Thoughts on Apistos and other fish species in the hobby

[wickedglass]

I've posted this under another thread, but I wouldn't mind hearing other people's opinion on this subject and maybe engage in a discussion.

I've heard a lot of different things about various strains of apistos.
I've also heard the blueheads, or blaukopf, or steel blues as they are variously known are from catei X's bred in asia, but they look like so many other species, too.
Talking to a variety of people about breeding apistogrammas I've come to realise that there are no real pure strains to start with. A lot of species of apistos come from the same regions in south america, and are often caught in exactly the same localities, as far as I can ascertain. So even the wild stocks change over time, as there's a lot of interbreeding between the species going on naturally (ever wondered why they place apistogramma species into group types these days?). If someone shows you a captive bred variety which has been kept "pure" for the last 10 years which is a textbook example of the day, you can be sure that by now the wild population has changed. Often fish collectors returning to a site, which yielded a particular kind of apisto 5 years earlier, will not be able to find a fish that will look just like that first batch, unless the species is physically isolated from related species.
While I believe we as fishkeepers have a responsibility in regards to preservation, I also believe that in some ways mother nature has us firmly strapped over a barrel, concerning certain things ... like apistogrammas.
Even different species of discus may freely interbreed in the wild. I guess it's nature's way of creating diversification in the face of adversity, creating the kind of range needed for some kind of survival of, if not the species itself, then at least some sort of semblance, adapted to living in the rapidly shrinking world of the Amazon rainforest water systems.
The blueheads tend to be much maligned in some dwarf cichlid circles, but it comes down to personal taste. As with discus, or dare I say it .... goldfish. There will be those who are "purists" and those who like the fish for its shape, colour, variety, behaviour, size .... any number of things. And whatever anyone may say, the blueheads make stunning adult fish and there is very little sexual dimorphism making the girls just as colourful as the boys.
I think in this game we need both those who think pure (I like my fish as close to the wild thing as possible, but I appreciate tank strains just as much) and those who think hybrid (unquestionably the much argued-over flowerhorn cichlid is an awesome looking, beautiful fish, although the ethics of producing them are not to everyone's taste) and those who think both. Like with dogs, specifically alaskan malamutes, the dog will get bred back to the wolf every 3 or 4 generations, so we must, very importantly, keep the original strains functional and viable and fresh. And when a new strain is produced (look at all the different cacatuoides out there, the original stock from the early 20th century look nothing like the tank bred strains we have now) it should be labelled without question as a strain or hybrid so there is no doubt that it is breeder "engineered" or a hybrid or a new frankenfish (something that isn't really evident with the way blueheads are sold),
Even wild-caught species change as soon as they're introduced into an aquarium environment anyway, so there should really be no pretence at artificial environments being a natural thing (even though a lot of us will try to get as close a simile to the real thing as possible) behaviour is usually the first thing to be compromised, colour changes soon following.

[steph]

You've raised some very interesting points which I dont have time to talk about at the moment.

Before any discussion takes place I would just like to clarify the difference between hybridisation and line breeding, as you refer to both in your post.

Hybridisation is the crossing of two seperate species eg: A. cacatoides with A. agassizi, or in the example you mention the dog with the wolf (alaskan malamute with wolf)

Line breeding is selective breeding within the same species, which is how we get double/triple red A. cacatoides

IMHO these are not the same thing.

My understanding of the world of ichthyology is that the whole genus of Apistogramma is not completely understood, and it certainly doesnt attract the attention of the science community (there is no $$'s in studying Apistos )

The whole system of complexes and groups was developed to recognise that some species are more closely related than others and that it is unclear how firm the boundaries are between some species.

My personal opinion on hybridisation is its fine for nature to 'play god' and if the fish chose to hybridise in the natural environment thats the way things are going to happen, however its not something I think we should do in our tanks.

In the case of line breeding I think this is completely unavoidable in an artificial setup. Just by picking out a pair in a fish shop tank you have started selectively breeding as both fish can no longer chose its preferred mate according to what ever natural preferences that would normally prevail.

Where the line gets hazy is the combining of fish supposedly of the same species but different localities. In nature its highly unlikely that these locals would have the opportunity to intermix and so I think we should treat them as far as possible as seperate species until we know better.

steph

[Th0mas]

Steph,

I totally agree with you on this.

I've tried to reply yesterday but like yourself - didn't have the time to finish the response and canned the half typed up reply.

Providing I'm aware of the origin of my fish, I will avoid crossing species from different localities (that's explains my pestering to Kev for more detail of his fish). Hybridisation cannot be totally avoided, I've seen pics in Aqualog that shows some wild caught species of corydora that's been labelled as natural cross between species in the same location. These happens at very rare occasions but we should be responsible for not producing un-natural hybrids as there's always a possibility some may get back into the wild and destroy the naturally occuring species.

Line breeding can be good as well as bad for the hobby, typical case is goldfish where many different variants were developed from the single species. Many of these will never survive in the wild, and will eventually breed back into their natural form in the wild (lack of colour and fancy features). Sad thing about line breeding is the uncontrolled in-breeding by many unaware or irrisponsible breeders (there's a mix of both). This results with degradation of the fish's features and eventually kills the interest for them (eg there are some really poor quality kribs around, not as bad as apisto with respect to body deformities but a total lack of colour and spots). Those who maintain a good quality line will cost $$ to maintain, but there are many who just flood the market because their fish are breeding likes rabbits and wanted to capitalise from them.

