DeeCee
Members
Good point, Francine, and well said.
DC
DC
Flowerhorns
- Thread starter SteelFist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- flowerhorns
animicrazy
Members
While I will not wade into the swamp of emotionally supercharged & overheated opinion and commentary I will mention the following:
Nut cases notwithstanding, it is generally agreed that all living things evolved from the primordial soup of life that took shape from the combination of minerals and the basic elements of oxygen and hydrogen. The development of multicellular organisms into species (note: scientists do not agree to this day on the definition of 'species') involved lateral gene transfer, vertical gene transfer and recombination, mutation (from many causes), and the interbreeding of similar species (or some would say sub-species) that produced fertile offspring which eventually (again - for many reasons) developed into a different species altogether. Thus, at some level, all of the fish in everyones tanks are a hybrid or a mutation of some sort.
As for the notion that one can create a habitat in a tank that even closely resembles the natural world is laughable. The number of variables in nature are uncountable and the effect of any single one, or combination of many, on a species is unknowable in any but the most simplistic of terms. The effect of an artificially defined environment on genetic development is also unknowable. Therefore, as much as one thinks they are reproducing "pure", in the strictest of terms, species in an artificial environment - such is not the case.
That having been said, I still appreciate the work of those people who make a good faith effort to preserve as much species distinction as possible in their breeding of fish. I have both wild type and domestic type in my tanks. One day my domestic varieties of Angelfish and Discus may well become a separate species. Perhaps a great long time from now, or perhaps not. After all, they were all something different at some point in history and even as I write this the process of speciation is occurring in the wild.
Paul McClaskey.
Nut cases notwithstanding, it is generally agreed that all living things evolved from the primordial soup of life that took shape from the combination of minerals and the basic elements of oxygen and hydrogen. The development of multicellular organisms into species (note: scientists do not agree to this day on the definition of 'species') involved lateral gene transfer, vertical gene transfer and recombination, mutation (from many causes), and the interbreeding of similar species (or some would say sub-species) that produced fertile offspring which eventually (again - for many reasons) developed into a different species altogether. Thus, at some level, all of the fish in everyones tanks are a hybrid or a mutation of some sort.
As for the notion that one can create a habitat in a tank that even closely resembles the natural world is laughable. The number of variables in nature are uncountable and the effect of any single one, or combination of many, on a species is unknowable in any but the most simplistic of terms. The effect of an artificially defined environment on genetic development is also unknowable. Therefore, as much as one thinks they are reproducing "pure", in the strictest of terms, species in an artificial environment - such is not the case.
That having been said, I still appreciate the work of those people who make a good faith effort to preserve as much species distinction as possible in their breeding of fish. I have both wild type and domestic type in my tanks. One day my domestic varieties of Angelfish and Discus may well become a separate species. Perhaps a great long time from now, or perhaps not. After all, they were all something different at some point in history and even as I write this the process of speciation is occurring in the wild.
Paul McClaskey.
SteelFist
Members
Not to get into a debate here, and with all respect, I think this is a very bold assumption. As the mere thought of this theory is in itself a laughable one as is the whole theory of evolution, IMH Belief, but to each his own.
Furthermore, the above statement you made is contradicted by your own statement in the second paragraph (in Bold). The word "unknowable" goes hand in hand with the theory that life took shape from a combination of minerals and elements of oxygen and hydrogen. Totally unproven. I don't want to get into a Creation vs Evolution contest, just strongly disagreeing with your statement in red. Does that make me a "nut case"? :lol: Absolutely not.
Though I will agree that breeding in an artificial environment cannot fully simulate a natural one.
animicrazy
Members
Dear SteelFist,
No substantive contradictions exist in my statement - although I will thank you for acknowledging the obvious that seems to elude the multitudes.
That evolution (and I have no hesitations regarding a debate) is a given needs only your attention to what has occurred in the development (change = adaptation) during our own lifetimes to humans as well as other species. Your argument seems to point to "Intelligent Design"; and all of life is that with certainty. The only question which we cannot answer is: "Where did it all begin?" (before the soup). Since I wasn't there, or don't remember, I do not care. The only issue we have is a proper understanding of the term "evolution". Many of my so called "nut cases" construe the term to represent far more then it was intended. A good analogy would be to listen to Ron Smith on AM talk radio pontificating about a bill before congress and then go and read the WHOLE bill yourself: a very different experience altogether.
