Apisto SP. steel blue

[ed seeley]

If one, possibly private, breeder had done the cross and initial fixing of the traits there may not be a lot of variation in the resulting generations. This could give the consistent offspring that are apparently now seen (I haven't bred this Apistogramma so this is reasoned conjecture rather than my experience).

As a hobbyist breeding these fish what you might think of as F2 fish (i.e. the fish bred from your first babies) are in fact not this but simply another line bred generation and shouldn't differ much from their parents or grandparents.

A lot of the mystery about this hybrid iseems to be about what exactly are it's parents, if indeed it is a hybrid. The lack of females and apparent Far East origin would seem to back up a man-made hypothesis for it's creation though.

It would be intersting to see if the captive bred spawns have a sex bias towards males too.

As to the lack of long fins and albinos. These can't be selected until the actual mutation occurs in the population. With a hybrid you may actually delay the expression of such characteristics as recessive mutations such as albinism may be different gene mutations in the two parent species and their expression supressed further. This mechanism is part of what gives the hybrid vigour that occurs when a hybrid is produced, whether between species, populations or captive bred strains (an outcross). I'm sure it's just a matter of time though....

 

[Mike Wise]

I think Ed explains it pretty accurately. The Steel-blue that we have now might be the F10 or F100 end result of multiple inbreedings of the original cross. Once the strain is 'set' it does not change much, if at all. Think of it like Red Swordtail/Helleri. You consistantly get Red Swords as offspring, but never the original Platy or X. helleri that they came from. Every once in a while there is a mutation, but it is rare compared to the number red fish.

 

[P.W.]

If one, possibly private, breeder had done the cross and initial fixing of the traits there may not be a lot of variation in the resulting generations. This could give the consistent offspring that are apparently now seen (I haven't bred this Apistogramma so this is reasoned conjecture rather than my experience)

Breeding of commercial species such as different forms of guppy, angle fish, etc. is based on a very strict line breeding. Actually you can describe it as an extreme inbreed. When producing the actual fishes for sale, two lines are crossed, and you get a extremely colorful and nice offspring as a result.
These are the fishes we will find in the fish shops around the world.
In our discussion here I would define that generation as the "F generation"
The F1 generation will not get their parents nice colours and forms. And the F2´s will decline even more. That is the experience everybody will face when you try to breed on the first offspring from crossing two (inbreeded) breeding lines.



[/QUOTE=ed seeley;33369]As a hobbyist breeding these fish what you might think of as F2 fish (i.e. the fish bred from your first babies) are in fact not this but simply another line bred generation and shouldn't differ much from their parents or grandparents[/QUOTE]



I´m refering to the first fishes bought from the fishshop as F, and they are a result of two extremely inbreeded lines.
The F1 and F2 can not be defined as a new line breed. I think you have to "clean/ select" a lot for a couple of generations before you can call it a new line with fixed traits.



[/QUOTE=ed seeley;33369]A lot of the mystery about this hybrid iseems to be about what exactly are it's parents, if indeed it is a hybrid. The lack of females and apparent Far East origin would seem to back up a man-made hypothesis for it's creation though
It would be intersting to see if the captive bred spawns have a sex bias towards males too[/QUOTE]



Please read through the thread here. People are getting females in the offspring from Steel blues.
Regarding the F generation, the breeders can regulate the percentage of males by adjusting temperatures and PH. This generation is propably adjusted in this way. It´s not necessary a sign of hybridisation.


[/QUOTE=ed seeley;33369]As to the lack of long fins and albinos. These can't be selected until the actual mutation occurs in the population. With a hybrid you may actually delay the expression of such characteristics as recessive mutations such as albinism may be different gene mutations in the two parent species and their expression supressed further. This mechanism is part of what gives the hybrid vigour that occurs when a hybrid is produced, whether between species, populations or captive bred strains (an outcross). I'm sure it's just a matter of time though[/QUOTE]



Agree, but you actually see this happen very fast when they start to manipulate a species. I have dozens of examples. But no sign yet of this regarding the Steel blues.

(Sorry about my English, hope I have used the right terms and words. And can anyone tell me whats wrong with the "quoting"?? Have to edit this message I suppose



Best regards/ Per

 

[ed seeley]

If one, possibly private, breeder had done the cross and initial fixing of the traits there may not be a lot of variation in the resulting generations. This could give the consistent offspring that are apparently now seen (I haven't bred this Apistogramma so this is reasoned conjecture rather than my experience).

