mwp
In Memoriam
Not to sound smart alecky, but I bet a couple a-bombs could put a significant dent in that theory within a matter of minutes or even seconds.
Colby, the evidence is all around us that the human species does indeed have the power to completely wipe out life as we know it. We dam up rivers and suddenly wonder why Pacific Salmon numbers decline to fractions of a percent of their historic norms. We virtually wipe out the native Atlantic Salmon stocks of the Great Lakes through overharvest and habitat distruction. Humans first wiped out most Coaster Brook Trout stocks in Lake Superior, then replaced these fish in most of their native streams with Rainbow Trout, a species that had virtually 0 chance of ever making it east without the helping hand of man. 20,000 Pink Salmon smolts are flushed down the drain at a Lake Superior Hatchery...30 years later they are an established wild population making annual fall spawning runs in many Lake Superior Streams (and Huron now as wel). In the west, the introduction of Rainbow Trout into streams that are historically the native drainages of Cutthroat trout has resulted in mainly "cuttbows"...the resulting genetic "muddling" has produced fish less resistent to disease (as well as the introduction of new diseases simply by adding a non native fish species); in fact some races of Cutthroat Trout are so thorougly muddled that genetically pure examples of the species can no longer be found. Cuttbows are REGULARLY stocked in some states, a perfect example of man-made hybrids being released back into the wild solely for the purpose of satiating anglers...but we must ask, what's WRONG with a good old Cutthroat or Rainbow Trout, why do we even NEED Cuttbows? Just hours to the north, the Wisconsin DNR regularly produces and stocks tens of thousands of "SPLAKE" into Lake Michigan every year. They COULD be stocking the native brook trout or lake trout, so WHY introduce the man made hybrid between the two species? Well, they stock them at least in part due to the fact that the native brook trout habitat can no longer SUPPORT wild brook trout DUE to the activities of MAN; the hybrid vigor of the Splake allows it to live where the native species no longer can. Brook Trout and Lake Trout spawn in completely different habitats and in theory should never interbreed in the wild, yet now we face an issue of brook trout genes getting into the troubled and unstable native lake trout populations, resulting in FURTHER complications to restoration efforts!
Passenger Pigeons. The Dodo Bird. Hundreds of undescribed species of Victorian Cichlids are going extinct without ever even being classified due to the introduction of an exotic super predator. Seahorses have to be protected by CITES as a result of overharvest, primarily for the eastern medicinal trade. All Paphiopedilum and Phragmipedium orchid species are currently listed as CITES Appendix 1, meaning that EVEN THOUGH we have the technology and skills to reproduce newly discovered species in great numbers in captivity, we can't even get the starting broodstock to do so. Lets not even bring Global Warming into the discussion or this thread will likely never see a conclusion.
When faced with all the past and present evidence of our "mistakes", I can't stress enough my point of view on the matter that producing hybrids does not ultimately server the greater good IF our goal is to preserve our remaining biodiversity. I will again simply state that from my point of view, a captive propagation operation better serves themselves AND the greater good by investing their resource in the production of species vs. man-made hybrids.
What is a "species" is almost irrelevent to the argument anyways. For example, "good" African Cichlid breeders takes their "intrinsic conservation obligation" seriously and support this notion to the extreme, keeping not only our arbitrary "species" demarkations pure (i..e they're not breeding Altolamprologus compressiceps with A. calvus), but also doing their best to maintain the geographic races and varieties WITHIN each given species. We only have 4-6 Tropheus species, yet we have at least 30+ "varieties" of Tropheus encompassing the species currently maintained in captivity and available to hobbyists ONLY as a result of ethical broodstock collecting AND the efforts of individual breeders.
Given these examples, and given the fact that ornamental mariculture is relatively a NEW business genre, AND given the fact that unlike most Freshwater fish, the vast majority of Marine Fish are not feasible prospects for home breeding, the "intrinsic conservation obligation" , the responsiblity of perserving and expanding the variety of captively reared fish (for the benefit of all present and future hobbyists), falls onto the Commercial Breeders such as ORA, Ocean Rider, Pro Aquatix, RCT and others.
There are two ways to "deal" with marine hybrids. The EASY route for a company to take (i.e. ORA) is to listen to the hobbyist's desires simply by watching what sells and what doesn't - if we do not purchase these hybrids, companies won't produce them. My appologies to ORA - again I don't think anyone has come on this thread to give us any info on whether ORA intends to produce the Indigo Dottyback for the masses OR not! I absolutely do not condemn ORA for their "happy accident"...the big key here is what they chose to do now that we all have this pretty new dottyback swimming aroudn in our heads.
The more difficult road is for a mariculture company to take on the mission of preserving our EXISTING biodiversity and NOT produce hybrids for commercial distribution. There are countless alternate avenues with which to increase the bottom line which I have posted prior; hybrids are perhaps the "easy way out" and have the added potential bonus of "market exclusivity"...mix the right two fish to make the next new super fish and no doubt "keeping up with the Jone's" kicks into effect. If NO ONE had ever published or released a photograph of the "Indigo Dottyback", would we even be having this discussion?
Sure, there are situations that perhaps warrant the creation of hybrids WHEN these hybrids help further a broader understanding (i.e. Martin Moe's experience with the Gray X French hybrid which I believe was outlined earlier in the thread). However, describing the production of hybrids for commecial "consumption" as a "comendable act" is a tough notion to accept.
At BEST, Colby has put forth the argument that the purchase of ANY captive produced fish, hybrid or otherwise, means one less fish collected from the reefs. On the flipside, it is just as conceiveable that the commercial availability of a hybrid may increase OVERALL demand or could spur on the growth in hobbyist capacity (I'm sure some folks out there would go and set up another tank just to have a desireable fish...but why not add a few more from other sources). The production of hybrids in a business with limited resources could very well mean the displacement and/or loss of a species in captive propagation. Hybrids also have the potential to cause problems in the maintaining of purity within future generations of captive production.
Another circumstance I have not yet mentioned is the fact that the commercial success of ONE hybrid encourages OTHERS to attempt to produce MORE NEW and DIFFERENT hybrids (Blood Parrot Cichlid begot Flower Horn Cichlid etc....). Seeing success of "Indigo Dottybacks" in the market may very well take an otherwise well-intentioned hobby breeder (or business competitor) to invest their resources into the creation of OTHER NEW HYBRIDS that could very well be "profitable" too. It is my contention that we don't have enough marine fish breeders as it is...why encourage our small group of dedicated hobbyists and small businesses down the dark path of hybridizing between species in groups with proven culture methods. Aren't we all better served by investing our time in "cracking the code" on exisiting natural groups of fish that haven't been nailed down yet?
With all that said, can anyone tell me the merits or redeeming qualties of the Indigo Dottyback (besides the fact that it's simply something "new" and "different" and happens to be "pretty").
Matt
Last edited:
)
