Wow! New hybrid pygmy angelfish reared at RCT! [Archive]

jmaneyapanda

09/04/2006, 07:48 AM

Michael:

Just because no one has done it before, doesnt mean it should be done! I know thats very Jurassic Park, but it is true! Most naturally occuring hybrids are sterile, and cannot reproduce (like a mule). When this occurs in nature, it will not continue due to this fact. If it does continue, and the offspring are fertile, and the offspring have some tangible advantage, they would become a new species. However, Pacific and Caribbean fish would NEVER interbreed in the wild. I think we can all agree that Frank has serious skills, and is likely better at what he does than anyone else, but artificial selection and pairing in captivity is a hornets nest. They absoluetly make pretty fish, but there will be a fitness tradeoff, guaranteed. Otherwise, nature would've done it already.

As for the clownfish, these are likely evolutionarily unfit animals which would likely never survive in the wild, and have been created (or better phrased re-created) by some degree of inbreeding. Same ball of wax- an unpublicized flaw with come with these animals. The anomolous color patterns in wild fish (like the queen angels from St. Pauls Rock) are due to localized inbreeding populations, and probably suffer from maladies (although no one really knows).

Without getting into a ridiculous argument/discussion, or offending anyone- sometimes creating new species or animals should be left to higher powers than humans.

Im off my soapbox.

cwegescheide

09/04/2006, 08:05 AM

600 + for an angelfish????????????? Geez Louise!!! Makes that 75 dollar flame sound pretty cheap! I do appreciate the fact that some of these angelfish are rare and I think its kindof cool to have something unique in your reef though. It gets a little boring in a way when you see somebody's reef and they all have the same fish.

If I spent that kind of cash for fish I'd be finding a harness for them so when they jump out of the tank they'd bungi right back in!!! :lol:

sirbooks

09/04/2006, 09:13 AM

Trueblackpercula, you made a mistake in quoting me. Steven was the one to say:

I hate artificial hybrids. What are we going to have next, Mickey Mouse Domino Damsels, Balloon Green Chromis, Fantail Ocellaris Clowns?

I still agree with him, however. No one has bashed this breeder, it's just that some of us feel that he shouldn't be making hybrid angels. I don't see why you think anybody is attacking him. In fact, I made note of the talent he had in producing these fish.

I like Triggers

09/04/2006, 10:40 AM

well it is better for the hobby to have tank bred fish. he is creating nice fish, if you dont like them, dont buy them. it is as simple as that. they are there for the people who want them. this is a good step for salt water to take, these fish tank bred will do better in aquariums. this is better for nature.

jmaneyapanda

09/04/2006, 11:28 AM

triggers- not to be combatative, but i respectively disagree. I think it is a bad step to start creating hybrids. You are absolutely 100% correct about not buying them if you dont like it. Absolutely- without doubt. I highly doubt anyone here will who disagrees with this principle will buy one. Hwoever, this is not an order form for his company, but instead a discussion forum about his hybridization.
While I agree tank bred fish will do better in the aquarium, it will not stop collection from wild areas. For most fish, such as this, the cost is significantly higher than collected specimens. Until this is resolved, collection will continue- and it has nothing to do with technology. Martin Moe was captive raising french angels in the 70's, and how many captive french angels do you think are out there? Because it was too cost prohibitive. This is working for freshwater fish nowadays, captive rasied fish are just as cheap, if not cheaper than wild. Clownfish also seem to following track, too, which is wonderful.
My argument with hybridization is purely ethical. I think there is a very scientific reason these fish have not been bred previously, in wild or nature. To omit this possibility for the benefit of profit is not something I think is proper. So I won't buy this fish. That is all I hope to say.

trueblackpercula

09/04/2006, 05:52 PM

sirbooks
Sorry :D

dstall

09/04/2006, 07:31 PM

How do you determine if $800 is reasonable price for these fish? Whats the basis? I have seen other rare fish no ware near this price. I'm sure a lot of work/cost went into producing these fish, but have issues with creating thes hybreds..

wayne in norway

09/05/2006, 06:53 AM

Try it yourself. You'll soon see where 800 dollars worth of work went. Raising Centropyge is not for the faint hearted, (or people with 'day jobs'). He has to pay himself a wage over a year period for maybe 500 total fish raised a year, and after considerable expenses are removed.

I'm a big fan of Franks work, but I'm with Steven on this - I do NOT like hybrids. Coming from cichlids does that for you. It's a nonargument for marine keepers at this point as not enough people are breeding fish, but it will be.

jerryz

09/05/2006, 08:38 AM

jmaneyapanda - You mean like dogs (how many breeds), cats, horses, cows and all of those other naturally occuring animals? oh I gbet your argument now. Those are OK because they were selectively bred by our ancestors using techniques available to them at the time and the animals are now completely fixed as usefull or entertaining parts of our lives.

So it enters this part of our "culture." Better give back your cat or dog, stop eating meat (except perhaps goat), and watch the pressures on the fish and cortals increase dramatically as more and more people enter the hobby.

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 09:37 AM

A number of Centropyges interbreed naturally in the wild - is that a problem, too?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8074574#post8074574 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by cwegescheide

If I spent that kind of cash for fish I'd be finding a harness for them so when they jump out of the tank they'd bungi right back in!!! :lol:
:lol: How cute - little fishy harnesses!

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 09:46 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8075670#post8075670 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Martin Moe was captive raising french angels in the 70's, and how many captive french angels do you think are out there? Because it was too cost prohibitive.

That is going to be changing - there is a lot of work being done on raising pods. Some even government funded. It will be be very lucrative for those who are most successful.

I think there is a very scientific reason these fish have not been bred previously, in wild or nature.
As I mentioned above dwarf angels do interbreed in the wild - mainly when there are fewer of the same breed fish to mate with, that's why Frank was able to do it. It wasn't any kind of "test tube" level science.

marinelife

09/05/2006, 09:53 AM

I think they should work on raising more variety of fish than making Hybrids. To many fish are still not captive breed that they should work on. I have seen some hyrids in LFS and they are cool and I almost got it and still maybe for someone to go out and do it on purpose I would not support that when other advances in the hobby need to come first

MJAnderson

09/05/2006, 10:02 AM

It seems like all he did was bring 2 species that don't normally co-exist together. We've been doing the same thing for thousands of years. I don't see any genetic engineering going on here or anything that makes it "unnatural".

Amphiprion

09/05/2006, 10:17 AM

Many people view human intervention in, well, 'natural' affairs to be unnatural. That is one of the foundations of 'naturalism.' But I don't think most people object to hybridization in nature (i.e. Holocanthus cililaris x H. bermudensis, etc) and mimicking that, rather to completely atypical hybridizations of isolated or distinct species. I can agree that we, as humans, have been doing this for quite a while, but that doesn't necessarily mean that people have to agree with it. Many people want to preserve the distinctness of species.

jmaneyapanda

09/05/2006, 10:44 AM

Jerryz- I do not agree with your argument. The animals you have listed are domesticated over hundreds and nudreds of years. Should it have been done back then- maybe or maybe not. They had different purposes, though. Domestic livestock were bred for food, and domestic companions were bred as work animals. What wild cows are out there that aren't feral? Same with horses and dogs? There are none. They are different species. Give back our cats and dogs? To where? Where do poodles and tabbys occur in the wild? And as for your conclusion, I never once said captive raising fish is bad. In fact, I quite promoted the practice. I think intentionally hybridizing animals for profit is improper. And for the record, I do not have a bad impression of this business as a whole. If I had the incliniation for a drawf angel, I believe he would be a top source. I just don't agree with RCT's choice in this pairing.

Angel-fish- The pairing RCT is creating is NOT natural because one is a Pacific species, and one is an Atlantic species. If he were re-creating something that did happen naturally I would have a far better opinion of it.

One final point I would like to make of this. On their website, the even go as to say the Resplendant angel is an IUCN redlisted animal. For those who don't know, that means it is CITES I- the highest rating of endangerment given out to any species. Should wild collection be forbidden- absolutely. Should these fish be captive bred- absolutely. Should this fish be used for breeding hybrids- absolutely not. If the international conservation groups consider this animal so endangered to make it CITES I, I think it should be being bred with another Resplendant, not a Fisher's, making hybrids.

This is all just my opinion, and I would be quite happy to respectively discuss it with anyone who would like. Please feel free to contact me personally if you have any complaints, issues, or other comments.

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 11:13 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8081960#post8081960 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda

Angel-fish- The pairing RCT is creating is NOT natural because one is a Pacific species, and one is an Atlantic species. If he were re-creating something that did happen naturally I would have a far better opinion of it.

If I said anything to imply that I think the pairing of these two species was "natural", I apologize. What is natural is for two angels of a different species to pair in the absence of its same species.

Just curious, why would your opinion be more favorable if they were hybrids that naturally occur - I'm not being argumentative - I really want to understand :)

jmaneyapanda

09/05/2006, 12:20 PM

Marie- I certainly would be more understanding if it did naturally occur. As RCT mentioned, many drawf angels hybrids occur naturally in the wild. When this occurs in the wild, nature has a way of dealing with it. Whether it be the fact that they are likely sterile, or perhaps they have some environmental advantage, and thrive. Maybe they themselves become a new species over time. Whatever happens, nature has taken account of it. This has happened for over 100 million years.
The issue I have is that RCT is trying to accomplish this in a mere few years. This situation never occurs naturally- why? Because of geographic differences only? Perhaps. But for whatever reason, nature has decided it is not meant to be.

I believe your question is- if RCT had a pairing of Flame angels and Potters angels, would that be ok? I still dont think I would buy one, but I would be appreciative of the effort, because they are not making a fish that is previously unknown. Overall, I think artificial and purposeful hybridization is a bad ecological concept.

AdidaKev

09/05/2006, 12:24 PM

I agree completely with you, jmaneyapanda. When hybrids occur in the wild, it is for a reason. Artificial hybridization benefits neither specie involved, especially if the species are from different oceans.

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 12:32 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8082486#post8082486 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Marie- I certainly would be more understanding if it did naturally occur. As RCT mentioned, many drawf angels hybrids occur naturally in the wild. When this occurs in the wild, nature has a way of dealing with it. Whether it be the fact that they are likely sterile, or perhaps they have some environmental advantage, and thrive. Maybe they themselves become a new species over time. Whatever happens, nature has taken account of it. This has happened for over 100 million years.
The issue I have is that RCT is trying to accomplish this in a mere few years. This situation never occurs naturally- why? Because of geographic differences only? Perhaps. But for whatever reason, nature has decided it is not meant to be.

I believe your question is- if RCT had a pairing of Flame angels and Potters angels, would that be ok? I still dont think I would buy one, but I would be appreciative of the effort, because they are not making a fish that is previously unknown. Overall, I think artificial and purposeful hybridization is a bad ecological concept.

So is your concern that they could be released to the wild and cause some kind of upset in the existing balance? Or just that it's wrong to do it?

Or that they will take over an island and kill anyone who comes there? Sorry - j/k - I love those Jurassic Park movies :D - That would make a good movie - ~Killer Mutant Centropyges~ They're cute, but they're killers! ;)

jmaneyapanda

09/05/2006, 01:19 PM

No, my concern is not that they will take over the world. My concern is purely ethical. And, of course, ethics vary from one person to the next.

Along those lines, though, we can all agree that releasing non native fish can and will cause ecological unbalance, correct? Why is this? Because nature has selected against those fish being there, sometime historically. The same way nature has selected for these two fish not to breed. I know, it is a dissimilar topic, but the same principal. If we can create these hybrids just because we can, then why can we redistribute the species, just because we can?

Yes, JP was a good movie, especially for someone with a background in evolutionary biology. Some things were quite ridiculous, and yet some things so dead on! Jeff Goldblum did his homework- he said some true things.

Meisen

09/05/2006, 01:48 PM

Hmm not even sure where to dig into this discussion. So many of you make good points about hybridization. Ultimately though, as long as there is care to prevent release (which I am sure is present at RCT's facility), I dont see what the huge fuss is. Any animal kept in captivity is ecologically dead as long as it stays captive. Anyone who pays 800.00 for a fish is likely to want to keep it captive one would think. The very small possibility does exist that it will escape/get freed somewhere where it (one tiny site-specific fish) will have a chance to interbreed with existing Centropyge populations. In this context, I think that the potential for the more commonly exported Pacific species to intermix/interbreed with Atlantic species is a much greater threat to genetic/ecological stability than any one-off manmade hybrid is.

The whole issue is very similar to what reptile hobbyists faced a number of years ago with mutations, hybrids and freaks in that hobby. Some folks love em, some dont, the market rules and as far as I know, no one is/has been releasing their bubblegum cornsnakes or jungle corns in the wild to deleterious effects.

Meisen

09/05/2006, 01:53 PM

jmanyapanda,

You make a good point here. Ethics aside, it has been historically shown that introduction of totally new, unrelated species is typically much more damaging than genetic drift/pollution caused to populations from hybridization. In some cases, a population was even saved by that very thing happening....Though some would argue that the resulting population was no longer a valid one (ie "red wolves" and cheetahs).

zuzecawi

09/05/2006, 02:04 PM

After reading all of this...
I think the best point made was that with Resplendants being on the CITES I list... it DOES seem tragic that the small amount of captive stock is being squandered on hybridization rather than repopulation efforts. How many of you know what a California Condor is? I wonder if anybody would have thought it acceptable to cross a Ca Condor with a turkey vulture. Oh, they look similar enough... even occupy the same space.
But why do that when you could just breed condors again and possibly someday release them back to their habitat?
There is the argument that even if we captive breed endangered species, they can't return to wild because of pathogens encountered in captivity. Yet, what is quarantining for? Is this not what we do to bring things from the wild to our aquarium?
Which is more important... economics, aesthetics, or recovering our rapidly deteriorating natural resources? Possibly even... rejuvenating our wounded earth?

I know where my money would go.

AdidaKev

09/05/2006, 02:44 PM

Well put, zuzecawi. :)

jmaneyapanda

09/05/2006, 03:46 PM

Meisen- yes, you are correct on many points. Ecologically- these new hybrids are likely no great danger. My objection is ethics. What do we do when it is commonplace to breed these hybrids (such as with clowns or freshwater fish)? Will it be a problem then? Furthermore, what is the value in these hybrids, except profit in RCT's pocket? I am not a hater- more power to the entrepeneurs who can make a buck, but they need to be ethical.

Zuzecawi- my point exactly.

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 05:14 PM

On Zuzecawi's points - Do we even know that Bensch is not also trying to breed the ones on the CITES list to each other? And if he's not, who knows? Maybe it's because so far he's only been able to obtain a single fish or something?

Seems to me a little more info is needed before the bashing begins.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8082878#post8082878 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda

Yes, JP was a good movie, especially for someone with a background in evolutionary biology. Some things were quite ridiculous, and yet some things so dead on! Jeff Goldblum did his homework- he said some true things.
Thanks for your reply :D And I liked Goldblum's line that went something like, "Life will find a way" .

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 05:26 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8083189#post8083189 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
Which is more important... economics, aesthetics, or recovering our rapidly deteriorating natural resources? Possibly even... rejuvenating our wounded earth?

Unfortunately "Economics will find a way" :( That may seem cynical, but economics often is a very powerful "selector" in our species.

Meisen

09/05/2006, 06:09 PM

Angelfish, FWIW, I think that he has bred pure resplendents several times before. Nothing wrong with letting economics help to drive science and conservation in my book. They need all the help they can get IMHO.

jmanyapanda, I see what you are saying. I guess we just fall on different sides of the line. My take is the hobby is already killing (or removing from the gene pool) millions of animals a year and certainly having a significant and measurable impact on the marine ecosystems. What people do with those animals from a ecological standpoint is moot. I personally am much more concerned with that issue than what people do with captive animals. If breeding freaks helps RCT stay solvent, and thus continue reducing collection pressure and advancing the science of captive breeding, I say bully for them. Personally I wouldn't buy one, natural-type specimens are more appealing to me. Probably for the same reasons you have JMP. ;)

Angel*Fish

09/05/2006, 06:16 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8084820#post8084820 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Meisen
Angelfish, FWIW, I think that he has bred pure resplendents several times before. Nothing wrong with letting economics help to drive science and conservation in my book. They need all the help they can get IMHO.

I don't want to sound like I'm against economics and a free market system - it's just that when the economic factors that prevail detrimentally effect the environment - I hate to see it

Steven Pro

09/05/2006, 07:00 PM

The risk to the environment is miniscule. Anyone that pays $800 for a fish is very unlikely to chuck it in the ocean when they tire of it.

Also, I could care less what they charge for any fish. If they can get $10,000 for a captive raised Centropyge, good for them.

I just don't like where I see this going. Googlely eye clownfish, fantail angelfish, red and black humbug damsels (due to painting of course), and all the other freakish things people have done to freshwater fish.

Meisen

09/05/2006, 09:03 PM

With you on that Steven,

But its our pocketbooks that will vote on that one just as freshwater hobbyists have voted for freaks. I do have to say I draw the line at painting (ie glassfish).....PETA should get in on that case (and in our hobby, some anemones and corals). If they could drop the fuzzy wuzzie bunnies for a moment that is...

jmaneyapanda

09/06/2006, 06:11 AM

Meiseni- I disagree- animals are being lost to the gene through natural processes all the time- ie- natural death, consumption by a predator, natural disaster, intraspecific competition, HUMAN INVOLVEMENT. These are all part of nature. Does the fisherman who catches an angelfish and feeds it to his family bear any less responsibility than the fisherman that catches an angelsfish and sells it to feed his family? Any different from the shark that eats the angelsfish? In all cases the fish is gone from the gene pool, and this is was selection of the fittest is all about. Certainly humans have an advantage, and moral responsibility, which is why laws are in place. But to say, or more correctly phrased- imply, that husbandry of captive populations is a non-factor in wild ecology is bad inference. Because of captive husbandry and its ethics; zoos, aquariums, and even private aquarists have strived to keep better care of their animals, and unnecessary death and waste in the hobby has decreased in the past 20 years. Would you agree?

Angel-fish- as stated, RCT has captive bred Resplndent angels true to the species. That still doesn't validate him using one for hybrididzation. The significantly issue I am admitting I did not think through or know is, how was this unnatural pair created? Was it accident or purposeful? If RCT did not intend to create this hybridization, I will accept the accidental occurance. However, I am speculating it was purposefully created. Regarding ethics vs. economics- that is not a dead issue. There is a reason aquarist groups attack people who try to keep those gorgeous obligate crallivore butterflies in fish tanks. Same as goniopora corals and pinnatus batfish and nurse sharks. The aquraium community wants to be responsible, despite the economics of it. This is where ethics beats economics. However, I am curious to see where this road leads with the hybrid centropyges.

jmaneyapanda

09/06/2006, 07:27 AM

Steven Pro- with you too- 100%. However, the situation you're describing is likely from inbreeding to prolong a "desireable" mutation, not hybridization. This too gets my hackles up- especially when people talk about them being a "different" species. Oh, no no no!! Siegfried and Roy would also talk about conservation of their endangered white tigers. They're just sisters bred to brothers bred to mothers bred to sons and so on. Like they dont have serious medical issues because iof it (and I'm not even talking about Roy! :lol: I know, bad taste.

RicksReefs

09/06/2006, 07:32 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8085162#post8085162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
The risk to the environment is miniscule. Anyone that pays $800 for a fish is very unlikely to chuck it in the ocean when they tire of it.

I wish that were true, but unfortunately some people think they're doing the fish a favor by releasing it. florida abounds with pacific fish that cost some good bucks. they dump $1000 worth of fish and coral without a thought.

http://www.reef.org/exotic/index.html

copps

09/06/2006, 09:22 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8081682#post8081682 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by marinelife
I think they should work on raising more variety of fish than making Hybrids. To many fish are still not captive breed that they should work on.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8083904#post8083904 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Furthermore, what is the value in these hybrids, except profit in RCT's pocket? I am not a hater- more power to the entrepeneurs who can make a buck, but they need to be ethical.

Zuzecawi- my point exactly.

Hold the horses! Okay ladies and gents, before the onslaught continues, we need to get our facts straight. I've had the opportunity to meet Frank at his house and facility and have been a fan of his for years. What is lacking in this thread is relevant information on both Frank's operation and on Centropyge resplendens in the wild. First off, Frank is a true pioneer in the hobby, not only trailblazing these captive breeding efforts, but also sharing alot of data in publications compiled over years of effort including the two species of copepod nauplii his angel larvae are feeding on. But anyway, no one could argue his contributions to this, so I'll move to a more relevant perspective.

