Breeding Hybrid fish

[David]

It helps newcomers to the thread to know what has been going on, IMO.

Reading from start to finish also does that.

Yeah, but this is faster. Good for lazy people.

 

[tear-scar]

But what is to say WHAT is beneficial to the species? What is the point of the species? All these fish are trying to carry on their genes-- the continuation of those genes/species continuation is the ultimate goal of the species right? Maybe spreading the species' territory as well.

Here's my thoughts (NOT MY OPINION):

Organisms on this planet often pair up in symbiotic relationships-- meaning the two organisms have a relationship, such as predation where one eats the other, or parasitism, where one is a parasite on the other. However, some of these relationships are BENEFICIAL to BOTH species.

Here's the question I pose:

Couldn't man's relationship with fish be seen as just another one of those "mutually beneficial relationships?"

The fish benefit, because as long as they are in favor of man and being domestically bred and cared for, the species will not die out unless man dies out.

Look at how cows have benefitted. The number of the species would be no where near its number today if not for man. The cow would not be the dominant grazing species all accross the world if not for man. As long as man exists, the species will continue to excel. We are obviously a very valuable ally, and to come into man's favor is obviously beneficial to the species.

In that case, why can't we say that domestically bred features ARE the "beneficial" traits?

So aren't the fish simply evolving characteristics to benefit itself by coming to a better relationship with another species in a mutually beneficial relationship?

Or: Isn't it good for the fish to change to make us happy which will make us increase the species' number and sustain the species' survival?


If you look at it this way, fertile hybrid fish (like all the guppy species), albino fish, long finned breeds and domestic color variation fish are the fish that are "fittest." Why? Because they have evolved for greater appeal to another species in which theirs is in a simbiotic relationship.

The fact that many of these specimens could not survive in the wild makes little difference. Many species in mutual relationships evolve to the point where one could not survive without the other. Most of the above mentioned plant species would die off with out the insect it has specifically evolved to be pollinated by. In Hawaii one of our native bee species is extinct, so the plants it pollinated now depend on our botanists to polinate them or else the plants will go extinct as well.

Because I am an idiot and not very sophisticated in biology and ethics, I am not able to understand how our manipulation is any different from other species' in nature.


I personally think there is something really wrong with this idea I have come to, but am unbale to refute it. Anyone else have a good reason why our hybridazation and breeding certain strains should be immoral?

I respectfully disagree. The fish have little or no choice in this, they are caught and placed in an aquarium or born in captivity and are forced to make the best of it. You can't truly say that this relationship is mutually beneficial, as a true symbiotic relationship only encompasses that which is essential for the survival or bettering of the species. This is not true for either species in this example. Do we, as humans, need the companionship of fish for survival? Do the fish need to be placed in captivity in order to survive? No, in fact I am almost positive that the fish's chance of survival in the wild are significantly greater than in captivity due to the fact that they have evolved over millions of years to suit those particular conditions, not to mention how many mistakes are made by us humans that lead to the death of our beloved pets. Also captive breeding of fish results in a gradual weakening of the strain (through inbreeding) which isn't exactly beneficial to the species as a whole.

As for the cow example, they are hybrids as well, and look what has been done to them. I wouldn't say that they have benefitted at all, personally if I was given a choice I would much rather be, say, a water buffalo than a cow. Cows are lumbering, stupid animals that don't know their head from their legs, and have been bred to become like this. All they do is graze all day out in the fields, blissfully unaware that they are being fattened up to be slaughtered by the millions and sold to franchises such as MacDonald's to provide food for us humans. Also they are not allowed to breed unless their owner wants to breed them, so I do not completely understand why you see this as a benefit. the only reason they can be called "the dominant grazing species" is because we breed them by the millions for food. If we did not want beef in our diets, cows would quickly die out, heck they would never have been created in the first place.

