FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Dingos could no more outcompete thylacines than they could timber wolves.

Actually, the facts that thylacines had a complicated reproduction cycle, did not hunt in packs, and had a relatively low level of intelligence (for a mammal) automatically put them at a severe disadvantage to feral dogs. And the dogs are indeed one of the main reasons why thylacines are extinct today.

I cannot think of one case where a two similar mammals (as a result of convergent evolution), a marsupial and a placental, came in contact with each other and the marsupial "won". Placental mammals largely replaced marsupial mammals in places where they came in contact becuuse the placentals have much higher intelligence and more effective reproduction habits.

This is why South America, which once had more marsupial species than Australia, is now largely inhabited by placental mammals (with only about 15-20 marsupial species left I believe). The placentals got to South America when it joined with North America. Australia has not joined with any other continent, hence the marsupials still being there.

The marsupials that are left have little chance of survival when competing with placental rivals or predators, which is why measures must be taken to repair the damage already done and to prevent damage in the future.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

i was unawe that the dingo was in fact a domestic aboriginal dog. in any case i think if you told australians that they were going to cull all the dingos with the exception of farmers i think theyed b pretty upset.

i supose though that this conversation has gone completly off topic!

Yes, please take your dingo talk elsewere j/k

Anyway, to keep us on topic:

I am not against creating hybrids. I am against those that create them, and through greed, get them out into the general population. I am also against some deformaties being bred for, that have come from these hybrinizations. In other words, when you do hybinize a fish, and you get deformed fish, and you then breed the fish for these interesting deformaties. If in your experiments this happens, stop doing it. This is what I am against. This is the reason I am against hybrids, not that they happen, not that people like them, but becuase people are irresponable and don't follow any guidelines when it comes to a quick buck. And, because there are soo many people out there that are after the quick buck, I don't feel that any hybrid could be contained as its self, so I am against it all together. If you cannot control it, then stop it altogether.

ACID, I think you finnaly got to the point I was oddly facing (why we didn't talk about this on sunday, I dunno). I think I agree with you. I like most swords and platys, they are pretty to me, even though I know they are hybrids. However, I much more enjoy the wild montazuma swordtail (which I finnaly got to see for the first time in person thanks to acid ).

On the flip side, I hate Parrots, fancy Goldfish, Balloon mollys (or any balloon fish), and anything of that nature. Well, I don't hate them, I feel sorry for them, but I hate that people breed them knowing those fish MUST feel uncomfortable.

Now this thread can end here, or we can continue with how selective bred are not much different than hybrids.

I doubt you'd get to end it that easily racso

[I'd get real grouchy if you decided to cull dingoes. they pretty much only exist on Frazer Island and well, they are a well established dog with the purest lines that we can get in the country, so even just from a 'breed' standpoint, culling them is counterproductive. You should have heard the outcry when the rangers shot Boots a few years ago because some kid tried to pat a puppy while it was eating. Of course, it wasn't OUR fault as humans, it's the fault of the lesser species, lets shoot the dogs *sigh* Its our solution to everything ]

So,

*selective breeding

*hybridisation

Which is the problem?

In my understanding, selective breeding involves choosing fish from the same species that have characteristics that you wish to reproduce, and pairing them off.
Hybrids are produced when two distinct species are crossed.

Now, assuming its hybridisation that is the problem, what about it is the primary concern?

A) the fish are deformed/ugly/in pain

B) the fish may contaminate wild strains/populations

C) it offends me that humans are trying to create species


To address A), the fish are not always deformed, ugly or in pain. Platies are a prime example. They look perfectly happy to me. Don't get too caught up in the fish's emotional state. Its a fish, and no matter how intelligent we like to think they are, the fact that they are bright pink and strangely conformed in the cranial area probably doesn't bother them as much as it bothers you
Yes, some fish have been bred to the extreme, but you will get extremists in whatever section of the world you see. some people just have to take it that one step to far.

