Hybirding Gouramis?

[grumpymole]

Hey, i havn't really thought about hybirding fish before, but reading into it it sounds cool.
Would i be able to cross breed different types of gourami?
i have pearl, golden, blue, dwarf and honey.
Cheers

 

[afireinside]

Techniacally the Dwarf and the Honey could, considering one was female and the other was male.
I belive the golden and the blue are the same type of gourami, just a different color variant.

 

[grumpymole]

Techniacally the Dwarf and the Honey could, considering one was female and the other was male.

cool. Might read up about it

I belive the golden and the blue are the same type of gourami, just a different color variant.

oooh, well you learn something new every day

 

[willtang3000]

this fish was hybrid bred between a paradise fish and a combtail paradise fish and the results were pretty good you should try not sure how though lol

 

[sylvia]

That last one would be fun to try - huge massacre mind you - but the result looks pretty. Are you sure that's what it is though? I didn't realise the two could produce viable offspring.

Please, please, please don't attempt to cross the honey and dwarf. This has been done and you may even be able to find some of the results at your LFS. It only causes confusion and messes up the pure strains. because these two fish are already confused very easily, adding to that confusion is only going to make things worse. Besides, the result of this cross isn't anything special. I'll find you a pic of what it might look like in fact. Here: http/www.akvariumas.lt/zuvys/belontiidae...a_chuna_big.jpg Something like this male honey but a little larger, slightly more 'solid'-looking and without the black color. Those you tend to see are actualy of a red variety.

Gold, blue, opaline, platinum, cosby and lavender gouramies are all the same species (I call them, collectively, 'three-spots' to avoid confusion). Feel free to attempt to cross the different color morphs but watch out because they are aggressive fish and the males, especialy, during spawning, are capeable of killing their mates, as well as their tankmates. However, three-spots do also happen to be the easiest of the gouramies to spawn and raise.

Pearls can also be crossed with three-spots theoreticaly but pearls are a lot more peaceful and their behaviours tend to clash if you attempt to cross them.

Other gouramies that can be crossed are the sparkling and t. schalleri gouramies, several of the licorice gouramies, several of the betta species and, probably, banded and thick-lipped gouramies with dwarfs. However, none of those crosses would realy produce good results and, in the case of the licorice, would be difficult to pull off.

Of course, there are plenty of moral reasons to not attempt to breed hybrids. Search the forum a bit for those perhaps, before you try to produce any.

edit: Actualy, here's an article I found about hybrids: http/www.aquarticles.com/articles/breedi...on_Hybrids.html It's a little out of date and some things it says I disagree with but it's interesting. Note that discus, it's now been agreed, are a single species - not 2 distinct species. Also, the 'fancy' gouramies are not hybrids. And the argument at the end about some hybrids being acceptable and some not - I'd argue that certain varieties of fish - such as mollies, flowerhorns or parrots (though most parrots can't breed anyway so it's irrelevant) - are so far gone into hybridization, it makes no difference whether we choose to support them or not so there's no point dwelling over them. With fish like endler's, killifish or african cichlids, however, there's still some hope of keeping them pure so, I at least, think we should try to for the sake of wild populations.

 

[Teelie]

Of course, there are plenty of moral reasons to not attempt to breed hybrids. Search the forum a bit for those perhaps, before you try to produce any.

And there are of course, plenty of good reasons to hybridize some fish as well.

 

[sylvia]

And what would that be besides profit or personal interest? I appreciate you could argue it's good in the sense that it helps us understand how genetics work etc etc (the 'useful to science' argument) but that's not realy a viable argument considering science isn't realy benefiting from uncontrolled experimentation by hobbyists.

 

[Teelie]

The simplest: It's nature's way of reinforcing genetic diversity and disease resistance. True, some of the species humans mix may never meet in the wild, but there are plenty which do and are often found naturally hybridizing in the wild. While it is a gambit of which two species will mix successfully and produce viable offspring, the pay off is always worth it once you find one. Endlers for instance are almost all mixed with Guppies in the trade and the few places they were/are found in the wild similarly found mix-bred populations. And the same of some Cichlid species, Betta and so on. Virtually every single Bristlenose Pleco in the trade is a hybrid of one form or another. Clearly hybrids are not the evil creation some of the "purists" think.

