Wow! New hybrid pygmy angelfish reared at RCT! - Page 5

Angel*Fish · #**101** 09/13/2006, 11:27 AM

Not looking for a dictionary definition necessarily - but even with almost a biology degree I just realized I don't understand the difference between breeds and species -

Can anyone illuminate me?

jmaneyapanda · #**102** 09/13/2006, 11:46 AM

This is only my definition- but species are different....species. In their taxonomy, the have the same genus, but different species- ie- Flame angel = Centropyge loricus, and Eible angel = Centropyge eibli. Same genus, but different species.

Breeds are the same genus and species, but different morphs, colors, possibly even subspecies. Usually selected by artifical selection- ie- goldfish- many different varieties, yet all the same genus and species.

Angel*Fish · #**103** 09/13/2006, 12:02 PM

Thanks- I hate to be seem ungrateful, but I was hoping for some idea of how it is decided by the taxonomist how to classify an animal - For example, to me a lemonpeel & a Herald's angel appear a lot more like than say, a collie and a pug .

RGBMatt · #**104** 09/13/2006, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmaneyapanda
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.

Indeed. And as such, why should there be a problem if two different fish in my aquarium pair up and spawn? They are still behaving according to their instincts, as dictated by their environment.

Quote:

Regarding Darwin, not to nit pick, but pigeons are pigeons, and breeding different breeds is NOT hybridization! He was certainly not mixing species.

Are you absolutely sure? Even taxonomists cannot agree on the definition of a "species". The notion of species is yet another concept that humans have imposed upon the world in our effort to understand it. In reality, life is a continuum rather than a set of discrete categories, and the species concept breaks down completely once you look at the lower levels.

Talk to some botanists if you want a real confusing perspective on the subject!

SDguy · #**105** 09/13/2006, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Steven Pro
A simple DNA analysis seems far more likely to demonstrate how closely those two fish are to one another.

Bingo.

zuzecawi · #**106** 09/13/2006, 01:32 PM

Angelfish...
a comparison would be... in wolves for example. The species is canis lupus. The breeds are McKenzie Red, Artic Wolf, Timber Wolf, etc. They are all wolves. They are just different morphs of wolf color and size, specifically adapted to their area.
Biologists determine species by a number of factors, but most important, is LONG TERM breeding viability. A horse and a donkey can breed, but there are very few mules that have viable offspring, and their offspring are even less likely to have viable offspring. And when a mule can breed, it's due to a genetic mutation where the chromosomes either didn't split properly, or there was a trisomy present. Species are determined also by specific phenoypical characteristics that are inheritable and consistent, in other words, all orange shouldered tangs have the characteristic orange blotch on the shoulder, and yellow-orange/gray color change from juvenile to adult. There may be allowable morphs within a species, such as in cornsnakes, where there are many natural color variations within the species, but for the most part, these morphs are known and consistently "proven" in longterm breeding. There are other factors in determining a species, but those two main ones are the "usual" arguments.

jmaneyapanda · #**107** 09/13/2006, 05:29 PM

RGBMAtt- Here is why I feel it is a problem if we pair unnatural fish. This Resplendant and Fishers were not given the choice- they were purposefully paired IN EXCLUSION OF THEIR OWN SPECIES to create hybrids. They were not allowed the possibility of natural law. They are behaving according to their instincts in an improperly manipulated environemnt which would only allow this pairing or no breeding at all. Do you this they would hybridized if they had access to another of their species? Absolutely not- no way.

I agree the rhetoric of scientists can be quite mind boggling sometimes- The lines between species and subspecies is so vague and blurred and altered so often that it is difficult to pin down certain details. But there is no argument as to the fact that species exist. Otherwise, killing a primate would be treated no differently morally than killing a human. We differentiate between the species, and apply our morals and ethics to deem one not acceptable. I probably just creeped out some people- sorry- I am just trying to make my point of species identification.

At any rate, for this example, I think you would be quite hard pressed to find ANY scientists who would say that the Resplendent and Fishers are not seperate species, and this is hybridization.

AngelFish- I think you are applying a bit too simplistic and humanistic view of it. Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close. Any differences you see are because of artifical human involvement, also. 5000 years ago, if dogs (even domesticated ones) were left to their own vices and let to breed as they wished, do you think pugs would be around today? No way. Yet with the lemonpeel and heralds angels, this was allowed, and they are both around today, and have different behavior, reproduction, and physiological differences, which causes their classification into different species.

Matt, I do not understand your description of the species continuum. If species can't be defined, and its all some arbitrary vice for human to self validate, why conserve anything at all? Why not just plunder and wreck the earth, exterminate weaker animals in this continuum, and be happy?

SDGuy and StevenPro- The paper Frank provided me indicated just such information, comparing the mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA) of several different species of Centropyge. So, why was hybridization a necessary next step? Your guess is as good as mine.

Steven Pro · #**108** 09/13/2006, 07:22 PM

Can you send me the paper?

Angel*Fish · #**109** 09/14/2006, 07:47 AM

Zuzecawi, thanks for giving me an idea of how species is determined.

Quote:

AngelFish- I think you are applying a bit too simplistic and humanistic view of it. Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close. Any differences you see are because of artifical human involvement, also. 5000 years ago, if dogs (even domesticated ones) were left to their own vices and let to breed as they wished, do you think pugs would be around today? No way. Yet with the lemonpeel and heralds angels, this was allowed, and they are both around today, and have different behavior, reproduction, and physiological differences, which causes their classification into different species.

jmaneyapanda,
It was really unnecessary is for you to categorize my "views" as "simplistic"

Especially when I was asking a question and not even stating a "view".

In saying that collies and pugs looked more different than lemonpeels and Herald's I was asking for someone to explain what differences are used to determine species and since you had not answered my question, I thought maybe I should reword it.

You stated:

Quote:

Collie dont look like pugs, but biologically, damn they're close.

So can you explain how?

zuzecawi · #**110** 09/14/2006, 12:32 PM

Angelfish, the pug and the collie are considered closely related because there are only a very few chromosomes difference in their DNA. And there's a very good chance that they actually may share mitochondrial DNA. For your info, mitochondrial DNA is that genetic material which is passed through the cellular mitochondria (Look it up on google and you'll find a better description, I'm just a dumb diesel mechanic and I get foggy on these things). The special thing about mitochondria, is they are ONLY present from the MOTHER. Sound confusing? Okay... breakin it down to nuts and bolts, what it means is, you get your mitochondria from your mom, who got it from her mom, who got it from her mom, ad infinity, all the way back to the first woman on the planet ever in your bloodline. I guess if you wanted to get biblical, you could say it goes all the way back to Eve. Mitochondrial DNA is only passed from the ovum, never sperm, so male or female, you only have mitochondrial dna from your mothers side. So your pug has mitochondrial dna all the way back to the wolf it was bred from, as does the collie. Now how this works in differentiating species, is say... a bear and a house cat. They're both different species, and they both have separate mitochondrial inheritence. However, a bear is closer related to a cat than a dog. Does that mean the bear can breed with a cat? Of course not. Different number of chromosomes (not to mention, that poor cat!!!) But it does mean that the bear and the cat share some genetic similarities that could conceivably have come from divergent evolution. You can study how close a species is to another species by analysis of the mitochondrial dna... sort of... a study of the "mother species." In the case of the angels, the comparison of mitochondrial dna shows that they came from either the same stock or very closely related stock, so they can conceivably interbreed, even make cross species hybrids. Does this make them the same species? No. It just means that evolutionarily, they are close enough to their parent stock that they can still intermix.

However, I still agree with jmaneyapanda, just because we possess the capability to successfully intermix these species doesn't neccessarily mean we should. We can also drop atom bombs... but we don't really need to. Sure, there's a huge difference between dropping an atom bomb, and interbreeding different species, but it seems that the arguement of "well we can, so why shouldn't we" is very ethnocentric to the human side of the equation. Just because we can wield power, we're considered obligated to?

Angel*Fish · #**111** 09/14/2006, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Does this make them the same species? No. It just means that evolutionarily, they are close enough to their parent stock that they can still intermix.

Thanks so very, very much for that explanation - I never took genetics as I find it kinda tedious and as as a taxonomist I would be a "lumper" not a "divider". After all -- a cat is just a small skinny bear with a long tail, right?

Which is partly why it doesn't bother me that these two fishes had babies. I wouldn't like it if he introduced this new fish into the sea, though.

And you sound like a pretty smart deisel mechanic to me, BTW.

SuperNerd · #**112** 09/14/2006, 03:57 PM

Angel*Fish: I believe you learn more about speciation in an evolution class than a genetics one yo.

Angel*Fish · #**113** 09/14/2006, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SuperNerd
Angel*Fish: I believe you learn more about speciation in an evolution class than a genetics one yo.

Well, the thing is I went to Texas A & M over 25 years ago and there was no evolution class back then -- After all it was before Darwin

We learned about "evolution" in comparative anatomy but DNA studies were almost just a glint in the eye of my professors at that time.

I don't know what class it would have been covered in - maybe I was just absent that day -lol

SuperNerd · #**114** 09/14/2006, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Angel*Fish
Well, the thing is I went to Texas A & M over 25 years ago and there was no evolution class back then...it was before Darwin

OMG HAHAHAHA!!!

Chihuahua6 · #**115** 09/14/2006, 07:34 PM

Supernerd I love your Chi!!!! What's his/her name? I have five now : (

jmaneyapanda · #**116** 09/16/2006, 07:09 AM

AngelFish, I apologize for thinking I was attacking or belittling your position- I was not, and didn't intend to. However, since this is the impression you got, I do apologize. I merely hoped to comment on the statment you made about heralds and lemonpeel angels appearing more closely related than pugs and collies. This is the "view" I was speaking of.
"Thanks- I hate to be seem ungrateful, but I was hoping for some idea of how it is decided by the taxonomist how to classify an animal - For example, to me a lemonpeel & a Herald's angel appear a lot more like than say, a collie and a pug ."

I only hoped to shed light on the fact that there is certainly more than meets the eye. Zuzecawi put it in the proper scientific terms, so no need for me to continue on that. Again, I apologize for making you feel slighted.

jmaneyapanda · #**117** 09/16/2006, 11:42 AM

Steven Pro- pm me your email, ansd I'll forwrad it.

dukes707 · #**118** 09/17/2006, 03:26 AM

i agree with the "jurassic park" comment. if God himself did not make it then it should not have been made. everything in due time, if it was meant to be it would be. i have no doubt that Frank is supernaturally talented in his trade, and i am not knocking him or what he he does in any way, actually i am quite interested, but that does not negate the fact that it is un-natural. i am curious if these hybrids would actually survive if introduced to the wild. my guess is probably not. is there really a lack of variety in the naturally available specimines in the wild? if you answer yes then you have not researched hard enough. i dont think we should mix and match Gods creations to satisfy our own thirst for variety. Not trying to get all religious or nothing like that, but scientifically cross-breeding two species rarely/if ever works out for the best. and introduction into the wild almost always causes habitat destruction for the native species who have called it home for who knows how long. if there were a scientific basis for mixing and matching species then i would be all for it, but since there isn't really a valid reason for crossbreeding other then to satisfy our own curiosity then i think we should leave well enough alone, and stick to Gods myriad of natural gifts to this quite diverse world. just my 2 cents.

trueblackpercula · #**119** 09/17/2006, 08:12 AM

dukes707

Quote:

i agree with the "jurassic park" comment. if God himself did not make it then it should not have been made. everything in due time, if it was meant to be it would be.

Well How do you know that god is not working thru him? If God did not want it to be then he would not have allowed Frank to make it.
Michael

Steven Pro · #**120** 09/17/2006, 09:01 AM

I am kind of surprised this conversation is still going on. I took a quick glance at the paper that inspired Frank hybrid work. It is a DNA analysis of various Centropyge species trying to determine how closely they are related and which one came first. As such, being able to hybridize them reveals nothing that the DNA analysis didn't already prove conclusively.

This is about economics, plain and simple. Being able to produce a one of a kind animal that can command a high value price. Whether or not that money goes to Ferraris or to breed other fish is irrelevant to me. I don't like hybrids, regardless of what company creates them.

dukes707 · #**121** 09/17/2006, 10:47 AM

you underestimate 'THE MAN/WOMAN'. God made the world in six days, what makes you think he needs a simple human to complete his bidding? if he/she wanted it to be HE/SHE (trying to be pc) would make it himself and not rely on us to make new creatures. this is a debate for later discussion and could go on for days/weeks/years. like i said to each his own, but i dont think its right, however beautiful it may be. like i stated earlier, i am not taking away from Frank or his skills, but i think we should leave creation to the creator...feel free to disagree but thats where i stand.

SuperNerd · #**122** 09/17/2006, 04:25 PM

Hmm...well... I agree with the "to each his/her own" statement. But in all honesty... if one was truly trying to be "politically correct" (and not risk violating the RC user agreement)...wouldn't one also have left religion out of the discussion almost entirely?

dukes707 · #**123** 09/17/2006, 11:30 PM

i apologize. i did not mean to violate anyone or anything. i was simply trying to make a point. i am well aware that everyone has their own beliefs, and do not want to offend anyone. i will refrain from making those kind of statements in the future. i see it opens a can of worms. science and religion do not mix and there is not a good segway for the two to be. but my point was these hybrids are not naturally occring specimines, thats all. they did not become by natural selection, but by mans own curiosity. had they occured naturally i think it would be a lot more special. again i apologize

jmicky41 · #**124** 09/17/2006, 11:39 PM

How come there wasn't such a reaction to the sankeyi X fridmani hybrid? If it wasn't for the fact that a "holy grail" limited distribution fish was used as one of the parents, would anybody care? Let's say if was C. argi and a coral beauty? I wouldn't buy one; as I would rather have a full blooded resplendant.

Steven Pro · #**125** 09/18/2006, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by jmicky41
How come there wasn't such a reaction to the sankeyi X fridmani hybrid? If it wasn't for the fact that a "holy grail" limited distribution fish was used as one of the parents, would anybody care? Let's say if was C. argi and a coral beauty? I wouldn't buy one; as I would rather have a full blooded resplendant.

I specifically mentioned other hybrids and that I didn't like any of them.