One day, in a place and time far, far, away - science and religion will realize that they are one and the same: A search for the truth.
Regards,
Paul McClaskey.
No substantive contradictions exist in my statement - although I will thank you for acknowledging the obvious that seems to elude the multitudes.
That evolution (and I have no hesitations regarding a debate) is a given needs only your attention to what has occurred in the development (change = adaptation) during our own lifetimes to humans as well as other species. Your argument seems to point to "Intelligent Design"; and all of life is that with certainty. The only question which we cannot answer is: "Where did it all begin?" (before the soup). Since I wasn't there, or don't remember, I do not care. The only issue we have is a proper understanding of the term "evolution". Many of my so called "nut cases" construe the term to represent far more then it was intended. A good analogy would be to listen to Ron Smith on AM talk radio pontificating about a bill before congress and then go and read the WHOLE bill yourself: a very different experience altogether.
One day, in a place and time far, far, away - science and religion will realize that they are one and the same: A search for the truth.
Regards,
Paul McClaskey.
mscichlid
Founder
'While I will not wade into the swamp of emotionally supercharged & overheated opinion and commentary I will mention the following:'[/] :sign0197:
dogofwar
CCA Members
The thing about cichlids is that many of them are really closely related...so close in fact that different "species" can reproduce...geography, behavior or other factors mostly keep interbreeding from happening, although "hybridization" also seems to occur in nature.
That said, random hybridization (in nature or a fish tank) is very, very different from the systematic efforts that people have taken to "create" flowerhorns, fancy goldfish, koi, discus, bettas, swordtails, etc.
These "super-natural" creatures - very different from the sublimely beautiful ones found in nature - were created on purpose because someone thought people would buy them. Which they do...
Although we continue to call this a "swordtail" ( http://aquariumfish.net/images_01/swordtai...ongfin_w180.jpg ) doesn't mean that it's (genetically) the same as the "swordtails" that swim around in Central America. It's got some helleri from one area...and some montezumae for the longer sword...and probably some platy for the red color...and something else for the long fin gene.
What mattered to the person that probably spent years creating it is that it is a long, finned, red-eyed, fish...not that it is authentic to its wild progener.
I'd imagine the same is true of the people that brought us Flowerhorns (I like Trimacs but how can I get one with a bigger hump?)
That said, random hybridization (in nature or a fish tank) is very, very different from the systematic efforts that people have taken to "create" flowerhorns, fancy goldfish, koi, discus, bettas, swordtails, etc.
These "super-natural" creatures - very different from the sublimely beautiful ones found in nature - were created on purpose because someone thought people would buy them. Which they do...
Although we continue to call this a "swordtail" ( http://aquariumfish.net/images_01/swordtai...ongfin_w180.jpg ) doesn't mean that it's (genetically) the same as the "swordtails" that swim around in Central America. It's got some helleri from one area...and some montezumae for the longer sword...and probably some platy for the red color...and something else for the long fin gene.
What mattered to the person that probably spent years creating it is that it is a long, finned, red-eyed, fish...not that it is authentic to its wild progener.
I'd imagine the same is true of the people that brought us Flowerhorns (I like Trimacs but how can I get one with a bigger hump?)
DeeCee
Members
Matt, that makes sense to me. I know that hybridizations occur in nature between different cichlids, and that's more or less uncontrollable (and probably their way of line survival). But man-made interspecies breeding is a whole 'nuther animal (sorry for the pun). I REALLY don't want it to turn into a religious debate again, but I do think that some cross-breeding in nature is all part of an evolutionary process. It's when man steps in that things start getting ugly. I think men and scientists go too far sometimes.
That having been said - I STILL love discus and their many types, colors etc.
The same is probably true for Flowerhorn people and their fish.
I believe that as long as we also keep "pure" species pure, we'll be fine and it's all good.
Now if we could just keep people from releasing fish into waterways....... :smashfreakB:
DC
That having been said - I STILL love discus and their many types, colors etc.
The same is probably true for Flowerhorn people and their fish.
I believe that as long as we also keep "pure" species pure, we'll be fine and it's all good.
Now if we could just keep people from releasing fish into waterways....... :smashfreakB:
DC
SubMariner
Master Jedi & Past VP
Damn!!!!!!!!!!!