Also we can't honestly say that domestically bred traits are the most beneficial, because most of the time they are not. They may look the best (again this is a matter of personal opinion) but nearly always hinder the species capacity for survival and reproduction. The only reason we do selective breeding and hybridization is to benefit US, never the other way around.

As well, guppies and long-finned types of fish are not considered hybrids. they are simply strains of the same species (guppy=poecilia reticulata, no matter what the strain) that have been selectively bred/developed to suit our personal wants and needs. yes, guppies are indeed very hardy but that is because of the way they are, they way the have evolved, which caused them to be readily adaptable to aquarium life. A hybrid is a cross between two seperate species, like the blood parrot (not sure what the exact species are but i'm pretty sure severum is one). And in the case of the blood parrot itsswimming ability (and consequently, its ability to find food and reproduce) is greatly compromised in order to achieve a look that some humans find attractive (I, personally, do not).

Wow. That was long. I think my brain needs some rest now.

Wow, I like that response. However, you still fail to address the main point of the argument.

Which is this: What makes the species successful is its survival and spread-- no matter how it gets done.

Before I start, I'll say once again: My THOUGHTS, definitely NOT my OPINIONS

If you come from this point, then it does not matter if the species is stupid, inbred, difficult to breed, have lots of offspring with problems, or live out the most horribly pathetic lives-- as long as they produce SOME offspring, which continue and carry on the species.

Going back to the cow example: by this idea, WHO CARES that the individual cows are weak and stupid and unable to survive without humans guiding them around. It does not change the fact that millions of the animals exist now, and possess a massive territory. The cow is undeniably a highly successful organism, because it has adapted a strong relationship to another organism.
(Note: Some of us humans have developed to the point where we CAN'T live without the cow, in fact we worship it! )

Mutually symbiotic relationships don't have to be need based. The anaenome and the crab are perfectly capable of existing separately-- they just band together because there is some benefit. Similarly, we could survive without the fish and visa versa-- but there is some benefit to both parties.

It doesn't matter if the fish has spend thousands or even millions of years evolving to a certain condition in the wild-- evolution is always trumped by intelligent interference. Humans undergo rapid cultural changes to better their survival, and this is the result not of evolution, but of intelligent decision. Human intelligence is not only useful for changing human odds of survival, but also odds of survival for species humanity favors. As long as humanity exists, there will be no shortage of cats, dogs, canaries, or neon tetras. The species just mentioned benefit from their relationship with man, because man seeks to produce conditions intelligently instigate the species to grow in numbers and widen in territory.

You also seem to be under the idea that the species success depends on the nature of the lives of the individuals-- you feel that the species doesn't benefit just because individuals are weaker, or more delicate, or possibly even in pain or with serious defects. If these things happen, you say that the species is hurt. What reason do you base this fact on?

The fact that such feeble specimens are produced by in-breeding or hybridization or whatever methods used does not change the fact that the species gets to increase its numbers and territory because it is connected to man. Thus the SPECIES benefits.

Heck, the individuals can be mass bred, put through horrible experiments, eventually die painful deaths, and if they're connected to man and get to continue surviving and increasing territory, the species is STILL BENEFITED. Rats benefit.

Note: I am HIGHLY ANTI-ANIMAL TESTING, FISH DYING, AND THE REST OF THAT CRUD THAT WE DO TO ANIMALS THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH EATING. NEED BURGER!

Anyway, as much as I hate my rat analogy, it is still true as far as I can see. Sometimes we have to weigh the quality of life for individuals as more important than the benefit for the species-- otherwise we start feeling sick and at unease.

I just want to make one more comparison, kind of humorous:

In many cultures, one or both sexes is forced to fullfill customs that inhibit motion or make the life of the individuals painful and/or dull, but they still do it in order to better their relationship with another group of organisms which they share a mutually beneficial relationship with.

Here's a few:
High Heals
Good Manners
Marriage

PS: My bad on the guppy thing, I meant artificial (though we have guppy hybrids too don't we? molly-guppies, endler-guppies, swordtail-guppies etc.)