B), well again, this is not a given. Yes its a possibility, but I live in Australia, and there is no way I could hybridise a fish and manage to contaminate Lake Malawi with it. I *could* always mislabel it and sell it to someone at a shop, but this has more to do with the ethics of truth in advertising than anything else. With the making of crosses comes a BIG responsibility. If you cannot ensure the fish stay separate or are labelled appropriately and go to known 'pet' homes, then be a good little fishkeeper and don't cross them. Its that simple.
If you can ensure they will not contaminate 'pure' lines or habitats, I don't see a problem.

C), well, yeah. get over it. Sorry, but seriously, there are bigger things to worry about. Live and let live. In order to change the mentality of those who breed the fish, you would need to change many views about culture, beauty and the almighty dollar. It ain't gunna happen.
Humans have done far worse than make oddly-shaped fish.


The best anyone can do is be responsible for their own actions and encourage other people to do the same.

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

I think youve missed the point for several reasons we already mentioned

1)if youve extrapolated that you cannot know whats in a fishes mind already than you should know that you are unable to know if its suffering and so you dont breed the fish even if its a possibility (especially as suffering does seem by ANY rationale to be very likely)

2)We have established already that fish are released into watercourses unwittingly, and yes its not impossible that a fish bred by you could end up in lake malawi- even governments who you would imagine would have more sense have done it. Once the hybrid is out of your hands a million things can happen and the RESPONSIBLE thing to do would be to NOT do it at all. Not just say if it goes out of my hands it couldnt happen and put your head in the sand and hope it doesnt. Because it does happen, again and again. Its just not a valid viewpoint.

3) If you claim to be into aquaculture, love and respect animals, and try to do the best for them- what exactly is a great deal more important than protecting original fish stocks? What is more important than showing a touch of the humane to animals completely at our mercy? .

Human civilisations come and go- politics change the world over , people kill maim and mutilate each other to the last child,people screw each other over money, wage war, and some people are more concerned with mindless capitalism, shopping or rampant hobbyism than being concerned about the environment. But as long as nature persists unharmed , and species diversity continues it doesnt matter much. Cos there will always be a tommorrow, food to feed our children and greater understandings and harmonies to be learned and enjoyed.

When youre talking about importance, to kill a man causes suffering that lasts one generation , and is forgotten often more quickly than you might imagine, but to kill an entire species by any contributing factor, be it a cavalier attitude in the face of suffering or danger ,or simply because you hadnt considered the consequences is something that will be remembered and regretted forever.
Notably even our own law systems hold murder as a crime less serious than the infliction of torture and long term inflicted disablement - because of the degree of suffering involved.

Very little about the human world is more important than our relationship with the planet we live on.

Natural selection holds secrets we have yet to learn and nothing to date holds a candle to its efficiency or complexity.We have not yet learned to emulate it , and even if we could, i suspect that there is a great deal more to it than breeding something because it looks pretty.

"Live and let live" to my mind includes not interfering with the natural genesis of species. Hybridising a fish or selectively breeding it to include deformity is pretty far from it.

Lets be honest nature has created fish in infinite variety , of amazing efficiency and wonderful tenaciousness, things that are in themselves are staggeringly beautiful and admirable, far surpassing superficial beauty.

We will never do better because we dont know how,we never take into account all the required factors, and even if we do - the information required will be far too complex for a hobbyist or a profiteering breeder to take on board.

All we have created so far is shambling fish that find it hard to breathe, to see, to feed,to breed, and even to move, further more its all the hobbyist will ever be capable of. Even if we develop some sort of perfect aquarium superspecies that would be worse , because it could eliminate other species if accidentally and inevitably released into the wild. We have produced nothing good from this , and it can only come to be worse.

We should be spending much more time establishing the breeding of natural forms of fish in the aquarium, as a useable genetic resource should an extinction occur in the wild, and to take pressure off the rampant wild collecting of fish and commercial fishing that occurs daily.
Even species that are bred in the hobby regularly are e to long term breeding depression , and that is without exception across the board as concerns all species.

In fact preservation of species is one of the few convincing arguements that aquarists have in the face of criticism from animal wellfare groups.

