Indigo Dottyback (Fridmani x Sankeyi hybrid)

[mwp]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7726159#post7726159 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by colby
MWP,

Again I appreciate your knowledge and experience....

Regarding hybrids...perhaps I should have been clearer, as far as we know ALL clownfish can cross breed to produce VIABLE progeny. As we have seen cases of hybrids producing young and do not know of any sterile clown hybrids, it is safe to assume that they all produce viable offspring.

This is where the burden of proof comes into the debate and my lack of intimate clownfish knowledge perhaps could cause problems. However this also bolsters one of my prior arguments. Let's just say that a breeder decides that crossing A. sebae and A. clarkii is a good idea...or for that matter A. frenatus and A. melanopus. Definition of a species aside, we can agree that the fish currently classified as such are indeed different. What happens when the A. sebae X A. clarkii or A. frenatus X A. melanopus hybrids are put out onto the open market. What happens if they LOSE their hybrid distinction, accidentally falling into another breeder's hands labeled with only ONE of the parental names?

This is where the danger lies in producing hybrids. Not so much in the case of the Indigo Dottyback, but in other, less "apparent" hybrids. No one is going to confuse a Blood Parrot with any other cichlid species. But this is not the case, perhaps as an example Hap. sp. "Ruby Green" vs. Hap. sp. "Flameback". Hybrids of the two species could easily throw a wrench into a well-intended breeder's plans. I keep coming back to this example because it is all too very real...it is IMPOSSIBLE to find really good quality Hap. sp. "Flameback" anymore because along the way they have been muddled with genes from other species. What happens when wild clownfish collection is banned, or simply becomes unfeasible, and all that's left is our captive broodstock? Do we want pure lines or will we be happy with muddle genetics in our future broodstock?

And regarding the "rule" that a species is an animal that can mate in the wild and produce fertile offspring, still even more incorrect. That would imply then the chrystoperus and sandaracinos would be of the same specie while Ocellaris and Percula are not (however there has been documentation of the two been found on the same reef...)...

Can you elaborate futher Colby? You may have more detailed information on these particular species, but I think you missed part of the "wild" scenario. Your implication is that Chystoperus and sandaracinos cohabitate (aka. are sympatric) on the reef, regularly mate with each other and produce living offspring that if mated together are capable of producing a 2nd generation of hybrid offspring? Even if this is the case, there must be a reason for them to interbreed regularly in the wild and it has to do with MATE selection. Furthermore, do these HYBRID OFFSPRING mate and produce 2nd generations of babies in THE WILD? Mate selection plays a vital role in speciation...even if a chrystopterusX sandaracinos was produced in the wild, WOULD it be able to mate again successfully or would the standard of mate selection eliminate a hybrid offspring from successfully mating? Are the hybrid offspring even capable of surviving to adulthood in the wild?

To take this to the next level, let's consider Orchids, another one of my passions. It is clearly demonstrated with regularity that you can mate two species together to produce offspring that are in turn viable and can often produce more offspring themselves. We're talking orchids that aren't even from the same GENUS. Why are these not then considered the same species? It all has to do with the natural barriers to reproduction in the wild, whether they are geographic, mate selection based or both.

Lets not forget that our concept of a species is a man-made construct designed to place order on the natural diversity around us. We've created certain rules that seem to apply fairly well in most circumstances in the natural world. What we're all starting to learn is that ALL of this breaks down once we enter into an unnatural environment, i.e. captivity. The odds of an "Indigo Dottyback" are pretty slim as far as a wild-occuring creature, yet there are probably a good handful running around in captivity due to an artificial set of circumstances.

furthermore that would mean that two humans of two different races from opposite sides of the earth are different species as the would never mate in the wild....

I would simply argue that NONE of us live in the "wild" or under "natural" circumstances at this point, so in most respects we are definitely an exception to our own rules when it comes to the definition of our own species. On the flipside, what is artificial to most other life on the planet IS our "WILD" environment.

You might also want to look into polymorphism, subspecies, races and varients. "Species" is not the end-all be-all in the discussion of "hybrids".

You should check out the various articles on Reticulate Evolution in the same issue as Mai's Mandarin breeding article in Coral Magazine....