A pure bred species of fish has a smaller gene-pool to work with and as the pure-bred strains keep getting bred over and over, they begin breeding out recessive but necessary genes that give some of the species immunity or resistence to disease and other environmental factors. Many of the Guppy strains commonly found in the hobby are the result of this incessant inbreeding and pure straining that has weakened their immune system and lifespan by as much as 2-3 years.

I know some "purists" object to any form of hybridizing in the hobby but their claims are just as flawed and baseless as those they say about hybrids. What it comes down to is the person doing the breeding and their honesty in selling the fish as what they are, not claiming them to be anything else. Without new, different genetic material in the gene pool, eventually a species becomes extinct, or is absorbed into a larger, more robust species which results in a sort of hybridization anyways. While it may take time for a pure bred species of fish to breed out the recessive genetic/unwanted traits, it will happen, then it will not take much for a single epidemic to hit and wipe out an entire species.

 

[sylvia]

Actualy. That's not true. Hybridizing is certainly not nature's way of ensuring a wide gene pool. Nature does ensure genetic variation and, subsequently, the 'sturdiness' of a species through natural selection. In nature, very few hybrids occur. Fewer are even capeable of breeding themselves. Fewer still survive. Only a handful ever form breeding populations. With fish, you often find various species that have sub-species. This is the result of evolution, natural selection - hybridization does not come into it at all. If you look at land mammals, where the differences are more obvious, you can see this even more clearly.

The 'small gene pool' argument only applies to isolated populations or strains that are created by humans. This is simply because we use artificial selection to produce these animals - the guppy example is perfect. We don't breed guppies to get hardier fish, we breed them for their coloration. In the wild, a fancy guppy that has a short lifespan will die before it can sire many broods. The fry that survive will, as such, be a minority. The genes from this 'weak' male will gradualy be diluted until you can't find any fish that resemble hima s far as lifespan goes. Simialrly, wild guppies don't have the same fancy tails as the fish we breed because they are a disadvantage to their survival. They don't pass those genes on. The same applies to colors (though female preferences come in at this point and complicate matters - look at peafowl). In the case of isolated populations, mutations can still allow the species to survive but they tend to develop differently to fit the specific niche. That's why you often get sub-species forming in an isolated area - or even distinct species over longer periods of time. In other cases, you can have the population diminish or suffer the effects of the smaller gene pool - a good example would be certain human tribes in Africa that now show a lot of deformities due to inbreeding.

BTW, you're explenation of why inbreeding causes problems is also somewhat incorrect. it's not because you are breeding out recessive genes. It's because the genes (whether recessive, dominant, polygenes or whatever) responsible for whatever trait build up. It's difficult to explain but I'll try, using rats as an example. Now-a-days, almost all domestic rats get cancer at some point during their lives. This could be attributed to inbreeding. Tke a pair of rats - one carries a gene that is going to make it likely to get cancer. The other does not. Their babies may inherit the dangerous gene, or not. But when you breed those babies, their offspring are that bit more likely to inherit those genes and so on. In the wild, this kind of thing is stamped out quite quickly by natural selection. that's not the case with artificial selection though. That's one good reason to avoid inbreeding - it's not realy related to hybridization though.

The big problem with hybridization is the effect this can have on wild populations of all sorts of animals living in the same ecosystem (not just the particular species) if a hybrid has been bred that can better survive than the parent species (the same is true for geneticaly modified organisms BTW). For example, what if a a tiger X lion hybrid (liger for example) were let out in the African savannah somewhere (assuming it were better suited to life there - it wouldn't actualy be but this is hypothetical) and out-competed the lions, leopards etc? It doesn't stop there. If we're talking about a liger being able to out-compete these animals in the sense that it's better at catching prey, the number of impalla, zebras etc also diminishes. As a result, species such as hyenas or chetahs that wouldn't normaly be in direct competition also diminish. Perhaps you get an explosion of ligers. Then the ligers end up killing off all their own food and die. Maybe the result is a vulture population explosion or whatever but other animals (as everything is in some way or another linked) also are effected in some way or another and the ecosystem changes completely. this is a simplified and extreme example and ligers wouldn't realy be able to compete like this because of various things (size in particular) but it's a good example.

