A Quick Rant on Hybrids (the fish, not the cars)

[mwp]

OK, so even though I "despise" hybrids, I found myself owning a pair I posted this up for the folks at Rareclownfish.com - http://www.rareclownfish.com/forums/...ead.php?t=1128

Amphiprion (polymnus X sebae) "White Tipped Clownfish"




No ID given, asked them for their guesses. 3 got it right, while 4 got it wrong. If I had to put my intial "guess" in on them, I would've been wrong as well.

Now, that's perfectly understandable since I didn't give them any clue as to what the fish were. It proves a point I've raised in the past - hybrids can wreak havoc on the captive bred gene pool.

When I was given this pair of fish, I was told they were "polymnus/sebae", i.e. that means to me "imported as un ID'd, could be either polymnus or sebae".

The parents look like Basically Black Saddlebacks...except they had full bars. OK, that could just be a variation. Had I not talked further with the breeder, I would've treated these fish as Black Saddlebacks (A. polymnus). No doubt they'll probably look a lot like Black Saddlebacks when they grow up. But as juvies, well, they sure look a lot like misbarred A. sebae. So a lot of folks would've treated these as Sebaes, and would have bred and sold them as Sebaes had no additional information been given.

But on that followup, it was clarified that they weren't "polymnus/sebae" but the parents were in fact "polymnus X sebae". The PARENTS THEMSELVES are hybrids. So I'm sitting in possesion of a pair of 2nd generation hybrids that right now, look like sebaes, but as adults, will look a lot like Black Saddlebacks.

We see this happen in the Cichlid arena all the time...you buy something sold as something and it turns out nothing like you expect, or a very poor "similar, but not right" looking fish. Victorian Cichlids, Peacocks and Mbuna are the ones that suffer the most from this. Those fish that don't color up like they should turn out to be "worthless". All the investment of time, tankspace, feed and money are down the drain.

I believe we owe it to our future to make sure we have our ID's correct and keep our "species" true. I'm sure it's great that there's all sorts of Percula / Ocellaris "varients" out there, but what if someone breeds Black OC's to Regular OC's and they all turn out Black. If sold as simply Black OC's, or even for that matter if they are picked up with no proper ID and ID'd as "Black OC's", well, when they're bred, who's to say their offspring will be Black? They very well may not be! Imagine the confusion / disappointment etc.

FWIW, I love the pair and hope they do well in the years to come, but if I ever breed and sell them I'm making 110% clear exactly what they are to everyone who buys them or resells them.

Matt

[Fishboy42]

This is funny Matt. My initial thought was that they were hybrids (white-tipped), but I thought to myself "Matt wouldn't be cought dead with those--that can't be right!"

Nice fish Matt!

Matt

[mwp]

Seriously, I didn't realize they were hybrids when I picked them up...I thought the breeder was just saying "I got them as "polymnus or sebaes"", so I genuinely thought they were just Black Saddles. My main reason for bringing them into the fold was because they are beyond stunning as juvies and I thought Renee might like 'em in her 6 once the perc babies went to a new home!

Of course, by the time I found out they were actually full on hybrids it was too late, they're already cherished family members

Matt

[Dman]

I had two perc/ocellaris crosses. I hated it it as I wasn't entirely sure what to do or call the off-spring. Last week we split them up and one pair laid yesterday, so I'm pretty happy about that.
I agree with Matt on the whole "hybrid" issue, why would anyone want to do this is beyond me.
Although, I have to admit, that's a pretty damn fine looking pair, aesthetically speaking

[clownfish75]

I have a pair that is one perc one ocellaris, and the biggest benafit over an ocellaris is the colour (much brighter) and perc (always full barred). Its hard to argue to stop breeding them when i am the only one with them here and i can comand a higher price.

Surpose it depends on your ethical dilema, i personally am not to worried about dilution of gene pool as i can easily go get more perc pairs, only a few hours in the sea would fix that.

Christian

[mwp]

Christian, what would you do if next week you were no longer able to collect fish from the ocean? (i.e. in Florida, the collection of any hard coral is now illegal). Bangaii's may be CITES Appendix II next year.

I guess my point is that at some point we have to wean ourselves off of wild caught fish. Not that it's a problem here, but what if someone turned to your progeny as future broodstock? They're potentially worthless!

Am I misreading this? Perculas always have full bars? What's your secret?!!!!

Matt

[Dman]

Originally posted by mwp


Am I misreading this? Perculas always have full bars? What's your secret?!!!!

Matt

DO tell, I'd like to know as well. Even some of my WC's aren't full barred.

[mwp]

My WC Onyx male doesn't have a quite full tail stripe!