It is perfectly true to say that the biggest captive polulations of genetic aquatic material and bloodlines are kept within the hobby, not within public aquaria . We have a major future role in the preservation of the species, and our observations can lead to leaps in scientific knowledge of literally thousands of species of fis ( hence sites like this where we can freely share observations and opinions are a damn fine idea).We also preserve a huge genetic database of living specimens.

If we jeopardise that part of the legacy of our hobby by hybridising many species and playing the "mad doctor" too often we will lose our integrity, scandals about animal suffering will ensue, and your rights to keep fish may become infringed. In the future you may find yourselves saying " remember how nice it was to keep fish".

Weve a long way to go before we start tampering genetically with fish, its an infinitely more subtle art.
And no, I dont think I will get over it.

Im not preaching , and im not dissing anyone in particular and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Just thought id share my reasoning and see if it rings bells with any of you.

Go on, thrash it all out

Last edited by longhairedgit at 01-Sep-2005 17:06

Callatya

Summed up all the main points perfectly

she did at that. hence me ranting again never let it be said i dont give it a good go at getting my opinion over

Gawd bless you all for weighing in to such a meaty issue- and a damn good question in the first place, its great to hear everyones opinion, and to find folks who arent afraid to thrash it out with each other. Most refreshing.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 01-Sep-2005 17:16

"Live and let live" referred to the breeders right to choose what they do. As much as knocking off bad breeders appeals to me on some days, I'm sure it involves a prison sentence.
It also referred to the fish that are produced by these breeders. It is not their fault that they are genetic McFlurry, so I don't see why they should be killed off if they are perfectly capable of living.

If I don't breed any fish that has potential to suffer, I'd have to give up the game. ANY fish has potential to suffer, congenital and genetic defects are not uncommon even in wild populations.
Although I cannot sit down and have a D&M with a fish, there are signs that would give me a fair indication of physical stress, such as heavy breathing, lethargy, erratic movements, etc, and although not foolproof they are the best we've got. If a fish is showing no physical signs of discomfort, then I will assume that the fish is not in discomfort, or at least in no more discomfort than a wild fish with the same signs.

I suppose one must take into consideration that *normal* for hybrid and line-bred fish is quite different to ordinary fish. They do not know any different however, the body they are in is all they have experienced, so that is their version of *normal* and when presented with that, animals learn to cope. This would skew the visual cues somewhat.


I do the very best I can to stop fish escaping into the wild (or pet stores) and so far, i've been successful. I would think that there would be more danger in keeping wild strains and having then released than keeping say, celestials or HMs, neither of which would last very long at all. They certainly wouldn't be good prospects for repopulating places.
In my attempts to keep things separate, I tend to go for tropical fish that I am 99% sure would curl up and die at the thought of my local river. I empty water onto the lawn and not down drains, and I don't keep local species. I am wary of who I sell to, and their intentions.
It is the absolute best one can do, IMO, without giving up the hobby.
I don't think that qualifies as sticking my head in the sand, I do put a lot of thought into things. I'd class it more as an informed decision, perhaps not a perfect one, I'll grant you that, but its the best I can come up with given the fact that I want to keep and breed fish outside of their natural environment.

What is more important than fish stocks? general human attitude to life, the universe, and everything. Its a cascade effect. You can't start at the bottom and fix the small things as sooner or later the bigger ideas will wash away all your good work. You have to start higher up, and start changing attitudes on a more broad level.
To the world, fish are pretty insignificant unless wrapped in newspaper and served with lemon, but hit them in a bigger issue and all of a sudden you have the attention of many more people.
Think bigger! Small is a losing battle. I often fight it, but I always end up dissapointed.

We are limited in our understanding, and driven to experiment to gain knowledge. This may not be the wisest course of action, but it is what is happening, and judging by past behaviour, it is what will continue to happen. We can't seem to help ourselves.
I am unsure if we desire to do better or simply do *different*, but either way, it seems we want to do something or other.
We could have the most perfect thing in the world, and humans would just have to fiddle. I don't think the oringinal object/being itself has much to do with it. I have a hunch we are just a species of mad scientists

I'm all for the preservation of species, but I'm also a realist. Realistically, you can only control your own actions. Trying to control others is generally unsuccessful and unappreciated.