 

[David]

Wow, I like that response. However, you still fail to address the main point of the argument.

Which is this: What makes the species successful is its survival and spread-- no matter how it gets done.

Before I start, I'll say once again: My THOUGHTS, definitely NOT my OPINIONS

If you come from this point, then it does not matter if the species is stupid, inbred, difficult to breed, have lots of offspring with problems, or live out the most horribly pathetic lives-- as long as they produce SOME offspring, which continue and carry on the species.

Going back to the cow example: by this idea, WHO CARES that the individual cows are weak and stupid and unable to survive without humans guiding them around. It does not change the fact that millions of the animals exist now, and possess a massive territory. The cow is undeniably a highly successful organism, because it has adapted a strong relationship to another organism.
(Note: Some of us humans have developed to the point where we CAN'T live without the cow, in fact we worship it! )

Mutually symbiotic relationships don't have to be need based. The anaenome and the crab are perfectly capable of existing separately-- they just band together because there is some benefit. Similarly, we could survive without the fish and visa versa-- but there is some benefit to both parties.

It doesn't matter if the fish has spend thousands or even millions of years evolving to a certain condition in the wild-- evolution is always trumped by intelligent interference. Humans undergo rapid cultural changes to better their survival, and this is the result not of evolution, but of intelligent decision. Human intelligence is not only useful for changing human odds of survival, but also odds of survival for species humanity favors. As long as humanity exists, there will be no shortage of cats, dogs, canaries, or neon tetras. The species just mentioned benefit from their relationship with man, because man seeks to produce conditions intelligently instigate the species to grow in numbers and widen in territory.

You also seem to be under the idea that the species success depends on the nature of the lives of the individuals-- you feel that the species doesn't benefit just because individuals are weaker, or more delicate, or possibly even in pain or with serious defects. If these things happen, you say that the species is hurt. What reason do you base this fact on?

The fact that such feeble specimens are produced by in-breeding or hybridization or whatever methods used does not change the fact that the species gets to increase its numbers and territory because it is connected to man. Thus the SPECIES benefits.

Heck, the individuals can be mass bred, put through horrible experiments, eventually die painful deaths, and if they're connected to man and get to continue surviving and increasing territory, the species is STILL BENEFITED. Rats benefit.

Note: I am HIGHLY ANTI-ANIMAL TESTING, FISH DYING, AND THE REST OF THAT CRUD THAT WE DO TO ANIMALS THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO DO WITH EATING. NEED BURGER!

Anyway, as much as I hate my rat analogy, it is still true as far as I can see. Sometimes we have to weigh the quality of life for individuals as more important than the benefit for the species-- otherwise we start feeling sick and at unease.

I just want to make one more comparison, kind of humorous:

In many cultures, one or both sexes is forced to fullfill customs that inhibit motion or make the life of the individuals painful and/or dull, but they still do it in order to better their relationship with another group of organisms which they share a mutually beneficial relationship with.

Here's a few:
High Heals
Good Manners
Marriage

PS: My bad on the guppy thing, I meant artificial (though we have guppy hybrids too don't we? molly-guppies, endler-guppies, swordtail-guppies etc.)

I like your response too, tearscar. I respect how you chose to compliment the previous poster instead of trying to make them sound like an idiot, unlike some people. I also respect your argument and how you choose to look at the "big picture". However, my opinion is that although the species me seem more important, I find that the individuals that make it up are just as integral, if not more so. If their quality of life is sh**, excuse my language, regardless of how prolific they are or how prosperous the species has become, then how can we truly say they have benefitted? Personally if people lived like some animals do, many of us would lose the will to go on. And yet, this is what makes us fundamentally different from other animals. Their one and only goal in life is to reproduce and pass on their genes, and this is how they measure their success no matter how subpar the conditions they went through were. And I suppose it is my fault for anthropomorphizing them as I do, but it is my sincere belief that all creatures deserve a chance at a decent life that is relatively free from excessive pain, hardship, or suffering, no matter how insignificant they may be.