FWIW,

Matt

 

[mwp]

Just one other little side note from my experience with Orchids. I may have mentioned this before but in the keeping of Orchids hybridization is a long established common practice. Ask me if it's easier to find SPECIES orchids vs. HYBRIDS and hands down now it seems that finding PURE species is more difficult and they always command a HIGHER price. It also seems that most every orchid is protected at some level, many are endangered, and the future of this biodiversity may very well lie in the collections of orchid hobbyists.

Here's a prime example: There is a highly desireable and rare species (Paphiopedilum sanderianum) and there is also a very popular HYBRID known as Paph. Prince Edward of York (P. sanderianum X P. rothschildianum).

Orchid Breeders lust over P. sanderianum. They are difficult to breed, take 10 years or more to reach their first bloom, are EXTREMELY valuable even as seedlings and make some of the most fantastic hybrids.

Paph Prince Edward of York looks pretty much identical to it's P. sanderianum parent as a seedling. Upon blooming though, the difference between the hybrid and species is readily apparent. Due to the genetics of the mix, P. Prince Edward of York is not compareable as a parent in other breeding when compared to P. sandarianum, nor is it as valuable a plant.

SOOOOO...image how ticked off people are when their P. sanderianum seedlings bloom and turn out to be P. Prince Edward of York? To the novice you might not notice the difference, but to any real orchid nut it's dramatic.

Let me further jump in and suggest that currently, the captive population of this particular species is probably 10, 100, 1000 times or maybe even more than that of the endangered wild population of P. sanderianum.

This is why devoting resources to intentionally hybridizing marine fish at this time is careless and should be avoided. We have "bigger fish to fry". ORA could just as easily fund research by applying existing techniques to a Dottyback species it hasn't yet produced instead of creating more Indigos...i.e. how about producing Pseudochromis elongatus?

Matt

 

[colby]

MWP,

I agree that breeding two very similar species together is a dangerous ame that can cause some confusion.

Since I am of the opinon that there may be three or four "base" clown species with many geographical variations I would almost go so far as to say that a frenatusxmelanopus would still be the same base specie, just a cross between two georgraphical variations and its offsprings traits cold be skewed either wa depending upon its future mate.

Regarding Chrys x sandaracinos, yes they do naturally breed in the wild and produce fertile offspring that have been known in the wild to pair with both of its parental species. There is photo documentation of this in "Anemonefish and Their Host Anemones"...
I am merely using that example to point out the flaw of the current defenition of what a species may or may not be.

I myself have a difficult time comprehending what our "natural" environment is or what exactly a "natural state of man" is. However I would offer up the evidence that there have been know cases of certain, different human races having a degree of genetic incpmpatability. In these cases the couples were not able to concieve or had miscairrages due to such genetic difference, I will look for the article on line and post the link if I can. This type of situation really makes me wonder...

I guess when it all comes down to it I do not really believe in "speciation" in the strictist term....

 

[mwp]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7726332#post7726332 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by colby
I guess when it all comes down to it I do not really believe in "speciation" in the strictist term....

However, how does this lack of 100% accuracy and infalibility in our current notion/concept of a species justify the act of intentionally creating hybrids and writing it off as "conservation of wild species/populations"?

To me, conservation and preserving biodiversity are synonymous (or at the very least, to be considered a conservationist, preserving biodiversity would be one of the goals under the greater umbrella of conservation) Therefore, intentions aside, actions that may muddle or otherwise decrease our ability to preserve this biodiversity are most certainly anti-conservationist.

Of course, the question probably begs to be asked, IS ORA even pursuing futher production of the Indigo Dottyback???

Just another $0.02

MP

 

[mwp]

One other thought on the natural/wild state of things and I'll keep it short. Lake Victoria - somewhere along the way I read a synopsis that basically suggests that in addition to all the other problems the lake is facing, increased turbidity / reduced water visibility and clarity has been shown to cause problems with MATE selection (i.e. females identify their mates by coloration, so with reduced ability in that department hybridization that normally wouldn't occur CAN occur). So, in short order the speciation that occured in the last 10,000 to 14,000 years may rapidly become undone, bringing things back to one big lump of a muddled genetic mess probably more akin to the lone ancenstral species. Reticulate Evolution in ultra-high-speed I suppose.

