22 replies to this topic

[Den]

I've read a few articles in the past that claim cross & line bred discuss fish are being released into Amazon waters, I believe there are a few areas now in the Amazon where collectors are commercially catching these introduced hybrid fish already.

All hybrids(excluding Discus & Angel fish for some reason?) are shunned by fish keeping organisations/societies mainly because of their potential to polute the gene pool of fish within the circulation of the hobby. Given that hybrid discus have already been released into parts of the Amazon, hybrid discus may eventually polute the gene pools of both captive and wild fish populations, hence the greater threat hybrid discus pose.

Considering the commercial value and demand of some of the hybrid strains, and being hardier and easier to breed than wild strains, many discus collectors in the Amazon are no doubt being tempted to release hybrids in areas near their collecting bases(which are in many cases I have seen were huts situated on stilts directly on top of a river with hoilding cages floating beneath the hut) for future collection, this I already read has happened in at least one case where a collector released "by accident" hybrid blues next to his collecting hut, they claimed that this population wouldn't threaten the local natural discus as there was a distance of some killometers between the wild population and the introduced one, who are they kidding right?

Unfortunately many people are easily seduced by these colourful, genetically tainted fish. I guess once the natural wild strains become rare and threatened they will become more popular, and the industry that currently threatens them may also be the one to also save them but I can assure you that supporting the popularity of hybrid discuss is unhealthy for the hobby and a threat to wild populations.

When you see the superior natural beauty some of the wild varieties(link below) I cannot understand why anyone would want to mess with hybrids? Sure naturals cost more and are more of a challenge, but does that mean we should all keep and breed dragon blood or marbled peacocks instead of the natural varieties? because its cheaper and easier?, sorry but its no excuse in my book.

http://www.geocities.../e-gallery.html

Some info on hybrid discus
http://members.tripo...le/whywild.html

http://www.sciencedi...f92f500f1a8d311

Cheers
Den

[jono1978]

i agree Den and it seems alot of the discus we get in perth ARE hybrids and following the pcs t&c should be discouraged otherwise allow all other hybrids.
But does anyone know of a full list of the known true discus strains in one spot we can all refer too

[shortie]

oh boy
ive been down this path many times
the pcs strongly defends itself against discus as not being "hybrid"
yet something like a flowerhorn is a "hybrid"
agreed it is a hybrid but the explaination given for the discus is still unclear.

[Scat]

This is only my opinion but im under the impression that hybridisation was the crossing of two different species eg. electric yellow & electric blue rather than variants in colouration of discus as they are still the same species of fish (line breeding or seems to be used to describe the crossing of different line bred strains in discus literature)

Cheers
Craig

[Fox]

Flowerhorns & Discus are totally different.

Flowerhorns = 2 different strains of Cichlids are cross bred to produce one strain. eg: Red Devil X Texas. These are CROSS bred to produce whatever. They are two different species of CICHLIDS. Amphilophus labiatus X Herichthys cyanoguttatus

Discus = 2 different lines of Discus are bred to produce one different line of Discus eg. Red melon breeds with Lemon to produce whatever. These are LINE bred. Not CROSSED. They are still Symphysodon spp.


BUT............ I dont like the fake Discus, They are horrible looking IMO. I much prefer the true colors of wild Discus, its a shame to hear that they are putting the fake Discus back in the wild.
I know they are putting FH's into the wild in Asia, another real shame.

[bradfitzy]

Hmm i finding this all to be a bit confusing??

Is the club saying that 2 fish of the same species but diff colors breed to create a new color that this is not a form of hybrid??
I don't understand ,as that new color would not be accessible in the wild there for it must be some form of hybrid?
Surly the club cannot condone hybrids in any form if that is the statement it is trying to make??
Aren't marbled peacocks formed by breeding 2 fish of the same species but diff colors?? ( pls correct me if I'm wrong ...because i don't really know how they become marbled)
Why should discus or angles be any diff???
If any of these new colors were to find there way back to the wild we would still end up with something in the wild that was not there before man decided to mess with it??
If the pcs as a club were really concerned about the promotion and sale of hybrids then perhaps the 50 - 70 % of sponsors that we have selling hybrid fish should be more closely looked at before being allowed to sponsor our club .