Then there's the other scenario where the animal is released to a place where its parent species were not indiginous (of course this does apply to the tiger half of the liger as well but I was going for something more obvious). this also is good reason for not flushing fish BTW. You release a kind of hybrid rasbora (or it could be a 'pure' species just as well) into a tributary somewhere in the Amazon where some small tetra (eg: neon) lives and the hybrid turns out to be better at surviving than the neon. typicaly in nature, no to species occupy the exact same niche within the same ecosystem. You can, however, get fish from different places or that are hybrids (eg: asia/hybrid as opposed to south america in this example) which do occupy the same niche. if for whatever reason these species find their way into the same ecosystem, one is likely to wipe out the other. An existing example would be the introduction of dogs (ie: dingos) into Australia that caused the extinction of the Tasmanian tiger (though this is now completely extinct due to human activity anyway) from mainland Australia so that it only survived in Tasmania. Or look at the effect of rabbits brought to Australia. these aren't hybrid examples but they illustrate the same thing and, because they are concerned with better known animals, I think they are more obvious and simpler to understand.

Anyway, I've been typing into the New Year so happy new year everyone. I haven't said everything there is to be said but perhaps you see my point(s)

 

[Teelie]

Hybrids are found in the wild, though they are usually given their own species designation because they've been hybridized for such a long period of time (how do you think there are so many species of Cories, Plecos, Cichlids, and other large groups?). This is a part of a basic biology course in college and can be found in reputable online journals if you look for them (in paper as well if you're that bored). I can dig up my old research links on this if you don't believe me. If that isn't sufficient, ask a doctor or professor who's specialized in biology (zoologists and similarly trained animal-oriented fields are obviously the best choice). Most fields should have sufficient knowledge to at least give a cursory explanation of how hybridization works in the wild and how some animals disappear or appear as a result of it.

As you said and I did before, hybrids that reproduce successfully are rare but they happen, and they can be as you pointed out, superior to the "parent" species they originated from. Which is the whole point I was making. You are right my weak gene explanation is flawed, but as I was trying to be simple and concise, I left out a lot of details. I can go into that as well but these posts are already becoming novels.

There are genetic mutations in a larger population but the population of hobby-kept fish is considerably smaller and the introduction of new genetics and mutations is controlled. Often fish with undesirable traits are culled and removed, never having chance to add their different genetic make-up to contribute to the diversity. While natural selection does this anyways, when humans do it, as we often love to meddle, we aren't doing it for any beneficial or survival purposes that actually help the species long term. The changes we make almost never have a positive, helpful effect on the species.

The way I see it, the two groups, pro-hybrid, and anti-hybrid are on the same coin but opposing sides to how to sustain a fish population. Some hybrid offspring are strongly one side or the other with only minimal influence of the "lesser" parent appearing either physically (and cosmetically) or genetically while others appear evenly mixed. Either way, I think that there should be strains that are not completely of some species, if only for the "foreign" genes influence against over-homogenization.

I think there are enough "purist" keepers that a population of a species will never truly be hybridized with another species yet that doesn't seem to be enough for some. They want everyone to follow their guidelines, right or wrong, helpful or not because they think they are right and refuse to accept there can be "polluted" strains successfully in the hobby that don't "taint" their pure breeds. Afterall, isn't one of the things the IBC specifically looks at is the lineage and history of strains of Bettas?

This other problem, the Guppy being a good example, is when hobbyists breed and breed and breed to get a desired trait that sacrifices other traits that aren't wanted. When those are gone, there is not enough recessive genetic makeup to help fend off and keep the population from becoming too similar. If a genetically similar species is hit with some new disease, there is less resistence to it. While aquariums are isolated, the fish coming in and going out of them is not. It only takes one infected fish to wipe out an entire tank if the immune system of the other inhabitants is too weak to handle the new intrusion.

As to your point on hybrids in the wild; this isn't the wild. These fish are never meant to be in the wild, nor are their exotic parents so this really is not an issue for us. Assuming the hybrid has a better chance at outlasting its parents in a non-native environment is only slightly more important than the fact a non-native animal was introduced into that environment in the first place.

I'm right with you about releasing any non-native fish into the wild, even fish that were once native should not be re-released for the possibility of introducing new diseases or parasites. I don't think anyone agrees with this, and certainly not responsible keepers. Obviously not everyone is responsible but like I said, any aquarium-kept fish should not be released. Hybrid or not.