In re-reading, I think what Christian was trying to get across is that in the offspring of ocellaris X percula, the OCELLARIS proprehensity for "good and early barring" comes through, wheras the more vivid orange of Percula also comes through. While I'd love to see pictures, to be frank there are PLENTY of perfectly VIVID ORANGE Ocellaris out there...it's all dietary. So I wouldn't see the need to muck up a perfectly good ocellaris with the tempermental genes of a Percula! Granted, I'm all too well aware of what HYBRID VIGOR can do to fish...the 2nd generation "White Tipped" clowns posted above were 3 months, 1 week post hatch at the time of photography, and they were already definitely marketable in size (i.e. 1-1/4" or so).

FWIW,

Matt

[mwp]

Originally posted by Dman
I agree with Matt on the whole "hybrid" issue, why would anyone want to do this is beyond me.
Although, I have to admit, that's a pretty damn fine looking pair, aesthetically speaking

Dman, you do echo a sentiment I've offered up several times. However, what the breeder has done here with these juvies has actually really proven something. I cannot say that these are the first ever VIABLE OFFSPRING from the mating of a pair of clownfish hybrids, but it COULD be. In any case, hybrid clownfish most definitely CAN be fertile, and these juvies clearly prove that. If hybrid clownfish weren't themselves fertile, I wouldn't be nearly as against them as I am (although for people making NEW crosses, don't ya have better ways to put your skills to use?)

Knowing that two distinct "species" of clownfish can be crossed, and produce viable offspring that are also FERTILE, well, the old-fashioned definition of a species, which included that the offspring of a mating between two species will be sterile, that's just SHOT. Granted, that's already been disproven many times over. Just might be a first when it comes to CLOWNFISH.

Now here's the REALLY INTERESTING PART. We've heard time and again that A. leuckocranus and A. theillii (spelling) may in fact be hybrids. Granted, in both cases, the hybrid parents are more distantly related from each other, but still, in theory, it is now more likely in my eyes that there COULD be a "species" of clownfish that exists in the wild that can 'come into exisistence' EITHER through the act of two "distinct species" interbreeding OR through the resultant hybrid progeny mating with each other as well. We have PROOF that "White Tipped" clownfish can be made either by mating polymnus with sebae, OR by mating two "white tipped". That's more than a little bit mind blowing to think of, had I not known that this is the NORM in the ORCHID world, I'd be even more surprised.

These two fish really hit home the importance of "keeping our lines pure". If these get out to a breeder who sees them and though they were goregous (AND THEY ARE) but didn't know WHAT they were, odds are these get into the gene pool of either Polymnus or Sebae, but they are clearly in fact neither. For what it's worth, there is an entire organization devoted to keeping track of all the ORCHID HYBRIDS in the world. There are some AMAZING hybrids out there, yet many natural species are endangered, and the type I specialize in are all CITES Appendix I. So, because of hybrids, it's really a royal PITA to even find the pure species anymore, some are more than rediculously expensive, and if those remnant wild populations disappear, a handful of Orchid nuts will be holding the worlds entire population of an orchid species, while everyone and their brother can pick up a hybrid orchid at home depot for $19.95.

See where I'm going with this? If we chose to ACCEPT hybrids as "OK", our clownfish go the way of DISCUS and GUPPIES. 50 years from now, what if someone wants an OCELLARIS? They'll have 40 gazzilion "strains" to pick from, but the darn original species may literally not be obtainable. That's an extreme example to be sure, but that's literally what could happen. I believe that we all owe our captive fishes a better legacy than the "Red White And Blue Percula"....Our Wild Marine Species need NO IMPROVEMENT. They need preservation!

Every time I think of my personal cichlid love, I'm drawn to the Victorians. There's a population of fish that we're losing permenantly, by the DAY. So many of the species we have exist ONLY in captivity. When they get muddled, the genetic integrity is lost, and ultimately, the species is lost. Whether WC fish are no longer available due to habitat loss or destruction, legislation or whatever, if it happens, marine aquarists will have to turn to whatever is being produced by marine fish breeders. We better have our "ducks in a row" (would've preferred to use a two word phrase, both words start with s, first word is 4 letters, but you get the idea).

They are GORGEOUS, and I'm honored to have them in my tank...heck I'm honored to have living proof of why not wasting our time making hybrids IS so important. FWIW, these guys really did get the best traits from both parents.