Perhaps it's foolish to worry so much about our biodiversity in the greater scheme of things, yet I think we all treasure it and really don't want to see it go. On the flipside, I think we already have enough biodiversity to preserve without adding our own man-made flavors to the mix!

Matt

 

[colby]

I think in many ways that we agree, just with slightly different variations. I appreciate your opinion and experience.

I agree that bio diveresity is essential to an ecosystems health. However, while I see your point I do not feel hyrid dottybacks and what not are a threat to this bio-diversity. I do not think that we are in any position to critisize ORA as we are relatively clueless as to what is going on. However I would imagine that they are doing everything they can to fund the research of producing new species, and producing hybrids in no way will impede that.

I look forward to seeing what others have to say on the subject,
and as always MWP it is interesting to hear your opinion.

 

[FuEl]

I agree with Matt. Personally I feel sorry for hybrid fish or any other genetically engineered fish. Just take a look at freshwater fish. I feel sad just by looking at blood parrots, balloon rams and glow-in-the-dark zebra danios. I wonder why people even bother to buy them. What gives us the right to create hybrids and go against millions of years of natural evolution?

 

[colby]

FuEL,

I am afraid that your statment is a bit irrational. Have you not heard of the term "hybrid vigor"? Why feel sorry for hybrid dottybacks, Or for the "glow in the dark zebra danios"? I understand where you are coming from regarding fish that may have been limited in their life span or capability through genetics, however what we are talking about does not include that. If anything these hybrid dottbacks will be even better suited to captivity than their parents were......


I would have to disagree that we would necessarily be going against "millions of years of evolution"by producing hybrid dottybacks or clownfish for that matter, we are not genetically infusing onion DNA into an apple, we are providing an environment for animals to naturally cross breed.

 

[mark0933]

"naturally crossbreed" - kinda an oxymoron don't you think??

 

[ediaz]

I don't personally like hybrids but having worked at a hatchery before, if ORA or any other hatchery wants to cross a dottyback with a poddle or a parakeet , bless them and hope they sell them. Hatcheries struggle to stay in business mostly for competititon from wild caught and iresponsible wholesalers who support it.

Regarding Matt's list of possible candidates of aquacultured species, most of those listed have a long larval stage, high rearing cost and wild caught sells cheaper, hence nobody working on them.

Rare clownfishes, there is no market for them, like caps, akindynos, lats etc. a breeder who works with these might not sell all he produces unless he can produce maroons,ocellaris and clarkii by the thousands each week wich will help sell the rare species.


I received a call from one of US biggest wholesalers, who claims cares about the enviroment, he tells me "i got some very beautiful tricinctus brood stock you could use, the price was good, I aksed him: would you buy the product if I breed them? He said "no, I get them wildcaught for a good price...

Ed

 

[mwp]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7727755#post7727755 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ediaz

Rare clownfishes, there is no market for them, like caps, akindynos, lats etc. a breeder who works with these might not sell all he produces unless he can produce maroons,ocellaris and clarkii by the thousands each week wich will help sell the rare species.


I received a call from one of US biggest wholesalers, who claims cares about the enviroment, he tells me "i got some very beautiful tricinctus brood stock you could use, the price was good, I aksed him: would you buy the product if I breed them? He said "no, I get them wildcaught for a good price...

Ed

Interesting experiences Ed.

Surely though, if were were to sell Lats and Allardiis and at the same or only a slightly higher price than the average COMMON varieties of clownfish (ocellaris, tomatoes, clarkiis, maroons etc) surely you could move every last one. Allardii (one of the clowns species I want to work with in the future perhaps) doesn't look that far off from a sebae or clarkii and to the average hobbyist there probably isn't any real big difference EXCEPT price. What's the real difference in COST of raising Clarkii vs. Allardii other than the initial cost of broodstock? Even at "common" clownfish pricing levels, the cost of broodstock is still quickly recouperated if you can move the volume of offspring you produce.