So, back to my original conclusion; it's up to the aquarist who breeds and possibly sells the fish to decide whether they should or not, and to be honest about what it is they're producing. I don't see why there's such defensiveness and resistence to hybrids, especially if they are properly identified and sold as such. Calling it unacceptable for moral reasons doesn't cut it either. Not everyone has the same moral standards as others. Imposing them just because you don't like something isn't right. If we allowed that to happen, then whose morals would we follow? Why would this person's moral standpoint be more acceptable than that person's? Only in a moral consensus is there agreement on what to/not to do. There is no moral consensus on hybrids and I doubt there ever will be.

edit: All of that and one typo, one typo that makes a sentence look funny.

 

[sylvia]

Again - you are incorrect about hybrids occuring in the wild. There are a few naturaly occuring ones, that's true. An example is given in the link I posted earlier - a saltwater species at that. BUT, there are only a handful of these hybrids existing.
The reason you get different species of cory (for example) is NOT hybridization. This is very basic evolution. You get different species when an organism mutates (cumulative mutations over millions of years etc) so that different traits appear and seperate species develop. It all comes down to variation within species and natural selection. NOTHING to do with hybridization. I said this in my previous post right at the start.

You mentioned asking a biologist/zoologist about this stuff - my mother is a biologist, my father is an economist who dabbles in zoology (two distinct fields that are remarkably similar, parallels of each other), I am going to study zoology next year (I'm not as old as people tend to take me for) and I practicaly grew up in a labarotary in New York (Brooklyn college if you're interested) as my mother was doing her phd when I was born. I've been looking into this stuff - especialy evolution and animal behaviour - all my life. I am the last person you should be sending to speak with a zoologist

With the rest I agree - IF we make sure to identify hybrids correctly. IF we do not release them into the wild. IF we are responsible. THEN it's fine. This is the reason I am not against fish like flowerhorns for example - yes, there's a danger some could be released but it's unlikely they'll prove better suited to the environment than an existing species and, within the hobby, there is no chance of them being mistaken for something else. And their price is not to be over-looked either - who in their right mind will flush/dump a £70 fish?!

Going back to the dwarf gourami X honey gourami cross, the result looks too much like a honey gourami. Such gourami hybrids already exist within the hobby. People often buy them without knowing; the same is applicable to many African cichlid hybrids. And don't forget that, particularly with the latter, the hybrid may have different requirements from either parent or show different levels of aggression than the fish it resembles. How does someone who cannot say what the fish' lineage is decide how to care for it? You see it's not just abstract morals - it's the practical side too.

Another perfect example is the 'common' molly which is a hybrid of several wild species. Few even seem to know this is the case. A perfect example of the result on the fish in captivity is how everyone's under the impretion (usualy) that mollies grow to 2". Sure, the 'original' mollies (those sold 10 years ago say) did - our modern fancy hybrids (containing lots of sailfin) can get to 4", 6" in extreme cases.

One more, rather obvious, point is that hybrids remove 'pure' fish from within the hobby. This means there's a demand for more. As I said earlier, a restricted gene pool (resulting from isolation within the hobby) cannot produce new fry to satisfy this indeffinately. Profit starts to diminish. Fish have to be wild-caught.

Lastly, consider that a lot of people won't buy hybrids so there's little demand for them unless people are under the impression the fish are a true species. Take 'assorted' African cichlids as an example. This is generaly because of the fact you cannot predict what these fish will be like behaviour-wise, growth-rate-wise and requirement-wise. So why breed a bunch of hybrids that'll end up in an LFS or, if they get 'lucky' in a new hobbyist's 10 gallon when you can breed the real fish and increase their chances of being put in the right environment?

I'd like to add that you have no argument as far as the use of hybridization for 'the "foreign" genes influence against over-homogenization'. You are suggesting we hybridize existing species (only within the hobby of course) in order to get genetic variation. Fair enough - but, ultimately, you end up with a single species - a hybrid of the parent species - that still needs genetic variation. You haven't solved any problems. Seems a lot simpler, more reliable and, not to mention, less risky for wild populations, to simply breed for hardiness occasionaly (which is done to an extent by inexperienced breeders or non-commercial hobbyist breeders). Besides, when you hybridize, you aren't simply introducing new genes, you are changing the fish completely. Cross a p. acei with a p. saulosi - you don't get a hardier p. acei, you get an acei with stripes!