This is just my 2 bobs worth and i will continue to support the club and committee in the decision's it makes to better the hobby and club.
One last thing... perhaps the club could make a sticky that list known hybrids that the club does not support along with the reasons why the club does not support them...... it may help this topic being revisited over and over again.

Cheers Brad.

[shortie]

Is the club saying that 2 fish of the same species but diff colors breed to create a new color that this is not a form of hybrid??
I don't understand ,as that new color would not be accessible in the wild there for it must be some form of hybrid?
Surly the club cannot condone hybrids in any form if that is the statement it is trying to make??
Aren't marbled peacocks formed by breeding 2 fish of the same species but diff colors?? ( pls correct me if I'm wrong ...because i don't really know how they become marbled)
Why should discus or angles be any diff???
Cheers Brad.

in a nut shell what i was going to say
bit confusing though this subject

[kuhni]

I'm with Aquatic Dreams on this one, it can in no way be considered the same. Whilst I am supportive of people's wishes to maintain the integrity of many of the natural colour forms I just don't see the point for a full scale argument, one which will ultimately deteriorate into a "slagfest" toward the PCS.

[Den]

The fish were are talking about are a mixed soup of Symphysodon aequifasciatus(Wild green), Symphysodon a. axelrodi(Brown) Symphysodon a. Haraldi(Wild blue) & Symphysodon discus(Heckel), although the first 3 are considered as subspecies the heckel is considered to be genetically different enough to be a seperate species-although I believe this is being debated in some arenas!

One of the attachments was from the University of Singapore and if you can get access to it, it is certainly quite informative.

So does this mean cross breeding Paracheirodon innesi(neon tetra) & Paracheirodon axelrodi(cardinal tetra) should be considered as acceptable line breeding?

What about breeding Satanoperca Jupari & Satanoperca Leucosticta? would that also be line breeding?

How about crossing Aulonocara species? thats line breeding too right?

I've started this discussion/debate before but I think it still remains an unresolved issue

PS : Im sure this subject can be discussed and debated by most of us respectfully, silly offensive posts can be deleted, but its not right to stop a potentially informative discussion just because someone might become offensive.


Cheers
Den

[Mr_docfish]

Some good points Brad,
if you don't mind, I would like to add some information to these points that may/may not have cropped up in previous threads, the fact I have used your post has no bearing on you Brad, so don't get me wrong , it was just easier:

Why should discus or angles be any diff???

The coloured angels we have in captivity are all line bred (cf mutations) from one species (Pterophyllum scalare) and there are still other spp that are wild caught coming in from South America, as they and other Pterophyllum spp are allowable imports. Again, you can still get wild caught P scalare, if you want to wait and pay big dollars, as freight from South America is not cheap. There are also colour variations from different rivers now available.

If any of these new colors were to find there way back to the wild we would still end up with something in the wild that was not there before man decided to mess with it??

Nothing we can do about that from here unfortunately..... but also consider how many new spp of Riftlake cichlids are being created by the translocation of some spp, for either the ease of creating a colony for catching later or by accident (catching boat tipping over)... these are documented facts of human life on the Lakes (re: Axelrod and Stuart Grant with "Ps Pindani"). And we are happy to 'get' new spp from these lakes without question....

If the pcs as a club were really concerned about the promotion and sale of hybrids then perhaps the 50 - 70 % of sponsors that we have selling hybrid fish should be more closely looked at before being allowed to sponsor our club .....