As hobbyists we sometimes neglect to realize that price directly influences the market. IF we stopped trying to get $60 retail for a captive bred allardii at 1", we could probably move a LOT more. If you can move all you produce, the difference in broodstock costs will be covered in relatiely short order. I remember when Zebra Plecos were selling as inexpensively as $50...lately it seems you can't find one for less than $250, I suspect it's because they're no longer being brought in from the wild. HAD someone invested in them back when they were cheaper in theory they'd be "rolling in it" now.

Sometimes, also, it's a matter of non-existent supply resulting in NO demand. How many people are out there actively searching for Astropogons (Conch Cardinalfish) - certainly an inexpensive and ugly fish but by the same token interesting and perhaps saleable IF it was ever available. What about Conspiculatus Angels or Candystripes? The only reason their price is so high is that supplies are non-existent. Any captive breeder working with this fish surely would realize that they can't be produced to be sold at price levels currently commanded for these species..you'd be stuck with a lot of "product" on your hands and very few people interested in purchasing them. While a bit more extreme, apply these concepts to the rarer clownfish and suddenly it may be realistic to produce them if we're sensible in how we attempt to price them and market them. If captive bred lats were suddenly available at a reasonable price compareable to other captive bred clowns, I bet many more of us would be buying and keeping them!

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that in the future more and more fish are going to have to be captive bred or simply won't be available anymore. Making hybrids is a short term gamble and from the environmental standpoint, irresponsible. In the future, it's quite possible that shomeever can produce the MOST and widest variety of marine fish will likely be a winner; investing efforts in hybridizing between existing established captive stocks leaves a business behind while others innovate and look towards that future.

How many of you would be satisified if the only cardinalfish species available was the Bangaii???

Matt

 

[mwp]

Rare clownfishes, there is no market for them, like caps, akindynos, lats etc. a breeder who works with these might not sell all he produces unless he can produce maroons,ocellaris and clarkii by the thousands each week wich will help sell the rare species.


I received a call from one of US biggest wholesalers, who claims cares about the enviroment, he tells me "i got some very beautiful tricinctus brood stock you could use, the price was good, I aksed him: would you buy the product if I breed them? He said "no, I get them wildcaught for a good price...

Ed

Ed, interesting comments.

Surely though, if were were to sell Lats and Allardiis and at the same or only a slightly higher price than the average COMMON varieties of clownfish (ocellaris, tomatoes, clarkiis, maroons etc) surely you could move every last one. Allardii (one of the clowns species I want to work with in the future perhaps) doesn't look that far off from a sebae or clarkii and to the average hobbyist there probably isn't any real big difference EXCEPT price. What's the real difference in COST of raising Clarkii vs. Allardii other than the initial cost of broodstock? Even at "common" clownfish pricing levels, the cost of broodstock is still quickly recouperated if you can move the volume of offspring you produce.

As hobbyists we sometimes neglect to realize that price directly influences the market. IF we stopped trying to get $60 retail for a captive bred allardii at 1", we could probably move a LOT more. If you can move all you produce, the difference in broodstock costs will be covered in relatiely short order. I remember when Zebra Plecos were selling as inexpensively as $50...lately it seems you can't find one for less than $250, I suspect it's because they're no longer being brought in from the wild. HAD someone invested in them back when they were cheaper in theory they'd be "rolling in it" now.

Sometimes, also, it's a matter of non-existent supply resulting in NO demand. How many people are out there actively searching for Astropogons (Conch Cardinalfish) - certainly an inexpensive and ugly fish but by the same token interesting and perhaps saleable IF it was ever available. What about Conspiculatus Angels or Candystripes? The only reason their price is so high is that supplies are non-existent. Any captive breeder working with this fish surely would realize that they can't be produced to be sold at price levels currently commanded for these species..you'd be stuck with a lot of "product" on your hands and very few people interested in purchasing them. While a bit more extreme, apply these concepts to the rarer clownfish and suddenly it may be realistic to produce them if we're sensible in how we attempt to price them and market them. If captive bred lats were suddenly available at a reasonable price compareable to other captive bred clowns, I bet many more of us would be buying and keeping them!