Last edited by Callatya at 01-Sep-2005 22:15

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

So-called "natural" hybrids are almost always caused by human interference with the fish's environment.

In the case of Lake Tanganyika, development near the shores of the lake makes the water cloudy and kills many suitable mates for any given fish, so they pretty much have to breed with whoever they find (be it the same species or not).

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Yay, i feel better already, thats what i thought but im usually never right

I agree, as long as they are labled as hybrids. In your home aquaria if your fish breed and create hybrids- so what? But when you start mass production of them and selling them off as a *new* species- well then i have a problem with it. I do beleive the species should be maintained and be pure, but i'm not gonna go around yelling at people who let their cichlid mix breed in their homes. Cus i'm gonna have a big cichlid tank soon, and if they breed hybrids so what? I wont sell them, i'll be keeping them. Anyways, just my opinion...

oh well...hybrid fishes=genetic engineering? its something which is fast developing in my country,Malaysia...recently, some guys managed to 'create' a new species of danio(zebra danio+some weird jelly fish colour strain)...and made those danios glow in the dark..a new hit for some people...

Hybrid fish are not the same as genetically engineered fish. Hybrids are a mix of two or more different species, with a relatively unknown genotype and an unpredictable phenotype. GMO fish are fish that had a couple of their genes altered many many generations before and then breed true after that.

In the case of the Glofish (GMO zebra danios), they are genetically identical to pure zebra danios but have a couple genes added to them to give them their bright color. Because the fish are not negatively affected by the change in color and have pretty much no chance of contaminating waterways, I am fine with them as long as they are clearly marked as GMOs.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

but it is banned in singapore...though i live in malaysia..but since its not going to affect anythg...why would they ban it??

Aren't Danios from singapore?

If they are, they could breed with the wild species and cause the offspring to have the bright color. And because the color stands out so well, then they wouldn't last very long. Possibly long enough to breed, but not long enough to sustain a species, thus they can hurt the ecosystem.

If they are not... then I dunno...

Maybe the reason the glowing dianos are banned is people are afraid of anything Geneticly Modified. People are afraid of what they don't understand.

20 Gallon Long:
Aquaclear 300
2 Bolivian Rams, Mikrogeophagus altispinosus: Gumby and Pokey

I agree with the human hybids are wrong. But I do actually have 1 hybrid Syno that I purchased from a LFS(mislabeled) . Just so happens that I purchased tanks from the guy that brought it to the LFS. The cat in question turned out to be a hybrid from the Lake Tang(wild caught) . How can you dislike a "natural" hybrid?

"Do you mean Nile Perch in Lake Victoria?"

Oops!! I always thought it was the peacock bass in tanganyika!! *slaps self*

"For a more definite example, take OB Peacocks - again, there are lots and lots of bright fish in the lake; it wouldn't be easily outcompeted by any means."

OB peacocks are also thought to be hybrids and not found in nature. I think it's different from brightly colored fish, since its a whole new type of adaptation. Example: A brightly colored leleupi can easily survive compared to a brightly colored peacock, since leleupi are made to go through crevices and cracks. Peacocks are more of an open swimmer. Most peacocks found in the wild are more dull and less "brightly" colored, which would single out this one.

Last edited by inkodinkomalinko at 28-Aug-2005 22:56

A basic answer would be; "The Pride is in the Purity". I'll expain this more down the thread.

One of the main problems with hybrids, is they usually don't breed true. With this said, the people that try to breed them, sell those that don't breed true as originals. And thusly unknowing individuals end up with a hybrid instead of a pure bred fish. A perfect example of this is the flowerhorn. The markings on a flowerhorn are rarely the same for every fish bred. Some look very close to trimac, while others look completely different. So, to make money on all their fish bred, the ones that look like a trimac will usually be sold off as a trimac. Because trying to sell them off as a flowerhorn would probably not generate any sales. With this in mind, how would you like to purchase a fish you have been looking for, only to have them turn out different than what you payed for. With the hundreds of thousands of different species of fish out there, why do we want or even need to hybrynize any of them.

