The hybrid Syno thread

[unblinded]

I stumbled across this video today and thought I would share it for those who might not have seen it. This seemed like a good place to put it. Some of these crosses make no sense to me. In some cases the offspring look awful. The short bodied Synos are just gross. I never could get the video to post so I just posted the URL.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5ZhfJzB2DE

*mod edit: introduced youtube tags

[Richard B]

Great spot unblinded - some interesting detail as it would appear 2nd & 3rd generation hybrids are being produced. I'm not sure if this means that hybrids have been bred or that a certain crossbreed has been crossed with a different crossbreed etc

Certainly the right place to post so people can be educated

[racoll]

In light of the recent hybrid syno discussion here, we will now try to get some more info into the cat-elog.

The newest results are in, and we now have maternal species IDs on all the hybrids myself and Richard collected (assuming of course that the IDs of the fishes in GenBank are correct).

This one (RC0582) was Synodontis nigrita. Not sure if this hybrid is in the cat-elog.

This one (RC0698) was Synodontis ocellifer. Seems to match Synodontis sp_hybrid(8), I think.

IMGP0509.JPG (47.14 KiB) Viewed 27941 times

[racoll]

These were Synodontis decorus. Matches Synodontis sp_hybrid(5).

RC0428

RC0699

IMGP0547.JPG (54.52 KiB) Viewed 27941 times

[racoll]

Also Synodontis decorus, but this time matching Synodontis sp_hybrid(9).

RC0616

RC0703

IMGP0540.JPG (52.77 KiB) Viewed 27941 times

[racoll]

If it's definitely a hybrid, it comes from Synodontis petricola (or quite possibly Synodontis lucipinnis):

RC0696.

IMGP0531.JPG (54.31 KiB) Viewed 27941 times

[racoll]

This was Synodontis schall. Matches Synodontis sp_hybrid(2).

RC0701.

IMGP0513.JPG (58.02 KiB) Viewed 27940 times

[racoll]

Again, Synodontis schall. Also matches Synodontis sp_hybrid(2), but with denser spots.

RC0702.

IMGP0501.JPG (54.18 KiB) Viewed 27940 times

[racoll]

These were Synodontis eupterus. Two possible matches here.

Synodontis sp_hybrid(1)

RC0569

RC0384

Synodontis sp_hybrid(4)

RC0700

IMGP0521.JPG (49.49 KiB) Viewed 27940 times

[racoll]

These two were also Synodontis eupterus.

RC0329

RC0583

[racoll]

Now it gets a bit more interesting here. This one came out as a possibly undescribed syno close to Synodontis obesus. Not what you would expect, as the common species tend to be the maternal lineage. Is it really a hybrid?

RC0697.

IMGP0556.JPG (53.83 KiB) Viewed 27934 times

[racoll]

Here's the full ID tree if anyone wishes to take a look.

[Marc van Arc]

Subject: -1
Effort, dedication & knowledge: + 10

But I'd rather say:
Rupert, despite the fact that I do not like the subject, I think you have made some terribly good and informative postings.

Imho everyone who loves fish should have a look at the short bodied Synos in the video at the top of this page. And if you indeed love fish, do not buy!
No demand = no more intentionally deformed Frankenfish.

[racoll]

Thanks Marc.

Now, once we have agreed that these hybrids match the ones in the cat-elog, I can add the data.

[Shane]

Great job on the research.
-Shane

[Jools]

Now, once we have agreed that these hybrids match the ones in the cat-elog, I can add the data.

Just caught up with this awesomeness. I agree with the exception of RC0696 and RC0697 that they should be added to the cat-elog. I wonder if the images (from Rupert) could be added with a caption of the RC number (or some suitable moniker) and then in the ID section for that "species" that a note to the result for that species.

Jools

[Jivamukta]

Also Synodontis decorus, but this time matching Synodontis sp_hybrid(9).

RC0616

RC0616.JPG

RC0703

RC0703.JPG

IMGP0540.JPG

I saw this earlier post and I wonder can anyone tell me what this fish in the post/pics is a hybrid of? I just picked up 2 juveniles that look pretty much exactly like this from my LFS (having decided after advice I got on here from my first post to NOT get Columbian Sharks!). I knew they were hybrids, the LFS was open about that, but they couldn't tell me what they were a hybrid of. One assistant said he thought they were a decorus/angelicus hybrid, and his colleague said he was confident they are an ornatipinnis/brichardi hybrid. They had a bit of a discussion amongst themselves about it, and the guy who said angelicus/decorus was adamant that ornatipinnis is too rare to likely have been used for hybridisation as he's not come across any ornatipinnis or ornatipinnis hybrids in at least 10 years.

I'm a little concerned about how big they are going to get as an ornatipinnis would outgrow my tank, so I wonder if an ornatipinnis/brichardi hybrid would too, if that is indeed what they actually are.

I decided to go for them as I thought they were unusual, and a nice contrast to my petricolas, and my granulosus and angelicus, even if not a true species.

[Viktor Jarikov]

I thought I'd bump it, as a peer got a hybrid under the name of shoutedeni... plus maybe someone else got something to add as it's been 2 years...

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/foru ... st-8006503

Or might it be genuine? I don't think so but have been wrong once or twice before:

[Jools]

That looks like a S. eupterus and S. grandiops cross or thereabouts...

Jools

[Viktor Jarikov]

Find 20 differences between this frankenstein and eupterus: