>In The Dawn of the Third Age Harro.Hieronimus at t-online.de woke me from
>my contemplation by writing:
>>Rob,
>>
>>you know (or maybe learn just know) that I'm also dedicated to
>>livebearers. Just to point it out clearly (as I brought up the theme):
>>I have nothing (!) against crosses of any fish. Livebearer crosses
>>have a very long history among aquarists. However, as you clearly
>>write, they are named e.g. "orange long-finned swordtail". Everybody
>>buying this fish and a very little bit experienced in aquarism knows
>>that this isn't a species occurring also naturally in this colour morph.
>>These fish aren't sold as Xiphophorus floridae (because bred in Florida).
>>Accordingly personally I have nothing against rainbowfish crossbreeds.
>>But these are sold under scientific names, and this is fraud, again using
>>this term. If you call the cross between Glossolepis incisus and Melano-
>>taenia boesemani "Red Baron Rainbowfish", that's okay from my POV.
>>If you call it Glossolepis boesemani, even experienced aquarists may
>>think this was a new species offered, like many people (can't count the
>>calls I've had regarding this shit) thought and think M "marci", M.
>>"greeti" and M. "hammeri" were pure species. It's not the fact that they
>>are crossbred, it's the fact of naming them wrong intentially. And you
>>can't protect a scientific name as a copyright under any circumstances.
>>
>>IRG will blame this man whereever we can. And we will also inform
>>the dealers and, if they don't change the names in their specific offer,
>>might also publish these facts.
>>
>>Regards
>>
>>Harro
>
>Hello Harro
> I understand your POV on hybrids but don't agree with it. There was
>a time when it was taken for granted that we could always go back to
>the wild and get more fish. Going back to the wild for new stock is no
>longer a valid option for many species, and this number will only
>increase. Very often these crosses will greatly resemble one species
>or the other parent species. They will then get marked as one of the
>parent species in a fish store. If these fish now get mixed in with
>the pure wild stock it will be degraded. This has happened again and
>again in the aquarium hobby. There are plenty of species in the hobby
>that people think pure, but in truth where crossed early on and no one
>in the hobby even knows what the wild fish looks like.
> I really have nothing against people that wish to hybridize fish.
>But feel they should stick to the man made variants we already have.
>There is no reason good enough to put more species in danger.
> On a positive note, I do not see the Marci sold by the false genus
>species name, in the US any longer. It appears enough word has gotten
>out to reduce this practice. Generally it is now listed as the Marci
>Rainbow.
>
>Cary Hostrawser
Cary,
I think you didn't get my POV. I do not promote rainbowfish hybrids and
I think - as you do - that we as serious rainbowfish keepers have to keep
our species pure. And we are one a good way to do so within RSG, ANGFA
and IRG. No crosses are sold within our societies.
Additionally, we may not even select among strains except if the fish show
damages or are aberrant in another way. E.g. there has been a "Red Boesemani"
strain in the hobby here in Europe, as well as a "Yellow" one. There weren't
crosses or hybrids, these were fish selected for colour and thus domesticated.
These fish must not be used for species conservation.
On the other hand, Cary, it's not in our hands to ban hybrids from the market.
As long as we succeed in avoiding to sell crosses under scientific names we have
already done a lot. To come to another discussion point from the list, as useful
a list of common names may be for the one or other, we have already a perfect
system with the scientific names. You have to look over the plates border in
this case. You may think that Pygmy Rainbowfish is an accepted name for
M. pygmaeus. It isn't by far! It may be well accepted among English speaking
people, but what about the Dutch, the French, the Germans, Russians and
last but not least Chinese? M. pygmaeus is the worldwide accepted and usable
name, and any efforts to create common list names stop at your language
border.
But back to crosses. Many of you (and I myself too) buy fish only from breeders
we know as reliable. Nearly all of them are members of ANGFA, RSG or IRG.
As more the hobby spreads, as more members we get. And they are really
running into IRG at least. That is the way - we have to keep our species
clean and if we sell fish everybody can be sure it are pure species or varieties!
I do not say we must have hybrids or crosses (Julie, these are synonyms!! :-))
But if there are hybrids, let them be clearly stated as such to avoid crosses
with pure species. History showed that we are responsible for the purity of
strains and Cary, I really appreciate your SMP . If one breeds the fish for
him alone and keeps them pure and distributes poor species, okay. But I think
it's better to have an overview which species are rare in the hobby and which
are often bred and kept. We have the fact that many of the species we are
breeding come from a small genetic base. And if an exchange of specimens
is only done by chance because we don't know who else has this species, we
make the base even smaller and reduce the genetic base even more.
I have met many people (not in the rainbowfish hobby :-) yet) who said "I brought
this fish to the aquarist's community, I have bred and spread it and then stopped
breeding it. And when I wanted to have it again I found that all had lost the
species." Breeding fish isn't just bring the fish in, breed it, spread it and then
forget it. If we don't care for it even if it has lost it's newby character we will loose
many of our species (most of all those from New Guinea) within a few years.
Everybody should clearly see this development. And the only way to avoid this
(and also IRG has to do a lot in this matter) is to make a list of fish (and everybody
should contribute on a voluntary base because he is convinced that it helps)
kept in the societies and to have a coordinator which overviews the species
and variety mix and who can say "breed this species or it will maybe be
extinct in the hobby". And it is also important to have breeder who are willing
to breed also species many people aren't interested in. And last but not least
we have need for many keepers who buy the fishes these people breed because
they can't sell them to our members ("oh sorry, I've had that already" ;-) we hear).
Roy, you're surely doing a great job. But it would at least be an advantage if you
would send an actual species list to Cary. And Cary, you have already seen, that
our breeding would be worthless if we hadn't lots of keepers willing to buy all
the fish we breed or we would "stew in our own juice".
Harro
Harro