EDIT: as for your comment about the symbiotic relationships, I think that all organisms should be independent to a degree; they should never progress to the point where they depend entirely on one specific other organism, because at this point they become extremely vulnerable, almost pathetic and weak. If something came along and wiped out the symbiont, what would happen to the organism?

 

[Opcn]

Why do people keep talking about line bred fish as hybrids. Goldfish are not hybrids they are mixbreeds they are all the same species of fish if you mix a pearl scale with an oranda you still have a goldfish its no different than mixing a blue guppy with a green guppy or an australian sheperd with a new zealand sheperd. And Cows arent Hybrid either there all very close relatives and the breeds we have today are nothing more than domestic variations on each other for the most part.

How I feel about Hybridization. I am for hybridization so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

How I feel about Line breeding. I am for Line breeding so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

How I feel about Genetic enginering. I am for Genetic enginering so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

In the end these are three very similar tools for altering the properties of animals and they do help the animals. The mesopotamian Carp was line bred and now it is one of the most popular Karp on the planet It is the Koi and the domestic carp and the miror carp and many more things were as the Alaskan Carp has not bee line bred and only exists in one place ... Alaska.

David talks about the symbiont being wiped out ... if all the fancy gold fish in the world were dependant on humans and we were all wiped out suddenly for some reason then the wild goldfish are still around to take care of themselves. and sybiosis can make one species totally dependant on another ... Ever seen a lichen its two orgainisms that are completely dependant on each otherand they have made each other succesfull. Whie we may not be getting much from fancy gold fish or hybrid cichlids we are giving them a great deal. In our atrificial tanks Darwins natural selection is takeing place along side the unnatural selection Fish that are fit (the ones who are sufficiently interesting enought to hold our attention) survive and produce offspring, Those that are not fit (those that we dislike) do not. What could be more natural than that process?

 

[David]

Why do people keep talking about line bred fish as hybrids. Goldfish are not hybrids they are mixbreeds they are all the same species of fish if you mix a pearl scale with an oranda you still have a goldfish its no different than mixing a blue guppy with a green guppy or an australian sheperd with a new zealand sheperd. And Cows arent Hybrid either there all very close relatives and the breeds we have today are nothing more than domestic variations on each other for the most part.

How I feel about Hybridization. I am for hybridization so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

How I feel about Line breeding. I am for Line breeding so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

How I feel about Genetic enginering. I am for Genetic enginering so long as it doesnt threaten the integrity of the natural species or make the quality of life of the fish a poor one.

In the end these are three very similar tools for altering the properties of animals and they do help the animals. The mesopotamian Carp was line bred and now it is one of the most popular Karp on the planet It is the Koi and the domestic carp and the miror carp and many more things were as the Alaskan Carp has not bee line bred and only exists in one place ... Alaska.

David talks about the symbiont being wiped out ... if all the fancy gold fish in the world were dependant on humans and we were all wiped out suddenly for some reason then the wild goldfish are still around to take care of themselves. and sybiosis can make one species totally dependant on another ... Ever seen a lichen its two orgainisms that are completely dependant on each otherand they have made each other succesfull. Whie we may not be getting much from fancy gold fish or hybrid cichlids we are giving them a great deal. In our atrificial tanks Darwins natural selection is takeing place along side the unnatural selection Fish that are fit (the ones who are sufficiently interesting enought to hold our attention) survive and produce offspring, Those that are not fit (those that we dislike) do not. What could be more natural than that process?

Hybridization and linebreeding are two different things, this is true. However, they are both disagreeable to me if used in a disagreeable manner. This is usually the case when it happens artificially, unlike in the wild, where linebreeding is also known as natural selection or "survival of the fittest". In this way only the best genetic material will be passed on to ensure the survival of the species. With artificial selective breeding, this is almost never the case. We selectively breed animals because we want them to be more efficient at producing meat, making milk, serving us in some way, or just plain looking good. We rarely have the animal's best interest at heart.

