Wow! New hybrid pygmy angelfish reared at RCT!

[copps]

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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.

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.

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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]

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.

M'kee

[jmaneyapanda]

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]

Okay, I threw "bash" in there once, and maybe I should have used "hate", in the popular form . 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.

Originally posted 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?

Originally posted 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.

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...

[jmaneyapanda]

dude that picture is gonna give me nightmares.

[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 !

[zuzecawi]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

well said zuz.

[copps]

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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.

Originally posted 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!

[jmaneyapanda]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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" 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...

[copps]

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

[jmaneyapanda]

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]

[marinebetta]

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]

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