I'd like to point out that, from the research I've done the origin of these crayfish is unknown and there is no evidence that they are either hybrids or human made. While your opinions may be valid boboboy it would be better if you verified the accuracy of your information.
A crayfish, first descovered in a German fish tank, with no wild populations? whilst Parthenogenesis, is not unknown in arthropods. the method used by the Marble, follows, in no way, the "natural" forms. it reproduces, rapidly, (something, unknown in a natural arthropod).
My information is, as accurate as it can get. how or who, ever did the breeding, will never be known (unless they own up). science can
not "confirm" human intervention. however, like it or not. the fact the Marble is a Man made organism, is well known in the trade.
So, we have a crayfish, with no wild populations, until after it appeared in the trade. now this in itself, indicates something "unnatural" (this cray would have a massive range, as it wipes out all comers as we see in Madagascar) any wild populations, would have been well noted. indeed its discovery, in the wild, would have caused a fuss. and without doubt, been on the front page of PFK and its like world wide.
this crayfish, is asexual, not unknown. but the method it uses, and the speed which it does it. have never been known before.
if it was "created in a Petri dish, or by mating, "deviant" cray, nobody, except the group who did it knows. but with no wild populations, and sciences "inability (even with dna) to define it parentage. its a long shot to say its "natural. but a, large fast growing, fast breeding, asexual, crayfish. fits the bill for a "profitable" food cray. unfortunately, i am informed, their taste is not so good. as a result they, probably, ended up in the aquarium trade.
science does say they are a hybrid, what it cant say is of what, well exactly anyway.