The amount of effort that Frank and his wife put into their business is unbelievable. People speak above as if he woke up one day and said "I'm going to create a Hawaiian resplendens today!". For every fish that Frank has available at RCT there are dozens behind the scenes that prove fruitless. When Frank does have larvae the schedule raising the fry when we spoke reminded me of when my now 1 year old boy was a newborn, around the clock... He's a fascinating man with a passion, using aquarium sales to fund his research and facility (which consists of his basement and garage in his perfectly modest house). If money were his mission as many imply above, he could use his education and smarts to make much more money with much less time invested elsewhere. Hybridization occurs very rarely in nature in Centropyge, usually where one species is very scarce and the other is common, and is that much tougher to recreate in captivity. Producing a captive raised hybrid is a tremendous advance in science and in Frank's research, and without going into detail, resulted from lots of work with other pairs. Should Frank destroy the young and not profit from these simply because they don't naturally occur and some people find objection to it? Frank is meticulous in documenting every step of the way and this success will go a long way in the eventual successes of naturally occurring hybrids. The profits made from this fish go to AN EXCELLENT CAUSE, not to a new Ferrari. It's very easy for people to critique and bash, yet these fish, the first produced in a while, will allow Frank to continue to support his research and modest living. That makes this worth it. Again he cannot just say "Fish produce!". He has a tremendous demand that he just cannot supply.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8082878#post8082878 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
If we can create these hybrids just because we can, then why can we redistribute the species, just because we can?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8083189#post8083189 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
After reading all of this...
I think the best point made was that with Resplendants being on the CITES I list... it DOES seem tragic that the small amount of captive stock is being squandered on hybridization rather than repopulation efforts. How many of you know what a California Condor is? I wonder if anybody would have thought it acceptable to cross a Ca Condor with a turkey vulture. Oh, they look similar enough... even occupy the same space.
But why do that when you could just breed condors again and possibly someday release them back to their habitat?
There is the argument that even if we captive breed endangered species, they can't return to wild because of pathogens encountered in captivity. Yet, what is quarantining for? Is this not what we do to bring things from the wild to our aquarium?
Which is more important... economics, aesthetics, or recovering our rapidly deteriorating natural resources? Possibly even... rejuvenating our wounded earth?

I know where my money would go.

Centropyge resplendens is listed on the IUCN red list for no other reason than it's limited range of Ascension Island in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean. It's resilience is high and it's doubling time is low with as little environmental pressure as possible, and therefore is at equilibrium in nature. Talks about redistributing it to the wild and comparing it to the California condor are completely off base. There is no problem with finding objection to this hydridization, but you at least need to have a basic understanding of the species you're talking about. Any civilian could now visit Ascension Island with permission, as Jens Kallmeyer did in 2004. Here are a couple of his images showing the abundance of C. resplendens in shallow water on the island... Local abundance is typical with Centropyge with limited range, as is the case with C. joculator and C. hotamatua for example. There is no point or need to reintroduce C. resplendens...
http://xs203.xs.to/xs203/06292/ascension.jpg (http://xs.to)
http://xs203.xs.to/xs203/06292/ascension2.jpg (http://xs.to)

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8075670#post8075670 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
For most fish, such as this, the cost is significantly higher than collected specimens. Until this is resolved, collection will continue- and it has nothing to do with technology.

What species are you speaking of here?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8085162#post8085162 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
I just don't like where I see this going. Googlely eye clownfish, fantail angelfish, red and black humbug damsels (due to painting of course), and all the other freakish things people have done to freshwater fish.

To compare Frank's work and research on Centropyge hybridization (which spans years and goes well beyond this species combnation), with painted damsels is an insult. Again, disagreeing with unnatural hybridization has merits, but not on this basis.

jmaneyapanda

09/06/2006, 09:54 AM

John- thanks for the reply. As you mentioned, no one has any issues with Franks abilities, devotion, or means of living. As with any business, you need to have capital to operate. I did not mean to imply that Frank is solely doing this to put a hot tub on his deck. I see how what I said could've been taken that way, so I do apologize to Frank and anyone else who felt I was out of line.
Perhaps you can help shed some light for me. How and why was this pair created? Was it to study the breeding habits of these species? Was it accidental? Personally, I do NOT think it is as difficult as you say to create artficial hybrids in captivity. In fact, I think it may be easier. As you stated, these fish hybridize in the wild naturally when there is a limited population of one species. So putting a male of one species and a female of another fails to replicate this how? These fish do not need huge groups to reproduce, as Frank has shown. Pairs will suffice. But as I mentioned, I fear my ignorance into the history of this pair is clouded. Were they put together to specifically breed?
Secondly, perhaps you can tell me how creating these hybrids is a tremendous advance is science. I do not understand that. Whjat has been learned? How can this be applied to other species? I agree has been able to figure out a huge step in captive rasiing with centrpyge by cultivation of food sources, but how is it different with this pair than with a true pair of any centropyge species? Frank should not need to destroy these hybrids and not profit, but Frank shouldn't have done it in the first place in my mind. as I mentioned earlier, if it happened through ignorance, then I am appeasable. I have done many things through ignorance, and sometimes they even worked. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean I can or should keep doing it that way.

As for the IUCN list, I fear you are not looking at the whole issue. They are put on the list because they are solely a localized population, and ANY localized population of any animal is at risk, no matter how numerous they may appear. Passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions and were a rather localized species. In about 11 years they were wiped out completely. I know you are not arguing this, but I dont think it's as off base as you say. To argue the validity of inclusion on an endangered list to justify means of utilizing the species is a rather weka argument. I am not saying they cant be kept or bred in captivity, but that responsibility should merit them not being used to create novelties.

In regards to cost issues- a wild flame angel costs about 60 or 70 bucks. How much does Frank charge? That is my point. I understand he is not gouging, and this is a reasonable cost for the effrot and product, but as Angel-fish said, sometimes economics will beat out ecologics.

Once again, please understand, I hold RCT as a pioneer and truly reveolutionary facility for being able to accomplish what many thought was not possible. I just not agree that Frank has benefitted his research and reputation by creating these hybrids.

copps

09/06/2006, 01:31 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8088737#post8088737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
John- thanks for the reply. As you mentioned, no one has any issues with Franks abilities, devotion, or means of living. As with any business, you need to have capital to operate. I did not mean to imply that Frank is solely doing this to put a hot tub on his deck. I see how what I said could've been taken that way, so I do apologize to Frank and anyone else who felt I was out of line.

No need to apologize!:) These are healthy conversations and the very fact that we're contributing shows we all share a common interest in the topic regardless of where we fall on the issues. :cool:

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8088737#post8088737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Perhaps you can help shed some light for me. How and why was this pair created? Was it to study the breeding habits of these species? Was it accidental? Personally, I do NOT think it is as difficult as you say to create artficial hybrids in captivity. In fact, I think it may be easier. As you stated, these fish hybridize in the wild naturally when there is a limited population of one species. So putting a male of one species and a female of another fails to replicate this how? These fish do not need huge groups to reproduce, as Frank has shown. Pairs will suffice. But as I mentioned, I fear my ignorance into the history of this pair is clouded. Were they put together to specifically breed?
Secondly, perhaps you can tell me how creating these hybrids is a tremendous advance is science. I do not understand that. Whjat has been learned? How can this be applied to other species? I agree has been able to figure out a huge step in captive rasiing with centrpyge by cultivation of food sources, but how is it different with this pair than with a true pair of any centropyge species? Frank should not need to destroy these hybrids and not profit, but Frank shouldn't have done it in the first place in my mind. as I mentioned earlier, if it happened through ignorance, then I am appeasable. I have done many things through ignorance, and sometimes they even worked. That doesn't make it right, and that doesn't mean I can or should keep doing it that way.

What information are you basing the above statements regarding the ease of pairing and production on? Using the fact that there are Centropyge hybrids in nature to jump to the conclusion in th next sentence that the addition of a male of one species and a female of another will result in production shows a bit of oversimplification in my judgement. Take for example C. potteri and C loriculus (flame angel) in Hawaii... Potter's are everywhere... it takes quite a few dives to see flames however, as they are rare in Hawaii, but still a good sustainable population (99.999% of "Hawaiian flames" in the market are from the Line Islands (Christmas Island) and ship through Hawaii). These two species coexist everywhere in Hawaii, and yet almost never spawn together... ALMOST never... specimens of the hybrids have been collected, yet nowhere near the rate at which the species coexist together... Here's one of Randall's images of one of these hybrids collected on Oahu.
http://xs306.xs.to/xs306/06363/loriculus_potteri_hybrid.jpg (http://xs.to)
Why? If breeding hybrids were as simple as you suggest then very quickly (evolutionarily speaking) two species would quickly become one. What indicators cause them to spawn? What attributes do the larvae take on? What causes them to settle? Are the offspring fertile? More questions arise than answers, and although it is not curing cancer, Frank's dealings have undoubtedly helped address many of these questions. If you think of "advancing science" as curing cancer or in terms of government grant dollars, than maybe it isn't. However, for those of us like myself who have been fascinated since childhood by angelfish (and RARE angelfish... whether it be hybrids, morphs, or just rare species), it is an advancement. Frank's not asking for anyone's help or donations, and is not harming or threatening the environment. If something major was to happen to Ascension Island he's the ONLY person we'd be able to turn to for C. resplendens to be replenished.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8088737#post8088737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda

As for the IUCN list, I fear you are not looking at the whole issue. They are put on the list because they are solely a localized population, and ANY localized population of any animal is at risk, no matter how numerous they may appear. Passenger pigeons once numbered in the billions and were a rather localized species. In about 11 years they were wiped out completely. I know you are not arguing this, but I dont think it's as off base as you say. To argue the validity of inclusion on an endangered list to justify means of utilizing the species is a rather weka argument. I am not saying they cant be kept or bred in captivity, but that responsibility should merit them not being used to create novelties.

I was misunderstood here. I was not arguing their inclusion on the IUCN list was off base. I brought up the history and current state of the species in response to zuzecawi and those of you that agreed with him regarding repopulation of C. resplendens. The species is not depleted and has no need for replenishment. I do understand that it is very vulnerable simply because of its range.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8088737#post8088737 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda

In regards to cost issues- a wild flame angel costs about 60 or 70 bucks. How much does Frank charge? That is my point. I understand he is not gouging, and this is a reasonable cost for the effrot and product, but as Angel-fish said, sometimes economics will beat out ecologics.

Frank has not done flames for a few years. At the time he did, he was selling exclusively wholesale and some of the online places got a hold of them. I think Live Aquaria was charging around $100 for them. The things he has recently produced have gone for less than their wild counterparts though, including the C. interuptus and C. debelius. It's no secret that he's concentrating on rare species that he could get more money for as they cost the same to produce once the broodstock is attained.

Again I understand the apprehension and merits of disagreeing with certain ornamental aspects of the hobby, but much of the disagreement here has been done without an understanding of what's going on. Frank has published two great articles in FAMA magazine a few years back. One cannot fully grasp what goes into the rearing of each of these species, and it's been oversimplified too much here. Frank's continuous breakthroughs each have purpose and meaning beyond offering what some people call "freak fish".

zuzecawi

09/06/2006, 02:10 PM

I think there's some misunderstanding here... since when is discussing ideas "bashing?" I don't believe that anybody has "bashed" anything here... this has been all in all, a fascinating quorum of discussion. There haven't been any "Hey lets go bag Frank" type mob mentality, and if indeed Frank is the upstanding man you describe him as, I think he would applaud any and all questions regarding his work. No truly critical thinking human should ever disparage the questions and concerns of other critical thinkers... and critical thinking is exactly that, critical. Criticism is not necessarily negative, but it is needed. Without feedback, without discussion, how would any of us ever become truly educated?
As to comparisons with california condors, that was what is known as a simile... I'm sure you all remember what that is. Although, if we wanted to press the issue, the comparison really isn't so far off. Both are animals that occupy a limited ecological niche and have a specific localized habitat, albeit the range of that habitat for the condor is much greater than that of the angel fish. And true, the genetic pool necessary for viable continuation is greater in the angels' case, yet as pointed out before, any localized population is vulnerable, and we really don't KNOW what a "normal" population of these fish is. We haven't been surveying the seas long enough to have anything but a very small grasp on the true population dynamics in most of the world. We haven't even got a true grasp on our OWN resources, such as trout, salmon, bass, let alone those of the sea. But I digress here.

My point was not that we should reintroduce angelfish, my point was that more time and effort needs to be placed into conservation and habitat restoration, rather than fancy. And my OPINION is that hybridization of geologically seperated specimens IS fancy. This is not a disparagement on the abilities or efforts of breeders of any animal in particular, but rather, a disparagement upon the social system that makes us believe that it is morally correct, if not imperative, to capitalize on our ability to modify our environment and its organic and non-organic contents, when we are rapidly losing wide swaths of biologic diversity. I truly find it tragic, not criminal, but tragic, that we can expend great amounts of time and effort on creating new items of fancy, be they technological toys or biological creations, and yet not be able to put in te effort needed to even institutionalize a standardized recycling system for those things which we already possess.
I appreciate the loyalty that makes you speak up for Frank, but I think that your being a little quick off the cuff to think that anybody is doing any "bashing" here. Once again, I think that intelligent discussion is an imperative for everybody, and your contributions and those of everybody else who's commenting are crucial for all of us to come to our own, personal, educated decisions.

Oh, and I'm not a him.
:D
M'kee

jmaneyapanda

09/06/2006, 03:00 PM

John- I am truly glad to have discussion, especially with people who can respectively state their opinion while considering the counterpoint.
In regards to creating hybrids- I will ask you back the same question- why do you claim it is difficult to create hybrids (artificially- that is)? I agree with you completely, that IN NATURE, hybrids are few and rare and far between. Nature has set things up that way. However, in captive scenarios, we can artificially manipulate the environment to skew results where we would want them. For example, I happen to work with large mammals. And I can keep several different species within the same social group with no interbreeding and hybridization. They will socially go to there own species for reproductive needs. That is the species survival mentality- procreate to pass along my genes. However, if I house one male of a species with a female of another, they will over time breed- FOR LACK OF THEIR OWN SPECIES. These offspring are of course infertile, and this is an experiment I have never conducted myself at my facility, but others have. Now, I know I am comparing apples and oranges, but this is where my inferences come from. If two mature fish of different, but comperable, species are intentionally housed together, and given the right circumstances and conditions for breeding, they could conceivably and expectantly hybridize. Now, bear in mind, I am dicussing this all under the guise of captive populations.
Now to discuss wild populations, what can cause a hybrid- I cannot begin to discuss this for centropyges. If at all comperable to other animals I am familiar with, it is anomolous conditions, both socially and geographically. Nonetheless- nature has and will allow these hybrids, because there is a check for them. And if there is not, wait a couple hundred thousand years, and voila- you've got a new species. AT any rate, this is not my concern or argument- I have most concern with the artificial creation and compatibility.
Regarding the scientific advancements- I still do not understand. All the questions you raised are very good, very valid questions. Why can't we learn them from true species breedings, or, at least, naturally occuring hybridizations? I cannot find value in creating and researching these facts for this specific hybridization other than it will benefit in creating more of these specific hybrids. I agree with you that Frank is certainly a visionary and pioneer- no doubts about that. I hope this this is not his only chance and continuing his operation, though. I would hope he could continue breeding true species to help fund and run his operations. I, too, ahve a tremendous fascination and admiration for angelfish, but for me, seeing these artificial hybrids being created rather sullies their majestic image.
Reagrding reintroduction- I do agree that repopulation is not necessarily necessary (try saying that fast 5 times!). However, I do feel that this species, at least through the sheer principal of being listed as critically endangered, should not be used to generate curiosities. You are probably right, if the wild population crashed, the world would turn to RCT. This is all the more reason to promote maintenance of the species, not manipulation of it. Personally, I feel everyone who works with a CITES I species has the obligation to maintain that species, and part of that maintanence is preserving proper social networks and bloodlines. Because we never do know the wild population will crash, or a tsunami obliterate the island, or whatever.
Reagrding the pricing, I just used flames as an example- I didnt look into what Frank was doing, so I goofed. But, I'm sure you can agree, for the most part, nearly all captive raised fish at one time ha a higher price than the wild counterparts. The species which did become more economic to raise, and the price dropped below wild costs (ie- clownfish) have seen quite brisk sales. This is my point. You are absolutely right that Frank has Deblius and Interruptus for cheaper than wilds. And I guarantee they will sell better than wilds. If the situation were reversed, and Franks were $3000, I dont think he would sell many compared to the wild availability. This is the only point I am trying to make.
Finally, I, too admire your dedication. But I feel you are thinking I am attacking his dedication and intentions as a whole. I AM NOT! I will be first in line to confess he has added a great deal to the aquarium community as well as to the conservation community. And without a doubt, it is more difficult, and beyond the scope of what I could do or accomplish. I do not think creating artificial hybrids which previously were non-existant falls into this category, though.

copps

09/06/2006, 03:19 PM

Okay, I threw "bash" in there once, and maybe I should have used "hate", in the popular form:D . I've got no problem with the critisism zuze... it's all good :). I was just providing some insight on both Frank and C. resplendens in the wild. Most people do not know too much about C. resplendens in the wild, and your simile comparing California condors with C. resplendens in this context throws people in the wrong direction. California condors once roamed all over North America from the Atlantic to Pacific coast and from Canada to Mexico, and dwindled down to 22 as a result of humans (a quick google search got that number... shocking in its own right!). But anyway, when people think of that animal they think of a decimated population as a result of us... to simply compare those to C. resplendens simply because they both "occupy a limited ecological niche and have a specific localized habitat" is misleading.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8090611#post8090611 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi

My point was not that we should reintroduce angelfish, my point was that more time and effort needs to be placed into conservation and habitat restoration, rather than fancy.

Are you referring to C. resplendens here, or conservation in general? Are you saying Frank should concentrate more on these things, or all of us in general?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8090611#post8090611 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
I truly find it tragic, not criminal, but tragic, that we can expend great amounts of time and effort on creating new items of fancy, be they technological toys or biological creations, and yet not be able to put in te effort needed to even institutionalize a standardized recycling system for those things which we already possess.

:confused: I agree with alot of the things you're saying, but don't find the relevance here.

I see what you're saying zuzecawi and I'm not into fancy fish generally myself. On a lighter note, I will definately NOT be purchasing any rhinocellaris clowns...
http://xs206.xs.to/xs206/06363/rhinocellaris.jpg (http://xs.to)

jmaneyapanda

09/06/2006, 03:47 PM

dude that picture is gonna give me nightmares.

trueblackpercula

09/06/2006, 04:53 PM

well if someone out there knows frank maybe he can chime in and give his point of view.
Michael
P.s. I think its a great idea to breed and raise fish for profit or fun !

zuzecawi

09/06/2006, 07:33 PM

Conservation in general, and conservation of the particular species of possession in particular. And "hater" wouldn't be a correct term either. I prefer... devils advocate.
And I'm afraid, the "lack of relevance here" is exactly the point I'm driving at. You're making me work at this, I like that. I believe it boils down to my fundamental purpose in getting into reefing... it isn't for aesthetics, but education. I have the very strong conviction that we shouldn't purchase live animals for the sake of ownership, we should do it in the spirit of stewardship. Does this mean I have a aquaculture facility? No, it doesn't. (I sure wish!!! Gotta wait for next year when the greenhouse is finished) But it does mean that I feel a strong responsibility to always educate the people who view any of the tanks I'm building or maintaining. The point, the relevance, is that so many of us find it normal to just do what we want with what nature has provided us, be it hairless cats, angelfish hybrids, mules, whatever, yet hardly anybody finds it normal to go out of their way to work even in a small fashion towards conservation. It's easy to sit back and applaud the examples and accomplishments of others, but its irrelevant to look at things we can do to preserve what is already in existence. True... a condor is a bird, an angelfish is a fish. World of difference. And one has been nearly destroyed by habitat encroachment and DDT. Mostly DDT. (22 makes me cringe, just a few years ago it was 26). But don't ignore that humans HAVE impacted the ENTIRE environment, even your ecologically isolated batch of resplendents. I'm not a card carrying marine biologist, I'd be first to admit that I don't even really know that much about angels in general, let alone said species in particular. But I stand by my belief that Frank and indeed ALL of us should be concentrating more of our efforts on diversifying and multiplying the bloodlines we already have on hand, instead of attempting to hybridize bastard breeds. I'm unfamiliar with RCT, I would be happy to hear more about their role in conservation, I would be overjoyed to hear about their participation with MACNA and the sorts, and I applaud all efforts towards the captive breeding of any marine animal, but I can't see why the hybridization of animals is considered desirable. Maybe if this species was as plentiful as goldfish, I'd see less of a squandering about it. I love my doberman, and I know she was the product of just such meddling. But I hardly think weimeriners, rottweilers or hounds were on anybody's endangered or threatened list. That, more than anything, is the part which bothers me. The relevance of that, I hope, is clear.

And I really love the rhinocellaris!!! Those are DEFINITELY freak fish!!!

JamesJR

09/06/2006, 09:06 PM

Look in Michael's book on angel fish. There are numerous examples of crosses between angelfish. Besides, it is probably unlikely that any of these hybrid fish can even reproduce anyways. Frank is a genius.

Angel*Fish

09/07/2006, 06:18 AM

zuzecawi,
Frank B. (RCT) is a successful pioneer in an area where virtually everyone else has come up empty-handed. His work may provide the foundation for no angels being taken off the reefs.

Steven Pro

09/07/2006, 07:04 AM

I want to be clear, I am not picking on Frank. I would put him up with the likes of Bill Addison and Martin Moe for contributions to marine fish rearing. But, I don't like to see hybridization. I believe it was the old Instant Ocean hatchery that crosses Amphiprion ocellaris with A. percula and ORA did Pseudochromis flavivertex x P. springeri and I forget who developed Premnas biaculeatus x A. ocellaris. It's all bad in my opinion.

We already have had dyed corals and anemones. If you don't think we will see painted and/or dyed marine fish in the coming years, you are kidding yourself.

lux_06

09/07/2006, 08:19 AM

i read that 5000 flames a week get taken off reefs for the industry.... that cant go on for much longer, i think RCT can do as they like to get there, and even if they sell off hybrid fish none of us who buy them can breed from them so how much further will the hybrid gene go????? ok i understand in the long run we will need "pure" fish rather then mixes but i dont see this initial sucess a threat to the future of breeding these fish.

adam

jmaneyapanda

09/07/2006, 08:40 AM

lux- i think the big question is, why is he breeding hybrids? Why not just breed true species, and sell them? I would argue a good reason not to breed hybrids is because it is ethically improper, particularly when you could've created a true pair, but chose not to. If 5000 flames get taken off the reef, BREED FLAMES! Not some hybrids that are in no ecological danger! There is obviously a market for them.

JamesJR- no one is saying hybrids dont exist in the wild- and Michaels book is almost exclusively of wild fish. I am arguing the intentional artificial creation of this hybrid for no real purposeful reason to justify the lack of ethics.

zuzecawi

09/07/2006, 11:05 AM

I'm not arguing the talents of Frank, I've no doubt that as many have stated, he's a genius in his field. However, I fail to see why this genius can't be directed towards the expansion of successful propagation of species already in existence, vs the creation of "probably sterile" hybrids for fancy. I think many of you are confusing a problem with Frank with a problem with hybridization... I believe that jmaneyapanda and I are arguing against the creation of hybrids, not against the captive propagation of fish, or even against Frank in particular. Once again, let me stress, there is no "bashing" occurring here. This started out about a specific hybridization, but I think the discussion has broadened a bit beyond that specific incident, and become more of a discussion of the issue of hybridization vs. diversification of already known species.
Forgive me, jmaneyapanda, if I'm misconstruing your argument here. I'm taking liberties (but then, don't we all, who discuss this here!)

There is a huge difference between questioning a persons actions and castigating that person. Jmaneyapanda is merely questioning Franks actions in his hybridization efforts. I'm questioning the validity of hybridization at all. This has, and continues, to be a fascinating and friendly discussion. I would love to hear some more insight on how hybridizing fish could possibly be of scientific benefit in the conservation and repopulation of already existing species, yet so far, I've only heard people say that it will have either no impact, or an unspecified scientific benefit. What exactly is the benefit of the creation of such "mules" as they've been termed here?

jmaneyapanda

09/07/2006, 11:49 AM

well said zuz.

copps

09/07/2006, 12:53 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8091789#post8091789 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by trueblackpercula
well if someone out there knows frank maybe he can chime in and give his point of view.
Michael
P.s. I think its a great idea to breed and raise fish for profit or fun !

Michael, I head out to Hawaii and Micronesia for work for over three weeks in October. Four of those days I spend on Oahu and Frank and I have plans for dinner of time allows. If I do meet with him I will be sure to get his input on this. Until then, I cannot speak to his motives as the last time I met with him was before this cross was produced.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8092883#post8092883 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
But I stand by my belief that Frank and indeed ALL of us should be concentrating more of our efforts on diversifying and multiplying the bloodlines we already have on hand, instead of attempting to hybridize bastard breeds.

Just again to clarify things on Frank's operation without going into detail... he is always working with many pairs of fish. Getting the fish to cooperate when he is ready for production is not an automatic thing. He has not halted all production to concentrate on this hybrid, it just happens to be the first fish that will be available since he started ramping up production again after taking a break. Also keep in mind that this is an around the clock 24/7 schedule for him and his wife when he is raising fish. The raising of this fish has taken nothing away from his contributions to other species and pairs. In production right now are full blown resplendens, yet they will not be ready until after the hybrids. Has Frank decided this? No, his fish have. Again, Frank has plenty demand that he could supply and there has been a vacuum for months. This is being looked at like a production line where Frank has an on/off switch for what species he could produce and have available.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8092883#post8092883 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
I'm unfamiliar with RCT, I would be happy to hear more about their role in conservation, I would be overjoyed to hear about their participation with MACNA and the sorts

Also keep in mind that RCT, as of the last time I spoke with frank, consists of Frank and his wife. This is not a corporation with a public relations department. Their schedule when in production as I said above is very hectic with NO break (even the most stressful of professions allows for a day off here and there). I spoke with Frank about this and I cannot stress enough how much work goes into this, which allows for little life outside of this, especially trips out of Hawaii for other engagements. His role in conservation can be seen in both his production of these rare fishes and his production of captive rearing methods for other people to utilize.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8092883#post8092883 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by zuzecawi
Maybe if this species was as plentiful as goldfish, I'd see less of a squandering about it. I love my doberman, and I know she was the product of just such meddling. But I hardly think weimeriners, rottweilers or hounds were on anybody's endangered or threatened list. That, more than anything, is the part which bothers me. The relevance of that, I hope, is clear.

So if he were hybridizing a more common Centropyge that would be okay I assume? Keep in mind that he has utilized a grand total of ONE wild resplendens to create this hybrid. I assume that could have been left on Ascension Island, but again he's produced many more than he's taken, which none of us could say when it comes to angelfish.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8095694#post8095694 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
lux- i think the big question is, why is he breeding hybrids? Why not just breed true species, and sell them? I would argue a good reason not to breed hybrids is because it is ethically improper, particularly when you could've created a true pair, but chose not to. If 5000 flames get taken off the reef, BREED FLAMES! Not some hybrids that are in no ecological danger! There is obviously a market for them.

Some more clarification... who's said he's chosen not to create a true pair? He has true pairs that are in production right now. Also, regarding flames, Frank was breeding them, but found it econimically unfeasible. As mentioned above, once the broodstock is attained the cost of production does not vary according to how rare a species is. Therefore, he's chosen only to work with species rare in the industry that command higher sale prices.

Why is this ethically improper? These are ornamental fish... domestic pets... As zuzecawi put it with her doberman, there are no issues if the animal is common. Are you against these dogs? Frankly, I absolutely prefer purchasing naturally occuring animals such as the full resplendens, but defend Frank's breeding of this cross because the profits go to keeping his wonderful business going and the resulting cross has NO ecological impact.

I think we've all had some good imput and come to the "agree to disagree" point. We all agree Frank has done great work, yet disagree on him creating artificial hybrids regardless of the reasoning behind it. As mentioned above if Frank and I get a chance to meet up next month I'll ask him his perspective.

On a side note, while this is a brand new captively bred angel, I have images not yet posted on RC to my knowledge of the most recently described angelfish this year, a Centropyge species! Thanks to Dr. Hiroyuki Tanaka for the leads and Lori at the Coral Reef Research Foundation in Palau for the thumbs up to post the images. The species was talked about in another thread where the holotype image was posted, but did not include other images. The photographs are blurry but exciting, taken at about 400 feet from an underwater submersible in Palau. The species was just recently described and given the name Centropyge abei. It's so exciting to know that there are so many undiscovered species in the oceans, even at fairly shallow depths! Let's get some of these to Frank!
http://xs306.xs.to/xs306/06364/Centropyge_abei.JPG (http://xs.to)

jmaneyapanda

09/07/2006, 04:14 PM

Copps- I think you are right- we will have to agree to disagree. I do not think you are understanding my conecrns with this issue. You seem to know Frank very well, and obviously agree with his principles and motives. That is wonderful. I, too, apparently agree with many of Franks philosophies. I understand he and his wife work very very hard to create RCT, which is greatly benefitting the aquarium industry. I also understand he breeds many true pairs, and this accomplishment stands on it's own. For all these points, I formally and deliberately show my respect and honor.

None of these previous points are in question. I believe most in this discussion agree with them.

My concern in this matter is that he has taken ONE Resplendant angel, and articially paired it with a non natural species (the Fisher's (I believe)). I do not doubt he has done countless beneficial and suitable pairings and breeding prior. But he did create this one pair. That is the issue. I am not talking ratios of true pairs to non true, I am not talking proportions, I am talking this one pair. If he has done 1 trillion conscientious tasks, and a mere single unethical one, it does NOT change the fact he made that one unethical one. This is my point- While his accomplishemnt certainly overshadow his flaws, I feel this is a flaw in judgment.
I certainly understand Franks success is totally dependant on the fishes behavior, which is totally unpredictable, but it does not change the fact that he paired these fish. It was his decision to do so.
I do not think it is a fair argument to say that there are X amount of fish taken off the reef, so to combat this, RCT is creating a new fish to sell. That is comparing apples and oranges. If someone is going to argue that the reefs are being plundered (which perhaps they are), then they can only validly argue how when can resolve the plundering OF THOSE RESOURCES, not an unrelated one (such as these unnatural hybrids).
While I do understand and agree that to operate businesses such as RCT, funds and profits must be made. This is the fact of the matter. However, it does not give ANYONE the carte blanche to do whatever will work. Especially in this realm, some code of ethics and reasoning must be followed. And, as I said before, I do not think (and certainly do not hope) this this hybridization is the "magic potion" that will keep RCT out of bankruptcy. I DO NOT KNOW THIS- I am only speculating! But, honestly, even if it were true, I still couldn't agree with it.

Now, Copps, this is where I'm going to strongly object to something you say, so I am going to quote it- "Why is this ethically improper? These are ornamental fish... domestic pets... As zuzecawi put it with her doberman, there are no issues if the animal is common. Are you against these dogs? Frankly, I absolutely prefer purchasing naturally occuring animals such as the full resplendens, but defend Frank's breeding of this cross because the profits go to keeping his wonderful business going and the resulting cross has NO ecological impact."
Do you really feel that these reef fish we put in our tanks are domestic? That is SOOOOO far from true in my mind. That are ABSOLUTELY wild animals. We have simply taken on the task of keeping these wild animals in our homes. There is NO DOMESTICATION involved with them, as with cats, dogs, etc etc etc. I also have to strongly disagree with you comment on it being ethical because it poses no ecological threat. That is certainly not the basis for ethics. If I keep a nurse shark in a 20 gallon tank, that has no ecological danger, yet it is certainly not ethical. If I steal your car, that has no ecological threat, but it is not ethical. As I said previously, ethics are certainly a personal matter, and everybody has different ones, so I will not try to force my ethics, nor change anyones mind, but instead clarify why I feel the way I do.

Now, as we both have said, we will have to agree to disagree. I have no interest or intentions of trying to "convert" anyone, I simply hoped to discuss this concern. I have greatly enjoyed this discussion up to this point, and hope it can continue.

Angel*Fish

09/07/2006, 05:36 PM

Jimmypanda,
The point as I see it is what Frank is learning/discovering in the process of breeding the more lucrative angels will be used later to breed the more common angels like flames and also fishes other than angels.

Copps,
As I was reading your post, I found myself completely agreeing with you.... I love a high quality post & was impressed with what you were saying - but then those photos began to show and the goosebumps came and then I really couldn't concentrate on this thread at all!

Oh my gosh! That's the first time I've seen these! How exciting! Thanks for posting those pics. They are wonderful. Any more info/details about the is eagerly awaited.

wayne in norway

09/08/2006, 07:10 AM

Balloon flames anyone?

Or no takers yet .....?

Before anyone jumps down my throat I am very appreciative of Franks work, however if hybridisation, mutation is viewed as acceptable or desirable, and IF captive rearing becomes the norm, this is where we will end up. And that is very, very sad.

RGBMatt

09/08/2006, 10:40 AM

This is silly!

The angelfish, as long as the owner treats them properly, don't care - they're just as happy being hybrids as they would be as purebreeds. And apparently the parent fish were quite happy to put aside their ethnic differences and get it on - artificially fertilizing pygmy angelfish eggs sounds like a really big headache.

Natural selection doesn't exist for these fish in the same context as wild populations, so why worry about it?

copps

09/08/2006, 11:03 AM

jmaneyapanda, let me first clarify that when I said "domestic pets" I was referring to the "of or pertaining to the home" meaning, rather than domesticated pets, meaning tamed over gemerations. I do not feel they are domesticated. Sorry for that confusion. Let me also say that I'm not supporting the development of painted angels, bubble eyes, or any other thing of that sort. Centropyge hybrids naturally occur, and although this hybrid does not naturally occur I'm looking at this breakthrough as an advancement in breeding that will aid in the production of other naturally occurring hybrids. I will not go into detail here, but Frank has done much work with this and I was excited to see his breakthrough, despite it being with an unnatural hybrid. If I didn't have the opportunity to meet Frank and speak with him in depth, I may feel more apprehensive as you guys feel. Let me also clarify jmaneyapanda that I don't know Frank very well... far from it. Again I do hope to meet up again with him on this next trip. I keep many angels, some considered difficult to keep, including my trio of regal angels, Centropyge multifasciatus, and a wild Hawaiian endemic Apolemichthys arcuatus bandit angel adult that was just updated on Frank's site. My lifelong fascination with the hobby, which includes especially angelfish, naturally brought me to admire Frank. I'm 29 now and got into the saltwater hobby nearly 20 years ago. My mother would drop me off at the local saltwater stores and go do her shopping... I attained working papers and worked throughout high school and summers in college. Many of these angels Frank is dealing with were once thought unobtainable... I remember seeing Red Sea asfur angels for $700 to over $1000 dollars, when Red Sea fish were much more expensive... I've now owned also one of those asfur angels for a couple of years, yet I paid less than $100 thanks to easier Red Sea access. Contact an online dealer about getting a wild debelius angel and you'll either hear "what is that?" or get a quote of over $5,000 with a line stating of how they probably won't be able to get it. Anyway, I'm just blabbing now... I know this holds no relevance to the argument. We've agreed to disagree. This advancement will benefit future breeding efforts.

Angelfish, good point, and thanks! It's amazing to think that these guys (C. abei) have gone undetected just a few hundred feet below the surface of last season's "Survivors" :D Anyway, here's an image of a group of wild resplendens in a Japanese shop from a few years back... sorry for the small image...
http://xs203.xs.to/xs203/06294/japan_resplendens.jpg (http://xs.to)

copps

09/08/2006, 11:24 AM

Hey Matt! You're up early... nice score on the baby bandit... a beautiful subadult sort of :D I shot you a PM...

jmaneyapanda

09/09/2006, 06:26 AM

Perhaps I don't understand what is obvious to you guys. What is Frank learning from breeding an unnatural hybrid, that he has not or cannot learn from breeding a true pair? This is the core of my argument. From what I can understand up to this point, the sole benefit to RCT in raising this hybrid is to sell a "more lucrative" product. While I have agreed several times that I know captial is necessary, I DO NOT FEEL THIS IS A VALID ENOUGH ARGUMENT FOR "CREATION" OF A NEW HOLOTYPE. I am not asking for approval or disapproval, please, someone just inform me as to what Frank is learning from THIS hybridization!!

RGBMatt- I am not arguing that the hybrids created are healthy, happy, or cared for it any sense. Surely, they appear to be totally healthy and well cared for. How do we know that they will not have a sever metabolic disorder from this unnatural and totally inexperienced (historically speaking) breeding? Perhaps the Resplendant and fishers offspring wont be able to synthesize amino acids or have operable liver longer than a year or whatever. We dont know. Or maybe they'll live to be 100 years old! we dont know. Your claim of natural selection not applying for these fish is EXACTLY my point. Doesn't it seems unnatural and creepy to anyone that here is the ONLY SPECIES ON THE PLANET that does not have to deal with these natural laws? We, as humans even must. That is what makes it unethical.

Copps- I need you to explain to me why it is bad to create bubble eyes, and hunchbacks and whatever, but not an unnatural hybrid. If Frank found a way to make double headed angelfish to fund his operational, as far as I can tell, you would support it, because it would advance his research and business. So how is this different?

trueblackpercula

09/09/2006, 06:53 AM

marinebetta

09/09/2006, 08:28 AM

All this debate is a bit too intellectual for me, and I won't add more to it as there will be no end to it. However, there is one point brought up as fact that has not been corrected: Being on the IUCN red list does not equate to being on CITES 1, or any CITES appendix for that matter. There are NO centropyge in any of the CITES appendices; in fact the only marine ornamentals on it are hippocampus sp - true seahorses.

BTW Copps, thanks for the beautiful pics of C. abei.....they are gorgeous!

Angel*Fish

09/09/2006, 08:38 AM

Perhaps I don't understand what is obvious to you guys. What is Frank learning from breeding an unnatural hybrid, that he has not or cannot learn from breeding a true pair?

I think someone (maybe Copps/John) mentioned some specifics above - but one thing he learned was that this Pacific angel will indeed interbreed with this other Atlantic angel if given the proper opportunity. That's actually kind of big news if you ask me.

IMO most people just see it as, "But why not?" And to me there are enough very disturbing & controversial things done in the name of scientific research that I have a hard time being bothered by these 2 fish getting together "a la mail-order bride".*

Jmaneyapanda, then, based on your posts, I am wondering if you are a proponent of biotope style aquariums & against non-biotope?

*Edit: I realize that is not an argument against Jmaneyapanda's postion, but I do think it's a point worth mentioning :D

jmaneyapanda

09/09/2006, 10:24 AM

marinebetta- I must admit, I was under the impression that all IUCN redlisted animals were on CITES appendix I, but I do not know this for fact. If you are sure, I will take you word for it. I will need to brush up on my wildlife law, I guess. I, too agree this is ongoing- I just hope to have better understanding of how the parties who support this think, and maybe alter my view.

Angelfish- I have not yet heard what exactly has been learned- just a generic "we are learning a great deal". And unfortunately, I do not think that trying something, just to see if you can do it, is a suitable reason. If we wanted to see how closely related these geographically seperated species are, there are far better ways of doing so rather than creating hybrids.
My argument to "why not" is this- Nature has not allow this as far as recorded history shows for us. This has been trialed for millions of years by natural processes. And it has been deemd by nature to not be desireable or existant FOR THESE TWO SPECIES. So human creation is counteracting the natural law. I know this is a tough pill for people to swallow, but it is what I think. Furthermore, as Wayne in Norway said, it can (and will in my mind) lead to worse things. Right now, only Frank has this technology, expertise, ability to create this. But in 50 years, will it be as possible as clownfish, or koi, or livebearer breeding, where anyone who has the desire can do it? That is a very strong possibility. And if so, what will stop the creation, manipulation, and potential introduction into native habitats? No one xcan accurately say, because no one has yet developed a time machine, but I feel we must be better safe than sorry.

jmaneyapanda

09/09/2006, 01:14 PM

Oh yeah, and I am not necessarily for or against non-biotope exhibition. I do not think every aquarium or zoo exhibit or whatever MUST be an exact replica of nature. I think it's OK because the species do not create new organisms against what nature allows. Sure, these organisms interact with one another, but aquarists nowadays strive to ensure suitable compatibility. I do think that these organisms must not/should not be allowed to procrreate unnecessarily.