It all comes down to 3 different reasons or things;

1) Money. Everyone wants to make more money. And many people don't care how they make it. So, they either accidentally or on purpose, get a hybrid fish. Many times they list them as being a new fish to the hobby. I have seen this happen too many times. If the fish is in some way outstanding, they are quickly bought up at unreal prices! Only to find them not breeding true. The people selling them don't care what happens to the fish after they sell them, as long as they made some money off of them.

2) Money. Many people actually try to hybrinize fish on purpose. Trying to get some ultimate fish to make lots of money. In doing so, there are many deformed fish born along the way. As well as many ugly fish. These people kill off the ones that are just not astetically acceptable, until they get what they want. In other words, they over cull their fish. Not for reasons of "that's how it is in nature", but simply because they are not what they are looking for, or trying to produce. Once they get what they are looking for (color, finage, shape, etc) they over breed them, and flood the market with them. Sometimes they breed true, but for the most part they still do not. But it does not matter to them, as long as they made money off of it.

3) Money. Even in knowing the fish are hybrids, many people will purchase them if the fish is in some way extravagent. This is probably the only one that is at all acceptable. As at least they are known as hybrids. Some of the hybrids do in fact breed true. And thus, what you are looking for, purchase, and re-sell, is the same fish. But, the problem is, there are too many others that come along that don't. And thus, this one is the reason of cause for all the others.

"The Pride is in the Purity" This is the reason so many hobbyists are against hybrids. Because it is 99.99% purely about making money. Not about the hobby. In most hobbys, the pride is in the purity. Car collectors don't want "kit" cars, they want the real thing. Most, also want everything all original, or at least all the same brand. Not an antique Ford, with a Chevy motor, and a Jag rear-end. Comparison to the flower horn, a cross between 3 different pure species fish. Most hobbyist thive to get the perfect pure species fish, or pure what ever their hobby is. In anything you collect, you don't want some cheap knock-off, you want the real thing! In those little Hallmark statues people collect, they look for the true mark, not the made in somewhere sticker on it. It would be very upsetting to most to pay high dollar for a fancy looking one, only to not be able to find the true identifying mark on it. It is the same with fish, only there is no mark, only the reputation of someones word on it.

With so many people out there in the hobby, if it was acceptable, we would have thousands of different hybrids, and hybrids of hybrids! Think about the hundreds of thousands of fish keepers in the US alone. And if only half of them sold hybrids to the fish stores, wether on purpose, or unknowning they hybrinized a fish. Now those fish are bought and hybrinize with others that have been hybrinized, wether purposefully or unknowingly. Next thing you know, there are thousands of new hybrids out there with all kinds of new names, and they are out of control. Fish stores will come down to selling just a few types of fish, and you will have to just take your chance as to what you get (at least a lot more than is already happening). This is one of the big problems now with the Rainbow fish in the US. A very large percentage of them have been cross bred and placed back out into the public. A very large percentage of what is found in the LFS is actually hybrid Rainbows. This is a complete and long story though, but due to unforseen cercomestances and knowledge, it has happened.

Hybrinization has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen on a regular basis. Because it is a money maker, and there is no way of knowing the genetics of a live fish (at least not for the common person), there is really no way to completely stop it. The only true "Mark" to let you know your fish is pure, is by the reputation of where you get it from.

Line bred, inbred, selective breeding, albinos, etc, are completely different situations. And, these almost always, if not always, breed true. There are completely different problems which are associated with these.



_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

Far more serious than the money issue, and the limited effects your hybrids may have in the enclosed tanks of aquarists ,and even worse yet than the effect on our hobby is the really very very VERY VERY important issue of hybridisation with wild species.

The ramifications of hybridisation used to be considered relatively unimportant ecologically speaking,because there used to be no conclusive proof that hybrids would retain viable strains that bred multigenerationally, however, more extensive studies have been underway over the last 20 years and the results are in - SOME HYBRIDS ARE VERY VIABLE!