Most importantly to me is simply knowing that they're hybrids. I'll enjoy them for what they are, and they are FREAKIN GORGEOUS, but frankly they WILL remain a very low priority breeding wise, if they even make it on that list. If either of them has to find a new home, or they make babies and I just happen to raise some, in no uncertain terms everyone in the world will know EXACTLY what they are, or they simply wont' get them. I realize I'm holding onto something that could easily damage someone else's efforts at breeding polymnus or sebae, that's a big responsibility on my part and I'm up to the task.

FWIW,

Matt

[Tang~Cop]

I am 100% against Inbreeding and cross breeding in Clownfish and other Marine fish. These fish are beautiful but I would never purchase them. Good luck with them.

[clownfish75]

Matt you did get what i typed right the second time round, the cross gets the best of the perc (colour) and ocellaris (barring), with only one side effect being the aggression of a perc (nasty fish).

There is a slightly different situation in OZ than the US, here bright orange ocellaris are few and far between and certianly not the ones in current breeding efforts. And yes the colour fed ocellaris do come up to the colour of the crosses, but the crosses get the colour with no help at all, they are naturally that colour.

As for if they change the rules about brood stock collection, i would first off see it coming and i also maintain pure ocellaris and pure perc breeders and if it was banned i would probably break the rules.

I personally think its a case of personal morals, for me keeping a pure breed line of orchids (when i manage to rear them) is important because the supply of them could easily dry up, especially if breeders can meet local demand (not unforseable) therefore crossing dottybacks could be very risky.

I understand what you mean about african cichlids, but in that case evolution of different species is fairly profuse, and the subtle differences are the definition of a species, i think it is also easier for the layman to breed them than it is a clownfish, so by virtue of that cross breeds will never take over as much and will require a huge increas ein people breeding clownfish specifically to have any real effect.

Christian

[Baalz]

The general public could care less about genetics. All they want is something pretty or unique. So you will always have someone wanting to breed what ever they can so they can market this bling bling. They will never care what the offspring will produce.
Look how people flock to the threads on these designer namesd clownfish on these forums.

I have a pair of Stubbed Ocellaris that I hatched a few years ago and have started hatching their nests. So far I do not notice that much of a difference in the young. I will probably just end up with a higher % of this deformity. If I ever sell them they will be sold as stubby occelaris clowns with an explanation of why they are different. Of course someone will come up with a designer name eventually probably calling them "Munchkin Clowns."

[Galilean]

Some may take this as heresy, but I think it is an interesting and legitimate self examination. It’s important for us to know why we believe something and too often we “just believe it” because it is what is. Some also might think that this better belongs in the ethics forum, but I say it is a critical issue for fish breeders as well and so belongs here. This is where these morals are applied to real practice.

Matt said, “Our Wild Marine Species need NO IMPROVEMENT. They need preservation!”

I know that many, many people agree and I’ve heard it from authorities and everyday people all my life, but never any reason why it should be true. Why is it a great tragedy if we don’t have a pure natural Betta anymore? We do have them in the rice paddies of Thailand if anybody really wanted to check, but suppose we didn’t. Why would it be horrible if the original Oscar or neon tetra was gone?

See, originally the thinking was that if the last Black Ocellaris died that this was the end, no recovery, game over. But the fact of hybrid fertility proves that the species are not really species anyway. Read Scott Michael’s books on Reef Fishes and you will see that interbreeding is the rule, not the exception. While certain “morphs” do tend to breed with very similar fish they are also known interbreed in the wild within the genus and sometimes within family level. So panic over the potential loss of the Rusty Angel is unjustified because the same information is stored in the Coral Beauty Angel. As we become more skilled in manipulation of the genetics we will be able to “create” whatever species we want. Bemoaning the non-purity of such supposedly artificial species, is to ignore the real micro-evolutionary history of speciation and the fact of hybridization in the wild.

Understanding this, we must ask the question: Why should we consider the wild species sacred? Is it just personal opinion or nostalgia? Is it not true that “species” are continually rearranging their physical expression? Is there really something “bad” about responding to human stimulus rather some other environmental stimulus? Is human breeding “faster”; does that make it bad? I think the rapidity with which animals and plants do respond to human efforts just proves that we have greatly exaggerated the time it takes to change.

I read years ago about an expert in African Cichlids who collected them himself from Lake Tanganyika. He wrote in his exhaustive book (I forgot the name), that he had bred the fish he removed from the lake himself and their offspring were the wrong genus! So he despaired of classification schemes for anything found in an aquarium. I read this and wondered why he didn’t also cash out on the classification scheme in the Lakes too! But I guess he had his life’s work invested in that naming system and therefore could not abandon it.

So what do you guys think? Why do you believe the “natural” species are sacred? Why do you fear “contamination” when every animal and plant on the planet is in fact a hybrid? Why do you think that we can’t get back to a Gold-striped Maroon Clown from some other clown if we really wanted to do it?