Yo Paul, take it easy Dude! Steelfist, you got served!!!!!! :smashfreakB:
OK Duane, you're up to bat.
mscichlid
Founder
Damn!!!!!!!!!!!
Steelfist, you got served!!!!!! :smashfreakB:
OK Duane, you're up to bat.[/b]
Please don't instigate heated discussions. This post is of valid concerns and should invite all who have opinions to feel free to voice them without judgement or malicous intent.
maddog10
Members
I agree!
SubMariner
Master Jedi & Past VP
My bad Franny...
I just enjoy the intellectual wrestling of words that stimulate our minds, especially in these discussions.
It's nice to see how people express their opinion and at the same time it's educational.
I never meant to start any malicious argument, but merely a interesting debate between two meticulous individuals who are fish enthusiasts. That's all.
I just enjoy the intellectual wrestling of words that stimulate our minds, especially in these discussions.
It's nice to see how people express their opinion and at the same time it's educational.
I never meant to start any malicious argument, but merely a interesting debate between two meticulous individuals who are fish enthusiasts. That's all.
SubMariner
Master Jedi & Past VP
Bad Richard! :smashfreakB:
Baddddddddd Richard! :spanka:
Oopsie! :beamup:
Baddddddddd Richard! :spanka:
Oopsie! :beamup:
dogofwar
CCA Members
Couldn't agree more...
The rapid adaption of cichlids to new habitats / niches is (in my opinion) a great example of evolution in action.
Scientific taxonomy is an inherently imperfect, man-made way of organizing the world's creatures. The recent reclassification of what you or I would call "a convict" into multiple species is a good example of (my opinion again) trying to categorize the uncatergorizable... And Honduran Red Points still aren't a recognized species.
As I posted before, I think that there is a place in the hobby for concientious fishkeepers of all kinds. And that those who keep and enjoy big, mean cichlids that are wild-type and those who enjoy big, mean cichlids that are hybrids have a lot more in common than many of the wild-type folks enthusiasts readily admit...
And - for the record - I like medium-sized, mean cichlids.
Matt
The rapid adaption of cichlids to new habitats / niches is (in my opinion) a great example of evolution in action.
Scientific taxonomy is an inherently imperfect, man-made way of organizing the world's creatures. The recent reclassification of what you or I would call "a convict" into multiple species is a good example of (my opinion again) trying to categorize the uncatergorizable... And Honduran Red Points still aren't a recognized species.
As I posted before, I think that there is a place in the hobby for concientious fishkeepers of all kinds. And that those who keep and enjoy big, mean cichlids that are wild-type and those who enjoy big, mean cichlids that are hybrids have a lot more in common than many of the wild-type folks enthusiasts readily admit...
And - for the record - I like medium-sized, mean cichlids.
Matt
Sonny Disposition
Well-Known Member
It depends on your point of view. If you go collecting, you'll find Poecilia velifera, Poecilia latipinna, and Poecilia and Poecilia petensis, depending on where you do your collecting. If you bought orange sailfin mollies in a store, you'd most likely be buying a fish that had ancestry from all three species, and maybe Poecilia sphenops to boot. When you can get them to spawn, the fry often don't grow up to look like their parents.
Likewise, there are lots of goldfish varieties missing dorsal fins, or with big bubble eyes, or with long flowing fins that would probably die in the wild.
Likewise, there are lots of goldfish varieties missing dorsal fins, or with big bubble eyes, or with long flowing fins that would probably die in the wild.
SteelFist
Members
Truthfully, I did not intend to argue my belief as an "Intelligent Design" or what have you. Nor did I think I eluded the multitudes. Your original statement that I highlighted in red seemed like a bold assumption and in reading that, it seemed as though (or as you say - an obvious acknowledgement) you were referring to the theory of evolution, which was the only reason I brought it up. Throw in "Nut-Cases Notwithstanding" and the temperature increased. If I misunderstood you, then my bad.
Your analogy of the talk show is a good one that I think everyone should practice. I started the thread acknowleging that I have little to zero understanding about the FH and its derivation. In learning more about them, thanks to many on this MB, I can make my own decisions about whether or not to own one. And thats what it seems to boil down to, everyone discerning for themselves or to each his own.
longstocking
Members
Bottom line for me is this...
