PlanetCatfish.com

Is there a chance to crossbreed different plecos LXXX species?

I know its nearly impossible to have them to have fry in aquarium even with only one species in a tank.. but im just wondering..but maybe i could have a lifelong aim i will be trying to reach if possible..

Anyone maybe got some pics of some of their successfull crossbreeds ?

Many Thanks

Vladimir
Slovakia

This is a touchy subject, most PlanetCatfishers seriously disapprove of hybrids. Because of the rarity of original strains of loricariids and catfishes as it is, the threat to maintaining strains when hybrids exist, and the confusion that results in trying to identify unlabeled hybrids that appear in the pet trade, as well as the fact that many of us like natural forms just fine and find hybrids distasteful, I'm just going to give you a word of warning to be prepared for some negative responses.

There has been success in hybridizing species of Hypancistrus. See the following thread for a link and discussion from an article about it: http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... =5&t=35010

As far as I know, hybridizing in other L-numbers is undocumented.

You shouldn't try to crossbreed....I really disaprove hybrids.

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

Intentionally breeding two different species (L-numbers) would definitely be a bad idea. There are enough hybrids created by accidents and greedy businesses. Hobbyists creating hybrids on purpose to "add" to this list wouldn't be of any benefit at all.

So, please keep only groups of one genus per tank - so you can keep one species of, say, Hypancistrus and one of Ancistrus in a tank - not two similar species.

--
Mats

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

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.

There are records of crossbred (hybrid) fish in Leporacanthicus, Pseudacanthicus, Ancistrus and Panaque (Panoqolos).

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.

Of the 12 cited spawnings two thirds (8) either are between Hypancistrus-like fish or a Hypancistrus and a Hypancistrus-like fish. None of these are between two described species:

1. L028 (aka L004, L005 and L073) (Tocatins, Do Para, Amazon) X Hypancistrus debilittera (Orinoco Basin)
2. Hypancistrus zebra (Xingu, Amazon) X L260 (Tapajos, Amazon)
3. L260 (Tapajos, Amazon) X L333 (Xingu, Amazon)
4. L262 (Tapajos, Amazon) X L270 (Curuna, Amazon)
5. Hypancistrus zebra (Xingu, Amazon) X L66 (Xingu, Tocantins, Amazon)
6. L028 (aka L004, L005 and L073) (Tocatins, Do Para, Amazon) X Hypancistrus debilittera (Orinoco)
7. L66 (Xingu, Tocantins, Amazon) X "Hypancistrus" Guru Pa
8. L201 (Orinoco) X L333 (Xingu)

Of the above, cases numbers 1, 6 and 7 are the most likely to represent actual cases of hybridization as they are spawnings between fishes from completely different drainages. There may be additional spawnings to the above buried in the PC forums. If anyone has the time to look for them and post them it will add to our collective knowledge.

The above information has been widely interpreted by hobbyists as "proof" that Hypancistrus easily hybridize. Cases number 1, 6 and 7 especially seem to support this assertion, and it very well may turn out to be true. That said, there are several other possible explainations from an evolutionary point of view. We may be looking at a species flock, subspp of a handful of valid sp spread over different drainages, etc, etc. I am sure HH or Milton could offer several additional possibilities.

Regardless of the "why" I think it is safe to recommend that hobbyists not mix any Hypancistrus-like fish in the same tank if they want to avoid possible hybrids.

I'm going to post this now for fear of losing my posting, and then look at the remaining 4 cases cited.

-Shane

PS I realize this thread looks weird and keeps changing. That is because I keep getting booted by the "Host not configured to accept web traffic" bug.

Continued from the above...

Panaque-type fish
A) L002 (Tocantins, Amazon) X L397 (lower Amazon)

Acanthicus group fish
A) Leporacanthicus triactis (Orinoco) X L314 (LDA056) (Rio Curua Una, Amazon)
B) Pseudacanthicus leopardus (apparently widespread through Guyanese and Amazonian drainages) X L114 (Pseudacanthicus cf. leopardus) (same distribution as Pseudacanthicus leopardus)
C) Pseudacanthicus leopardus X Pseudacanthicus spinosus (widespread Amazon and its tributaries)

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.