RGBMatt

09/09/2006, 01:51 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8108769#post8108769 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Doesn't it seems unnatural and creepy to anyone that here is the ONLY SPECIES ON THE PLANET that does not have to deal with these natural laws? We, as humans even must. That is what makes it unethical.

Dude, you're an aquarium hobbyist. You take animals from various parts of the world and stuff them into a small glass box with a bunch of water pumps. Is this natural? Of course not, but it provides enjoyment for us aquarium owners and, as long as we remember to keep feeding them, the fish seem happy enough.

The whole "natural law" thing is yet another pseudo-religious dogma that humans have thought up for themselves. The only people who will listen to this sort of argument are others with the same set of beliefs. I expect that, in the long run, the existence of hybrid angelfish will not affect anybody's life.

raddogz

09/09/2006, 02:38 PM

Nope, I have nothing to add to the hybridization argument...

I just wanted to say Thank You to Maximus for providing us with the initial post of captive bred hybrid angelfish that is very pretty in my opinion.

Maximus

09/09/2006, 02:54 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8110999#post8110999 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by raddogz
Nope, I have nothing to add to the hybridization argument...

I just wanted to say Thank You to Maximus for providing us with the initial post of captive bred hybrid angelfish that is very pretty in my opinion.

You're very welcome. I'll be honest, I had no idea this thread would lead to this. I have learned a lot from this thread and can empathize with both sides. Thanks for the enlightning, mature conversation guys!

jmaneyapanda

09/09/2006, 04:05 PM

RGBMatt- I, of course, disagree. I am not quite sure where to begin, as I am not quite sure what your statment means. Yes, aquariums aren't nature, you're right. But, is the only rule or code we should follow be "feed your fish, so they seem happy"? And we can create whatever type of organism we want just as long as it makes us happy and we keep it fed? And yes, some of my fish may be housed in a manner where they are with companions from another region not naturally found. But I have not created an organism that previously NEVER ONCE OCCURED!

If you dont agree with my interpretation, that's fine, I have no problem with that, but I do think you are way off base with your categorization of my comments. "The whole "natural law" thing is yet another pseudo-religious dogma that humans have thought up for themselves. The only people who will listen to this sort of argument are others with the same set of beliefs". You're telling me one of the most uniformally revolutionary scientific minds in Charles Darwin was full of it? That is natural law. If you dont believe it, then fine, I wont try to convince you. But I can and will argue that it is out there, and this is what created the environment as we know it. It is far less constructed by humans than these artficial hybrids, I would argue. I think many other environemntalists would take my side also, as thes "natural laws" are the core of conservation and ecology. Not the dogma you claim it to be.

Perhaps you are right, maybe this hybrid won't cause any significant problems in anyone life or the environment in general. Does this make it right, absolutely not. Some people have made the claim that such fish as "balloon bodies" and "bubble eyes" are terrible. How do you feel of these? Are they as acceptable to you? And what of the fish kept in improperly small tanks, but fed well as per your mantra (ie- 15" pacus kept in 55 gallon tanks)- is this ok too? I don't feel this is ethical or proper at all, but this is just my opinion.

SuperNerd

09/09/2006, 05:27 PM

Aren't many of the animals we call pets (not just fish but all pets btw) technically hybrids...as well as many of the plants and animals we eat???
:confused:

Angel*Fish

09/09/2006, 05:55 PM

If you dont agree with my interpretation, that's fine, I have no problem with that, but I do think you are way off base with your categorization of my comments. "The whole "natural law" thing is yet another pseudo-religious dogma that humans have thought up for themselves. The only people who will listen to this sort of argument are others with the same set of beliefs".
Jmaneyapanda, I don't think RGBMatt was trying to get personal - we as humans are all operating under constructs/ideas/"truths" we as humans have come up with ourselves - we just don't all draw the line in the same place

RGBMatt, you do have a way of getting to the heart of a matter

I would like to know why we're assuming that "natural" = "good" ?

jmaneyapanda

09/10/2006, 06:47 AM

Supernerd- the animals you are thinking of are domesticated animals. While these surely orginated as hybrids hundreds, even thousands of years ago- it was in a different time for different motivations. Livetsock were domesticated as food sources and pets were domesticated as working animals. Was this correct hundreds or thousands of years ago? Perhaps or perhaps not. That is another argument, but those people's motivations and those conditions are not comparable to this situation, where a hybrid was created for profit, not survival. And, not all pets are hybrids. In fact nearly every fish and coral kept by salt water hobbyists are true species. In fact, the only real pets I can think of that may have been hybrids at one time are cats and dogs, but, these have even been classified into a species now, with different breeds within that species.

Angelfish- Perhaps you are right, I reacted a bit too personally to RBGMatt's comments. However, a quick, near aggressive statement such as that does normally cause a reaction like that with me. I would preferred to have heard his motivations and rationale in such an argument, rather than just saying that it was nonsense.
Now, I don't understand how anyone can think that natural is not good. Nature is what made the earth what it is. And to say that all these processes, occurances, relationships, and such that have happened of the past several hundred million years is totally inconsequential and doesn't bear consideration is a bit ridiculous in mind. Again, THIS IS JUST MY OPINION! Again, I am also not saying that humans can't inetvene into natural causes and adapt and adjust using the technology and resources we have, I simply think there must be a very rational and justifiable benefit which falls within the boundaries of our morals and ethics.

Angel*Fish

09/10/2006, 07:23 AM

To me it humans messing around breeding different animals is "natural". We've been doing it at least since we stopped hunting/gathering.

jmaneyapanda

09/10/2006, 07:25 AM

ANgelfish- I respect your opinion. How do you feel about bubble eyes, and balloon bosies, and such then? How about the eight legged chickens bred for commercial farming?

SuperNerd

09/10/2006, 12:24 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8114668#post8114668 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
In fact, the only real pets I can think of that may have been hybrids at one time are cats and dogs, but, these have even been classified into a species now, with different breeds within that species.

Also don't forget about the different "varieties" of goldfish...which, as far as I know, are all the same species. :)

Angel*Fish

09/10/2006, 12:39 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8114747#post8114747 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
ANgelfish- I respect your opinion. How do you feel about bubble eyes, and balloon bosies, and such then? How about the eight legged chickens bred for commercial farming?
Well - I really don't know what those are, but they sound horrible.

But just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it is "moral". If the animal itself is not suffering & not in danger of finding caretakers due to its hideousness ;) , I don't know how I could call it immoral.

It bothers me to see my aunt's pug dog try to breath, FWIW.

Good grief! 8 legged chickens? Are you serious???? I have often thought that it seems an oversight by God that we humans only have 2 arms -LOL- especially when my kids were little :lol:

jmaneyapanda

09/10/2006, 12:54 PM

I agree to both AngelFish and Supernerd. Goldfish are the same species, and artfifical selection and breeding has produced what we see today.

Angelfish- I certainly agree that natural does not necessarily equal moral. For example, people who keep 50 cats and allow them to breed constantly, despite the fact that they provide no food, medical care, or otherwise. Natural? Sure. But moral? I don't think so. However, in the case we are speaking of, I do think that a natural pairing wouldve been moral- and more to the point- this unnatural pairing isn't ethical or moral. Just my opinion.

Just to inform all those who are think I'm full of it, I sent an email to Frank at RCT simply asking him if he could shed some light on some of the questions and concerns I have. I hope to hear from him soon. I really am not doing this to argue or prove my point, but I do just want to understand the other side a bit better.

RGBMatt

09/11/2006, 10:47 AM

My point was that your "natural law" principle isn't universally held, and that not everybody sees the world from the same viewpoint. You can't expect everyone to agree with you based on that. It's just like popular arguments such as "stem cell research is against God's will". This argument is only applicable to people of certain religions, even though there may be many other valid points on either side. (only an illustrative example; I don't wish to comment on stem cells)

My aquarium doesn't follow "natural law" per se. It is a different environment from my fishes' natural habitat, and they behave very differently than they did in the wild. I know this, because I caught them all myself and have observed their behaviours change over time. Instead, it follows "aquarium law", and I think that if two of my fish want to make babies then I'm happy to let them do it.

Darwin's hobby was breeding pigeons, BTW. I don't think he'd have minded the fisheri/resplendens hybrid.

jmaneyapanda

09/11/2006, 11:10 AM

RGBMAtt- I see your point. I , too, agree that my viewpoint is not, and should not, be believed and followed by all. I am merely stating my opinion. I I would hope those with other opinions would argue to me what they believe. Good discussion.

While your aquarium fish certainly don't follow natural law exactly as they did in the wild, I would argue they still certainly live by them. Have you ever had a fish that seemed bullied by another? Or two fish of the same species where one thrived and the other faultered. Perhaps you have not, but nearly everyone who has kept an aquarium has. Why does this happen? It has nothing to do with the fishes personal feeling or the level of care they recieve, but instead because their natural instinct is to exclude their competition. And the fish that cannot meet the necessary requirements in this environment fail and ultimately die prematurely. Exactly as in nature. Fish die all the time in nature from competition for food, or predation, or disease, or whatever- exactly how they die in our aquariums. To me, that is following natural processes pretty closely. I think the "aquarium law" as you put it, pretty closely follows the natural law. The fact that your fish exhibit change in behavior is exactly the description of natural law- adapting and adjusting to suit their environment. I think we are just having a difference in terminology.

Regarding Darwin, not to nit pick, but pigeons are pigeons, and breeding different breeds is NOT hybridization! He was certainly not mixing species. I am not arguing Darwins view in this topic though- for two major reasons- number one- I am not him. Number two- it was a very different time back then, and ethics and morals were different. I can only argue what I experience now.

jmaneyapanda

09/12/2006, 02:44 PM

Well, I got a response from Frank at RCT, and he did answer many of the questions I had, and was overall, quite forthcoming. He had indicated the purpose of this hybrid was to validate current research into the relatedness of Atlantic and Indian ocean species. He selected these fish as others were not available to him (?) He also indicated that the sales of these fish are a distant second in goals than to perform the research he is conducting.

While I understand his points, I cannot say I agree. But that story is old. I still think he is performing great service to this industry, and would support him.

He did provide me with a great study on the relatedness issue as stated above, and I would be glad to forward it to anyone who is interested. Be forewarned, it is a scientific paper, so unless you are truly interested in this topic and can stomach all the statitiscal mumbo jumbo that goes along, perhaps this paper isn't for you.

Steven Pro

09/12/2006, 03:27 PM

I fail to see how breeding two distinct animals to one another proves how closely they are related. Donkeys have been bred to horses, domesticated dogs to wolves, lions to tigers. A simple DNA analysis seems far more likely to demonstrate how closely those two fish are to one another.

trueblackpercula

09/12/2006, 04:38 PM

jmaneyapanda

you can send it to me please
Miezza@msn.com

SuperNerd

09/12/2006, 06:16 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8121785#post8121785 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Regarding Darwin, not to nit pick, but pigeons are pigeons, and breeding different breeds is NOT hybridization!

Not to nit pick either...but actually it is:

hybridization
A noun
1 hybridization, hybridisation, crossbreeding, crossing, cross, interbreeding, hybridizing

(genetics) the act of mixing different species or varieties of animals or plants and thus to produce hybrids

hybrid
A noun
1 hybrid, crossbreed, cross

an organism that is the offspring of genetically dissimilar parents or stock; especially offspring produced by breeding plants or animals of different varieties or breeds or species; "a
mule is a cross between a horse and a donkey"

B adjective
1 crossed, hybrid, interbred, intercrossed

produced by crossbreeding

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 07:05 AM

Thank you, Supernerd. You are grammatically correct according to Webster. I was referring to the context of the last 90 posts, not the dictionary definition. I will choose my words more carefully next time.

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 07:07 AM

Actually, in re-reading the definition, I think it is flawed. Breeds DO NOT EQUAL species, as indicated. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are the same species, yet defnitiely not the same breed.

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 07:17 AM

I need to get my posts together- StevenPro- to be honest, I agree. I understand that having viable offspring does INFER much genetic relatedness, but how and why is still unexplained. And tehre is no scientific "data" that can be established from it. Just a statement that it has occured. I also dont buy that he couldn't try naturally occuring hybrids because they were unavailable to pair. But, again, I am speculating.
Nonetheless- In Franks defense, he does have some significant scientific research, and claims that he personally is learning to better care and raise oceanic fish from this. I dont see how, but he does.

SuperNerd

09/13/2006, 08:55 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8135546#post8135546 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Actually, in re-reading the definition, I think it is flawed. Breeds DO NOT EQUAL species, as indicated. Great Danes and Chihuahuas are the same species, yet defnitiely not the same breed.

I think what the definition means is that it can be either species or breeds. I don't think it is implying species and breeds to mean the same thing. If it was...they most likely would have been separated by commas. :)

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 10:04 AM

Fair enough. In that case, I do not have an issue per se with hybridizing breeds within the same species, but I certainly do for hybridizing between species.

Angel*Fish

09/13/2006, 10:27 AM

Not looking for a dictionary definition necessarily - but even with almost a biology degree I just realized I don't understand the difference between breeds and species -

Can anyone illuminate me? :D

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 10:46 AM

This is only my definition- but species are different....species. In their taxonomy, the have the same genus, but different species- ie- Flame angel = Centropyge loricus, and Eible angel = Centropyge eibli. Same genus, but different species.

Breeds are the same genus and species, but different morphs, colors, possibly even subspecies. Usually selected by artifical selection- ie- goldfish- many different varieties, yet all the same genus and species.

Angel*Fish

09/13/2006, 11:02 AM

Thanks- I hate to be seem ungrateful, but I was hoping for some idea of how it is decided by the taxonomist how to classify an animal - For example, to me a lemonpeel & a Herald's angel appear a lot more like than say, a collie and a pug .

RGBMatt

09/13/2006, 11:56 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8121785#post8121785 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
I think the "aquarium law" as you put it, pretty closely follows the natural law. The fact that your fish exhibit change in behavior is exactly the description of natural law- adapting and adjusting to suit their environment. I think we are just having a difference in terminology.

Indeed. And as such, why should there be a problem if two different fish in my aquarium pair up and spawn? They are still behaving according to their instincts, as dictated by their environment.

Regarding Darwin, not to nit pick, but pigeons are pigeons, and breeding different breeds is NOT hybridization! He was certainly not mixing species.

Are you absolutely sure? Even taxonomists cannot agree on the definition of a "species". The notion of species is yet another concept that humans have imposed upon the world in our effort to understand it. In reality, life is a continuum rather than a set of discrete categories, and the species concept breaks down completely once you look at the lower levels.

Talk to some botanists if you want a real confusing perspective on the subject!

SDguy

09/13/2006, 12:20 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8131021#post8131021 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
A simple DNA analysis seems far more likely to demonstrate how closely those two fish are to one another.

Bingo.

zuzecawi

09/13/2006, 12:32 PM

Angelfish...
a comparison would be... in wolves for example. The species is canis lupus. The breeds are McKenzie Red, Artic Wolf, Timber Wolf, etc. They are all wolves. They are just different morphs of wolf color and size, specifically adapted to their area.
Biologists determine species by a number of factors, but most important, is LONG TERM breeding viability. A horse and a donkey can breed, but there are very few mules that have viable offspring, and their offspring are even less likely to have viable offspring. And when a mule can breed, it's due to a genetic mutation where the chromosomes either didn't split properly, or there was a trisomy present. Species are determined also by specific phenoypical characteristics that are inheritable and consistent, in other words, all orange shouldered tangs have the characteristic orange blotch on the shoulder, and yellow-orange/gray color change from juvenile to adult. There may be allowable morphs within a species, such as in cornsnakes, where there are many natural color variations within the species, but for the most part, these morphs are known and consistently "proven" in longterm breeding. There are other factors in determining a species, but those two main ones are the "usual" arguments.

jmaneyapanda

09/13/2006, 04:29 PM

RGBMAtt- Here is why I feel it is a problem if we pair unnatural fish. This Resplendant and Fishers were not given the choice- they were purposefully paired IN EXCLUSION OF THEIR OWN SPECIES to create hybrids. They were not allowed the possibility of natural law. They are behaving according to their instincts in an improperly manipulated environemnt which would only allow this pairing or no breeding at all. Do you this they would hybridized if they had access to another of their species? Absolutely not- no way.

I agree the rhetoric of scientists can be quite mind boggling sometimes- The lines between species and subspecies is so vague and blurred and altered so often that it is difficult to pin down certain details. But there is no argument as to the fact that species exist. Otherwise, killing a primate would be treated no differently morally than killing a human. We differentiate between the species, and apply our morals and ethics to deem one not acceptable. I probably just creeped out some people- sorry- I am just trying to make my point of species identification.

At any rate, for this example, I think you would be quite hard pressed to find ANY scientists who would say that the Resplendent and Fishers are not seperate species, and this is hybridization.

AngelFish- I think you are applying a bit too simplistic and humanistic view of it. Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close. Any differences you see are because of artifical human involvement, also. 5000 years ago, if dogs (even domesticated ones) were left to their own vices and let to breed as they wished, do you think pugs would be around today? No way. Yet with the lemonpeel and heralds angels, this was allowed, and they are both around today, and have different behavior, reproduction, and physiological differences, which causes their classification into different species.

Matt, I do not understand your description of the species continuum. If species can't be defined, and its all some arbitrary vice for human to self validate, why conserve anything at all? Why not just plunder and wreck the earth, exterminate weaker animals in this continuum, and be happy?

SDGuy and StevenPro- The paper Frank provided me indicated just such information, comparing the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) of several different species of Centropyge. So, why was hybridization a necessary next step? Your guess is as good as mine.

Steven Pro

09/13/2006, 06:22 PM

Can you send me the paper?

Angel*Fish

09/14/2006, 06:47 AM

Zuzecawi, thanks for giving me an idea of how species is determined.

AngelFish- I think you are applying a bit too simplistic and humanistic view of it. Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close. Any differences you see are because of artifical human involvement, also. 5000 years ago, if dogs (even domesticated ones) were left to their own vices and let to breed as they wished, do you think pugs would be around today? No way. Yet with the lemonpeel and heralds angels, this was allowed, and they are both around today, and have different behavior, reproduction, and physiological differences, which causes their classification into different species.

jmaneyapanda,
It was really unnecessary is for you to categorize my "views" as "simplistic" :confused: Especially when I was asking a question and not even stating a "view".

In saying that collies and pugs looked more different than lemonpeels and Herald's I was asking for someone to explain what differences are used to determine species and since you had not answered my question, I thought maybe I should reword it.

You stated:
Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close.
So can you explain how?

zuzecawi

09/14/2006, 11:32 AM

Angelfish, the pug and the collie are considered closely related because there are only a very few chromosomes difference in their DNA. And there's a very good chance that they actually may share mitochondrial DNA. For your info, mitochondrial DNA is that genetic material which is passed through the cellular mitochondria (Look it up on google and you'll find a better description, I'm just a dumb diesel mechanic and I get foggy on these things). The special thing about mitochondria, is they are ONLY present from the MOTHER. Sound confusing? Okay... breakin it down to nuts and bolts, what it means is, you get your mitochondria from your mom, who got it from her mom, who got it from her mom, ad infinity, all the way back to the first woman on the planet ever in your bloodline. I guess if you wanted to get biblical, you could say it goes all the way back to Eve. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed from the ovum, never sperm, so male or female, you only have mitochondrial dna from your mothers side. So your pug has mitochondrial dna all the way back to the wolf it was bred from, as does the collie. Now how this works in differentiating species, is say... a bear and a house cat. They're both different species, and they both have separate mitochondrial inheritence. However, a bear is closer related to a cat than a dog. Does that mean the bear can breed with a cat? Of course not. Different number of chromosomes (not to mention, that poor cat!!!) But it does mean that the bear and the cat share some genetic similarities that could conceivably have come from divergent evolution. You can study how close a species is to another species by analysis of the mitochondrial dna... sort of... a study of the "mother species." In the case of the angels, the comparison of mitochondrial dna shows that they came from either the same stock or very closely related stock, so they can conceivably interbreed, even make cross species hybrids. Does this make them the same species? No. It just means that evolutionarily, they are close enough to their parent stock that they can still intermix.

