I recently heard of a Farlowella x Sturisomatichthys crossbreed, but it is not listed yet on the list you linked, gonna have to do it.MatsP wrote:There are records of crossbred (hybrid) fish in Leporacanthicus, Pseudacanthicus, Ancistrus and Panaque (Panoqolos).
This page (in German, I'm afraid) has a list of "LH-numbers", which are all hybrid species.
http://www.l-welse.com/reviewpost/showcat.php/cat/120
Interesting link Mats. The site lists 12 "suspected" cases of hybridization. It is important to keep in mind that only one of these is an actual instance of hybridization between two scientifically described species.There are records of crossbred (hybrid) fish in Leporacanthicus, Pseudacanthicus, Ancistrus and Panaque (Panoqolos).
Do you believe that would be a good idea? Fore sure not.I include the entire group as there is a good possibility that Acanthicus, Pseudacanthicus, Megalancistrus, and Leporacanthicus could all eventually be merged into a single genus.
And why is it hypocritical to try to keep things on the straight and narrow. It is illegal in most countries to steal things, yet it does happen that things are stolen, because people are greedy and they can sell stolen goods. Does that mean I'd by hypocritical if I say it's bad to steal things? It of course would be if I was at the same time either buying stolen goods, or if I was stealing things - but that's not how I operate. I do neither steal, nor breed hybrids.Zeno wrote:We should not be hypocritical. Crossbreeding can not be avoided because it has to do with making money. So don't continue to create illusions.
Yes, and if we make it clear this is NOT a good thing, then perhaps more people will try to breed genuine species, rather than trying to create the "next new thing".Actually, it is the only reason why it is on the rise.
People want to own something that someone else hasn't; 'something special' and are willing to pay much money for this.
Good.This does not mean that I support ...
Breeding of these fish is also much rarer in captivity than Hypancsistrus - so that may have something to do with the lower reported incidence of hybrid fish. In fact small Panaque species areShane wrote:Although possible hybridization is clearly not as prevelant as with Hypancistrus-like fish, it would still be prudent not to mix Acanthicus group fish to avoid possible hybrids. I include the entire group as there is a good possibility that Acanthicus, Pseudacanthicus, Megalancistrus, and Leporacanthicus could all eventually be merged into a single genus.
I know we have passed each other like ships in the night on this same issue several times. There is only one definition of a valid species and that is a species that has been adequately described under the rules of the ICZN. It does not come down to what I or you define as a species, whether one is a lumper or a splitter, and it has nothing to do with a marketing gimmick developed by a German aquarium magazine. Hopefully we can talk this one out between us sometime over cold pints.Again, it all comes down to what you define as a species.
I have to admit that my own opinions on this are in a state of flux. I realize what I am about to say will likely generate some negative comments from people whose knowledge and opinions I respect very highly.Yes, and if we make it clear this is NOT a good thing, then perhaps more people will try to breed genuine species, rather than trying to create the "next new thing".
Of course, I don't mean that everything that looks a tiny bit different is a different species. But there are L-numbers that do not match any described species. Say for example - is that not clearly different from ALL known Panaque species that have been described so far? And there are certainly several other L-numbers that are quite distinctively different. Other L-numbers are definitely less distinctly different, and we can clearly debate for a long time where the "border" goes. But just because there hasn't been a paper published on a fish that is distinctively different from all other ones we know of in that group, doesn't mean that we can simply discard them as "gimmicks".Shane wrote:I know we have passed each other like ships in the night on this same issue several times. There is only one definition of a valid species and that is a species that has been adequately described under the rules of the ICZN. It does not come down to what I or you define as a species, whether one is a lumper or a splitter, and it has nothing to do with a marketing gimmick developed by a German aquarium magazine. Hopefully we can talk this one out between us sometime over cold pints.Again, it all comes down to what you define as a species.
At the risk of sounding philosophical and pedantic. It did not exist as a species before it was described because species is a human concept. A human carefully picked the parameters and metrics (bones, body measurements, fin ray counts, DNA, etc) he/she used to define the fish as a distinct organism. I agree with you on all other points. I also agree that a system, for aquarium hobbyists, using the most likely genus and a river name for a fish, that does not appear to have been described, would be far more useful than what hobbyists are using now.Secondly, a describer does not create a species, he just describes it. The species existed before, but it was just not known.
This is true and I am happy you saw my point. I also concur with your point that we have to carefully weigh the impact with regard to the local people's and their incentives.And frankly, all arguments Shane gave were not arguments for hybrids, but arguments for keeping offspring - regardless of it being purte or hybrids. Therefore, they are not arguments for hybrids themselves, just for breeding.
Clearly there are some fish that aren't very easy to tell apart (L129 and L340 comes to mind immediately), but in most cases if the fish are bought from a reputable source, and come from the same wholesaler/exporter, it is most likely caught in the same location - and thus is the same population.Zeno wrote:@ Mats
I can understand your preference of breeding straight lines but even when you're buying wildcaughts your not 100 % sure these fish are pure. When you are breeding these fish, it is not inconceivable you will even notice anything different in the F1 offspring.
Greetz, Zeno
Agreed, but given the massive environmental issues these livebearers face in their natural environment, is that a bad thing? Mexico was one of my worst collecting experiences because it is so hard to find water clean enough to have any fishes living in it. I also do not think that the prevelance of hybrid livebearers has any impact on hardcore livebearer hobbyists. Livebearer expert John Mangan is a fellow member of my local club PVAS. He is not buying livebearers at the LFS. He travels to Mexico and Central America to get his fish. If the situation ever got as bad with catfishes as it has with livebearers we would probably all be planning annual collecting tripse.g. good luck finding a non-hybrid swordtail or Sailfin molly at your LFS!