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that in the future more and more fish are going to have to be captive bred or simply won't be available anymore. Making hybrids is a short term gamble and from the environmental standpoint, irresponsible. In the future, it's quite possible that shomeever can produce the MOST and widest variety of marine fish will likely be a winner; investing efforts in hybridizing between existing established captive stocks leaves a business behind while others innovate and look towards that future.

How many of you would be satisified if the only cardinalfish species available was the Bangaii??? What if we didn't even have bangaiis (afterall, the price has dropped so much since their initial collection...folks could very well stop producing them although they are the guppies of the saltwater world so it isn't likely). Innovation and R&D into other groups and subsets and species is definitely the way any existing ornamental mariculture business should consider. Pro-Aquatix and RTC Hawaii are definitely heading more in that direction whereas ORA seems to be ever more interested in novelty (Snowflake Clowns, Naked Clowns, Picasso Clowns...the list goes on and on).


Just some rambling thoughts...

Matt

 

[mwp]

Sorry 'bout the double post - not really sure how the "edit" became a new post in the thread!

MP

 

[ediaz]

Surely though, if were were to sell Lats and Allardiis and at the same or only a slightly higher price than the average COMMON varieties of clownfish (ocellaris, tomatoes, clarkiis, maroons etc) surely you could move every last one. Allardii (one of the clowns species I want to work with in the future perhaps) doesn't look that far off from a sebae or clarkii and to the average hobbyist there probably isn't any real big difference EXCEPT price. What's the real difference in COST of raising Clarkii vs. Allardii other than the initial cost of broodstock? Even at "common" clownfish pricing levels, the cost of broodstock is still quickly recouperated if you can move the volume of offspring you produce.

I got to fly to indiana now but I leave you with this to think about,
you can raise as many rare clownfish as you can, thousands a week and sell them for 2-3 dollars compared to 4-6 for ocellaris, you won't not sell them, people just don't want to buy them.

I know a few basement breeders with high production like me, that stopped raising, percs,cinamon and skunks, why? nobody wants them and percs take too long it does not make money.

I also have a friend who raises a batch, just one batch, of tomatoes about 500 fish and last him a year and he sells hundreds of ocellaris every week.


This business is though, and i work corporate for big automotive manufacturers

Ed

 

[mwp]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7728292#post7728292 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by ediaz
I got to fly to indiana now but I leave you with this to think about,
you can raise as many rare clownfish as you can, thousands a week and sell them for 2-3 dollars compared to 4-6 for ocellaris, you won't not sell them, people just don't want to buy them.
Ed

Have a safe flight Ed.

If the price of Tricinctus, Bicinctus, Allardii etc...were down around the same price as Clarkii, Sebae etc, I couldn't see any difficulty in offering these up INSTEAD of the former, more common species...i.e. raising in rotation. Lats could easily be sold in rotation with Saddlebacks.

The general buying public who's going to purchase a clarkii or sebae is just as likely to purchase the rest, at least in my opinion, if the price is roughly the same...same could be said for the various "Tomato Clown" flavors and the skunk varieties...there's no harm in setting up a few extra broodstock tanks while keeping the larval rearing capacity the same and simply not raise every batch produced by the pairs...raise them in rotation keeps the species "arked"; PLUS the fact that in the long run you won't sell out of every batch of every species immediately, so the availability of species variety rapidly grows on a breeder's list, making you a more attractive vendor to LFS's and the retail public.

Ocellaris is Nemo...it's just that one fish that will ALWAYS sell well. I wouldn't be surprised to see something like the Indigo be a quick fad..maybe generating income for a couple years...granted it could be another Blood Parrot Cichlid.

Matt

 

[Luis A M]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7601467#post7601467 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by spawner
Doug do your "hyrbid" gobies produce fertile offspring? is the F2 fertile?

The debate of what a species is on going. Generally you can keep it real simple by saying two different species are two populations that can not produce fertile offspring. But then you get the moleclular people involved and they drag out a bunch of genes and such and mess things up. Plus there are always those execeptions to the rule. Some populations of species might have some type of behavioral issue that keeps them from breeding, but they could and would produce fertile offspring if they were breed. Maybe in the lab those issues disappear. What would you call those, two species or one; so are you a spliter or a lumper.

