natural strains wether domestic or wild caught fish to be supported by the club, eventually trusted sources,suppliers would be found for non hybrid fish and then we would slowly get a better understanding of what is a natural hybrid and what is a new species or variety.

I'm not an expert regarding genetics but from what I've read what they do to see if a group of fish is a wild hybrid they check the genetics of other surrounding populations of species and see if they share any similar genetic patterns.

Just think of discus the same way as you think of Malawi Peacocks. Peacocks are far more diverse and complicated, with similar issues as wild discus regarding variations and wild hybrids, yet we have a pretty good knowledge and understanding of them, this I feel is due to the clubs stance on hybrids, unfortunately the natural forms of Discus has not been given the same respect from discus fanciers or support from cichlid clubs.

Hope this clears things up for you.

Cheers
Den

[STEVEGREEN]

OK lets say fish A mates with fish B in the wild and makes a hybrid fish C , you don't go out and classify this fish and call it a new species , just because one freak of nature exists does not meen it will survive/thrive and breed . Natures way of insuring this ,is the new fish C will only survive and flourish if it has a competitive edge to live in that habitat it was concived in. This meens if Fish C males are more attractive to either fish A or Fish B females then this will be a big advantage and could lead to a new species starting to form , nature insure 99% of the time that these anomilies just simply don't do well , they sometimes have poor sight making it hard to find food etc etc so i dont buy into this "natural hybrid" stuff , you would need to find several speciems doing well in a biotype and they would have had to have been there for quite sometime before the population was big enough to classify it as a new species .

I'm not saying that a new sub-species can't thrive and do well , look at tropheus for example , if we say that T. duboisi was the original T and for some reason a female spat some fry with a yellow band instead of a white band , generally the fish will ostricide those fry and puch them out of thier territory , now these yellow banded freaks swim 4Km away and start to live in a bunch of rocks , say the natives call this bunch of rocks "kaiser" then if these bunch of freak's thrive at "kaiser" you have justification to classify a new species , the two fish are similar in many way's therefore the new sub-species is a Tropheus and could be called Tropheus "kaiser" duboisi or just T. kaiser.

The naming of new species is a long and drawn out one , thats why species don't just pop up in books etc etc every four weeks , you must sight several before it can even be considered a species , but there are still 100's and i do meen 100's of undescribed species swimming in both lake Malawi and Tanganyika.

hope this clears things up a bit after reading the last 4 post's you could almost justify finding a weird fish and giving it a new name and declaring you have found a new species , this is simply not the case.

cheers
Steve Green

[FishGal]

hope this clears things up a bit after reading the last 4 post's you could almost justify finding a weird fish and giving it a new name and declaring you have found a new species , this is simply not the case.

I wasn't saying that, my point was, hybrids will and do occur in the wild and my point was at which point do we stop calling them hybrids and start classifying them as a new species. Obviously they need to be seen to be flourishing and in large numbers, not the odd one, for this to happen. My other point was that this whole discussion is about man made hybrid Discus and how we should be against it but should we be against ones made by mother nature herself too? That is purely nature taking its course...

[irsacae]

I find it quite amusing that the people taking the moral high gound here have and have had rather impressive fish collections predominatley of fish that are not and never have been allowable imports into this country.Surely this poses a far greater threat to the ornamental fish hobby,Aquaculture industry and the environment than a bunch of crossbred mongrel hybrids fish that most people struggle to keep alive anyway.
People getting into discus are not normally beginners and are aware of the whole picture wild caughts are often available and are very expensive because of the obvious expenses involved in attaining and transporting them and survival rates.The holywood varieties are often a good stepping stone for people to try discus as they can be a lot hardier and are one hell of a lot cheaper and many of these people will move on to the wild varieties in time
If the Society is to ban the sale or promotion of anything it should be the sale of fish that have made there way here possibly not through the legal channels not allowable imports as one poses a far greater threat than the other.
At the end of the day its different strokes for different folks as long as there is no cruelty issues and your not producing an animal that needs hand feeding or a walking frame SO WHAT


Kev

[Donna]

Hi all,

I think as I put in a previous post, the most important step to take is to come up with a suitable definition of "hybrid"
This needs to be understood by all, and agreed upon. There are two definitions alone within the discipline of biology. I feel people are getting mixed up here with line breeding and artificial selection.

Den is right about one thing regarding naming conventions. A hybrid is named by species x species. It cannot be a new species as it has characteristics of both. People may site dogs as an example; however, dogs are genetically identical. Hybridisation is more like crossing a dog with a cat.