I don't care what the heck any of you keep. I do care if you lie about a fish and pass it onto another hobbyist as something it is not. Damaging the hobby ! BY this I mean if you sell a FH to someone you NEED to inform of them how how they came about. Not just sell the fish as a FH. We need to inform people so they can make their educated decision.
Other than that... I don't care.... I keep what I like you should keep what you like.
It may sound harsh but I don't keep fish for any of you ... I keep them because I enjoy them !
Religion and evolution... blah.... like we are going to ever figure it out. So keep what you want to keep just don't lie about it.
I don't know how many of these threads I have seen over the years. They never go anywhere. Don't damage the hobby and I don't care
I don't care what the heck any of you keep. I do care if you lie about a fish and pass it onto another hobbyist as something it is not. Damaging the hobby ! BY this I mean if you sell a FH to someone you NEED to inform of them how how they came about. Not just sell the fish as a FH. We need to inform people so they can make their educated decision.
Other than that... I don't care.... I keep what I like you should keep what you like.
It may sound harsh but I don't keep fish for any of you ... I keep them because I enjoy them !
Religion and evolution... blah.... like we are going to ever figure it out. So keep what you want to keep just don't lie about it.
I don't know how many of these threads I have seen over the years. They never go anywhere. Don't damage the hobby and I don't care
dogofwar
CCA Members
The only way that these kinds of conversations "go anywhere" is if people with pre-conceived notions about people who keep Flowerhorns realize that they have more in common with these folks than they do differences.
The future of cichlid-focused organizations attracting and retaining new members (in my opinion) is in the "big tent" vs. the small one. Just as some of the people who enter the hobby through keeping fancy guppies or red swordtails move into keeping and learning about conservation of goodeids and other native-type livebearers, Flower horn keepers are a great source of people to fuel the similar efforts in cichlid circles.
Responsible flower horn keepers (i.e. do water changes and take care of their fish, don't pass on mislabeled fish) shouldn't feel inferior, looked down upon, or shunned because they've chosen to keep colorful mean, large cichlids (i.e. flowerhorns) vs. native-type ones.
PS I started in the hobby over 25 years ago with fancy bettas...that led to an interest in wild type ones...and then other fish.
The future of cichlid-focused organizations attracting and retaining new members (in my opinion) is in the "big tent" vs. the small one. Just as some of the people who enter the hobby through keeping fancy guppies or red swordtails move into keeping and learning about conservation of goodeids and other native-type livebearers, Flower horn keepers are a great source of people to fuel the similar efforts in cichlid circles.
Responsible flower horn keepers (i.e. do water changes and take care of their fish, don't pass on mislabeled fish) shouldn't feel inferior, looked down upon, or shunned because they've chosen to keep colorful mean, large cichlids (i.e. flowerhorns) vs. native-type ones.
PS I started in the hobby over 25 years ago with fancy bettas...that led to an interest in wild type ones...and then other fish.
Bottom line for me is this...
I don't care what the heck any of you keep. I do care if you lie about a fish and pass it onto another hobbyist as something it is not. Damaging the hobby ! BY this I mean if you sell a FH to someone you NEED to inform of them how how they came about. Not just sell the fish as a FH. We need to inform people so they can make their educated decision.
Other than that... I don't care.... I keep what I like you should keep what you like.
It may sound harsh but I don't keep fish for any of you ... I keep them because I enjoy them !
Religion and evolution... blah.... like we are going to ever figure it out. So keep what you want to keep just don't lie about it.
I don't know how many of these threads I have seen over the years. They never go anywhere. Don't damage the hobby and I don't care
longstocking
Members
The point I was trying to make... but guess got lost is that I don't have any pre-conceived notions on what anyone keeps. Keep what makes you happy. End of story.
Just don't lie and try to be well informed. Which I think every one should be. That I will judge someone on LOL
Just don't lie and try to be well informed. Which I think every one should be. That I will judge someone on LOL
DeeCee
Members
I WISH that pet stores would note when fish are hybrids though. It makes it really hard for the average hobbyist to know what they're buying when they first start out, unless they do all kinds of research before they buy. How unlikely is THAT?
DC
DC
dogofwar
CCA Members
Couldn't agree more...I'm a strong supporter of the "keep what makes you happy club" :smile:
Wish more didn't have pre-conceived notions and prejudices, though...which I think is something that also harms the hobby.
Wish more didn't have pre-conceived notions and prejudices, though...which I think is something that also harms the hobby.