There are many line breeds and mutations available in many varieties of fish, and there are only a few hybrids (thankfully).
With Discus, there may be more than one spp involved (depending on the breeding in the past... no one really knows now... how many times do you see the 'heckel' prominent middle band show up in some discus varieties), but no matter how you look at it, the commercial colours available are a staple for LFS... it is what draws many people into the hobby to start with... it is sort of like telling tackle shops to stop selling hooks because it is cruel, but they can sell the rest of the gear...
Good thing is, with some spp of fish, we can still import new bloodline into Australia. Sometimes, we can get wild caught fish or fish bred from wild caught stock (often labelled as "German Bred"). This offers the purists (those that are no longer interested in the colour morphs/mutants/line breeds) the ability to keep proper fish, which is more morally acceptable. Trouble is, these wild caught fish are generally not considered as appealing to the general public (99.5% of total customers frequenting their LFS) and combined with the purchase price (comparing the wild strains to the common commercial ones), makes them a poor seller. So for the interests of business survival, LFS have very little choice.
But with many Cichlids, we are not allowed to bring in new bloodlines or wild caught stock, and need to preserve the remaining stocks in Australia for the future. These spp are the ones I think we should be considering to avoid hybridising. Once stuffed up, there is very little chance that the spp can return unless a club member with the right morals keeps it going (without trying to select the prettiest colours for each generation, as so often happens, hence the line breeds).

This is just my 2 bobs worth and i will continue to support the club and committee in the decision's it makes to better the hobby and club.
One last thing... perhaps the club could make a sticky that list known hybrids that the club does not support along with the reasons why the club does not support them...... it may help this topic being revisited over and over again.
Cheers Brad.

Best idea I have heard!! Someone should volunteer to draft one up and have the committee look at it and have the financial members vote on the final draft. This will end the confusion...... and hopefully also the shop bashing too!!

Cheers,
Oliver

[daci]

can i add this hybrid to the list please LOL



cheers
michael

PS: how many times this topic (closely related) have been mentioned? we really need this LIST!

[bradfitzy]

I'm with Aquatic Dreams on this one, it can in no way be considered the same. Whilst I am supportive of people's wishes to maintain the integrity of many of the natural color forms I just don't see the point for a full scale argument, one which will ultimately deteriorate into a "slagfest" toward the PCS.

No one is interested in a full scale argument mate or a slagfest to wards the pcs..... in fact its quite the opposite. People discussing a topic on a forum with diff of opinions is in no way a argument. As for the slagfest against the pcs ... its comments like that that cause half the problems here .... why people seem to be under the impression that the pcs members have some hatred for the committee or need to abuse them has got me beat but seems to be alot of them and us type mentality going on lately ...them being the committee and us being the members???

Docfish
Thats fine to use me as an example and thanks for the info you have added. Please don't take offense to the shop bashing as that was not my intention to offend lfs workers .... was just trying to make a point that if the club wants to take a serious stance against hybrids then it should be at all levels of the club....e.g members...financial members and sponsors.
As for the sticky i would be more than happy to have a go at putting some sort of list together for hybrids and why we class them as hybrids if the committee thinks its a good idea.

Cheers Brad.

[Poncho]

Az I think your post is a little misleading. You've stated how a hybrid is created when two species are crossed but in your example of the flowerhorn you have highlighted the genus rather than the species. Therefore technically discus are hybrids if for example you have crossed S. discus with S. aequifasciatus to create a "powdered watermelon" or any other new discus variety. Same would apply if you breed a Vieja synspilus with a Veija hartwegi or a Tropheus polli with a Tropheus brichardi.

