FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I asked a question as to why hybrid profiles aren't allowed, and I got my question answered, but a new one popped up: why are hybrids so bad?

1) they promote aquarium bred fish
2) they can help build popularity for the aquarium hobby
3) they add new fish to the hobby

but, I do see the flip side as well:

1) many hybrids are deformed
2) many hybrids are infertile
3) “unnatural”

However, I never hear near as much protesting of selective & and inbreeding as I do hybrids, but I see them as the same thing. Inbreeding obviously has its problems, often very similar hybreeding. Yes, Parrot Cichlids wouldn't last a minute in the wild, but I would like to see a long fin German Gold Ram with any better chances.

I do not support nor condone hybreeding, just want to see where other people stand.

Lets keep this civil. Not like we’re discussing politics

Last edited by Racso at 20-Aug-2005 00:44

I don't like them because I prefer fish that are "natural", namely those that haven't been specially bred by humans to create something different

Exactly. I have never been a fan of "fancy" goldfish or long-finned plecos. I just think it is wrong the way that somebody would want to compromise the fishes' health and well-being just to get the "look" they are going after.

I don't keep bettas anymore (besides wild-types) because I hate seeing them struggle with their huge fins.

I dislike hybrids mainly because like Calla said, the majority of the time they are not labled as such, and also because they contaminate pure (and possibly endangered, as in the case of Endler's and many African Cichlids) bloodlines when there are so many naturally beautiful fish out there. They just aren't a neccessary part of the hobby, and they do more harm than good.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

like endlers

~elaine~

i personaly am not a fan simply because with the millions of natural strains and species of fish in every variey of colour why go and mess around with it.

the risk is of course that species do dissapear.

take this as an example, you buy a fish from a mixed cichlid tank, it looks exactly the same as a species you have at home but realy its a hybrid. you take it home breed it with your pure plood fish and all of a sudden the fry are hybrids. they look pretty much the same but slowwly slowly the real specis dissapears.

that said when i was new to fish keeping i did by some orange bloch cichlids thinking they were cool with out knowing they were hybrids. had i known at the time i wouldn't have bought em. pitty that fish shop didnt inform me:#(

i do however have a question? what happened to the endler and why cant you get wild ones?

I don't give a hoot providing they are labelled as such.

THIS IS A HYBRID

Thats all I need to see. I get grouchy if it is labelled as a specific species when quite obviously is isn't.

The hybrid thing only becomes an issue to me when
A)the fish are mislabelled
B)the fish are being bred despite deformity
C)there is a temperment issue
D)there are not enough of the starter species to MAINTAIN the species, but people are chasing the almighty dollar instead of attempting to stabilise numbers (pedantic attitude to species breeding, but yeah, sometimes it irks me.)


Now, here is where I am hypocritical

Betta splendens are in all likelyhood a hybridisation between B. splendens, B. imbellis and/or B. smaragdina, as the original splendens has little to no irridescence and a rather stocky body. Nobody is definite on this fact, but it seems to be a distinct possibility.

So yeah, my #1 fish is in all probability a hybrid.

Thing is though, the fact that I recognise this as a possibility means that i can be a responsible breeder, and use other species crossed into the fancy splendens line while not using the fancy splendens to cross into a wild splendens line.

The thing that is irking me at the moment are internationally recognised names that are very irresponsible, like "imbellis" which is a species name AND a type of splendens.
Things like this should be discouraged, as it just leads to confusion, even amongst the more 'with it' breeders.

such a hard topic



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 don't like them because I prefer fish that are "natural", namely those that haven't been specially bred by humans to create something different. I don't really care for hybrids, long-finned fish, albino fish, or fish bred with colors that you won't see in the wild. I have nothing against the fish themselves since it obviously isn't their fault, but I am against the practice. Making fish tougher by tank raising them is one thing, but changing the way they look just bugs me somehow. Not to say that the fish don't always look worse (bettas are an excellent point), but it's just a thing with me.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

Ok, i agree that hybrids do hurt some species (some both wild and in aquarium). But as for the aquarium hobby, i don't know.

How many people started keeping fish with a betta, goldfish, or livebearers? Calla mentioned bettas. Guppies/endlers, swords/platys, and mollies are good examples of popular hybrids. And need I even mention fancy goldfish?

They're all hybrids/inbreeds/selective bred/whatever, yet they're most likely at LEAST 75% of beginner's starting fish.