@Mats, I did not see any Ancistrus cases on that site. Did I miss something?
-Shane

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.

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.

This does not mean that I support ...

Greetz, Zeno

@Shane: So far there are no hybrids known of Ancistrus. Even if they are often kept together, none did appear till now.

I also know about eggs from L 65 and P. spinosus, and from a hybrid of L 97 with something else, but I don´t remember now.

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.

Do you believe that would be a good idea? Fore sure not.

I do not have access to the article mentioned in this thread

http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... lit=hybrid

Can anyone comment as to if it documents additional possible cases of hybridization to the ones mentioned above?

I looked at this thread, but am still not clear if this was a case of possible hybridization, and if it was, between which two L Numbers?
http://www.planetcatfish.com/forum/view ... lit=hybrid

-Shane

Obviously, this comes back to "splitter vs. lumper" philosophy, like we've discussed in the case of Hemiancistrus subviridis L200/ Hemiancistrus sp(L128).

In my view, if fish are clearly visibly different, then they should not be bred together (and yes, there are some fish where this is hard to distinguish).

Of course, one could argue that there is less distinction between, say, H. zebra and H. luanorum than there is between a chihuahua and a cocker-spaniel - so maybe we should just mix all the Hypancistrus species to get better genetic distribution, and so that only the really valuable ones are kept pure, and everything else becomes a spot-stripey brownish "moggy".

There is a thread here where someone bred two different Ancistrus together.

Again, it all comes down to what you define as a species. But I also would say that even if the spotted ones and the stripey ones of a species shouldn't really be intentionally bred together. Nor ones with brown body and dark spots and orange fin edges with ones that haven't got orange trim on the fins.

--
Mats

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.

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.

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.

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".

This does not mean that I support ...

Good.

--
Mats

Shane 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.

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 are

And even if they are merged into one genus, I don't see that a fish that are distinctly different shouldn't be considered "the same species".

--
Mats

Again, it all comes down to what you define as a species.

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.

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".

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.

Are we aquarists or are we naturalists? As aquarists, it makes a lot of sense to be against creating hybrids on purpose. As a naturalist not so much. The vast majority of aquarium keepers view aquarium fishes like cut flowers. Most will die very quickly after they are purchased. Maybe something like .001 % of hobbyists are on PC and trying to do their best for their L Number. The rest are going to take home an L 200 and dump it into their mbuna/gourami/clown loach community tank. It might live 2 weeks, it might live 6 months. It will almost certainly not live the 15-20 years nature alloted it. The aquarium industry's own statistics estimate that 85% of aquarium owners "fail" in less than a year. That means 85% of fish purchased by the average consumer in their first (and only) year in the hobby are killed. Would it not be far better for our planet if more of these doomed animals did not come from wild stocks? How many wild populations of Synodontis are actually better off now that hybrids make up most of the commercial trade for this genus?

Hardcore catfish aquarists are not going to buy known hybrids, so there is really no threat to the part of the hobby that we all belong to. Do you view the issue in a different light if you imagine that every hybrid loricariid sold means one more "real" catfish alive and reproducing in the wild? The real threat might be that we pursist keep insisting on "real catfish only" right up to the point that so many have been killed by Joe Sixpack the aquarist that export of that sp is cut off. We all know several examples where that has already happened.

If I have to choose between my passion for the aquarium hobby and my belief system (naturalist) I'll side with the later. I long ago realized that I am just as happy collecting the fish and putting them back as I am collecting them and bringing them home. Maybe the best thing that could happen for wild plecos is that hybrids become the "next new thing."

-Shane

Shane wrote:

Again, it all comes down to what you define as a species.

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.

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".