In conclusion, I think most if not all of us here are trying to do the correct thing.

Thomas.

[parkap]

Great topic Chirs. This issue ahs actually been on my mind of late. I think I'll have to take some time tonight and put some of my thoughts down when I've got some time - I suppose I should do some work at work, they do pay me...

[parkap]

Would like to know people's opinion of what's been referred to here as line breeding within a specified species but with varietieis of the species from different regions to try and encourage certain traits of those varieties, eg (and I'm not using real names but I think you'll get the point) is breeding A.agassizii "Tefe" with A.agassizii "Peru" acceptable?

This was mentioned briefly in the post regarding naming conventions. I would've thought this type of "line" breeding was acceptable for hobbyist. It's no different to the way that Discus have been bred to bring out specific bohhy varieties, eg. snakeskins, loepards, etc or even as Steph mentioned the promotion of certain traits such as in the cacatuoides. I think in the long term this is also a more conservationally better way to approach apistogramma breeding / hobbying. To try and maintain varieties to their current geographic characteristics, which from what Chris has written isn't possible anyway, but IMO getting away from that reduces pressure on wild stocks - although I've not seen any evidence that apistogramma species are endangered at all yet, but we don't want to get to that point anyway.

Attempting to maintain natural wild lines within a species is more akin to conservation then hobbying. And as mentioned above the better long term approach for conservation IMO is to reduce demand and the need for wild caught varieties. Of course given that apistogramma keeping is still only immature, at least here in Australia, wild caught bloodlines would still be required for some time until a big enough genetic selection were available in the hobby.

Peter.

[steph]

You raise an excellent point Peter, and one of the reasons I never seriously got into salt water fish although we both love salties is the fact that 99.999 % of salt water fish are wild caught, have a fairly large attrition rate from ocean to wholesaler to shop to hobbyist and it was something we didnt want to be a part of personally.

With regards to line breeding I guess one of the difficulties with crossing localities is the blurry state of when is a locality a locality and when is it another species! My personal preference is to avoid hybridisation if possible not just for the 'conservation' aspect but so that down the track some one who buys an A. agassizi knows its an A. agassizi and not an almost A. agassizi. That if they breed that aggie to one from another shop/strain etc they know they are going to produce viable fry.

I do agree that we need to get a greater genetic pool in the country and one of the ways to do this is to raise the profile of the Apistos. Although I havent seen it myself I have heard numerous reports on the low quality of a large number of locally available aggies and cacatoides and this is a situation we really want to avoid happening with some of the newer species we have coming in.

Personally Im not against line breeding at all as long as its done well, eg enough genetic diversity to prevent recessive defects showing up in later generations and that the fish are recognised as line breds, like the double/trible reds in cacatoides which have done a great deal towards the popularity of the genus.

just some thoughts, its getting late and Im starting to ramble incoherently

cheers

steph

[KillieOrCory]

is breeding A.agassizii "Tefe" with A.agassizii "Peru" acceptable?

In my opinion this is perfectly acceptable as long as the breeder calls the resulting offspring A. agassizii Aquarium strain and do not try to lable the fish 'Tefe' or 'Peru' regardless of what the resulting offspring phenotypically resemble; ie.look like one parent or the other!!!

This is a topic that I am quite passionate about since I have been a killifish hobbyist for over a decade. The recent issues arrising with dwarf cichlid localities have been an issue for killifish hobbyists for 40-50 years or more. What history has shown is that when a group is not studied closely a lot of specimens are lumped together into species groups as a first step and later when more detailed studies are done quite often many new species are named.

So I would suggest, if one has both sexes of 'Tefe' or 'Peru', they should avoid cross breeding them since there is no way to know if in the future:
A.agassizii Peru gets renamed A.agassizii peruensis and
A.agassizii Tefe gets renamed A.tefensis or not!!!

[AdamR]

I am of the opinion that as long as it is labelled correctly I dont mind what people do. Some line bred species I like, say cacatoides, others i prefer natural, such as aggies.

As to breeding different variants of wild caught, be my guest as long as they are then sold as just the species name. Eg. Aggie "peru" and Aggie "Tefe" would only be sold as Aggie.

Saying that something is a species suggests that it cannot produce viable offspring with something of another species. We do know that this isnt always correct, for example flowerhorns, but is not a common occurance, and does happen in the wild, giving way to new species.

Well enough babbling. Do what you will as long as you label fish truthfully.

Adam

[fishgeek]

not sure whether you example was intentional

tefe variant of aggie is a seperate species to aggie

already hybridization experiments have proven this


the rest is just colour coding and is , to me anyway, a bit like say ginger people shouldn't be crossed with blondes,
i know that it would be nice to not have ginger people about but hey who would we make fun of then

ps im ginger
if you want to can substitute skin colour , just didn't want to offend

[AdamR]

Your right about the aggies fish geek, i was following on from the example above =]

Adam