Again, I'm just throwing this out for discussion. I do tend to like wild type fish better than aquarium breeds.

And thanks for keeping it calm.

Arguably the prevalence of those hybrids is one of the reasons to work hard and stop new ones before they take over. How many pure platies or swords are left in the hobby that weren't wild-caught a generation or two ago? We're losing those two wonderful species. We risk losing Trimacs, Endler's, and lots of others if we don't fight back against hybrids.

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

i agree with all of you on the natural and pure fish, the only way to go, itz like if you agree with hybrid u beleieve in animal cruelty doesnt matter what animal it is, but is there any way to actually tell what a hybrid fish is? Albinos are hybrid?? B/c i just bought a albino bushynose maybe 1/2inch so cute i hate to think of him as being hybrid though, its upsetting such a beautiful species.

No, albinos are (well, almost all of the time) just selected forms of a species. Your albino bushynose isn't a hybrid; people are just drawing comparisons between hybrids created for their odd shapes or colors (Parrots, Flowerhorns, etc) and selectively bred fish that have odd characteristics (fancy goldfish, fancy guppies, etc).

-Molly
Visit shelldwellers.com!

Good question and like you I hope it doesn't get ugly

I personally don't particularly like hybrids myself but only because I think that nobody does it better than mother nature. I also don't want any part in any breed that has been manipulated to the point of cruelty to get certain characteristics like tatooing and bending spines
The other fear is possibly loosing pure breeds to mixed breeds as they become more and more popular.

Humans were primarily responsible for the deaths of thylacines, the australian government at the time offered cash rewards and farmers and hunters slaughtered them by the thousands- the impetus for the slaughter was ignorance, fear, and the protection of livestock,.Thylacines were exterminated primarily to protect sheep stocks, thylacines were far deadlier predators than dingos, often being bigger, heavier, more aggressive and with even more devastating dentition, and a massive bite aperture. Dingos could no more outcompete thylacines than they could timber wolves.But there is no doubt that dingos can be devastating to smaller marsupial animals and ground nesting birds etc, but dingos usually specialise in wallabies and kangaroos,of which there is no short supply.

Dingo's are seen as a bit of a national animal though, and australians will be a bit protective of them, but the arguement to exterminate them falls flat when you realise that the other animals introduced by man- rabbits ,cats , rats, sheep and goats ( nearly all hybrids or selectively bred animals it should be noted) - not to mention the cane toad (bufo marinus) are more devastating to wildlife by a factor of a million or so. We could really afford to exterminate the dingo last.

Blaming the dingo for the decline of the thylacine is like blaming the grey squirrel for the decline of the red squirrel, ie: conveiniently forgetting the several million hectares of mature woodland cut down in england and europe that red squirrels depend upon. No scientific proof exists that grey squirrels are in any kind of competition with red squirrels and in some areas they cohabit peacefully with no noticeable impact on either population , as they prefer different foods and different size and orientation of drey sites.The grey squirrels simply fill the environmental niche left open by the extinction of one species, much as the dingo does, it does not mean that they were guilty of that extinction.

Rabbits were introduced to the UK by the romans , but the animal they largely replaced throughout the uk - the Hare - was actually forced to retreat from its normal ranges by the spread of human civilisation, and the destruction of natural habitat. This was lucky in a way , because most of the predators of hares readily made the switch to rabbits without problem, and as hares were becoming less viable as a food source many hundreds of species previously dependant on hares were actually saved by the introduction of the rabbit.

The point being that the introduction of hybrid species can be beneficial or harmful, but we as human beings with our surprisingly small and pathetic knowledge of the ecosystems around us generally have no conclusive predictive abilities as to the effect of introduced or hybrid species in any location. Not, that is, until its far too late to do anything about it. Can you imagine for example being told to exterminate every last rat in australia? The task would have to be handled by millions of people over successive generatations even to make a dent in the rat population, and then it only takes one pregnant rat to arrive on a a ship- and it starts all over again. So if you take the analogy on to fish, remembering the scale of the oceans and rivers....

"A needle in 300 billion haystacks" Is the phrase.

One of the worrying aspects about hybridisation though, especially as concerns species that might have been genetically interfered with, is the potential for viruses and other bacteria to cross species barriers. Even the evolution of new viruses is a possibility,we are for example, used to enjoying the benefits that come with most fish viruses and bacteria- which is that they have trouble crossing the osmotic barrier .