This is a total nightmare, since every body of water throughout the world seems to have had fish released back to them from captive populations, by accident or ignorance or deliberation, the potential for the loss of natural species through hybridisation is immense.

Natural forms of certain fish could become totally extinct throughout the world, thusly meaning a catastrophic change to small ecosystems and as time progresses, larger ones.
I really dont want to think about it!

Releasing captive fish into the wild is a fairly disastrous thing to do anyway, since terrible disease pandemics can be started this way, and some more fragile species of fish can be outcompeted, we know that snakeheads introduced into american river systems for example have caused untold damage.

If hybrids that can further hybridise successfully are released into the environment wild fish may have their bloodlines totally corrupted, may suffer long term extinction as seperate species, and possibly suffer breeding depression only after several generations- effectively terminating that line of evolution for that species of fish.

It is wrong to assume hybrids are all just chimaera's and that they will be unable to breed, or in any sense be physically inferior to purebreed wild populations, if they were all inferior there would be no problems ecologically . But they survive, they persist, are often stronger, and often males are larger and showier than the normal males of some species , (and the normal males sometimes cannot compete with the hybrids for the attention of normal females).But not evolving to fit the same niches, and yet becoming the dominant strain, can cause extinctions of other species of insect, plant and animal too, and that is the truly scary thing.

Human beings can , and do force evolution through rapid changes that would not normally occur in nature, and we willingly breed animals for certain traits not usually an advantage under natural living. We have exterminated the auroch in our efforts to produce the common cow, now the only wild cows left of that genera are of captive descent, they of course cannot survive without mankinds help.The same is true of pigs, chickens,turkeys, rabbits and a myriad other species- cant really see a yorkshire terrier bringing down a deer now, can you?

We have bred infertile mosquitos that mate with and dominate over female mosquitos and normal males, this is intentional and it is used as pest control to kill billions of mosquito every year. Useful it would seem, but how easy might it be to do such a thing with a fish totally by accident? Most fish certainly do not have the reproductive rate of mosquito, or are anything like as widespread, so it could lead to total species extinction. The point is , we dont know enough about genetics to start messing about with them yet, and may not know enough about them for thousands of years.

If you need another reason than that to not encourage hybridisation, then you are quite possibly the sort of person who would catch fish with cyanide, and only prison sentances will be enough to stop you.

My personal opinion is dont buy hybrids, dont encourage people to do it, and if you get cross species breeding by accident ensure you keep the resultant fish away from others who would exploit their financial potential.

Personally if I couldnt keep such fish contained myself I would, if given the choice euthanise such fish immediately, since that is the only way to be sure they will never ever reach wild populations.

Lets be honest its not as if the extremes of selective breeding to extremes isnt bad enough- ive seen lionhead goldfish with growths so huge they get caught in their mouths and they are unable to see and breathe properly- personally id like to shoot people who did that to fish deliberately. Its far more suffering than could ever be caused by killing the damn fish and eating it. We dont encourage people to deliberately breed humans to be cripples- so why should we do it to fish?

It takes a certain intelligence to know you can do something. And a much greater intelligence to know when not to do it. This i feel is much of the problem with the human race. Not enough people are making that second decision.

As to the people who would buy such chimaera's ? Well it takes a great integrity, maturity and a learned eye to see the beauty in even the ugliest naturally evolved fish, but it takes no experience or intelligence at all to like that pretty ,deformed little hybrid.

PLease try to see beyond the hobby- because what we can do can have an effect on the whole planet, and thanks to irresponsible people its pretty much guaranteed that hybrids will be released into the wild- many will have been already. How many people flush fishtank water containing eggs, dont burn their old plants, and release fish , turtles and birds into wild areas,public ponds and streams? There are tens of thousands. Never underestimate the dumbness of the average petkeeper, i worked in rescue and have seen abuse and irresponsibility most of you would not believe and a lot of which would make you physically ill.

Nuff said.


Last edited by longhairedgit at 27-Aug-2005 13:11

Last edited by longhairedgit at 27-Aug-2005 13:17

I think its more important about limiting ourselves to the hybridized fish we keep. I dont think we have a right to say that the betta fish has trouble swimming. I mean, if you've observed it, it hardly swims at all. The thing about hybrids is for them not to be bred for them to suffer, such as the "short bodied" trait in many cichlids.