In theory too, sometimes a hybrid is incapable of breeding, and will not breed true to type anyway.
Human made hybrids do not get a new scientific name, in other words, you cannot create a new species by hybridization in your fish tank. New species are described and classified not created.
Hybrids are indicated by identifying the two parental species. For example, if you crossed a Texas cichlid, Herichthys cyanoguttatus with a convict cichlid, Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, and the name to use would be Hericthys cyanoguttatus x Archocentrus nigrofasciatus, i.e., the two names joined by an x.
This is where the confusion sets in, and I think clarification on the definition of hybrid is essential if there is to be any significant progress on this debate.

Regards,
Donna

[Den]

Hi Kev

I'm afraid the policy of the PCS and the Committee disagrees with your opinion on hybrids Kev.

The PCS has a policy strictly enforced by the committee of a complete banning of hybrids similar to most other cichlid societies around the world because it is a common belief amongst proffesionals and hobbiests that hybrids damage the hobby and pose a threat to the natural forms of fish in the hobby and in the wild.

This discussion is not about a battle of moral high ground, nor is it about "allowable imports" which is a serperate topic to this discussion and should you have a "real" concern regarding this topic I suggest you raise a seperate discussion and present your concern with the focus and attention it deserves.

The purpose of this discussion which I think you have missed is to create an understanding amongst members of how we manage Discus in order to gauge wether we as a club are promoting responsible keeping of these fish.

Your arguement is exactly the situation we are trying to impove, some examples:

People getting into discus are not normally beginners and are aware of the whole picture

I think you need to rethink this over, statements from Discus keepers, sellers, PCS & forum members and the PCS Committee showed most where completely unaware the fish they are promoting, selling and keeping are hybrids and also unaware there is more than one species of Symphysodon(aka the Discus). Education is desperately needed and is the reason why we are having this discussion.

wild caughts are often available and are very expensive because of the obvious expenses involved in attaining and transporting them and survival rates.

When a new fish becomes popular, the aquaticulture industry farms and produces it and it becomes cheaper, if fish clubs supported the natural discus forms in order to help to increase their popularity and the demand for them then they would eventually become cheaper. Currently we have the opposite situation, this discussion is about wether we should to help turn this around?

The holywood varieties are often a good stepping stone for people to try discus as they can be a lot hardier and are one hell of a lot cheaper and many of these people will move on to the wild varieties in time

According to other cichlid specialists this is not true, many wild discus are just as easy if not easier to keep as Hybrid provided the wild discus reach the destination in good condition, and this would be also reduce one farms begin to produce F1 & F2s etc.

In fact many hybrid discus lose natural behavours regarding to breeding and raising fry, therefore most farms must artificailly raise the fry. We are not just losing species but their natural behaviours as well.

Regarding the man made discus plauge we are facing I think the situation speaks for itself, and if you have a good read of the discussion and information available you will see why the majority of forum members beleive and agree that discus hybrids should be classed the same as and treated like all other hybrids and the current double standard should end.

Cheers
Den

[kevy73]

How do any of us actually know that our fish are complete pedigree??

Fish, unlike dogs, cats etc don't come with a certificate.

Whilst I agree that hybrids are not to be encouraged, in fact they should be actively discouraged (which I think the PCS is doing very well), I don't think anyone should be taking the higher moral ground unless they can prove beyond all doubt that their fish are a true pedigree.

What if some years down the track, we were to find out that A.heckelli were in fact the product of 2 different fish?? Would you be the first to destroy your stock as hinted Craig (Scat) should do?

[Donna]

Hi everyone,

The fact people are missing is that hybrids in nature are relatively rare, when you consider the bio mass on our planet. Even species that look extremely alike (eg 28 parrot and Port Lincoln parrot) will rarely interbreed even when they live within metres of each other (although it is known to happen). It is worth considering that natural hybridisation takes place more frequently when there is pressure on a population. When hybrids do occur naturally, and the offspring is viable, this plays a very valuable role by introducing variation to a species. Variation ensures survival, not pure line breeding. No species will remain "pure" and unchanged as this can limit its survival and its ability to "adapt" also a very important word. Variation in all species is not only desirable, but essential. It is a complex issue. No-one knows when conditions will change, so variation ensures that the species is ready to adapt if need be.

Natural selection itself does not rely on species interbreeding, it mostly occurs within the one species, however, could occur with a viable hybrid.