However, I still agree with jmaneyapanda, just because we possess the capability to successfully intermix these species doesn't neccessarily mean we should. We can also drop atom bombs... but we don't really need to. Sure, there's a huge difference between dropping an atom bomb, and interbreeding different species, but it seems that the arguement of "well we can, so why shouldn't we" is very ethnocentric to the human side of the equation. Just because we can wield power, we're considered obligated to?

Angel*Fish

09/14/2006, 02:48 PM

Does this make them the same species? No. It just means that evolutionarily, they are close enough to their parent stock that they can still intermix. Thanks so very, very much for that explanation - I never took genetics as I find it kinda tedious and as as a taxonomist I would be a "lumper" not a "divider". After all -- a cat is just a small skinny bear with a long tail, right? :lol:

Which is partly why it doesn't bother me that these two fishes had babies. I wouldn't like it if he introduced this new fish into the sea, though.

And you sound like a pretty smart deisel mechanic to me, BTW.

SuperNerd

09/14/2006, 02:57 PM

Angel*Fish: I believe you learn more about speciation in an evolution class than a genetics one yo. :D

Angel*Fish

09/14/2006, 03:11 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8146199#post8146199 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SuperNerd
Angel*Fish: I believe you learn more about speciation in an evolution class than a genetics one yo. :D Well, the thing is I went to Texas A & M over 25 years ago and there was no evolution class back then -- After all it was before Darwin ;) We learned about "evolution" in comparative anatomy but DNA studies were almost just a glint in the eye of my professors at that time.

I don't know what class it would have been covered in - maybe I was just absent that day -lol

SuperNerd

09/14/2006, 03:15 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8146312#post8146312 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
Well, the thing is I went to Texas A & M over 25 years ago and there was no evolution class back then...it was before Darwin ;)

OMG HAHAHAHA!!! :lolspin:

Chihuahua6

09/14/2006, 06:34 PM

Supernerd I love your Chi!!!! What's his/her name? I have five now : (

jmaneyapanda

09/16/2006, 06:09 AM

AngelFish, I apologize for thinking I was attacking or belittling your position- I was not, and didn't intend to. However, since this is the impression you got, I do apologize. I merely hoped to comment on the statment you made about heralds and lemonpeel angels appearing more closely related than pugs and collies. This is the "view" I was speaking of.
"Thanks- I hate to be seem ungrateful, but I was hoping for some idea of how it is decided by the taxonomist how to classify an animal - For example, to me a lemonpeel & a Herald's angel appear a lot more like than say, a collie and a pug ."

I only hoped to shed light on the fact that there is certainly more than meets the eye. Zuzecawi put it in the proper scientific terms, so no need for me to continue on that. Again, I apologize for making you feel slighted.

jmaneyapanda

09/16/2006, 10:42 AM

Steven Pro- pm me your email, ansd I'll forwrad it.

dukes707

09/17/2006, 02:26 AM

i agree with the "jurassic park" comment. if God himself did not make it then it should not have been made. everything in due time, if it was meant to be it would be. i have no doubt that Frank is supernaturally talented in his trade, and i am not knocking him or what he he does in any way, actually i am quite interested, but that does not negate the fact that it is un-natural. i am curious if these hybrids would actually survive if introduced to the wild. my guess is probably not. is there really a lack of variety in the naturally available specimines in the wild? if you answer yes then you have not researched hard enough. i dont think we should mix and match Gods creations to satisfy our own thirst for variety. Not trying to get all religious or nothing like that, but scientifically cross-breeding two species rarely/if ever works out for the best. and introduction into the wild almost always causes habitat destruction for the native species who have called it home for who knows how long. if there were a scientific basis for mixing and matching species then i would be all for it, but since there isn't really a valid reason for crossbreeding other then to satisfy our own curiosity then i think we should leave well enough alone, and stick to Gods myriad of natural gifts to this quite diverse world. just my 2 cents.

trueblackpercula

09/17/2006, 07:12 AM

dukes707i agree with the "jurassic park" comment. if God himself did not make it then it should not have been made. everything in due time, if it was meant to be it would be.

Well How do you know that god is not working thru him? If God did not want it to be then he would not have allowed Frank to make it.
Michael

Steven Pro

09/17/2006, 08:01 AM

I am kind of surprised this conversation is still going on. I took a quick glance at the paper that inspired Frank hybrid work. It is a DNA analysis of various Centropyge species trying to determine how closely they are related and which one came first. As such, being able to hybridize them reveals nothing that the DNA analysis didn't already prove conclusively.

This is about economics, plain and simple. Being able to produce a one of a kind animal that can command a high value price. Whether or not that money goes to Ferraris or to breed other fish is irrelevant to me. I don't like hybrids, regardless of what company creates them.

dukes707

09/17/2006, 09:47 AM

you underestimate 'THE MAN/WOMAN'. God made the world in six days, what makes you think he needs a simple human to complete his bidding? if he/she wanted it to be HE/SHE (trying to be pc) would make it himself and not rely on us to make new creatures. this is a debate for later discussion and could go on for days/weeks/years. like i said to each his own, but i dont think its right, however beautiful it may be. like i stated earlier, i am not taking away from Frank or his skills, but i think we should leave creation to the creator...feel free to disagree but thats where i stand.

SuperNerd

09/17/2006, 03:25 PM

Hmm...well... I agree with the "to each his/her own" statement. But in all honesty... if one was truly trying to be "politically correct" (and not risk violating the RC user agreement)...wouldn't one also have left religion out of the discussion almost entirely? :confused:

dukes707

09/17/2006, 10:30 PM

i apologize. i did not mean to violate anyone or anything. i was simply trying to make a point. i am well aware that everyone has their own beliefs, and do not want to offend anyone. i will refrain from making those kind of statements in the future. i see it opens a can of worms. science and religion do not mix and there is not a good segway for the two to be. but my point was these hybrids are not naturally occring specimines, thats all. they did not become by natural selection, but by mans own curiosity. had they occured naturally i think it would be a lot more special. again i apologize :rolleyes:

jmicky41

09/17/2006, 10:39 PM

How come there wasn't such a reaction to the sankeyi X fridmani hybrid? If it wasn't for the fact that a "holy grail" limited distribution fish was used as one of the parents, would anybody care? Let's say if was C. argi and a coral beauty? I wouldn't buy one; as I would rather have a full blooded resplendant.

Steven Pro

09/18/2006, 05:30 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8168301#post8168301 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmicky41
How come there wasn't such a reaction to the sankeyi X fridmani hybrid? If it wasn't for the fact that a "holy grail" limited distribution fish was used as one of the parents, would anybody care? Let's say if was C. argi and a coral beauty? I wouldn't buy one; as I would rather have a full blooded resplendant. I specifically mentioned other hybrids and that I didn't like any of them.

jmaneyapanda

09/18/2006, 06:44 AM

I agree with steven pro. Does that dottyback hybrid occur naturally? I am unfamiliar with them. If not, then the creator has made an unethical creation in my book. I dont care if its damsels and chromis, it is still unethical. I do not know what can ever be learned scientifically from creating this hybrid that cannot be learned when breeding the true breeds is possible. That is my biggest issue in this whole matter. Lets say, for the sake of argument, no one has ever captive raised a centropyge or whatever genus in aquariums ever before. If RCT then created this hybrid, perhaps I would be more supportive, as it could be used as a tool to better learn to support the true species. However, in reality, RCT has had this technology for many years! And creating this hybrids is to benefit and support their company only, not to further any research or knowledge. Is this necessary for RCT to stay afloat, I hope not, because they are pioneers, but it does not change the fact that it was an improper decision.

SuperNerd

09/18/2006, 12:03 PM

Hasn't the breeding of certain species or groups of aquarium fish limited the negative ecological impact of wild fish collection?

Steven Pro

09/18/2006, 12:30 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8170990#post8170990 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SuperNerd
Hasn't the breeding of certain species or groups of aquarium fish limited the negative ecological impact of wild fish collection? It depends. Certainly the more fish captive raised, the fewer removed from the wild. Let's assume one day we are able to complete eliminate wild collection. That also makes those wild fish worthless. Therefore, there is little reason to protect them anymore.

SuperNerd

09/18/2006, 12:45 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8171196#post8171196 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
It depends. Certainly the more fish captive raised, the fewer removed from the wild. Let's assume one day we are able to complete eliminate wild collection. That also makes those wild fish worthless. Therefore, there is little reason to protect them anymore.

Good point.

jpslickorocks

09/18/2006, 01:25 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8081291#post8081291 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jerryz
jmaneyapanda - You mean like dogs (how many breeds), cats, horses, cows and all of those other naturally occuring animals? oh I gbet your argument now. Those are OK because they were selectively bred by our ancestors using techniques available to them at the time and the animals are now completely fixed as usefull or entertaining parts of our lives.

So it enters this part of our "culture." Better give back your cat or dog, stop eating meat (except perhaps goat), and watch the pressures on the fish and cortals increase dramatically as more and more people enter the hobby.

I am planning on reading the whole thread still but I had to make this comment before I got any further. This is a point I was going to respond with and I couldn't agree with the above more. If you take the time to read the link it states the most of the hybrids that he does do accur naturally, albeit rarely, but it does happen.

I give a lot of credit to him for being able to do what he does.

jmaneyapanda

09/18/2006, 03:05 PM

jpslick- I disagree. The hybrids in discussion do not EVER occur naturally in the wild. This is where the issue lies- not in natural hybrids, not in Franks ability, but the fact he intentionally created as new hybrid never before seen- even in nature. NO ONE is saying to stop captive breeding. I am saying it is unethical to artificially create a new hybrid.
Comparing dogs and goats and other domesticated animals were "created" hundreds or thousands of years ago for entirely different purposes and by entirely different means. People back then did not create these animals for financial support. Furthermore, the morals and ethics of a thousand years ago is nowhere even remotely close to what it is today. People committed crimes back then with little or no retirbution, and if those same actions were committed today, they would be incarcerated for a long long time. And, as per my definition at least, I do not think mixing breeds within the same species is nearly as improper as mixing species.

Supernerd- I am still confused how people can think that breeding an unnatural hybrid will alleviate collection. These hybrids do not exist in the wild- what wild population can be helped? In that case why not breed species which are being collected or overcollected? I know he does breed many true species, but why this pair? This is the core of my question.

jpslickorocks

09/18/2006, 03:33 PM

So are puggles (PugXBeagle), Labradoodles (LabXPoodle) etc etc... should the people cross breeding dogs be crititisized?

There are a lot worse things in the world to be worrying about...

jmaneyapanda

09/18/2006, 03:49 PM

Personally, I would not buy a dog listed, but I find less issue with that than I do with with a person mixing a dog and a wolf, or a dog and a fox. I think the people who breed these dogs are inetntionally doing it to cash in on people who are willing to pay, and are learning nothing from this at all. So, yes, I think they should be criticized.

And, yes, you are right, there are far worse things going on, but this is a forum on reefkeeping, and this is a thread on hybrids, so I think this is the ideal environent to voice my disagreement with this hybridization. Just because I disagree so strongly with this action does not mean I don't care about the other issues of the world. But anyway...

jpslickorocks

09/18/2006, 04:16 PM

"And, yes, you are right, there are far worse things going on, but this is a forum on reefkeeping, and this is a thread on hybrids, so I think this is the ideal environent to voice my disagreement with this hybridization. Just because I disagree so strongly with this action does not mean I don't care about the other issues of the world. But anyway..."

That is a great response to the comment I made. Enough to make me read about hybridization in greater detail.

I love to debate and argue. I love it when it gets heated. It is never personal. Most of all I love it when someone males a point that shuts me up and that point did.

Kudos for that

jmaneyapanda

09/18/2006, 04:23 PM

thanks- i appreciate the constructive comments and arguments - i too love this type of discussion.:)

Steven Pro

09/18/2006, 05:48 PM

Alls dogs are Canis domesticus, whether it is a pug or a lab or a boxer or whatever. They are all varieties of one species. For fishes, a similar situation would be breeding a Red Sea Pseudoanthias squampinnis to a Fijian P. squampinnis. They are different varieties of the same species.

SuperNerd

09/18/2006, 07:26 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8172228#post8172228 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Supernerd- I am still confused how people can think that breeding an unnatural hybrid will alleviate collection. These hybrids do not exist in the wild- what wild population can be helped? In that case why not breed species which are being collected or overcollected? I know he does breed many true species, but why this pair? This is the core of my question.

Yes, the point I was leading into was actually smacked down nicely by Steven Pro (thanks Steven):lmao: My thinking was that a hybrid mix of any fish (or commercially bred version of one or more species for that matter) would have the potential to take "collection strain" off native/wild populations, resulting in alleviation of the negative ecological impact of overcollection.

One specific fish that came to mind was the kauderni cardinal but I also thought it could apply to marine fish and inverts of the tropical aquarium trade in general. Steven pointed out something that I didn't think of: People will be less likely to think of conserving them in the wild if they are already numerous in artificial breeding facilities.

xtm

09/18/2006, 11:17 PM

OT: What do you get when you cross breed a Bulldog and a Shi-Tzu? Answer: A BullSh... :D

Steven Pro

09/19/2006, 04:13 AM

I don't want to give the impression that I am against captive breeding programs. Far from it. But, we do have to keep in mind that some ideas have unintended negative consequences. MAC had an interesting handout on this topic titled something like, "Buy a coral, save a reef." I will see if I can find it.

Steven Pro

09/19/2006, 05:49 AM

I thought this was a timely, pertinent article given this discussion.

From Yahoo News this morning,
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060917/wl_nm/environment_india_lions_dc

Lions dying in Indian zoo after failed experiment

By Palash Kumar
Sun Sep 17, 3:30 AM ET

CHANDIGARH, India (Reuters) - Twenty-one lions are dying in a zoo in north India after a cross-breeding experiment to boost the park's attractions went disastrously wrong.

In the 1980s officials at the Chhatbir Zoo in the northern city of Chandigarh, bred captive Asiatic lions with a pair of African circus animals, resulting in a hybrid species.

Within a few years it became obvious it had not worked.

The offspring found it hard to walk, let alone run, because their hind legs were weak. And by the mid 1990s the big cats -- which live for up to 20 years in captivity -- showed symptoms of failing immune systems.

But it wasn't until 2000 that the breeding program was ended, and the male lions given vasectomies, by which time the zoo had 70 to 80 such lions.

Their number dwindled slowly, with disease killing some and some dying of wounds inflicted by other lions.

Authorities say they are waiting for the population to "phase out" before they can start breeding pure Asiatic lions.

"But the effort here is to help them die with dignity," said Dharminder Sharma, a senior zoo official. "We give them all the facilities to live a happy life in their last years. Some of the old lions are even given boneless meat."

Last year the zoo opened a special enclosure, away from the main exhibit area, where it keeps lions who have become too feeble to defend themselves.

It has been dubbed an "old age home" for lions.

Ailing Lakshmi and Lajwanti now live in these sheds, which have a small caged courtyard.

Both are hybrid and are extremely weak. They can barely stand up or walk. Their only activity is a small but painful walk to eat their meals. However, if challenged, they can still muster a spine-chilling roar.

In August, Lakshmi stopped eating. Doctors at the zoo put her on a drip and fed her glucose through water.

"Those were nervous times for us," said Sharma.

"We tried very hard to keep her alive and eventually succeeded when she slowly started to eat ... Even if they are meant to die, it doesn't meant we kill them by not treating them," he added.

Asiatic lions are found only in India and, at present, there are about 300 of them in the Gir national park in the western state of Gujarat.

In the mid-20th century, their numbers were less then 15 as they were vigorously hunted by the Maharajas and princes for whom the majestic animal was the most coveted game. The population recovered after a breeding program launched in the Gir sanctuary in the 1960s.

jmaneyapanda

09/19/2006, 06:27 AM

Supernerd- I think the point I am trying to make is that if overcollecting of a fish- like the Kaudern's cardinal- is an issue (which I agree may be), then we should be breeding Kaudern's cardinals, not Kauderns cardinals hybridized with Pajama cardinals. This type of random hybridization does not alleviate the collection of the species, because there is still no alternative. This is why I support RCT creating captive true species, but not artificial hybrids.

Steven Pro- Boy, that article was timely. This is exactly my point about unknown hybridization. We have no idea if these fish will have metabolic issues, reproductive issues, or even live to be 800 years old. This lack of information is due to natural processes; nature has not allowed this pairing through the course of hundreds of millions of years of experience. I know you already know this, and I'm probably preaching to the choir, but I am glad I am not the only one who sees this veiwpoint.
I am not sure if I agree 100% regarding conservation of non-collected species. Consider things like gorillas. They were wild caught readily in the 60s and 70s. However, in 1975 when CITES laws passed, (legal) wild collection was banned. Does that mean that we don't care about wild conservation? Not necessarily. I think there is a lot of work being done with species that are only captive raised now. But I do see your point.

Angel*Fish

09/19/2006, 11:03 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8157430#post8157430 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
AngelFish, I apologize for thinking I was attacking or belittling your position- I was not, and didn't intend to. However, since this is the impression you got, I do apologize. I merely hoped to comment on the statment you made about heralds and lemonpeel angels appearing more closely related than pugs and collies. This is the "view" I was speaking of.
"Thanks- I hate to be seem ungrateful, but I was hoping for some idea of how it is decided by the taxonomist how to classify an animal - For example, to me a lemonpeel & a Herald's angel appear a lot more like than say, a collie and a pug ."

I only hoped to shed light on the fact that there is certainly more than meets the eye. Zuzecawi put it in the proper scientific terms, so no need for me to continue on that. Again, I apologize for making you feel slighted.
Thanks, that was really nice :) My example was not meant to imply that I don't realize all dogs are the same species by definition.

zemuron114

09/20/2006, 10:33 PM

This is really funny. I didn't think this thread would get to this when i first read it. lol

First off, the 2 fish didn't HAVE to breed. they in actuality chose to. Believe it or not fish do choose who they want to breed with. This is evident in many occasions trying to "pair" fish even in the same species. On very rare occasions you can accidently pair up 2 fish and have them mate. Just because they were the only 2 in the tank, doens't mean they have to breed... In fact, the concensus i believe in mixing 2 different species of dwarf angels is they will fight...

this is not hurting anyone in the least. they will not be released into the wild and they will find good homes for people who like the rare and unusual... this should be no more of a big deal then a lemon peel x vroliki hybrid.. regardless of which ocean they come from.
Who knows, maybe in 200 years these will be common hybrids in nature...

No one gets mad when a bichon frise and a lab have puppies... basically the same thing. :) (which by the way has happened to me... lol)

jmaneyapanda

09/22/2006, 06:12 AM

zemuron, I dont mean to sound rude or abrupt, but all of your points were brought up previously and argued previously, save one. You claim these fish didnt have to breed, that they chose to. True. But, I am claiming it was scientifically and ecologically unethical to pair these fish WITH THE INTENTION OF BREEDING THEM as Frank at RCT admits he did. The reason I see this as unethical is because he manuipuilated the scenario by housing these two species together in exclusion of their own species, and this type of pairing never previously existed as far as records can show.

The reason this is a greater deal than a naturally occuring hybrid is exactly that- IT NEVER OCCURS NATURALLY! There is no greater science or information being learned from this hybridization, so why do it? Aside from generating income? And I personally feel that is not a good enough reason for any person or facility to violate scientific ethical principles.

This is not the same as breeding a lab and bichon frise, either, Those animals are the same species, and different breeds. This hybrids is two entirely different species of fish.

zemuron114

09/22/2006, 12:13 PM

They crossbred a tiger and a lion.... is that unethical? What about a whale and a dolphin like Hawaiian sea life park did, is that unethical? neither of these are unethical. Its science. Its part of what we as humans do, which is experiment. Crossbreeding 2 pygmy angels will not effect anything in this world. It wont effect the fishers angel in hawaii, or the resplendant. they will continue to occur naturally in their selective environments. this is no way effects any of us either, so therefore it really isn't a big deal. He uses most of the proceeds to fund other projects, not to get rich. As was stated earlier, making money was far from the first point of doing this. It does not directly effect anyone.

its a whole different story if someone let go 3000 resplendents in Hawaii and then they started breeding. Doing it in a captive setting is far less detrimental (if at all).