What gets confusing is if you cross different locations eg Cyphotilapia gibberosa "samazi" with Cyphotilapia gibberosa "mpwimbwe". Technically not a hybrid as far as i understand (at least not with plants) but if you look through any old cichlid book eg. Axelrod's Lexicon, you can see how many of these classifications change over time as different boffins undertake reviews of a fish genus or family. One example is that some previous Tropheus brichardi varients are now being referred to as Tropheus mpwimbwe "locality". Tropheus is a good example because anyone can plainly see the differences in fish from different locations and we pretty much agree unanimously that these varients should be preserved in the hobby. It's not so easy to see the difference in fish from different locations in the genus Discus and Geophagus, and therefore I think many of us don't see it as important to preserve their varients in the hobby. In Australia, this is despite Tropheus being a legal import and Geophagus not.

It's sad to think that wild discus strains are going to be in jeopardy because of the release of hybrid strains. Although I do wonder how successful these hybrid strains would be in the wild. I think most of them would stand out like tits on a bull and be very easy for predators to see compared to the more subtle colouration of the wild strains. Perhaps natural selection would keep them in check but of course you wouldn't really want to see that theory tested.

I think its a good discussion to have and can be quite useful and healthy for the club and its members even if it has been done to death previously - there are heaps of new members who have not been exposed to previous discussions on this topic and have not been able to express their opinions. As far as anyone bagging the club for their stance on the matter - what a waste of time! The members are the club and if the members collective view on the situation changes, then so does the clubs. As for LFS's I don't think they can afford to stand on the moral high ground - they need to make a living and to do so they must respond to the desires of their customers.

I don't see any difference between a dragon blood peacock and a pigeon blood discus or even flowerhorns for that matter. If people like them and want to keep them, that's their business and I'm not about to march down their street in protest. But I believe that it is in contrast to the first aim of the society ie. to promote the conservation of the neotropical family Cichlidae world-wide.

[Fox]

Great posting Brett, And I can understand where your coming from:

Az I think your post is a little misleading. You've stated how a hybrid is created when two species are crossed but in your example of the flowerhorn you have highlighted the genus rather than the species. Therefore technically discus are hybrids if for example you have crossed S. discus with S. aequifasciatus to create a "powdered watermelon" or any other new discus variety. Same would apply if you breed a Vieja synspilus with a Veija hartwegi or a Tropheus polli with a Tropheus brichardi.

[Mr_docfish]

... Please don't take offense to the shop bashing as that was not my intention to offend lfs workers .... was just trying to make a point that if the club wants to take a serious stance against hybrids then it should be at all levels of the club....e.g members...financial members and sponsors.
As for the sticky i would be more than happy to have a go at putting some sort of list together for hybrids and why we class them as hybrids if the committee thinks its a good idea.

Cheers Brad.

My comment was not aimed at yours, I get it worse at regular intervals on this subject (some individuals don't come to my shop because I have had a few Hybrids in the past and I still carry a few now and then... but then they are only 0.01% of my customer base and they are attacking only 0.01% of the fish I carry in stock!), so no probs there Brad, and thanks from all of us for the idea (and your offer), I hope it goes ahead.

Oliver

[Den]

After reading some of the posts I can see with value of this discussion, even though we've had a similar discussion before, it seems many members and even the comittee are not properly informed on the discus hybrid issue.

I think Brett refering to Frontosa and tropheus is an excellent example(why didnt I think of that?)

Im sure all you guys would all freak out if people started crossing tropheus and frontosa varients to make new pretty patterns and colours! but with discus this practice is accepted, encouraged and hybrids are also OK as well, I cannot understand this double standard within Aquarium Societies.

How about I cross a Tropheus Morilo and a Tropheus Kaiser and we can have a new red, yellow and black tropheus? I might start a new business making tropheus the same colour patterns as football teams, any buyers out there?

I thought a true enthusiast is interested in preserving both a species and varients to their true form, I do not know of a single discus enthusiast in the World that is committed to this, such a shame for discus.