With the concept of how there are so many fish in the wild, that we should all just stick to the natural strains, well, how about dogs. There are already so many breeds, why do more and more continously show up on the market? Mainly so we can choose one that fits our interests the most.

"We have bred infertile mosquitos that mate with and dominate over female mosquitos and normal males, this is intentional and it is used as pest control to kill billions of mosquito every year. Useful it would seem, but how easy might it be to do such a thing with a fish totally by accident?"

Honestly, most hybrids simply would not be able to compete in wild. Thats why their hybrids in the aquarium. A goldfish would struggle to survive in the wild, so would a blood parrot. If they would survive in the wild, I'm sure it would have already produced in wild.

It's not just about releasing hybrids, it's more about releasing any strain into the wild, hybridized or not. A "natural" oscar released into florida waters may be the same threat as to releasing a blood parrot. The oscar released from captivity can carry new strains of diseases that can be more tolerant in the wild. A strain that once would be eradicated in the aquarium with the use of medications could not be possible in the wild. Yes, the strain would disapear sooner or later, but think about the damage it could cause. Same for hybrids, same thing applies.

Now, if we have released the "hybrid" eureka red albino aulonocara (peacock cichlid) into it's native lake, it would very likely be out competed easily due to its bright colors and lack of dark coloration to camouflage. If it bred with a "natural" strain of peacock, the albino fry would simply die off alot quicker than the natural fry, due to coloration.

In fact, most of the "big" issues that have happened with fish released in the wild are the natural strains, such as the peacock bass in lake tanganyika.

Notice that hybridized fish have not been an issue, but the release of captive bred "natural" strains are.

I think your focusing too much on hybrids. The fact is that any natural fish could have the same impact, if not far greater, than the release of hybrids.

You must realize theres hybridization everywhere. Dogs, fish, just about everything.

Now, if we have released the "hybrid" eureka red albino aulonocara (peacock cichlid) into it's native lake, it would very likely be out competed easily due to its bright colors and lack of dark coloration to camouflage. If it bred with a "natural" strain of peacock, the albino fry would simply die off alot quicker than the natural fry, due to coloration.

Er ... yes, because there are so very few bright-colored fish in Lake Malawi.
Also, there's heavy debate over whether or not this fish in a hybrid. For a more definite example, take OB Peacocks - again, there are lots and lots of bright fish in the lake; it wouldn't be easily outcompeted by any means.

In fact, most of the "big" issues that have happened with fish released in the wild are the natural strains, such as the peacock bass in lake tanganyika.

Do you mean Nile Perch in Lake Victoria?



Also, about dogs hybridizing - I suppose there are a scattering of cases of dogs crossing with wolves and dingos, but breed mixes aren't hybrids. They're all dogs.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

There is some debate over whether dogs themselves are hybrids of various wild canid species a VERY long time ago...

As for hybrids, there is something known as "hybrid vigor", a term to describe how often, hybrids will be bigger, stronger, etc than any of their progenitors. Just look at a liger... MUCH bigger and stronger than either a lion or a tiger... I am surprised noone (at least as far as I have read) had brought that up...

><>

My understanding was that since they mapped the canine genome, that confusion was erased. In any case, at this point they're certainly all dogs.

And if they are, in fact, hybrids, it certainly proves the point about hybrids endangering native species - how many wild dogs (not feral - wild) live in your area? I've certainly never seen one.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

Have you ever heard of coy dogs? They are a coyote-dog mix that form their own packs, apparently fairly common in the Northeast (friend in Vermont tells me about them), and they get quite big. Fortunately coyotes are common enough that hybridization is not a threat...

><>

i don't know realy but i wouidn't say i'm against them and i don't think that all hybrids are infertile cause i read in bio book that certain species(yeh well it shocked me when i read it, i thought here was only one species) of platy can hybreed and produce fertile offspring

Last edited by Darth Vader at 28-Aug-2005 18:00