You do make a good point [not going to quote the whole text] on the "most aquarists kill all fish within a year" and thus "it doesn't matter what their fish is". However, you just have to look at Mbuna or Livebearers to see what happens if people aren't "looking after captive bred strains" - try finding a REAL wild form Swordtail in a shop Xiphophorus hellerii, or a Pseudotropheus zebra.

--
Mats

Taking the making money aspect out of the equation, why would anyone want to creat hybrids when there are so many different varietys ,colours, shapes,sizes of Catfish already available.
I am completely against deliberately creating hybrids, people should leave original strains alone!!!

I think the discussion is getting splint into a few branches

firstly, it was argued that making a hybrid implies having 2 different species - and therefore the question arises what is a species. But I disagree with Shane that only a described species is a true species.
Firstly, because species later sometimes become merged - the later describtion - although valid - was not a real species.
Secondly, a describer does not create a species, he just describes it. The species existed before, but it was just not known.
Thirdly, what to do with an animal which shares features of other known species? it might be a new species (oops) or it can be part of one of the known speces, where the lack of some features might be reason to redescribe / redefine the original species.

OK, from a more pragmatic point of view, merging described species does not happen often, so one could say - if it is described, let's assume it's a real species.

But recently we saw the quite well known species Cryptoheros (formerly Cichlasoma) nigrofasciatus (the convict cichlid) being split into 3 species - Cr kanna, Cr sequia and Cr nigrofasciatus. I don't think one can say a breeder in 1970 - before the split - did not produce hybrids, and a breeder now would, I think both did/do.

Earlier Shane and I agreed species are not that important, the Genus (or sometimes sub-genus) and origen should suffice: the genus tells me what to feed (veggies for Ancistrus, meaty for Hypancistrus) and the origen tells me what the water should be (warm/cold, soft/hard, pH).

If one would look at species/varieties that way, one would not mix the royal panaque from the Rio Xingu with the one from the Rio Tapajos - because regardless of species or variety, one would not consider them equal.

The other discussion is more an ethical one

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.

Again I wonder whether I agree. From an ethical point of view, I certainly do. But would this position help? I'm afraid nature will have to pay for itself, otherwise it is doomed. And if we don't buy animals (regardless of them being fishes, birds, lizards or spiders) the local people will not have any incentive for protection.

And thus, the area we decide not to buy fish from, might be gone in a few decades.

Secondly, a describer does not create a species, he just describes it. The species existed before, but it was just not known.

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.

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.

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.

-Shane

@ 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

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

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.

But when I say don't breed hybrids, I don't mean that we should do DNA analysis to ensure that they are genetically identical [or "close enough"], but that we should not intentionally mix, for example, different L-numbers that are easily told apart simply by looking at their body pattern. Which is what the original question was about, as far as I can see.

--
Mats

The problem with hybridizing isn't just that the original species are eventually lost to the hobby, disappearing in a sea of hybrids (e.g. good luck finding a non-hybrid swordtail or Sailfin molly at your LFS!) but that unless you spend a lot of time line-breeding and back-crossing the hybrids always combine the least desirable characteristics of the parents. In short, if you don't put in a lot of time and effort hybridization leads to loss of choice and ugly fish.

That said I'd be OK with hybrids if they were given trade names instead of being passed off as the more expensive of the parent species (like so many "Synodontis angelicus"), or fake scientific-sounding names ("Synodontis valentiana"). So if someone here really wants to produce and sell hybrids, please do not refer to them by the same name as one of their parents, please instead make up trade names for them which are obviously not latin and obviously not capture localities.

Barbie,
Any documentation would be much appreciated as information on hybridization in Ancistrus is very hard to come by. Yours is only the second case I have heard of. There are 1,000s of reported cases of "hybridization" in Ancistrus on the web, but closer inspection reveals they are pretty much all involving the fancy forms of and thus not hybrids at all.

e.g. good luck finding a non-hybrid swordtail or Sailfin molly at your LFS!

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 trips

-Shane