Breeding of commercial species such as different forms of guppy, angle fish, etc. is based on a very strict line breeding. Actually you can describe it as an extreme inbreed. When producing the actual fishes for sale, two lines are crossed, and you get a extremely colorful and nice offspring as a result.
These are the fishes we will find in the fish shops around the world.
In our discussion here I would define that generation as the "F generation"
The F1 generation will not get their parents nice colours and forms. And the F2´s will decline even more. That is the experience everybody will face when you try to breed on the first offspring from crossing two (inbreeded) breeding lines.

I can possibly imagine this for line bred species such as guppy, but cannot see the benefit to the breeder of doing this with species such as Apistogramma. They would have to maintain twice as many genetic lines, then outcross them to get this result, or have I misunderstood what you said?

Do you have evidence for this outcross to produce our captive bred fish? I can certainly see evidence in the random mongrel guppys seen in most LFSs, but the results of an outcross can be very unpredictable unless it is a much repeated process and an unpredictable outcome does not make good economic sense. It makes far more sense that they would swap the odd fish with other breeders, or get some other new blood in every few generations.

As a hobbyist breeding these fish what you might think of as F2 fish (i.e. the fish bred from your first babies) are in fact not this but simply another line bred generation and shouldn't differ much from their parents or grandparents

I´m refering to the first fishes bought from the fishshop as F, and they are a result of two extremely inbreeded lines.
The F1 and F2 can not be defined as a new line breed. I think you have to "clean/ select" a lot for a couple of generations before you can call it a new line with fixed traits.

The fishes produced from an outcross between two different lines would correctly be the F1, or first filial. According to your idea, this would then be the fish produced at the fish farm and bought by the hobbyist at his, or her, LFS. Therefore their offspring would be the F2 generation from the outcross.

This is all assuming that the fish farm has done an outcross to produce their exported fish.

A lot of the mystery about this hybrid iseems to be about what exactly are it's parents, if indeed it is a hybrid. The lack of females and apparent Far East origin would seem to back up a man-made hypothesis for it's creation though
It would be intersting to see if the captive bred spawns have a sex bias towards males too

Please read through the thread here. People are getting females in the offspring from Steel blues.
Regarding the F generation, the breeders can regulate the percentage of males by adjusting temperatures and PH. This generation is propably adjusted in this way. It´s not necessary a sign of hybridisation.

I have read through the thread and I did not mean to suggest that females were not being produced, only that they were rare.
Females do seem to be in the minority though, certainly at LFSs, and I was wondering if those who have bred them had seen any sex ratio imbalance in their fish's offspring.
This can be a sign of hybrid origin in some species, especially some livebearers where all male broods can occur, but I agree is far more likely to be due to the conditions they were bred in.
I'm assuming though that the people breeding them on this forum may well be experienced people, who would keep their fish in the soft, acidic water that is natural over most of South America. With wild fish, this tends not to produce wildly unnatural sex ratios for most species.
If soft, acidic water produces loads of males then I would have thought that is an indication that this 'species' may not have ever lived wild in South America. A very theoretical idea, I know!, but just another one of my random thoughts!

As to the lack of long fins and albinos. These can't be selected until the actual mutation occurs in the population. With a hybrid you may actually delay the expression of such characteristics as recessive mutations such as albinism may be different gene mutations in the two parent species and their expression supressed further. This mechanism is part of what gives the hybrid vigour that occurs when a hybrid is produced, whether between species, populations or captive bred strains (an outcross). I'm sure it's just a matter of time though

Agree, but you actually see this happen very fast when they start to manipulate a species. I have dozens of examples. But no sign yet of this regarding the Steel blues.

It can happen very fast, but equally it may also take a lot of time too. It really can't happen until the mutation occurs and is selected, or is introduced by hybridisation with a strain that does express it. It's a random mutation.



Per, I'm not trying to be argumentative here (honest!) I'm just putting my point of view forward. I think that it's likely these fish are of hybrid origin from what everybody has said about this, on this and other threads, but they seem like nice fish and I would really like to get some now to see for myself! (And I am usually the first person to dislike the idea of keeping hybrids!). Anyone seen, or keep them, in the UK?

 

[P.W.]

Ed.

Thanks again for your informative comments.
I think we can continue this discussion for some weeks, and still not find all the facts about this subject.
To sum up this discussion from my point of view, I would say that you probably are closest to the truth about the Steel Blue. I´m just trying to bring up the points that are disturbing to the hybridisation theory.