It is to do with the naturally occuring mutations in ONE species where that new characteristic is favoured and will lead to that individual being more successful and therefore passing that characteristic on to more offspring. (eg a random albino fox is born, it survives well in the snow, therefore, it is favoured and leads to more foxes in that region being white, they survive well and their offspring is favoured, over thousands of years, the ice retreats and the white fox dies out)


Mutations occur naturally all the time, some are useful, some are not.

Artificial selection just builds on the naturally occuring variations within a species. Farmers have been using this technique for thousands of years eg with polled and non polled animals. Nature turned up with an animal that had no horns and was easier to handle. Farmers therefore chose that animal to breed. It is not an abomination, it did occur naturally, and was helped along because it suited humankind. Herein lies the moral dilemma. People would argue that our brain is our greatest adaptation and because of it, we have been given the ability to manipulate the environment in an uprecedented fashion. It is deciding what we have the right to do, not what we can do.

Hybrids occur in fish tanks because nature will find a way to preserve life (it beats the alternative) and most species will try and find a way to continue the survival of their species. Where there is limited choice, hybrids will occur, but it is far from natural. As stated before, often these hybrids are infertile and sort themselves out.

Again, a definition is needed.

Thanks for the interesting reading,

Regards,

Donna

[Den]

Heres what seems to me to be a pretty good definition of a hyrid:
http://en.wikipedia....ybrid_(biology)

All species of Discus belong to the Genus Symphysodon, therefore crossing any of the current
recognised Discus species makes them an interspecific hybrid, which is a hybrid non the less.

Given that all man made discus are sold under a "trade name" instead of a scientific name really points to
the fact they are most hybrids and no longer have a scientic name.

It should also be mentioned that the selling of any man made discus on our forum goes against the rules of our T&C.

6. The Perth Cichlid Society advocates the use of scientific names (where sensible) of livestock rather than common names. This helps avoid the possibility of confusing one species with another and giving incorrect or irrelevant advice.
A good knowledge of scientific names will be beneficial for all fishkeepers in the long term.
Also on a point of taxonomy/nomenclature - the species part of the scientific name always has a lower case letter. Both genus and species names are written using italics. So, Parachromis managuense is correct, while Parachromis Managuense is wrong.

11. The PCS does not condone the buying and selling of hybrids or dye injected fish. Therefore any classified that contradicts this policy will be deleted without warning.

Speaking of the trade name, this is a marketing tool used to assist breeders to sucker in the fanciers.

I hope this clears this up.

Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Thanks Den, that's the link I think I posted originally when this all began. I actually did read it. However, I don' t think it really helped much in the discourse that followed. The emotional nature of the argument is not helping people to clarify what the main point really is.

I don't pretend to fully understand this, however, it is difficult to have an opinion when everyone is on a different page, making an assumption that a hybrid is some kind of freak, or something horrible like an orange being grafted to different root stock!! Can you imagine the monster Mutant

These variants that you speak of, if they were not meant to be, surely must be deficient in some way. In artificial selection, it is nearly always what you gain on the roundabout (colour?) you lose on the swing (resistance to disease?).

I know you feel passionately about this, and I admire your courage.

Regards,

Donna

[Den]

Hi Kev

To answer your question:

What if some years down the track, we were to find out that A.heckelli were in fact the product of 2 different fish?? Would you be the first to destroy your stock as hinted Craig (Scat) should do?

I try to research my fish as much as possible before I buy them, A. Heckelli are definitely a natural species, but if I did find out one of my fish was a hybrid I would treat is as such and conform to the rules of the PCS, which doesn't neccessarily mean I would destroy it, but if I ever sold it I would not do so on this forum as I would be breaking the rules and standards of our club and I would also let the buyer know it was a hybrid.

Lastly I dont recall telling anyone to destroy their fish, if I did say something that implied that it would be tongue and cheek.

Cheers
Den

[kevy73]

I don't think it was you who suggested Scat destroy his fish.

I try to research my fish as much as possible before I buy them

That is all well and good, but the point is that 1,000,000 years ago, who knows what happened? I guess it could be argued to a certain degree that all of todays recognized species are some sort of hybrid to an extent.

[Den]

Hi Donna

The emotional nature of the argument is not helping people to clarify what the main point really is.

The main points I am trying to raise and answer is :

What are man made discus?

Are man made discus a threat to natural forms of discus in the hobby and in the wild?

Do these man made discus contravene the rules and standards of the PCS?

What is the most responsible way for the PCS(us) to deal with man made discus?

I think these questions have all been answered in these recent discus threads, the matter is wether we now act to save and protect natural forms of discus.

Cheers
Den