Opcn, what you say about the fancy goldfish is exactly true, and illustrates my point perfectly; I thank you for that. The bottom line is, without us, fancy goldfish would cease to exist. In what way is this beneficial to them?

It is true that in symbiosis two species can become totally dependent, but it is not the same twisted relationship that we humans have with certain animals. The two organisms that compose lichens have become so close, in fact, that the are practically one organism. Cows and fish will never achieve this level of oneness with humans, because we do not depend on them. Sure, they serve to enrich our lives and make them better, but we do not require them to survive, and without us, they would not exist in the first place. The bottom line is that in nature organisms seek each other out in order to mutually benefit from each others presence, while humans CREATE our symbionts. We are the superior organism, but why must we abuse that power to change the course of nature?

Personally I have nothing against evolution, natural selection, and even linebreeding which is basically like natural selection at warp speed, as it helps the species to survive and carry on. We humans act like a catalyst in this, animals react to our actions which will affect them either in a positive or negative way. Animals are very adaptable and will evolve to suit their environments, no matter what these environments may be: rainforest, tundra, savanna, aquarium, or cage... it is perfectly natural. But to force them to do this with potentially harmful effects still is wrong, in my eyes.

Well that's basically what my personal ethics dictate, and to each their own. I am not here to discriminate against anyone's opinion, simply to voice my own. But man, am I running out of things to say on this subject.

 

[tear-scar]

If something came along and wiped out the symbiont, what would happen to the organism?

What happens? Exactly what happened to the native plants I mentioned we have whose pollinating bees wend extinct.

Now they have to be pollinated by humans with cue-tips or whatever.

 

[NinjaSmurf]

First of all David, don't get all proud of yourself, I wasn't even breathing hard when I wrote that. Second, don't tell me not to say stuff like freaking, because that's what I do. And line breeding is not natural, line breeding is the mating of two related organisms, such as if I mated a dog to it's grandsire. That is inbreeding, survival of the fittest is the animal that stays alive, gets the most food, area and mates the most has its genes carried on. Linebreeding is not natural, and it's why a lot of fish and other animals are weak.

We do rely on cows for something, it's called meat. There is also milk. And since I don't see most people stalking their own deer through the woods, or stop drinking milk, I think it is needed. People, well, a good bit of people, also eat fish, so I think we need them too. And I didn't mean cows as in the holsteins you see in the fields buddy, I meant the originals. I'm not stupid you know. And all this talk about symbotic realationships being gotten rid of, well that is nature for you. It may not work out sometimes, but that is natural. Dinosaurs are dead, and because of it mammals are now the one of the main animals on earth, i.e. humans. If all the cows on the earth were let loose, yeah, a lot of them would die, but you can bet that they haven't lost all their instincts, and that a lot would live. You act like they are completely stupid and that if we didn't put food down right in front of their face they'd die. Personally I think hybrids are natural as long as it's something that could happen in the wild, and that the offspring would survive, although this has nothing to do with an aquarium setup. Aquariums aren't natural, as much as we like to think they are, and in this respect fish are nothing more than wet cows who we look at instead of eat.

Nidge, if they breed let them. I could care less about the morals of people, as I've seen these so called 'morals' in action. This hybrids will never see the wild, so it doesn't really matter, does it?

 

[Inchworm]

Mod's note:

Since some people have strong feelings about the subject of hybrids and hybridization, be assured that the mods are watching this topic. Please do your best to respect the member who started it by staying on topic and minding the language you use.

While it is often helpful to quote sections of earlier posts, it can also get annoying to some of the members. It is much more helpful if you edit them so that only the points you are addressing remain. If anyone doesn't know how to do this, please PM me and I will tell you.

Thanks for your cooperation.