["Umm, fish?"]

I just scrolled down to get a quote, and noticed that Galilean had posted after I had loaded the thread but before I had hit reply. Anyway, here's my take.

I hope you all don't mind, but the whole idea behind this topic has been bugging me for a while.

Species: (1) a group of organisms that have a unique set of characteristics (like body shape and behavior) that distinguishes them from other organisms. If they reproduce, individuals within the same species can produce fertile offspring. (2) the basic unit of biological classification.

Now I know that the classification of things gets pretty darn funky when you are actually in the field, especially in marine biology. But, if they can reproduce together and produce fertile offspring, then you aren't really talking about separate species, right? Just separate ... races(?) of one species.

If you have a cross that produces offspring that cannot reproduce, then you have no problem as they won't ever contribute anything further to the gene pool. No harm, no foul.

If you have a cross that does produce offspring that can reproduce, aren't you actually increasing the gene pool? That is, by trying to keep lines "pure" you are reducing the genetic diversity.

Matt said,

I'm all too well aware of what HYBRID VIGOR can do to fish...the 2nd generation "White Tipped" clowns posted above were 3 months, 1 week post hatch at the time of photography, and they were already definitely marketable in size (i.e. 1-1/4" or so).

Genetic diversity is a good thing. Inbreeding leads to weak stock.

FWIW.

[mwp]

Galilean, wow, that's um, an interesting point of view. Could we get back to chimpanzee's from humans (afterall, don't we share 95% of the same genes)?

Maybe 100 years from now what you say may very well be real. We may be able to clone anything we want, and heck, all you may need is a scale or small tissue sample from a Gold Stripe Maroon to do it. We also know that the definition of a species ISN'T as valid as it was 100 years ago because of what we learned. In fact the determination of a species is somewhat arbitrary and man-made at this point. If you're not familiar with it, look up reticulate evolution. That'd be a topic right up your alley.

My point of view is I LIKE the biodiversity that nature (or if you prefer, God) provides. I don't really care how we got it, but I do value it and treasure it. As fish breeders whom are few and far between, we currently don't even have a handful, a tiny percentage of the marine fish figured out. Why waste our efforts on making "new hybrids" when we can't even rear the 20 or so most popular species.

The wild betta plays an integral role in the ecology of Thailand. What if it went extinct? What if that meant a 50-fold increase in mosquito borne disease as a result? Could we ever hope to repopulate the wild betta population from our captive stocks when we fix the problem that caused them to go extinct in the first place?

I would very much like to see this African Cichlid anecdote you cite. I've bred African Cichlids for a LONG time, I never once bred two of the same species and ended up with a mysteriously different species show up out of the progeny, ESPECIALLY of the Tanganyikans! Sounds far more likely that some fry jumped, or perhaps a female was collected and the eggs were hatched, and out came a different species than was expected (there is at least a couple known examples of brood parasitism within the Tanganyikan fish populations, most notably the Synodontis species, which find mating mouthbrooder, eat their eggs, and in their place lay their own. Imagine a Tropheus spitting out a bunch of catfish. It's not genetics)

I do not agree that the "information for a Rusty Angel is stored in a Coral Beauty". I do not agree that at our current level of knowledge and understanding, we could ever "get back to a Gold-striped Maroon Clown from some other clown".

Your concepts are more than intriguing, but they are more than currently on the level of science fiction, not science fact. And that's why preserving what we have is important.

Matt

[mwp]

I think everyone here will agree that the White Tipped clowns ARE hybrids. The "sterile offspring of a cross" part of the definition of a species has literally been thrown out for over 100 years...there are way too many life forms that we all can agree are species, yet ultimately they can interbreed with a wide variety of other agreed species and produce viable offspring.

Keeping the lines pure and inbreeding are NOT one in the same. Keeping the lines pure means not introducing genetic components from different species. I've read that F6 of line breeding is where fish start "breaking down".

Lets look at Black Ocellaris, which are almost entirely CB at this point. IF one breeder sits there and breeds siblings over multiple generations, they'll all be screwed in the end. But, as we know, any good breeder will look for external stock, unrelated mates, at least every couple generations. And they'll continue to look for F1 over F2 or F4, as breeding an F4 fish to an F1 fish in essence makes the resultant progeny F2. Breed and F6 to a WC, and suddenly you're really back at F1. There are enough commercial breeders of Black OC's at this point that in theory, if they were to once in a while interchange some broodstock, the lines would be maintained both pure and healthy. If once in a while wild stock is brought in, that too makes for a good gentic base. If enough people breed Black OC's, there will always be enough genetics to be shuffled through within the captive population.