Well said,Andy Taxonomy is made by humans,and many times based on subjective importance of morphological traits.It is lumper with the human species,not subspecies claimed (for obvious non scientific reasons) and with seahorses,with only one genus despite the extreme differences some show, like the dwarf gorgonian mimetic (symbiotic?)forms.
But is was splitter with clowns,where maroons were moved from Amphiprion because of a larger preopercular spine,even with so strong affinities to the ocellaris kin.
The founding stone of taxonomy,the SPECIES,in no longer firm and discussions over it´s validity are shaking the whole taxonomic building.
It is worth reading the basics of the theory of "reticulated evolution"in a recent "Coral"mag.It was inspired on acroporid corals,but applies to all living forms.It claims species evolve in time "splitting" but also "lumping"(and this is a new idea).It lumps all species that interbreed (under what conditions is the question)into some "superspecies".
I don´t know where the idea that hybrids should be sterile formed.Mules are sterile because of a difference in parents chromosome numbers.But this is the exception rather than the rule.I can´t find any other interspecific sterile hybrid,refresh my memory if you know one.
But the world is full of fertile interspecific and even intergeneric hybrids.Matt,I don´t like them either,but they are here to stay.Think what would the orchid fancy be without hybrids

 

[aomont]

Hi Matt

If the price of Tricinctus, Bicinctus, Allardii etc...were down around the same price as Clarkii, Sebae etc, I couldn't see any difficulty in offering these up INSTEAD of the former, more common species...i.e. raising in rotation. Lats could easily be sold in rotation with Saddlebacks.

I agree with you in many points of this discussion. I have been thinking on larger diversity of species in order to get in the market as well. Unfortunately rotation can only be financially interesting as long as the species do sell, at least seasonally.
The fact that a breeder rotationally produces a saddlebacks and another one produces it constantly, may take you to sell saddlebacks when you have them and get stuck with Lats as your fellow breeder keeps selling the old saddlebacks. (just taking this two as examples)
Besides rotation breeding requires larger rooms for broodstock, part-time broodstcok...

I think sometimes the idea of keeping/stimulating diversity just don´t get along with comercially breeding "living things".

Anderson.

 

[aomont]

Hey Luis,

I don´t know where the idea that hybrids should be sterile formed.Mules are sterile because of a difference in parents chromosome numbers.But this is the exception rather than the rule.I can´t find any other interspecific sterile hybrid,refresh my memory if you know one.

Sorry to ruin your example, but some mules do get pregnant !!! Yes, some are fertile and are selected for breeding the mule "species/hybrid/whatsoever"

Anderson.

 

[Luis A M]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=7732999#post7732999 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by aomont
Hey Luis,



Sorry to ruin your example, but some mules do get pregnant !!! Yes, some are fertile and are selected for breeding the mule "species/hybrid/whatsoever"

Anderson.

Yeah,I heard some exceptional mule got pregnant but thought it was some kind of urban legend. They don´t have many chances anyway,cause males are altered.
I now remember the red parrot (though I also heard some were fertile)or the locally developed blue Jack Dempsey strain.But again,these are the exceptions,all the other hybrids being fertile.

 

[colby]

Just to re- iterate what ed said, there is no market for "rare" clowns...

Latz for example will not sell well because they are big and not colorful, on top of that they need cooler than normal temps (I completely reject the notion that just because they have been kept at 60 degrees that it is fine for them, ultimately it just shortens their life span...)


I consider myself very much a nartualist and I am deeply passionate about the oceans, however we need to get one thing straight...

Humans are extremely arrogant and to think for even a second that we can realy "destroy" or significantly alter life on this planet is in my opinion short sighted, I think that we really need to consider the effects of what we are doing on ourself. History has shown time and time again that the most dominant specie on earth will in essence destroy himself, the dinosaurs did it and so are we. Long after we are gone, the dottybacks will still be here and so will clownfish (albeit we may somehow alter them if we mass cross bred them and then mixed species all over the reefs...highly inprobable...)...

In the long run, how can we alter the ocean by letting two very similar fish (so similar in fact that according to our defenition of a specie that they are in fact one...)breed and sell the babies?

What ORA is doing for the reefs through maricaulture is very comendable and I think they should do whatever they deem necessary to run a profitable business....