These are the facts for and against the hybridisation theory;

For:

1) No collecting sites are known or mentioned in any litterature.

2) Very high percentage of males (in the market).

3) Distributed by south east asian breeders (known for extreme manipulations of different species to things such as "red parrots", ballon mollys, etc.)


Against:

1) Fixed traits, no variations. The colours does not seem to fade in F1 generation. (Compare to Cacatuoides, ramirezi, etc)
Looks like a "true species".

2) Females are quite common in the F1 generation. Some years ago it was said that females vere non existing.

3) Not sterile, they seem to produce normal batches of fryes. Nothing abnormal with the offspring, such as deformities.


I think that we have to wait and see what information will show up in the future. For sure this subject will be discussed again.


Best regards/Per

 

[ed seeley]

Per,
I couldn't agree more!
I also agree that not everything's known! Hopefully more info will come in in time! Hey, you never know I might manage to get hold of a pair or two!
Cheers.

 

[steel blues]

I can't stand this species/hybrid! All I want to do is breed an apisto species,but even the sexing info out there isn't definite. I think that I'm going to order another apisto species from Apisto Dave.

By the way, this has to be a species or a hybrid of very different variations, because a species, by definition, is a group of animals that can create fertile offspring.

 

[Mike Wise]

By the way, this has to be a species or a hybrid of very different variations, because a species, by definition, is a group of animals that can create fertile offspring.

The term 'species' has nothing to do with breeding. According to A dictionary of ecology, evolution and systematics(Cambridge University Press) a species is:

"1. A group of organisms, minerals or other entities formally recognized as distinct from other groups.
2. A taxon of the rank of species; in the hierarchy of biological classification the category below genus; the basic unit of biological classification; the lowest principal category of zoological classification."

In other words a species is an artifact of man. We simply find it more understandable if we put similar things in the same box. It has nothing to do with its ability to breed. A morphological taxonomist will have a different idea of what to put in the box than will a molecular biologist, or an evolutionary biologist. Mama Nature doesn't give a tinker's d**n how closely related partners are, as long as a joining produces viable & reproducible offspring.

I am afraid that your statement has been proven false on many occasions in the plant & animal kingdom. Quite a few naturally occurring - and fertile - hybrids are known. I can name a few if interested.

 

[steel blues]

Actually, platies and swordtails are one instance. That's what we learned a species was in Science recently.

 

[Mike Wise]

That's what we learned a species was in Science recently.

Yes, I was taught the same thing decades ago in high school, too. For 99% of the populations that we consider "species", it is true, but for that pesky 1% well ... Once you go further in your biology education, you'll learn more about the exceptions to the rule.

 

[ed seeley]

The biological species concept (which says that a species is a group of reproductively isolated species) is a rather involved idea and that is just one idea of what a species really is and these ideas are often interpreted differently by different people! Have a read of this and then ask your tutor to explain it! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_species_concept#Definitions_of_species
I'm sure he/she will swear under his/her breath that you've asked!

The Platies and swordtails you mention are examples of what, if they were wild, would probably be best described as a hybrid swarm, something that can occur where species are mixed that can interbreed and interbreed with each other and the parent species, or where two otherwise distinct species mix at the edge of their ranges.

The parent species of hybrids like this can still be classified as distinct species as, as Mike says, the term species is simply a way of human beings categorising things!

In the wild, species can function as reproductively isolated groups of individuals for a number of reasons. This can include geographical separation (two populations that can't mix in the wild and may have become different as a result of selective pressure of random genetic drift), sexual selection (where females pick certain colour males and the two populations don't interbreed as 'red' females (who may not show any of the male's colour themselves!) only pick 'red' males and 'blue' females pick 'blue' males) and a number of other reasons, such as different spawning times in the same location.

In school and uni, it's often easier just to think of them 'not being able to interbreed', but nothing's ever that easy!!!

 

[lab]

I agree fully with much of what have been said on species concepts in this thread. I would like to add a few things, though,

It is important to distinguish between whether to individuals can produce fertile offspring or whether they actually do so in nature. If this hobby has shown us anything it has shown us the possibility of crossing the most peculiar species, to produce fertile offspring, in captivity.
To pursuit the thought even further, it would also be of interest to know if the naturally ocurring fertile offspring establish themselves as a contributor to a gene pool.

And Mike: Off course the species concept is an artefact, and yes, the description of species has been based on morphology. But it is still sensible to try and explain what causes these morphological differences reproduction-wise.
The biological species concept may not be perfect, but it still makes the best sense to me.

Lars