Cheers
Den

[Donna]

Hi everyone,
I don’t know if the definition at the website below will be of any help, but here it is anyway.
http://en.wikipedia....ybrid_(biology)
It would be very useful for this argument if someone presents an exact definition of hybrid, or at least one that is agreed on by the majority and provides a framework from which to work. Without a definition, argument is useless and based on emotion, misunderstandings of the terminology and not fact. Listing examples of hybrids and non hybrids is not a definition, just examples. However, analysing examples and non examples will help in forming a definition (two mental sets). It is interesting to consider are we actually discussing hybridisation or artificial selection among the same species?
I picked out some of the main points in the argument, so hopefully when the PCS meet on this topic (if they ever do, you can pick out the main points, and have a template for debate). Maybe do a “T” Chart on each point and find the evidence that supports or refutes that premise. Some of the premises won’t need much discussion as they are self evident eg Premise Four and Five however, what might be debated is if this is a good reason to continue with the production of hybrids, and if in fact that premise can be supported with evidence

Premise one: Hybrids “pollute” the gene pool of both wild and captive populations (provide clear facts on exactly how this happens, what is meant by “pollute”?)

Premise two: Hybrids are a “threat” to the wild populations (In what way? How does this actually work?Is there any proof hybrids can breed in the wild?)

Premise three: Hybrids are a threat to the hobby (In what way? Why are they a threat? To whom? Who are the stakeholders?)

Premise four: Hybrids are cheaper and easier to keep in captivity (Can this be supported? How do they compare in price with wild varieties?)

Premise five: Hybrids are more colourful and commercially desirable (Can this be supported? Have the public seen wild varieties? Is there a choice?)

Premise six: Hybrids are morally unacceptable because of the threat they pose (How? What morals are involved in the breeding of animals? Does nature itself ever produce a hybrid? Is evolution immoral? Is artificial selection acceptable to gain desirable traits for commercial purposes?)

This appears to be the meat of the discussion. Its good to see people debating a topic. Arguments can be very productive, unfortunately, they sometimes have a negative connotation and become personal, which is a shame. If this is debated then the PCS might be able to come up with a policy on Hybrids. This should not be in opposition to the sponsors, and does not mean that the sponsors do not have a right to be commercially viable, it will just mean that the PCS will have a policy on hybrids which people can choose to adhere to if they are so inclined. In fact, it can open up a whole new market for sponsors if they are able to get stock that is "true to type" and encourage members to keep that stock. It could be a great form of market...come and buy our "real" discus


PS: good discussion here, if not a little one eyed http://cichlidresear...om/hybrids.html

[PCS_Committee]

For those that are interested there is a new thread " List Of Hybrids " on the "Cichlid Discussion" section where you can offer your suggestions as to which fish should be included as Hybrids.

Thanks again to those members who offered to help put this list together.

[Donna]

Would a list of non hybrids be easier? Then people could look out for what to buy and target certain fish rather than look out for what not to buy and then they still have to establish what to buy by establishing what is not on the hybrid list?
Sorry, just asking.

Thanks,

Donna

[Den]

Oliver an explanation I found in the University report regarding the Heckel band that shows up is a result of wild Heckels being used to prop up the gene pool once a man made discus variety/strain becomes too inbred and starts throwing out too many deformed fry.

At the end of the day all we can do as a society is keep fish keepers informed, hopefully then people who get interested in Discus begin asking for natural forms and shops in turn start selling natural forms instead of the mutated, hybridised, genetically messed up fish currently being offered.

I dont think there is anything nothing wrong with selective breeding as long as you are working within species and variants preserving the natural gene pool, for example chosing the most healthy, well coloured fish from a group for a breeding program, but what has happened with discus goes light years beyond those limits, into crossing of species variants, deep inbreeding and hybridisation.

A club needs to make a pioneering stand(maybe ours?), when arguably the queen of all cichlids is being abused and disrespected and its gene pool so fouled and poluted it makes an informed hobbiest feel ill.

I'd love to see the discus treated and respected like all other fish(i.e. tropheus, frontosa, peacocks, eartheaters etc) and that is their beautiful original strains preserved.


Cheers
Den