While all of that is true, the biggest problem I've seen, being a fish breeder, is that we don't take what we do seriously enough when I compare our hobby / business to other industries like Orchids, Horses, Dogs etc., or for that matter, species survial plans like the LVSSP. We're in our infancy still, so it's better to debate and decide which way we want to go. I have STRONG feelings on the matter based on the grim forecast. We are much closer to the Orchid world or the LVSSP than we are to Champion Race Horse Breeders....

Matt

[mwp]

FWIW, one good point to raise about clownfish in particular; they have LONG lifespans. A breeding pair can produce for 10 or more years. The length that a low generation (i.e. F1 pair) can be maintained is VERY HIGH compared to some other fish (i.e. Gobies). It's doesn't take a lot of work to keep the lines pure and maintain our genetic diversity...we have LOTS of time with clowns at least.

FWIW,

Matt

[Galilean]

Please don’t anyone misunderstand. I’m not for entirely wiping out organisms of any kind (even human pathogens). I just think we may have gotten a little carried away with panic that we are going to lose the Striped Californian Sand Fly.

I’m suggesting that we should acknowledge that while the work past biologist did in classification schemes was good at the time, we have more information now. The classification should reflect that. Instead of progress we are getting an even greater mess because now classifications are being done, not on interbreeding capability but on molecular homology.

For instance, the oft sighted 95% or 96% or 92.3% or 98% comparison of human to chimpanzee DNA is as meaningful as noting the similarities in the lengths of paragraphs in two books. Study the details of these comparisons and you find that it all depends on which enzymes you choose to cut the DNA. Pick different enzymes and you will get a different % match.

I understand the practically of trying to keep purebred fish of natural or “hybrid” types and keeping good records so future breeders will know the history. We should also recognize that it is the hybridization potential itself that makes purebreds valuable. If there were no possibility of hybridization, there would be no point in keeping track.

Also I understand that recovering a “natural” species from hybrids is not as easy or quick as we might hope. This is good reason to be cautious with those “natural” species we prefer as Matt suggests. It is also good reason to be cautious with the “natural” species that other people prefer. But you can only go so far to preserving nature for someone else or future generations before you begin to encroach on your own ability to enjoy it. Any truly “pristine” wilderness can only be enjoyed by the solitary, singular individuals able to do so. Keeping everyone out might preserve certain aspects of it, but then also nobody gets to experience it first hand. So we have to ask the question: who is going to actually reap the benefit of this “preservation”?

In the case of fish breeding, all those who want to see the “natural” species have one joy and those you would rather have clownfish in the colors of their favorite sports team have another joy. Each one should look to preserve rather than sneer at the joy of the other. I sorry if I seemed to oppose the preservation of "natural" species, that it not my intention. Forgive my clumsy words.

[Baalz]

I have always paired an offspring of mine with a WC. Except for the two stubbed Occelaris clowns I kept for looks more then breeding

[Luis A M]

Oh,current evolution theories and the definition of species is like a boiling pan,but what a great soup we can smell in there!

Mostly morphologycal taxonomy is so prone to human errors!.Taxons based on ADN ID sounds so more reliable nowadays.Though I don´t know tomorrow...

There are no meristic differences between black polymnus and sebae,only colour pattern.I have seen some intergrades,(hybrids?)coming from Bali where both species overlap.
How could they be assigned to a species?

[DivaMan]

MAtt i truly do respect you for that, and you are right, however, I have something to add to that. Not only must the geneic integrity be kept alive, but when a fish no longer behaves in a natural manner, it is essentially a strain. Like you said, when the wild is lost to us, how will we find hosting clowns? It is my opinion that although it may be an inconvenience, anemones should be kept in growout, because not only are proven-to-host tank bred clowns far more valuable, but it also improves the behavioral integrity of the species.

[phender]

Matt,

FWIW, it is not unusual for WC sebae clowns to loose all the yellow on their fins. I don't know if it is a captive thing or if it occurs in the wild as well.
I think that the striping on the fish are misbarrs rather than being genetic.

[tmays]

I would like to hear what you think about hybrids that happen in nature. I have a friend that imports these fish from Bali every year. They don't seem so rare or uncommon to me. There are also cases of other clowns crossing in the wild. Our breeding of these fish is the least the clown fish or any other wild fishes worries! We should worry about the habitat they live in. Mwp used discus as an example as if the current state of the discus is bad. I do not agree! The wild discus are doing quite well, and as far as the man made varieties go, they are perfectly healthy, beautiful, and have not done any harm to the wild populations.

[Kmiec123]

ok