I do have an another reason to avoid hybridization but one that I consider weaker because it seems to excuse more important issues (ie: habitat destruction). Still, I'll mention it. If we decide hybridization is fine and start doing this with species that are near-extinct/extinct in the wild but quite common in the hobby (eg: RTBS), we risk losing the limmited gene pool we do have to those hybrids and having that species go extinct. I appreciate a lot of people don't care whether a species goes extinct as long as their pockets are full or they like the hybrid replacement, but I'd personaly preffer to keep the original alive. Perhaps this is based on morals (and, therefore, quite lacking IMO) or it may be that keeping such fish alive within captivity can preserve important information (true, at least, in the case of various rainforest plants and deep-sea animals) or give the species a second chance in the wild in the future (wishful thinking I admit).

As for the morals involved, I don't think I'm driven by such, or, at least, it's nothing to do with personal likes or dislikes. I want the fish to thrive (and the other organisms they affect). Nothing else. Let me make something very clear to you - I am not a 'purist' as you imply. I am not fully against the process of hybridization. I am certainly not against the hybrid fish themselves. I simply do not wish to encourage it. I want people who are considering it to think over the implications and, if it is to be done, for it to be done responsibly. Suggesting there is absolutely nothing wrong with it only makes it simpler for people to do without understanding the results of their actions. If we are being realistic and appreciate the possible implications of producing hybrids, it's clear that a lot of things can go wrong and there's an obvious risk involved. I'd rather this risk were calculated and that people did not decide to produce hybrids on impulse. Not everyone is going to be responsible. Not everyone is going to make sure those fish don't end up in the wild. Not everyone will strive to preserve natural species or keep hybrids distinct from existing species. But, by informing people of the results their actions could have, perhaps more will take that responsibility.

 

[Teelie]

I could post another long reply countering your arguements but I've had a little to drink celebrating NY so I'm in no conidtion to. Maybe tomorrow but for now I'll leave it at there isn't going to be a complete consensus here. People will or won't do whatever they do no matter what arguements are made for or against it. Thats just the way people are. It's good to debate the finer points with someone with an good idea of what they're saying but in the end , I don't think either mind will change. It's been fun though.

 

[Synirr]

I didn't read all of the posts, but I gotta go with sylvia on the core issue here... hybrids are NOT common in the wild, ESPECIALLY when it comes to animals. They're a bit more common where plants are concerned. Generally when hybrids occur in the wild it is when two very closely related species have converging territories, and even then the hybrid region tends to be very small. Animals just prefer their own species over others, no matter how closely related they are. Hybrid animals are very often sterile, and even when they aren't they are not prefered mates so the contamination of their genes in the gene pools of the parental species remains minimal. Sometimes hybrids will breed with one-another and thus form their own species, but for this to occur interbreeding with either of the parental species has to be pretty much non-existent... Let's just say this isn't the most common way for a new species to arise.
Look in any evolution text book and you will find the information I just gave you.

EDIT: BTW, inbreeding doesn't influence allele frequencies. This means that if you start with a population that has 50% dominant and 50% recessive alleles for a certain gene and then begin inbreeding with no outcrossing to other populations, the frequencies will always be 50-50 except for other evolutionary influences like genetic drift. The only difference is that inbreeding selects against heterozygosity, so you end up with more individuals that are either homozygous dominant or homozygous recessive, and that's where problems arise because you'll get more individuals homozygous for detrimental recessive alleles.

 

[Teelie]

I'm not going to keep arguing this. You won't listen to me and I won't listen to you. So to conclude; if you don't like them, don't buy them. Let others do what they will. It's not yours or anyone elses place to say what is and isn't appropriate.

 

[grumpymole]

look everyone.
Hybrids are very rare ion the wild all agreed on that?
But i am certinatly not looking to chuck a load of hybirded gouramis into the amazon am i?
I just want to know if it is possible to hybird them and i certinatly did NOT want this to turn into a heated argument beetween teelie and sylvia- who both have some very intresting and true facts to back them up.

Oh and have a happy new year everyone!
(who else is drunk?)