|
|
|
|
#76
09/09/2006, 11:24 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. |
|
#77
09/09/2006, 02:14 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.
|
|
#78
09/09/2006, 02:51 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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. |
|
#79
09/09/2006, 03:38 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.
__________________
Eileen |
|
#80
09/09/2006, 03:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
The solution to pollution is dilution! |
|
#81
09/09/2006, 05:05 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. |
|
#83
09/09/2006, 06:55 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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" ?
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#84
09/10/2006, 07:47 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. |
|
#85
09/10/2006, 08:23 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
To me it humans messing around breeding different animals is "natural". We've been doing it at least since we stopped hunting/gathering.
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#86
09/10/2006, 08:25 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?
|
|
#87
09/10/2006, 01:24 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#88
09/10/2006, 01:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 
__________________
Marie So long, & thanks for all the fish! __________________________ |
|
#89
09/10/2006, 01:54 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. |
|
#90
09/11/2006, 11:47 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. |
|
#91
09/11/2006, 12:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
|
#92
09/12/2006, 03:44 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. |
|
#93
09/12/2006, 04:27 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.
__________________
Steven Pro, yep that is my real name. 19th Annual Marine Aquarium Conference of North America (MACNA) in Pittsburgh, PA September 14-16, 2007 |
|
#94
09/12/2006, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
__________________
Life is to short to buy frags ! But for FREE I'LL take them ><((((º>`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·...¸><((((º> ·´¯`·.¸. , . .·´¯`·.. >((((º> IT'S NOT THAT SIMPLE....... BAREBOTTOM ALL THE WAY® |
|
#95
09/12/2006, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
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 |
|
#96
09/13/2006, 08:05 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.
|
|
#97
09/13/2006, 08:07 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.
|
|
#98
09/13/2006, 08:17 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. |
|
#99
09/13/2006, 09:55 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
#100
09/13/2006, 11:04 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.
|
|
|
Linear Mode