SuperNerd

09/22/2006, 12:42 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8176367#post8176367 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Steven Pro
In the 1980s officials at the Chhatbir Zoo in the northern city of Chandigarh, bred captive Asiatic lions with a pair of African circus animals, resulting in a hybrid species.

Exactly what were these "african circus animals" that were bred with captive Asiatic lions?

jmaneyapanda

09/22/2006, 02:04 PM

Zemuron- I disagree. I think all the species hybrids you listed are quite unethical. Especially when they are done so purposefully. That is merely my opinion. If it is science, what is learned? This is what nobody can answer for me. I especially think some hybridizations are bad when they show deleterious effects on the individual animals. For the lion tiger hybrids you mentioned, their lifespan is relatively short, and they typically suffer terrible health issue due to their unnatural size and genetics.
I dont think we can argue that since it currently doesn't appear to harm the environment, that it is ok. When I keep a large shark in a tiny tank, is this ethical? No. Does it effect the wild? No. I dont think this is a good method for determine what is ethical and what is not. Conservation has struggled with issues like this for a long long time. When 1 person does something, it does not show a tangible immediate effect, it cannot be assumed it has no eefct. Because when 100 or 1 million people do it, it is too late. Is this a problem now? No. RCT seems to be the only facility with the ability and intellect to create these fish. What about it 50 or 100 years? Will it be a problem then, if any person can create a hybrid? That may very well be a problem.
As stated from Frank at RCT, this hybrids was created to learn and fund his facility. Howevere, what has been learned has never been delineated, and the only tangible beenfit to this breeding has been income. Again, I am not sayong Frank or RCT is money hungry, but when there is nothing that can be shown to be learned, it is hard to rationalize it otherwise.

Yes, release of a non-native is bad- but using your rationale, how come? "Its science. Its part of what we as humans do, which is experiment." Can we not also say it is a science experiment to see ihow introduced species behave?

Overall, I see creating unnatural hybrids as a bad and unethical process because we have nothing to show for it after the fact. I, unfortunately, think RCT has taken a great technology and used to without considering it's ethical and moral obligations. I do not think they intend to release or harm the environemnt, but I do think they should have every responsibility to consider the ethial principles in thuis technology.

RichConley

09/22/2006, 03:19 PM

First off, I hate hybrids, because I come from a Cichlid background. They muddy the waters, and destroy breeding populations. Somebody almost invariably gets a hybrid, or the offspring of hybrids, and thinks its the normal species, and then the breeding population is destroyed.

Now, where RCT is one of the few places breeding Centropyge, its probably not a real issue, until they sell one of these, and some yodel releases it into the ocean.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8197680#post8197680 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
But, I am claiming it was scientifically and ecologically unethical to pair these fish WITH THE INTENTION OF BREEDING THEM as Frank at RCT admits he did. The reason I see this as unethical is because he manuipuilated the scenario by housing these two species together in exclusion of their own species, and this type of pairing never previously existed as far as records can show.

SO? Why is the fact that something has never occured before a factor in determining if it was bad or good? Certain species of corn dont interbreed normally, but we've done it and created strains that are more pest resistant. How is that bad?

The reason this is a greater deal than a naturally occuring hybrid is exactly that- IT NEVER OCCURS NATURALLY! T
Who are you? GOD? Why is the fact that something doesnt happen in nature a deciding factor? RCT has proved something here: If these two species had abutting ranges, there WOULD be naturally occuring hybrids.

This is not the same as breeding a lab and bichon frise, either, Those animals are the same species, and different breeds. This hybrids is two entirely different species of fish

The definition of species has changed multiple times in the last 5 years, and large amount of hybridization between fish species, and their ability to hybridize is a large part of that reason. Originally it was "things are different species if they can't breed and produce viable offspring." Now thats invalid, because so many fish are able to fertilize each other and produce viable offspring.

While a bichon and a lab are considered the same species, thats not really an accurate grouping. Domestic dogs have come from various sources, and have had everything from wolf to coyote to jackals to african wild dogs and such bred in. Theyre all considered one species because we really have no way to classify them, becuase they are such a mess. Still, I'd be willing to bet that theres more genetic difference across some breeds of dogs(bichon frise vs husky), than there are across any or the centropyge species, or any of the cirhillabrus, and a couple of other genus' species.

You also keep citing the risk of creating feeble animals like the lions Steven listed. Thats a risk, yes. But there are also plenty of hybrids that are more viable, and more robust, than their parents. (Killer bees for one).

The problem here is that ethics are completely subjective. I dont really see any issue with one species outcompeting another in the ocean. Its natural, survival of the fittest, etc. So why should a natural hybrid outcompeting its parents be fine, when a unnatural one isnt? The answer is that the surrounding ecosystem is constructed in such a way that things have evolved to deal with that animal, as opposed to the foreign species. But again, the reason we see one species rising at the cost of another falling is this theological assumption that these are "gods creatures" and by supplanting one by another it is some sort of blasphemy.

Your argument boils down to "We shouldnt play god" and my question is, "why shouldnt we?"

jmaneyapanda

09/22/2006, 04:19 PM

RichConley- I respect your points, but I disgaree. I will try to address your points one by one.

Using corn as a example I dont think is a valid comparison, because I believe we are talking of corn strains, not species. If I am incorrect, please let me know. But anyway, in this case, as with others, I see the value because we have learned some information from this. We have learned these corn strains are disease resistant, or grow quicker or whatever. What have we learn from this unnatural hybrid? Nothing that hasn't been known. We already know through the evalutaion of mtDNA that these species did evolve from similar lineage. So we already know that IF they had abutting ranges, they likely would cross breed. But they dont. This is already proven, so what do we learn from this hybridization? Nothing yet. Will we in the future? Maybe. But, as for right now, the purpose of these animals is to make money for RCT- plain and simple, no other reason.

Now I have stated repeatedly that this was all just my opinion, and have never told anyone their interpretation is wrong, so I don't understand how you think I can liken myself to God. Quite the opposite actually. What makes me believe that the natural way is the proper way is my belief in Conservation. This is all about keeping the world in a naturally accurate way. Otherwise, why bother conserving weedy sea dragons, or manatees, or bald eagles, or whatever? Because we, as humans, want to preserve the natural way.

As for your definiton of species- I do not think the definition is based on the fact so many fish can interbreed. Sure the definition has changed over time, but it is likely due to different thinking in taxonomy, not hybridization.
I also dont think we can continually argue relatedness for domesticated versus wild animals. Domestic animals were created definitively due to unnatural selection. If we truly want to compare the genetic variation within a group of domestics compared to a group of wilds, they should held in exact environmental conditions. Would a bichon continue to exist if left to the same environmental conditions as wolves, or wild dogs or whatever. No way. If we are trying to domesticate these fish for some purpose, by all means hybridize. But this is certainly not the goal of RCT, and it certainly cannot be accomplished in a mere few years.

The killer bee example was a good one, but again, not an unnatural hybrid. Whereas tiger/lions- totally unnatural.

Now I agree and have stated in the past- ethics is totally subjective- and this is all my point. However, in the ethics of conservation, I dont see the values of "lets do it because we can" standing out. I cant think of any other ecological or conservation society that follows this credo.

"Your argument boils down to "We shouldnt play god" and my question is, "why shouldnt we?"
I had to quote that, because I couldnt believe you said it. Following this thought, we should be able to reintroduce new species to foreign environments, and commit crimes like murder with no retribution, and follow no moral or ethical considerations whatsoever, right? That quote goes against all conservation issues as I know it. If we all get to act indivdually as we please, there is no reason for ecology or conservation, in the context of this discussion.

Now, Rich, as I mentioned, I respect your opinion, and I am not trying to change your mind or anything, just trying to learn some perspective of the other side. If I am incorrect on any of the information I have said, I invite anyone to correct me.

Steven Pro

09/25/2006, 02:58 PM

I finally heard a good reason at MACNA for creating these hybrids. Frank has to breed rare and unusual fish to get the kind of price he needs for the labor involved. When he breeds interruptus or similar fish, there is a big demand for these limited spawns and that drives a high price. The problem is that high price started to draw the attention of collectors who went out to caught as many wild specimens as possible to cash in on this demand. Frank was concerned that his captive breeding actions and the resulting high demand would lead to decimating the wild population. Hence, he worked on creating hybrids which can't be wild caught.

This is the first good reason I have heard for these animals. And, while I am still worried about where this will eventually lead (fantail yellow tangs, balloon chromis, bubble-eye clowns, etc.), I am less opposed to this hybrid then when I first saw it.

jmaneyapanda

09/25/2006, 03:09 PM

Steven- the only flaw I see in this is that Frank and RCT have very flattering and envious goals- to be able to captive breed fish like tangs and butterflies and such to alleviate stress to the environemnt from collection. What a great mission! However, following that logic, can he ever breed again a true species? Or will this "drive up the demand and put pressure on wild populations"? It is a catch 22. Lets say he learn to breed Gem tangs- will he also start creating hybrids gem and yellow tangs to alleviate collection of those fish? I can't say I agree with that rationale. While I am not debating that perhaps his captive fish did increase collection of wild fish, it still does not merit the hybridization of a non natural pairing. Why not create naturally occuring hybrids, then? I dont think there will be a fear of overcollection of these. Or why not just move to a different captive species? And I am still waiting to hear what has been learned from this hybrid.

Angel*Fish

09/25/2006, 04:18 PM

Uh-oh..... I won a hybrid fish in the raffle :beachbum:

Even worse I'm using emoticons I don't get the meaning of again..lol

Hey, Steven Pro! Great lecture!! I put your name down on the MASNA feedback form :D I truely enjoyed it and found it useful. Nice greenhouse, too! Y'all should see what Steven Pro has in his backyard --- a zillion 400(?) g tanks!

sedgro

09/25/2006, 04:39 PM

I just wanted to comment on the India Lion article. I assume it was brought up as an example of how "bad" hybrids are. The animals mixed were two sub-species of the same species. Lions (Panthera leo) once had a range that extended into Greece and India. The European and Indian populations (Panthera leo persica) are now, sadly, mostly gone. My point, however, is who is to say the problems exhibited by these animals are only from being a hybrid of 2 sub-species? Were the animals in each group related? Were all the progeny affected? I think the more likely explanation is the manifestation of some recessive trait that was dormant in both populations. Hybrids are not always weaker or inferior animals. In human/veterinary medicine this article is an example of what we would call a "case report" - the weakess kind of research (obviously it is not a research article anyway). The media likes to jump all over such information like it is indisputable fact. Don't make the same mistake. Just my 2Cents.

john

SuperNerd

09/25/2006, 05:12 PM

sedgro:
Are the angels in question also sub-species?

Steven Pro

09/25/2006, 07:56 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8219318#post8219318 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Angel*Fish
Hey, Steven Pro! Great lecture!! I put your name down on the MASNA feedback form :D I truely enjoyed it and found it useful. Nice greenhouse, too! Y'all should see what Steven Pro has in his backyard --- a zillion 400(?) g tanks! I am glad you enjoyed my presentation, but I only have 12 six-hundred gallon tanks. ;)

Angel*Fish

09/25/2006, 09:25 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8172770#post8172770 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jpslickorocks
"And, yes, you are right, there are far worse things going on, but this is a forum on reefkeeping, and this is a thread on hybrids, so I think this is the ideal environent to voice my disagreement with this hybridization. Just because I disagree so strongly with this action does not mean I don't care about the other issues of the world. But anyway..."

That is a great response to the comment I made. Enough to make me read about hybridization in greater detail.

I love to debate and argue. I love it when it gets heated. It is never personal. Most of all I love it when someone males a point that shuts me up and that point did.

Kudos for that

Holy cow - another person who can admit an error! Kudos to you!

jmaneyapanda

09/26/2006, 06:06 AM

sedgro- point well taken. You are correct, asiatic lions have historically suffered very deleterious unnatural events to cause the gene pool to be quite bad now. So this cross between the lions had other issues involved also. But, I think it also shows a good example of hybridizing having negative consequences. Many aguments I have been hearing is that hybridization has no effect on anything- which is just is untrue. But, again, you are correct, and I see your point.

Supernerd- in the case of the these angels, they are definitely not sub-species, but two geographically, morpholically, and biologically seperate species.

RichConley

09/26/2006, 12:40 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8201350#post8201350 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Quite the opposite actually. What makes me believe that the natural way is the proper way is my belief in Conservation. This is all about keeping the world in a naturally accurate way. Otherwise, why bother conserving weedy sea dragons, or manatees, or bald eagles, or whatever? Because we, as humans, want to preserve the natural way.

Conservation builds up an interesting question of "What is natural?"
IE is it worth saving a species that is dying out because its being outcompeted? The Bald Eagles,etc, aren't really an example of us trying to conserve things, its an example of us trying to right the wrongs we did 20 years ago. We're trying to restore the populations to where they were before we destroyed them. Its got nothing to do with being "natural." My question is, and heres a hypothetical, if say, a storm happens, and some birds of prey get swept up and flown from Africa to the US. Say they fall into the same niche as Eagles, and outcompete them. Should we do anything about it?

I dont think so, personally. Survival of the fittest. The natural way, is all about change. Trying to keep things static is spitting in nature's face.

As for your definiton of species- I do not think the definition is based on the fact so many fish can interbreed. Sure the definition has changed over time, but it is likely due to different thinking in taxonomy, not hybridization.
I also dont think we can continually argue relatedness for domesticated versus wild animals. Domestic animals were created definitively due to unnatural selection. If we truly want to compare the genetic variation within a group of domestics compared to a group of wilds, they should held in exact environmental conditions. Would a bichon continue to exist if left to the same environmental conditions as wolves, or wild dogs or whatever. No way. If we are trying to domesticate these fish for some purpose, by all means hybridize. But this is certainly not the goal of RCT, and it certainly cannot be accomplished in a mere few years.

Part of its taxonomy, but the problem is, the taxonomy is messy, and its subjective, and in a lot of places, its flat out wrong. Take Acropora for instance: At this point, scientists are arguing about whether theres only ~10 species, and most of what we see is just regional variants, or if theres are 50+ species. The problem is, they both have valid arguments, and theres no real right answer.

The whole definition of a species is an attempt to quantize something that isnt quantitative. Evolution is, in most cases, fluid; theres constant change, and constant selection. The fish of the genus Cirrhilabrus (fairy wrasses) are a great example. They've been split and recombined a whole bunch of times because nobody can justify whether things are just color morphs, or different species. When these fish cross ranges, they hybridize, so theyre obviously not genetically different enough that it causes problems.

I would have a lot more of an issue with RCT on this if they had used a test tube approach, and it was with two fish that couldnt spawn naturally, but its not. These fish can, and will spawn together if they end up in teh same ranges.

The killer bee example was a good one, but again, not an unnatural hybrid. Whereas tiger/lions- totally unnatural.

Killer Bees are unnatural hybrids. They are the result of the Italian Bee being bred with african bees. They dont naturally cross ranges. Theyre the result of people trying to produce a more productive strain.

Mind you, we're not talking a LIGER here, but we're not talking cross genus at RCT either.

Now I agree and have stated in the past- ethics is totally subjective- and this is all my point. However, in the ethics of conservation, I dont see the values of "lets do it because we can" standing out. I cant think of any other ecological or conservation society that follows this credo.
And I dont see the value of "lets not do it because it hasnt happened yet."

We do, in conservation, do a lot of things just because we can, like building fish ladders in salmon territory, like introducing salmon stock to rivers that havent had it before, etc.

"Your argument boils down to "We shouldnt play god" and my question is, "why shouldnt we?"
I had to quote that, because I couldnt believe you said it. Following this thought, we should be able to reintroduce new species to foreign environments, and commit crimes like murder with no retribution, and follow no moral or ethical considerations whatsoever, right? That quote goes against all conservation issues as I know it. If we all get to act indivdually as we please, there is no reason for ecology or conservation, in the context of this discussion.

We dont punish crimes because of anything even related to "playing god." We punish crimes because they disrupt society. Its not moral, its not ethical. Its all about the fact that unchecked crime would collapse civilization, and its in the best interest of all of us to put criminals away. Its practicality, not morality. See eastern africa for the effects of unchecked crime.

My point there wasnt about ecology, or conservation, but you trying to justify your position with a moral/religious/its not right viewpoint, which I feel has no place in this discussion. We do plenty of things that dont happen in nature, and plenty of them are good. Saying that natured hasnt deemed it should happen ignores too much to be accepted.

I just really hate when people bring God/Religious arguments into scientific discussion. Its just a big pet peave of mine. Sorry.

Angel*Fish

09/26/2006, 12:52 PM

Quote by RichConley

Part of its taxonomy, but the problem is, the taxonomy is messy, and its subjective, and in a lot of places, its flat out wrong. Take Acropora for instance: At this point, scientists are arguing about whether theres only ~10 species, and most of what we see is just regional variants, or if theres are 50+ species. The problem is, they both have valid arguments, and theres no real right answer.

The whole definition of a species is an attempt to quantize something that isnt quantitative. Evolution is, in most cases, fluid; theres constant change, and constant selection. The fish of the genus Cirrhilabrus (fairy wrasses) are a great example. They've been split and recombined a whole bunch of times because nobody can justify whether things are just color morphs, or different species. When these fish cross ranges, they hybridize, so theyre obviously not genetically different enough that it causes problems

Well said and
I'm glad you addressed this, being a "lumper", it bothers me when people are so strict with issues of species.

SuperNerd

09/26/2006, 12:53 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8222947#post8222947 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Supernerd- in the case of the these angels, they are definitely not sub-species, but two geographically, morpholically, and biologically seperate species.

Hmm...got any references on subspecies verses completely separate species? They didn't produce any physically disabled progeny...and mixed when put together...meaning they were always capable of "naturally mixing" in the first place...

jmaneyapanda

09/26/2006, 02:11 PM

Rich Conley- I am glad you've joined this discussion, I really do appreciate this debate! Where to begin....

Bald eagles and Conservation- You are correct, we are trying to correct mistakes we made as humans 20-30 years ago. Why are they mistakes? Why not "outcompetition" as you say? In fact, I think we are doing a two part effort- correct our mistakes (by not using deleterious pesticides, etc.), and restoring natural environments (population managment of species to allow growth of the species back to original staure). This have EVEYTHING to do with being natural, otherwise, we'd let them go extinct! In others words, if conservation weren't stretching to get our environment back to the natural way, why do we care about endagered species, or protecting reefs, or whatever? If conservation meant solely "Survival of the fittest", there would be a lot less species around currently than there is. I think humans think the same way about thinks like salmon repopulation and ladders. We are trying to create populations of these species near what we felt would've been, HAD HUMANS NOT INVOLVED THEMSELVES. That princicpal of survival of the fittest is just fine and perfect, so long as humans dont alter the outcome in a nontypical manner. By this, I mean, if animal A outcompetes animal B and country X, that is what I consider survival of the fittest. However, animal B outcompetes animal A because humans have modified the setting, this is non natural situations, which do not allow the past million years of evolution to show their benefit. No one is trying to keep thing static. No one is saying that the naturally migration of any species must be stopped, otherwise it will harm another. I am saying we do not have the right to artifically create such scenarios without the benefit of the natural processes of evolution.

Taxonomy- I agree- classification within taxonomy is messy. But I dont think your points are applicable to this situation. Discrepancies within the species of wrasses occurs in geographically similar areas. Do you mean to tell me there may be discussion that resplendant angels and fishers angels are possibly the same species, just different variants?! If this happens, I will personally email everyone I have disagreed with and apologize. In my mind, this is such an absurd thought. Were they related in the past, quite possibly. Will they be related in the future? I highly doubt it.
Now, I must ask- Why would you have a problem if it were the test tube approach? Why is a LIGER bad? When I put myself in your shoes (as best I can), I cannot see the difference. If human involvement and manipulation is part of the natural order and species must learn to deal with it, isn't this part of that system? Please, help me to understand.

Regarding killer bees- I had thought these were naturally occuring animals- if you are sure, I must be wrong. I still dont see your point. He, then, is a hybrid created by man, who thought there would be no harm. And what happened?