It is possible that with hybridisation and genetic tampering this barrier could be crossed, and that complex bacteria could be formed that are tolerant of wider degrees of salinity.Imagine the devastation if koi herpes virus found a way to mutate, stimulated by the host body of a hybrid fish bred to be tolerant of varying salinities. Fish in our seas could be wiped out, having had no time for natural selection to hone the fish with natural immunity. Horticulturalists will already have seen numerous instances of plagues of fungal diseases destroying plants as a result of crossing of species barriers due to selective breeding and hybridisation.

Ok that is an extreme viewpoint, but it is possible, and worth thinking about.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 19:40

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 19:41

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 19:46

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 19:56

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 19:58

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 20:10

Last edited by longhairedgit at 30-Aug-2005 20:22

Why exterminate them? To me, even concerning a hybrid, why do we have to kill off a living creature purely because it is not natural and/or is a hybrid?

Australia is already taking those kinds of actions against other introduced animals, such as cane toads, rabbits, foxes, and cats. Why not do the same about feral dogs?

You say that it is not right for them to be killed, but what about all of the native animals that the dingos are harming? Do they deserve to die? In the long run, it's probably going to be one or the other (and without a doubt it would be the dingos), so why not deal with them now before any more species are lost?

And it would certainly be impossible to capture and relocate thousands of dingos. Where would they go? Feral dogs rarely make good house pets, and there's not enough zoos and sanctuaries in the entire world to take them all.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

They should be exterminated before they cause more damage, as they are purely an introduced species (domestic dog).

I have been waiting for someone to say something like this. Wether about fish or about dogs. The dogs is off subject, but it has been used through out this thread. And always comes up when this kind of thread is posted.

Why exterminate them? To me, even concerning a hybrid, why do we have to kill off a living creature purely because it is not natural and/or is a hybrid? It is wrong to kill off a living creature, simply because it does not appeal to you. Or simply because it was a mistake made by man. IMO, they should never have been created, but once created why do they deserve to die? It is not their fault they were created, it is mans' fault. Yes, the human race is to blame, not the animal its self! As for the wild dogs, well I would have to say it is almost an impossibility to exterminate them from such a huge area. But, if it were possible, I would say to catch them and relocate them. After all, if you can kill off each and everyone of them, then you should be able to catch each and every one of them instead.

Some hybrids are appealing to some people. So, as long as they don't get out in the gene pool, let them have them. As long as they are responable enough to care for them properly and keep them separate.

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.



_____________________________________________________________

There is always a bigger fish...

Dingos are not a true species. They are domesticated dogs that were broght to the continent by the Aborigines, and are responsible for the loss of many of Australia's extinct marsupials, including the thylacine.

They should be exterminated before they cause more damage, as they are purely an introduced species (domestic dog).

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

im thinking in particular of strains like crosses between indian gouramies and dwarf gouramies- if youve ever seen how a normal dwarf gourami female reacts to a hybrid male- you would in no way doubt that breeding competition could be disastrous for the species, in addition since nearly all crosses with indian gouramies result in hybrids both larger than dwarfs , and retaining the original dwarfs colouration, and requiring larger territory and foodstuffs, you can imagine how that might change the immediate environmental conditions these fish live under, by putting food sources under different pressures, and changing the amount of fish in the area. This to you and I might be a subtle difference but can have huge ramifications, and there is no reason to suppose that this cannot happen with many hundreds of other species.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 29-Aug-2005 05:50

Ok.... everyone has kinda proven a point I had.

Why is [link=this]http://www.fu-xiang.com/flowerhorn/fh3.gif" style="COLOR: #FF0000[/link] horrible and evil, while [link=this]http://user.cbn.net.id/tiram/My%20Web2/SUPER_RED_MELON_DISCUS.jpg" style="COLOR: #FF0000[/link] is just plain beautiful?

I bet if you replaced "hybrid" with "selective bred" on everyone's post, it would fit. However, selective bred fish don't get shunned nearly as much.

Perfectly reasonable point of view on your part, and given your experiences of other "keepers" probably having been rather better than mine - totally understandable. I genuinely believe that you personally wouldnt abuse fish with overbreeding or hybridisation that causes suffering, but its probably also true to say that because of my time in animal rescue I have seen the darker underbelly of animal keepers more often, often having to pick up the pieces from lifetimes of neglect, torture and ignorance , so in a way we both have valid points of view.

Yours has a certain faith in human nature and mine has rather a lack of it, time alone tells who is right about such things and to err is human as they say.