"And I dont see the value of "lets not do it because it hasnt happened yet."
Go to any reputable zoo or aquarium anywhere in the world. Ask them to see the hybrids they are intentionally creating. You get my point. Why don't these world acclaimed and pinnacles of captive husbandry, conservation, and education create hybrids? Because they ALL follow the credo "lets not do it because it hasn't happened yet". Yes, a oversimplification of zoos and aquariums principles, but still true.

When did I bring God into this discussion? I have VERY SPECIFICALLY left religion out of my argument. I, instead, said morals and ethics. Every single scientist operates by them, and you are fooling yourself if you do not think this is true. Lets define some of my points- crime is a violation of laws- and laws are established by ethics and morals. Our scociety is NOT based on practicality. Think about all the issues with New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. Practically dictates save yourself. Ethics and morals dictate help your fellow man, despite it being no benefit to you. East Africa is a wreck because crimes are being committed by people not following ethics and morals. I think I've gotten way off topic with this one.
You may be surprised to hear it, but I believe I am on the same side of the fence with you about people bringing religion into scientific discussion. But I dont see how believing that we should not discount the benefits of evolutionary processes can be called a religious view. I think my "it's not right" view has every place in this discussion, because I feel, as a scientist, that Frank at RCT had every responsibility to say, "what can be learned from me creating these hybrids for the first time". I dont feel this was done.

Angel-Fish and Supernerd- Please let me clarify my position. I am so adament about this because we are not talking about two species of acropora found 2 miles from one another with near identical morphological and biological aspects. This is one species of fish found in the central atlantic, and another species of fish, that looks totally different, has different biological, ecological, and reproductive niches and characteristics, and is found in the central pacific. I honestly dont think there can be any debate as to whetehr they are two species. Might they have come from similar linegaes? Very possible. Does that mean we can treat them as the same species- no. Apes and humans come from similar lineages- are we the same species? Is there any doubt? (although, if youve seen a picture of me, there might be):eek1:

RichConley

09/26/2006, 03:30 PM

jmaneypanda, theres a lot more genetic difference between apes and humans than there are between two Centropyge species.

Two animals that are in the same genus were necessarily related in the past. They definitely come from the same tree. Yes, theyre in geologically exclusive areas, but why does that mean theyre necessarily not the same species? Negroid peoples and Mongoloid peoples historically are geographically seperated, yet are considered the same species. They also have the same basic differences that are between most centropyge species: differing skin pigmentation, and differing sizes.

Now, I must ask- Why would you have a problem if it were the test tube approach? Why is a LIGER bad? When I put myself in your shoes (as best I can), I cannot see the difference. If human involvement and manipulation is part of the natural order and species must learn to deal with it, isn't this part of that system? Please, help me to understand.

The Liger example wasnt exactly what I meant. My issue was with animals that cant/wont physically copulate. By that point, differences in genetics are usually so high that offspring have serious problems.

As to research institutes not doing things like this, you are sorely mistaken. There are many examples of hybrids being created, and still around. Most of our food livestock (domestic cattle, beefalo, etc), as well as wool production livestock are hybrids at this point. Hybrids are even actively being used in the US for sport fishing: See Tiger Muskellunge(northern pike x muskellunge, Hybrid Striped Bass(striped bass x white bass), and hunting (see Guinea-fowl). Theres hybrid pets (see Bengal Cats).

Theres even areas of the country where natural hybrids have outcompeted/outbred their parents into extinction(see Red Wolf, and its natural hybridization with coyotes and grey wolves). For that matter, all of the bear species in north america hybridize with each other.

Think about all the issues with New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina. Practically dictates save yourself. Ethics and morals dictate help your fellow man, despite it being no benefit to you.
Again, thats not true. Practicality does not indicate that I should ignore katrina. Practicality says that leaving New Orleans as basically our 21st century version of Mad Max is bad for society as a whole.

Again, punishment of crime has no basis in morality. It is an attempt to put a cost high enough to dissuade people from commiting crimes. Its "If you kill someone, you're going to lose 40 years of your life." Its an appeal to practicality. If it was based in morality, it would be "If you kill someone, we're going to tell you you're a bad person and try to make you into a good person." I think we can all agree which one of the two the justice system is.

Crime is dealt with not because its wrong, but because it hurts the overall well being of society. Me kicking a cat is just as wrong as me kicking you, but theres a much more severe punishment for me kicking you. Why? Not because its more wrong, but because its more detrimental to society.

How did I get this far off track?

SuperNerd

09/26/2006, 03:31 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8225715#post8225715 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Apes and humans come from similar lineages- are we the same species? Is there any doubt? (although, if youve seen a picture of me, there might be):eek1:

:lmao:

SuperNerd

09/26/2006, 04:21 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8225715#post8225715 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Angel-Fish and Supernerd- Please let me clarify my position. I am so adament about this because we are not talking about two species of acropora found 2 miles from one another with near identical morphological and biological aspects. This is one species of fish found in the central atlantic, and another species of fish, that looks totally different, has different biological, ecological, and reproductive niches and characteristics, and is found in the central pacific. I honestly dont think there can be any debate as to whetehr they are two species. Might they have come from similar linegaes? Very possible. Does that mean we can treat them as the same species- no.

Again must ask about/for references (in regards to the angelfish...) :)

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 06:33 AM

RichConley- I dont know if we'll ever get anywhere with this, but here goes-

"Two animals that are in the same genus were necessarily related in the past. They definitely come from the same tree" To me, what you just stated is a total contradiction. If they came from the same tree, they were related. Please explain to me how it is otherwise. What refernces do you have that humans and apes are more distantly related that these centropyge species? And if so, what is the "critical line" where hybridization between them is acceptable? Or more to the point, when do we consider them truly different species, or just possible subspecies? If we going to think under the assumption that taxonomy is too vague and assumptive to classify things as species, then hjow do we differentiate them?
I dont agree with your human race comparison either. You have described relatively minor variation in physical conditions. Are there big and small pygmy angels within a species? Yes. Do some sometimes have differeing patterns and markings within a species? Yes. This is a more accurate description of the comparison of humans races. However, do Potters angels (for example) have different reproductive biologies (ie- egg incubation period, larval growth rates, etc.) over their range? NO. Do Fishers and Respklendantys? YES. Do Orientals and Causasions? No. There is FAR FAR more differences between the different species of pygmy angels than different colors and size.

"My issue was with animals that cant/wont physically copulate. By that point, differences in genetics are usually so high that offspring have serious problems". But, this is bad because they may have genetic and physical issues? That's the only to not hybridize animals? If scientists could hybridize a cow with a giraffe in a test tube, and the offspring were physically healthy, you would be ok with this?

I agree that there are scientific research facilities that do create hybrids across species boundaries. Again, my point is that if cross species hybridization is to take place, there should be some tangible benefit expected to be created. Personally, I do not agree with sport fishing or hunting in the slightest, so I strongly oppose creation of hybrid fish for sport purposes. Cross species hybrid pets also fall in the same category for me, created to capitalize finanacially only. I have never hidden the fact that I disagree with these aspects as much as this centropyge hybrid. Now domestic livestock was not created by a research facility. Cattle, goats, sheep, etc. are thousands, if not more, years in the making. Sure, we have further manipulated the breeds and such, but for what purpose? My argument is that no conservation oriented groups will create such hybrids.

"Theres even areas of the country where natural hybrids have outcompeted/outbred their parents into extinction(see Red Wolf, and its natural hybridization with coyotes and grey wolves). For that matter, all of the bear species in north america hybridize with each other. " I agree with this point 100%. But this is exactly my point. It happens in nature- it's OK.

Now to get off topic- regarding Katrina- I didn't want to get so graphic before, but I guess I need to, to make my point. Some nursing homes in New orleans left elderly and sickened people in their hursing homes and fled when Hurricane Katrina was approaching. Were they responsible for continuing to care for these people? Practicality says, if I stay here to care for them, I can die. Ethics and morals says, I have the moral responsibility to care for these people who have trusted their health to me. Yet, these people are being held to their ethical commitment, not their practical one.

And regarding this whole crime and punishment, I guess I am still not making my point clear. Yes, our punishment is supposed to have a practical impression on committers of crime. But my point is- why is it wrong to commit such crimes? Why is stealing bad? Why is murder bad? Why is assault bad? Because of ethics and morals. Such crimes were commonplace for some of the most massive and chronicalled societies ever. Alexander the Great was a murderous man, and mass a HUGE empire and society. We dont follow his ethics because of our morals, not because they failed in hbis society. They actually worked very well to strengthen his society. I good question to think about is, over the past 2000+ years, society has changed quite a bit. Has it changed because society was crumbling? If so, what caused it to crumble? And if it didn't crumble, why did we change it? I believe ethics and morals are the root of all these answers.

Dude, we are so far off topic.

At any rate, regarding this issue of the post, I cannot see how RCT breeding to totally unnaturally occuring species together, with only tangible benefit being profit, as being a good thing. That is just my opinion.

Supernerd- the only reference I can provide is to look in every single book ever published on angelfish, and it will tell you that these two species, are, in fact, two seperate species. I am not trying to be a wise-a**, but I don't know how else to put. It is accepted scientific fact, that these are two species. Just as Yellow tangs and scopas tangs are, and queen angels and blue angels, and....... You see my point. No publication has EVER listed them as the same species, just different sub species, as far as I know. I assume you dont need me to list the names and authors of all these different books. PM me your email, and I will send you the article that FRank at RCT sent me about the relatedness of some centropyges were talking about. Even this scientific paper cites these all as being seperate species.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 08:32 AM

Jamanypanda, the problem is the difference between phylogenetic, and biological species. These are all the same species biologically, they can, and still do, breed and produce fertile offspring. Phlogenetically (IE taxonomically) theyre differnt species.

As to people, its not just minor differences. Theres an average height difference of 6" across races. Different races have different shaped skulls. They've got significantly different body proportions. Different sets of diseases. We're even selling/producing race specific medications at this point.

The problem is, we're looking at two contrasting things. To say that human races are (or were) different species would cause a political/religious backlash that would destroy you as a scientist.

Centropyge on the other hand, just like many other fish genus, has been over-speciated. If they can breed, and produce viable offspring, they are biologically the same species.

As to the crime thing, you are completely mis-understanding what I'm saying. We're not talking about individual practicality (selfishness), we're talking about practicality of society as a whole.
Now to get off topic- regarding Katrina- I didn't want to get so graphic before, but I guess I need to, to make my point. Some nursing homes in New orleans left elderly and sickened people in their hursing homes and fled when Hurricane Katrina was approaching. Were they responsible for continuing to care for these people? Practicality says, if I stay here to care for them, I can die. Ethics and morals says, I have the moral responsibility to care for these people who have trusted their health to me. Yet, these people are being held to their ethical commitment, not their practical one.
Again, thats got nothing to do with whats right or wrong, and everything to do with what it costs society. Practicality says these people made a decision that costs hundreds of lives to save their own. You need to stop thinking about it from the view of an individual, but from societies. Individuals do things because of ethics; Governments do not.

And regarding this whole crime and punishment, I guess I am still not making my point clear. Yes, our punishment is supposed to have a practical impression on committers of crime. But my point is- why is it wrong to commit such crimes? Why is stealing bad? Why is murder bad? Why is assault bad? Because of ethics and morals. Such crimes were commonplace for some of the most massive and chronicalled societies ever. Alexander the Great was a murderous man, and mass a HUGE empire and society. We dont follow his ethics because of our morals, not because they failed in hbis society. They actually worked very well to strengthen his society.

Alexander the great died because he ate bad meat.. His empire fell because he had no clear Heir, and his factions split and destroyed each other. His empire has nothing to do with this conversation.

Again, assault/murder is not bad because of morals. Its bad because it costs society. It undermines basic safety. YOU may not kill someone because you feel its morally wrong, but the justice system doesnt care. They dont punish you because its wrong; They punish you because of the negative effects of letting unchecked murder happen. People make moral decisions. Systems of law are generally not built on morals.

if you want to see systems of law that ARE built on morals, you can go to the middle east, and see the Theocracies. Look at Iran, and Iraq. Look at Syria, look at afghanistan. Those are systems of law built on morals and ethics, instead of practicality.

You cheat on your husband, you die. Why? Because its wrong.

"Theres even areas of the country where natural hybrids have outcompeted/outbred their parents into extinction(see Red Wolf, and its natural hybridization with coyotes and grey wolves). For that matter, all of the bear species in north america hybridize with each other. " I agree with this point 100%. But this is exactly my point. It happens in nature- it's OK.
Now heres the kicker: Its hypothesized that the reason that the red wolf is dissapearing is because we've destroyed a good deal of its territory, and its population has split and moved into grey wolf and coyote territory, and basically hybridized itself out of existence. We caused it just as much as Frank caused this hybrid...so why is one okay?

"Two animals that are in the same genus were necessarily related in the past. They definitely come from the same tree" To me, what you just stated is a total contradiction. If they came from the same tree, they were related. Please explain to me how it is otherwise. What refernces do you have that humans and apes are more distantly related that these centropyge species? And if so, what is the "critical line" where hybridization between them is acceptable? Or more to the point, when do we consider them truly different species, or just possible subspecies? If we going to think under the assumption that taxonomy is too vague and assumptive to classify things as species, then hjow do we differentiate them?

How do I know centropyge are all more closely related than humans and apes? Simple: Theyre in the same Genus. Us and apes, you have to go much further down the tree to link. Humans are "**** Sapiens Sapiens," Orangutans (our closest relative) are "Pongo Pygmaeus." (both family hominidae) Thats how taxonomy works. For a more biological explanation, we have 23 chromosome pairs, great apes all have 24. Centropyge all have the same number.

For example, a Panther grouper is as closely related to a Resplendant anthias as we are to orangutans (same family, serranidae). To say that centropyge arent more closely related to each other, than we are to apes, is a gross misunderstanding of biology.

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 08:51 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8230826#post8230826 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Systems of law are generally not built on morals...if you want to see systems of law that ARE built on morals, you can go to the middle east, and see the Theocracies. Look at Iran, and Iraq. Look at Syria, look at afghanistan. Those are systems of law built on morals and ethics, instead of practicality.

You cheat on your husband, you die. Why? Because its wrong.

...actually those are systems of laws that CLAIM to be built on morals. If you live in the middle east you may see a different picture. Many of the laws are based on blatant hypocrisy. Men are rarely blamed for any sexual promiscuity...even rape.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 08:57 AM

Supernerd, morals are completely subjective. Thats morally OK over there. Thats the problem with using morals and ethics.

You're trying to judge them with your own system of ethics and morals. Your morals, or what you think is ethical is irrellevant. Their moral code is whats relevant, and it allows those things.

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 09:03 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8230980#post8230980 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Supernerd, morals are completely subjective. Thats morally OK over there. Thats the problem with using morals and ethics.

You're trying to judge them with your own system of ethics and morals. Your morals, or what you think is ethical is irrellevant. Their moral code is whats relevant, and it allows those things.

Ahh. Yes I see your point. :D

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 09:07 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8230204#post8230204 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Supernerd- the only reference I can provide is to look in every single book ever published on angelfish, and it will tell you that these two species, are, in fact, two seperate species. I am not trying to be a wise-a**, but I don't know how else to put. It is accepted scientific fact, that these are two species. Just as Yellow tangs and scopas tangs are, and queen angels and blue angels, and....... You see my point. No publication has EVER listed them as the same species, just different sub species, as far as I know. I assume you dont need me to list the names and authors of all these different books. PM me your email, and I will send you the article that FRank at RCT sent me about the relatedness of some centropyges were talking about. Even this scientific paper cites these all as being seperate species.

Okay great. :D YGPMed

RichConley

09/27/2006, 09:56 AM

In reference to the last quote that SuperNerd posted, when things are listed as different Sub Species, they ARE being listed as the same species.

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 10:46 AM

Actually I brought up sub-species 6 and 7 quotes ago, not including this post (I count happy faces :lmao: ).

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 10:53 AM

RichConley- I again have to disagree (hard to believe, huh :D ). I understand what you are claiming about being confusion between taxonimic species due to animal behaviors. However, I get the impression that you are claiming these are a "biological species" because they can interbreed with viable offspring. Am I correct in believeing this is your definition? I personally think that is very outdated. There is far more to look at regarding these animals to consider this to be the definitive measure. Many fish can interbreed to form hybrids- for example eibls' and lemonpeels. Does this make them the same species? You may say yes, but I definitively say no. I believe we will have to agree to disagree, because there is not a black and white definition to this.

Regarding people, all the physical differences you state are due to isolation breeding effects. The same reason the St. Pauls Rocks angel fish are koi colored. The same way Red Sea regal angels have differnt colorations than indo pacific ones. It is a genetic variant which proliferates due to localized geographic breeding. Not yet speciation. And I may be wrong on this, but I do not think wwe are selling medications to certain races only. I do not think there are diseases certain races are only susceptible to. There may very be certain races which are more prone to ceratin diseases, but this is again caused by the localized breeding (and historic inbreeding) that has occurred over the last 10000 years. I do not know of ANY medical ailments that one race can get, that another cannot. If I am wrong, please let me know, because I would really like to look into it.

Regarding out terribly off topic discussion of crime and ethics- I have thought more about this, and I believe I know what we are splitting hairs about. My definition of our morals and ethics is based on what we deem appropriate for our society. That is your point. I just dont think you are defining it as such. How do you define morals and ethics? Does it have anything to do with our society?
How can we not think about it in individual terms? Society doesn't commit crimes, people do. And they do for issue with their ethics.
"Individuals do things because of ethics; Governments do not." What about organizations, such as RCT? How should they base their decisions?

Middle eastern societies do certainly ahve different ethics and laws. Why haven't they crumbled? They are still there. If we have these laws to prevent our society from falling apart, how come societies who don't follow these laws are still around? They should've crumbled long ago using your logic. Alexander's society flourished not following these laws, why? These are the questions I have with your definitions.

"Now heres the kicker: Its hypothesized that the reason that the red wolf is dissapearing is because we've destroyed a good deal of its territory, and its population has split and moved into grey wolf and coyote territory, and basically hybridized itself out of existence. We caused it just as much as Frank caused this hybrid...so why is one okay?"

There is a huge difference. Using the information you provided (which I am ignorant of, so I will use your facts), these Red wolves have been fragmented due to human involvement. I feel the is a human error. If the gene pool and populations were fragmented enough cause these red wolves to look to hybridize due to our actions, I feel this is as ethical irreseponsible as the centropyges. Hiowever, as you said, this is hypothesized. If these Red wolves merely walked out of their range one day, and started hybridizing with no human pressure, I think this is OK. Lets be clear about a FACT here also- Frank did not put a group of fishers ith a group of resplendants, and this is what happened. He intentionally put a single resplendant witha single fishers with the absolute intention of creating a hybrid. This is not something that happened with the Red wolves either.

"How do I know centropyge are all more closely related than humans and apes? Simple: Theyre in the same Genus. " You are right, I wasn't thinking straight.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 11:47 AM

"Society doesn't commit crimes, people do. And they do for issue with their ethics. "

Again, it doesnt matter WHY people commit crimes. It matters WHY we deal with those crimes. I can commit a crime that seems perfectly moral, and I will still be punished for it. Morals/ethics are 100% subjective, and vary from person to person. My moral/ethical code could say that its okay to kill anyone who doesnt agree with me. I kill someone for it, and its perfectly moral, and ethical. Society punishes me because people killing each other for no good reason causes disorder.

You ask why those middle eastern societys havent collapsed, when thye act on morality and not practicality? They have, and repeatedly. Iraq has had several VIOLENT regime changes in the last 50 years. Iran has only been a country since the 70s, but became that way because of a violent regime change. Syria is the same. Afghanistan has had 4 or 5 regime changes since the soviets left. Look at Europe, when we started deciding we wanted the church in charge: Chaos, war, a big mess.

You make decisions morally, a justice system can not. They need to think about the effects on society.

As to the red wolves, they hybridized with both naturally, it was just our influence that caused the rate of hybridization to soar to the point where theyre essentially extinct at this point. But heres another one, where animals are less related than Centropyge: Grizzly Bears and Polar Bears, which are now hybridizing. They never used to, because they were geologically seperated. The polar bears lived their entire lives on ice, the grizzly on land. Polar eats marine mammals, and fish, grizzly is an omnivore. Now theyre hybridizing, because that Ice territory is shrinking and the polar bears are breeding on land. THats because of global warming. (Which is natural, yes, we're accelerating it, but in this case, its just a matter of them hybridizing now, or in a couple thousand years).

You mention differences being due to isolation breeding effects. Thats what speciation generally occurs from. Centropyge are all biologically the same species, that are still going through speciation. We consider them different species, but from a biological standpoint, they havent changed enough to be.

Same thing that was happening with people: We were speciating because of breeding isolation. Theres no longer the extreme breeding isolation, but it still goes on. We're going to continue to speciate as long as theres still any stigma on inter-race marriages, and any preferance of people to mates of the same race. We're talking about the same thing with these animals: the same biological species, undergoing speciation, breeding with individuals that they've been isolated from.

I guess the point is, the line between what is different species, and what is the same, is very muddy, and is pretty arbitrary. A lot of animals, specifically fish, are considered seperate species, when they really should just be regional variants.

As to the disease thing, i dont think there are any diseases that one can get that one race can get that others cant. Are there any diseases that a C. Potteri can get that a C.Loricula can't? I doubt it. Some are more prone to things though. Like Blacks, and Sickle Cell anemia. THats due to breeding isolation: But so is the coloration between these fish.

Again, its an issue of evolution being a very fluid thing, and people tyring to put it into nice neat boxes. Another fun thing is migration shifts/continent change: It pretty much makes phylogenetic classification a joke. Sometimes animals will be split up, like when the american wolf population split. Some migrated over the landbridge, and evolved into european wolves (in asia), while the ones that stayed became red wolves, and timber wolves. Now to confuse things, the european wolves, then split again, and some migrated back to the american continent, and started breeding with the red wolves again. They split, and now we have european wolves, red wolves, grey wolves, etc. Are they different species? Are they the same? Are they hybrids? Who knows?

Evolution is messy, and it isnt meant to stay clean.

Amphiprion

09/27/2006, 12:33 PM

Just because two animals can hybridized DOES NOT mean they aren't separate species. Looking at the Code, the designation of species is really only applicable in natural circumstances (i.e. the wild), which is why it is not necessarily correct to assume they are the same species. While hybrids do exist in areas of overlap in the wild, both distinct species still maintain their discreteness (i.e. why don't they all start hybridizing). Much of this has been demonstrated genetically. I completely agree that the system is arbitrary (to a degree until you reach cladistics and genomics where there are fairly clear delineations) and sloppy at times as is life and evolution itself. But, it does have rhyme and reason to it and much of the reorganization is meant to eliminate polypheletic groupings. There are few clear lines, but nomenclature is meant to simplify things some, and is therefore, never really going to be perfect.

The same principles apply perfectly to the liger. You have Panthera leo and Panthera tigris (in place of our Centropyge species) that never really cross breed, even with some potential overlap (i.e. asiatic lions). The liger was obtained in captivity under unnatural circumstances. The same integrity that applies in wild populations cannot be carried over in captivity. But does that mean that they are not separate species? No, because they remain discrete in the vast majority of circumstances.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 01:10 PM

Amphiron, my whole point is that fish present an interesting case where the lines have been drawn a whole lot more often than with mammals. Theres a much bigger genetic difference between a lion and a tiger than there is between two centropyge angels. The split is much further back.

It seems that with mamals, subspecies are made, whereas with fish, they just create a new species.

Amphiprion

09/27/2006, 01:33 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8232573#post8232573 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Amphiron, my whole point is that fish present an interesting case where the lines have been drawn a whole lot more often than with mammals. Theres a much bigger genetic difference between a lion and a tiger than there is between two centropyge angels. The split is much further back.

It seems that with mamals, subspecies are made, whereas with fish, they just create a new species.

Actually, if you look at time lines evolutionarily, the split between lions and tigers is probably much 'younger' than the separation of Centropyge. Their interrelatedness may be more or less--that has not had enough research behind it to be declared either way. Genetics will be the key there. Though I suspect the distinction may be somewhat valid given the large separation and the amount of time allowed in the process. While I cannot necessarily agree with you on the relatedness portion (really, just from sheer lack of available information and research), I can agree that delineations have been made more often in mammals than in fish. This boils down simply to that there has been more research mammalian genetic relationships rather than piscine relationships. I also think when some research funds are funneled into ichthyological relationships, we will see a drastic change in the Amphiprioninae and other families and species. There is much work to be done to eliminate polypheleticism and to get a more complete (and hopefully, correct) view of these creatures.

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 02:11 PM

RichConley- I believe we are arguing a moot point here, as I get the impression you feel I am not addressing what you feel is critical, and I am beginning to feel the same. Why doesn't it matter why people commit crimes? I am arguing WHY people commit or don't commit crimes. I personally, feel that even if all laws were suspended for a day, the majority of people would not commit crimes due to their ethics and morals. Would you? I would guess not. And I personally believe our laws and "rules" of society are based on morals and ethics- not consequences. I think societies are what the majority of the population believe to be true. So if you did believe it to be moral and ethical to commit murder, in my deifnition, you would be a deviant to society, because I believe the majority to not find it moral or ethical. Society punishes you because you have violated the rules they have deemed ethical. Perhaps this unethical bahvior does cause disorder, but that is not the purpose. This is as I believe it, and I know you do not agree.

"You ask why those middle eastern societys havent collapsed, when thye act on morality and not practicality? They have, and repeatedly. Iraq has had several VIOLENT regime changes in the last 50 years. Iran has only been a country since the 70s, but became that way because of a violent regime change. Syria is the same. Afghanistan has had 4 or 5 regime changes since the soviets left. Look at Europe, when we started deciding we wanted the church in charge: Chaos, war, a big mess. "

I don't understand what you are arguing. Political regime does not equal culture absolutely.

"As to the disease thing, i dont think there are any diseases that one can get that one race can get that others cant. Are there any diseases that a C. Potteri can get that a C.Loricula can't? I doubt it. Some are more prone to things though. Like Blacks, and Sickle Cell anemia. THats due to breeding isolation: But so is the coloration between these fish."

This is exactly my point. I did not say that these fish get unique diseases. I was merely arguing the point that you said humans get different diseases between the races.

Overall, I guess your point is that you do not consider these fish to be seperate enough species to consider it an unnatural hybridization. I cannot grasp that point. To me, there is no argument whatsoever that these are entirely different species. You claim all centropyges are essentially biologically the same species. I disagree wholeheartedly. Otherwise, in every place we saw the species overlap, there would only one holotype. I have faith in the scientists that they have considered all the pertinent facts and issues, more than you or I understand or know.

I have one question for you, though. If you think all this taxonomy is a sham, do you get behind any conservation programs?

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 02:16 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8232573#post8232573 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by RichConley
Theres a much bigger genetic difference between a lion and a tiger than there is between two centropyge angels.

It seems that with mamals, subspecies are made, whereas with fish, they just create a new species.

Yes and yes, according to the article the genetic difference between certain c. angel "species" is minimal at best....

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8232997#post8232997 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
To me, there is no argument whatsoever that these are entirely different species. You claim all centropyges are essentially biologically the same species. I disagree wholeheartedly.

Hmm…the article you sent me actually contradicts your claim. :)

The article sent to me by jmaneyapanda entitled "Shallow mtDNA Coalescence in Atlantic Pygmy Angelfishes (Genus centropyge) Indicates a Recent Invasion from the Indian Ocean" by B.W. Bowen et al states that resplendens and fisheri are both part of the same subgenus (pointed out by Frank in his email and in the article as Xiphypops). It also states that they are Atlantic and Indo Pacific “species,” repectively…but the research findings, in regards to the other Atlantic “species” also investigated, may change that classification in the very near future.

The article goes on to hypothesize that some "speciation" (which as far as they know may really just be color variation) within pygmy angels was due, in some instances, to human influences affecting the flow of water through the panama seaway. Ie the “Atlantic species [may be] derived from the Indo Pacific by dispersal through the eastern Pacific, predating the closure of the Panama Seaway” (p2)… a very “un natural, RECENT (in biological terms) event.” :lmao:

It also states that two of the three atlantic pygmy "species" "lack molecular genetic differentiation…[that the] results of [testing] are not even distinguishable at a population level” (p 7) and that it is "hazardous to define evolutionary (and taxonomic) distinctions by coloration in the absence of support from behavior, genetics, or morphology (p 9); and points out that atlantic centropyge "species" "would be more appropriately regarded as color variants of a single species” (p 7).

If the two angels are indeed separate species (which is again reasonably debatable given the findings of this article and the relative ease, according to Frank’s email note, with which the fisheri and resplendens paired up initially and upon introduction) then their "hybrid offspring" will NOT be able to procreate successfully. They will basically be "infertile" and won't be able to have babies…even if they decide to pair up and try to make babies. I guess only time can tell us that though… :D

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 02:17 PM

By the way jmaneyapanda: Do you have an internet link that everyone can access to see the article for themselves (and correct me if I'm wrong? :lmao: )?

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 02:28 PM

I wish I did, but Frank only sent me a pdf. By the way, RichConley, pM me your email, I think you would like it also.

SuperNerd

09/27/2006, 02:33 PM

Okay well it's definitely accessible online if you are a member. :) Here's the abstract...I just don't have access to the full text over the internet.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/1/1

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 03:41 PM

As I mentioned before, pm me your email if your interested, and Ill forward it to you. Open offer to anyone interested.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 03:41 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8232997#post8232997 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
RichConley- I believe we are arguing a moot point here, as I get the impression you feel I am not addressing what you feel is critical, and I am beginning to feel the same. Why doesn't it matter why people commit crimes? I am arguing WHY people commit or don't commit crimes. I personally, feel that even if all laws were suspended for a day, the majority of people would not commit crimes due to their ethics and morals. Would you? I would guess not. And I personally believe our laws and "rules" of society are based on morals and ethics- not consequences. I think societies are what the majority of the population believe to be true. So if you did believe it to be moral and ethical to commit murder, in my deifnition, you would be a deviant to society, because I believe the majority to not find it moral or ethical. Society punishes you because you have violated the rules they have deemed ethical. Perhaps this unethical bahvior does cause disorder, but that is not the purpose. This is as I believe it, and I know you do not agree.

"So if you did believe it to be moral and ethical to commit murder, in my deifnition, you would be a deviant to society, because I believe the majority to not find it moral or ethical."

Except in the cases where society deems it perfectly ethically and morally ok. We deem it okay to commit murder in responce to murder (death penalty). Certain Islamic states believe its ok to commit murder at the slightest sign of disrespect (from women).

"I personally, feel that even if all laws were suspended for a day, the majority of people would not commit crimes due to their ethics and morals. Would you? I would guess not."

I wish that was the case. I submit to you the LA riots, the riots after katrina, the current population of Iraq, and for that matter, any riot. When consequences dissapear, people commit more crime. Its simple, and its fact.Yes, the majority probably aren't commiting crimes, but the overall rate most certainly increases.

As to morals, again. Why is it morally different to kill a human, than to kill a dog? Its both unjustly taking a life. Morally, IMO, theres no difference, theyre both evil acts. In society though, one does much more damage, and must be dealt with more severity. Someone kills a dog, its bad, but doesnt really affect society as a whole. Someone kills a person, and it affects society more, and thats why the punishment is more, not because the act is worse.

RichConley

09/27/2006, 03:42 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8233587#post8233587 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
As I mentioned before, pm me your email if your interested, and Ill forward it to you. Open offer to anyone interested.

sent

jmaneyapanda

09/27/2006, 04:36 PM

Yeah Rich, I think we're thinking the same thing, but not, if you know what I mean.
"Except in the cases where society deems it perfectly ethically and morally ok. We deem it okay to commit murder in responce to murder (death penalty). Certain Islamic states believe its ok to commit murder at the slightest sign of disrespect (from women)."

This is just my point. Society may deem murder of a helpless person as the most heinous crime, and murder in self defense as no crime at all. If the individual has a different perspective, they are portrayed as the outcast to society. Someone may think that jaywalking is no crime at all, but society claims otherwise, so they are considered bthe criminal element. If our society were constructed solely to preserve our civilization, wouldn't all murders be treated identically?

"I wish that was the case. I submit to you the LA riots, the riots after katrina, the current population of Iraq, and for that matter, any riot. When consequences dissapear, people commit more crime. Its simple, and its fact.Yes, the majority probably aren't commiting crimes, but the overall rate most certainly increases."

My question is, why dont the majority commit crimes, if fear of consequence is the only purpose for laws? Certainly people will take advantage of this situation, but these are people who have failed to consider the ethics or morals.

"As to morals, again. Why is it morally different to kill a human, than to kill a dog? Its both unjustly taking a life. Morally, IMO, theres no difference, theyre both evil acts. In society though, one does much more damage, and must be dealt with more severity. Someone kills a dog, its bad, but doesnt really affect society as a whole. Someone kills a person, and it affects society more, and thats why the punishment is more, not because the act is worse."

I disagree. First off, let me say I COMPLETELY AGREE that they are both evil acts. However, killing a person impacts society no more than killing a dog, using your definition. Our society has constructed that a humans life is more valuable than a dogs life because of the definitive relationships between humans and humans. These relationships are constructed from ethics. Let me explain- there were several murders in Atlanta, GA last night. How did these effect me socially? Not at all. I didn't know them personally, or their families. My life is exactly the same. However, I still mourn for their families. Because of morals and ethics. Built by my relationship with other people. How did this effect society? We still have the same laws and the same routines. These criminals had the threatn of punishment, including their own possible execution, but still chose to commit the crime. Why? Because their ethics and morals failed.
Just my 2 cents.

Ethics/morals/society- all from a hybrid fish for sale. Who would've thunk it?:rollface:

Amphiprion

09/28/2006, 06:59 AM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8233170#post8233170 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by SuperNerd
Okay well it's definitely accessible online if you are a member. :) Here's the abstract...I just don't have access to the full text over the internet.

http://jhered.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/1/1

Wow, I am further behind in the times than I thought! (which is pretty bad for someone studying ichthyology). This is the sort of information I was looking for--mitochondrial DNA, which is the best way to trace ancestry. The relatively small differences in mtDNA does indeed raise some questions. More research needs to be done, though, but from the article, I suspect that there may be some changes in the future.

Angel*Fish

09/28/2006, 07:10 AM

Agree! great article! Very interesting info. Thanks Supernerd

Amphiprion

09/28/2006, 09:18 AM

It is a good article and I am glad more research is being performed in certain areas. I just don't want anyone to immediately 'erase' the status of species for these fish just yet. Differences in coloration are often the first indicators (the literal razor edge) of speciation. More info and other sources/indications are needed before any status is changed (or still considered correct, as either is potentially possible). But it is certainly incredible research and I look forward to more.

Angel*Fish

09/28/2006, 09:58 AM

RichConley

09/28/2006, 07:13 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8238389#post8238389 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Amphiprion
It is a good article and I am glad more research is being performed in certain areas. I just don't want anyone to immediately 'erase' the status of species for these fish just yet. Differences in coloration are often the first indicators (the literal razor edge) of speciation. More info and other sources/indications are needed before any status is changed (or still considered correct, as either is potentially possible). But it is certainly incredible research and I look forward to more.

This is a new species like pluto is a planet :-P

It may be one in the future, but isnt yet.

RichConley

09/28/2006, 07:37 PM

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8233955#post8233955 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Yeah Rich, I think we're thinking the same thing, but not, if you know what I mean.
"Except in the cases where society deems it perfectly ethically and morally ok. We deem it okay to commit murder in responce to murder (death penalty). Certain Islamic states believe its ok to commit murder at the slightest sign of disrespect (from women)."

This is just my point. Society may deem murder of a helpless person as the most heinous crime, and murder in self defense as no crime at all. If the individual has a different perspective, they are portrayed as the outcast to society. Someone may think that jaywalking is no crime at all, but society claims otherwise, so they are considered bthe criminal element. If our society were constructed solely to preserve our civilization, wouldn't all murders be treated identically?

If you were to take the moral standpoint that "killing is bad," then yes, they would be punished the same. But you dont, because one is a much more destructive act. Society punishes murderers not because killing is bad, but because allowing people to assault each other would destroy society. It would undercut order. Its not the killing thats bad, but the attack.

"I wish that was the case. I submit to you the LA riots, the riots after katrina, the current population of Iraq, and for that matter, any riot. When consequences dissapear, people commit more crime. Its simple, and its fact.Yes, the majority probably aren't commiting crimes, but the overall rate most certainly increases."

My question is, why dont the majority commit crimes, if fear of consequence is the only purpose for laws? Certainly people will take advantage of this situation, but these are people who have failed to consider the ethics or morals.

I've only been involved in a couple of riot situations, (notably the kenmore square area after the red sox won the world series, and the patriots won the superbowl). From my limited experience, once people realize that it consequence free, and anonymous, they do commit crimes.

"As to morals, again. Why is it morally different to kill a human, than to kill a dog? Its both unjustly taking a life. Morally, IMO, theres no difference, theyre both evil acts. In society though, one does much more damage, and must be dealt with more severity. Someone kills a dog, its bad, but doesnt really affect society as a whole. Someone kills a person, and it affects society more, and thats why the punishment is more, not because the act is worse."

I disagree. First off, let me say I COMPLETELY AGREE that they are both evil acts. However, killing a person impacts society no more than killing a dog, using your definition. Our society has constructed that a humans life is more valuable than a dogs life because of the definitive relationships between humans and humans. These relationships are constructed from ethics. Let me explain- there were several murders in Atlanta, GA last night. How did these effect me socially? Not at all. I didn't know them personally, or their families. My life is exactly the same. However, I still mourn for their families. Because of morals and ethics. Built by my relationship with other people. How did this effect society? We still have the same laws and the same routines. These criminals had the threatn of punishment, including their own possible execution, but still chose to commit the crime. Why? Because their ethics and morals failed.
Just my 2 cents.

Ethics/morals/society- all from a hybrid fish for sale. Who would've thunk it?:rollface:

Again, if you're to punish for moral reasons,you punish someone who kills a dog just as badly as you punish someone who kills a man. In that case, its killing something thats the bad act.

We dont do that, because we've placed more VALUE on a human life. IE killing a man has more cost to society than killing a dog.

We're talking different things here. You're saying why you think people do things. Yes, people do things for moral/ethical reasons. Governments do things because of the effects that not doing them would have. They punish because of the cost of not punishing, not because of any notion of wrong and right.

jmaneyapanda

09/29/2006, 06:36 AM

Yes- I agree, we are talking different things. To tie it all back- in the context of this discussion, I feel RCT should've considered scientific morals and ethics, especially due to their stature in the conservation community.

Let me ask a question that is back "on topic" a bit. How do you feel about the Premnas and Amphiprion hybrids that were produced in the not so distant past? Are they also a poorly defined examples of the same species? Here are two genus of fish with notable physical and behavioral differences- way beyond something that can described as geographic variations, which copulated and produced offspring in the controlled aquarium. I cant say there has ever been a documented case of this happening in the wild.

Not to keep beating dead horses, but in riot situations, once the anonymity sets in, why dont 100% of these people then commit crimes? You cannot tell me that crime is committed uniformally once riot conditions arrive- that is not true.

"It would undercut order. Its not the killing thats bad, but the attack. "

Then why do we punish murderers more severely than assaulters?

"We dont do that, because we've placed more VALUE on a human life. IE killing a man has more cost to society than killing a dog."

My point is WHY does human life have more value? Why is it more a cost to society? I dont believe it is in the definition you've given, but it is given we apply more moral and ethical value to human life. Again, I agree that deviance to society causes disorder, but I believe the laws and punishments are scaled according to our morals and ethics.

I've been thinking greatly about the issue you mentioned about mammals being sub-speciated, and fish being speciated. I do agree, taxonomists have certainly sub speciated many more mammals than fish. In asking myself why, I think I came to an answer when watching Blue Planet on Animal Planet Channel. The oceans are tremendously undiscovered regions. Furthermore, many of the animals we claim to "know" about in the ocean, are realsitically quite unknown. In the process of sub-speciation, a great deal must be hypothesized about the history and geneology of the animals in question. For mammalian (or more accurately terrestrial) animals, this is a much fuller and more detailed history that we as humans can read. It is far easier and more feasible for us trace a terrestrial animals back 10000years than say an aquatic species. I am TERRIBLY oversimplifying the process, but this is why I think taxonomists have done this. In my mind, they are not "jumping the gun" in classification (as I believe you think they have done with many fish species). I think they are simply able to determine much more detail in the terrestrials, such as mammals.

What do you think?