On the issue of euthanisation for disabled fish I would say it only becomes necessary when the suffering is very clear- and this applies to normally bred fish too, not just sports and hybrids. I would also take the decision to prevent them from breeding and passing on such genetically inherited traits further.

Im agreed in some things, that selective breeding for colour alone is not necessarily harmful per se, and is fine if its an easily encouraged and common mutation, but when people have to severely limit the genetic variability of the fish they are selectively using to breed from over successive generations to keep that particular trait then high levels of deformity are likely.People find that once a practice is considered totally acceptable they always push the boundaries to the point that they get complaints and some take it further to the totally illegal.I get the feeling a lot of people havent explored or read quite how far people are prepared to go.

On a supposedly reputable site about keeping monster sized fish I was dissapointed to read huge forums based primarily on what fish would kill which, and a lot of the keepers shared stories of horrifically bad fishkeeping , mostly perpetrated by themselves where they seemed to watch huge fish attack each other with glee. This to me is no better than cockfighting ,dogfighting, badger baiting etc, and is totally reprehensible.

Give people a forum where things seem acceptable and the sickos come out of the woodwork. Im not likening this directly to fish breeders, obviously its a very extreme example, but from it you can see how the mechanics of public acceptability push people to further transgress boundaries. Thats my point of not encouraging the process of hybridisation in a nutshell, if it happens occasionally or accidentally enjoy the results by all means, but dont encourage others to do it.

If people realised that some breeders offer colour and shape variants that suffer from 90% fry die off, or that 50% of the remaining mature fish have to be euthanised because of severe deformity then they might be less likely to buy them perhaps.


What im saying is - is that there isnt any prerequisite need for fish hybridisation except out human vanity and a misguided experimentation. This to me , given that deforming mutations go with the territory is in the same league of abuse as say - rubbing cosmetics into the eyes of rabbits, another basic abuse of animals for nothing more than uneccesary vanity.

The fish hobby is rife with such ridiculous behaviour as are other pet hobbies. Dogs with docked tails, cats with faces so pushed in they cant breathe, bulldogs that cant give birth without ceasarian sections, budgies with stupid feather styles that blind them and arent waterproof,Albino types of reptile that have no uv protection and die from cancer within a few years of their often 20-30 year lifespans- and often would be blinded by exposure to natural sunlight,amphibians bred to have extra legs, rats that are bred colour specifically and have urinary weaknesses and cancers for example.

And then worse we have people trying to humanise their pets through trained behaviour and clothing! Dogs made to stand endlessly on their rear legs and consequently suffering worn hips , Lizards made to wear leather jackets that they cannot thermoregulate through, collars which chafe the spines from their necks (presumably this feels like getting your hair or fingernails pulled) and some idiots even sell those mexican hats for iguanas, which as far as i can tell do nothing more than make your iguana want rip your face off, and possibly give it seasonal depression as the pineal eye on top of the head is covered.
Ive seen people suggest the clipping of an arowanas fins for aethetic reasons- which is just plain disgusting.

I could go on - and trust me the list is endless,but nearly all this stems from one emotional retardation in the human being , and that is the lack of ability to have true empathy with other species, to appreciate their position, see the world through their eyes without supposition based on our own desires.

Even if people cannot empathise with animals with any meaningful precision they have the huge and varied templates of natural ecosystems to emulate and draw from, but that is usually contrary to the rather vain reasons they get into hobbies in the first place.

The point being is that if everyone was like Callatya we would have few problems and everyone wouldnt really have an issue with selective breeding and hybridisation, since the potential danger might be minimised. But people arent like that, cant be like that, and never will be like that.Her type of conciencious thinking probably represents less than 1 % of the people that keep fish worldwide.

Some people have that empathy- some people dont - and trust me, 95% dont, and even those that do dont always have the prerequisite experience to do what is required of them, everyone knows someone who harps on endlessly after the death of a pet about their sorrow and guilt, and yet they didnt bother to to simple things like apply logic, or heaven forbid, actually read a book .They probably never will. I have no sympathy for them.


(* edited for political content - Adam)

Humans basically do not exactly have the right of dominion over animals as the religious would have you believe, but we do have the power with our infinitely advantageous brains and versatile physical attributes to do as we wish.

That alone is a frightening thought, and when there is a commercial impetus for doing something we tend to do it even if it leads to the slaughter of many species to the point of and well beyond extinction. Indeed , if there werent regulations for commercial fishing our seas might already be completely bereft of cod,tuna , sardines , and mackerel, and to be honest in some areas theyre only just hanging in there, if they die, hundreds of species of birds seals, predatory fish, reef systems, whales , dolphins,and invertabrates are left without food or predators which leads to mass starvations and pandemic disease outbreaks.

Ok this is earth shattering stuff and you may wonder what the hell it has got to do with the average aquarist with a 2 ft tank.

The answer is simple- to unlink a creature from the ecosystem of this planet- youd have to take it to the moon, or disintegrate it.

Because even tho that fish in a tank might look very isolated - it isnt. Through our actions we act as forces of change and distribution- essentially nature uses every opportunity to spread her borders, take a look at how pigeons, mice, rats and other livestock have spread to the whole of the globe with us.Fish have the barrier of water to contend with in a terrestrial world of captive existence, but it is by no means unpassable.The water changes, the exchanging of plants, the stocking of outdoor ponds, the unscrupulous dealer, the ignorant keeper. These are all timebombs waiting to go off, and they do. Daily.

It is very true that legislating or villifying people for doing what they want to in a hobby will neither be popular or very inclusive. But unchecked people will do unwittingly awful things, and while i hope that it never becomes necessary that legislation more strict than already exists be enforced on the hobbyist or breeder ( im not big on nanny stateism)it may eventually become essential to prevent animal abuse, and to open peoples eyes.

How many people have fish that survive in totally unsuitable water conditions, and even breed them? The water they are in will often be sourced from and have a greater likeness to local water courses.So in the hobby we are unwittingly breeding certain specimens to be tolerant in the range of water quality, and many are adapting to the regional variencies. Who's to say that in a decade or two even a malawi cichlid wont have been sufficiently changed to be able survive in an american river for example.

Somebody flushes the eggs down the loo, or you get a flood like in new orleans and the tank is emptied into floodwater- BINGO.What do you reckon the total amount of aquarium fish was in new orleans at the time of the flood? 100,000 or so? Think all of em will die guaranteed? Think diluted sewage in millions of gallons of floodwater will be instantly fatal to fish raised in crappy aquarium water? Think the gators will eat em all when theres more substantial prey like human and livestock remains around? Think the predatory fish will be hunting them mercilessly in water with 2 inch visibility? No, nor do I.
Combine that with the fact that most of em will be searching instinctively for fresher water and getting away from the pollution asap a few stand a reasonable chance of survival.

Quite simply captive breeding of non natural strains is a hugely significant genetic power,the ramifications of which most people are underaducated in and totally unworthy to hold responsibilty for .

So all in all, since when was doing the right thing ever the popular choice? Id rather do the right thing and be unpopular.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one

Damn fine arguements jolly well thought out by everyone tho. Its this kind of process where people think concientiously about what they do that can prevent such nanny statism or animal abuse from running riot.Hopefully we can find a happy medium.

Power to the people ! lol.


Last edited by sirbooks at 02-Sep-2005 08:49

Last edited by Adam at 02-Sep-2005 12:23

in refrence to dogs, the dingo in australia is all but extinct in its true form but for one island on which domestic dogs are banned. this could be a prime example of how fish species could be destroyed.

the original splendens has little to no irridescence and a rather stocky body.

null

My LFS stocked some wild-caught betta splendens, and they were shaped pretty much the same as the fancy ones. According to a book I own on betta breeding, the irridescense was created through mutation and selective breeding. Wild bettas aren't red, either, or white, but we have these colours now. I've never heard it suggested that our bettas are hybrids...

Sorry, I'm off topic.

Are hybrids bad? ONLY if they get bred back to purebred fish, thus polluting the gene pool... In my oppinion.

No, I don't much like them, but then again, some species will hybridize in the wild, too, so it doesn't strike me as "immoral" to hybridize in captivity. If it increases intrest in the aquarium trade, then I'm all for it. I think it's not much different than breeding ryukin goldfish, or doubletail bettas. I personally don't much care for them, but I'm not about to let personal oppinion dictate whether or not they're "bad".

And probably the only reason hybrid profiles wouldn't be allowed here is that they're HYBRIDS and therefore unpredictable; even two fish that LOOK the same would be genetically very different, so there isn't a way to say what their temprament would be like. Such is the way it is.

I'm sorry if this has been said before, I commented before reading the rest of the thread, which I'll do now.

I'm so adjective, I verb nouns!