PlanetCatfish.com

Now it gets a bit more interesting here. This one came out as a possibly undescribed syno close to . Not what you would expect, as the common species tend to be the maternal lineage. Is it really a hybrid?

RC0697.

Here's the full ID tree if anyone wishes to take a look.

Subject: -1
Effort, dedication & knowledge: + 10

But I'd rather say:
Rupert, despite the fact that I do not like the subject, I think you have made some terribly good and informative postings.

Imho everyone who loves fish should have a look at the short bodied Synos in the video at the top of this page. And if you indeed love fish, do not buy!
No demand = no more intentionally deformed Frankenfish.

Thanks Marc.

Now, once we have agreed that these hybrids match the ones in the cat-elog, I can add the data.

Great job on the research.
-Shane

racoll wrote:Now, once we have agreed that these hybrids match the ones in the cat-elog, I can add the data.

Just caught up with this awesomeness. I agree with the exception of RC0696 and RC0697 that they should be added to the cat-elog. I wonder if the images (from Rupert) could be added with a caption of the RC number (or some suitable moniker) and then in the ID section for that "species" that a note to the result for that species.

Jools

racoll wrote:Also

Synodontis decorus

, but this time matching

Synodontis sp_hybrid(9)

.

RC0616

RC0616.JPG

RC0703

RC0703.JPG

IMGP0540.JPG

I saw this earlier post and I wonder can anyone tell me what this fish in the post/pics is a hybrid of? I just picked up 2 juveniles that look pretty much exactly like this from my LFS (having decided after advice I got on here from my first post to NOT get Columbian Sharks!). I knew they were hybrids, the LFS was open about that, but they couldn't tell me what they were a hybrid of. One assistant said he thought they were a decorus/angelicus hybrid, and his colleague said he was confident they are an ornatipinnis/brichardi hybrid. They had a bit of a discussion amongst themselves about it, and the guy who said angelicus/decorus was adamant that ornatipinnis is too rare to likely have been used for hybridisation as he's not come across any ornatipinnis or ornatipinnis hybrids in at least 10 years.

I'm a little concerned about how big they are going to get as an ornatipinnis would outgrow my tank, so I wonder if an ornatipinnis/brichardi hybrid would too, if that is indeed what they actually are.

I decided to go for them as I thought they were unusual, and a nice contrast to my petricolas, and my granulosus and angelicus, even if not a true species.

I thought I'd bump it, as a peer got a hybrid under the name of shoutedeni... plus maybe someone else got something to add as it's been 2 years...

https://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/foru ... st-8006503

Or might it be genuine? I don't think so but have been wrong once or twice before:

That looks like a S. eupterus and S. grandiops cross or thereabouts...

Jools

Find 20 differences between this frankenstein and eupterus:

interesting. i have had had a hip replacement, two knee replacements, a shoulder replacement, lots of titanium in the spine and a pacemaker, is this what you would call me?
everything has a right to life. if it is alive it is a part of nature and therefore natural whether you like or not

i think a more appropriate question would be: where do you draw the line. how many of the fish we consider standards were created by inbreeding or breeding with other species? 10,000 years ago? it seems to me that there are a lot of african cichlids in darwin's dreampond that are awfully and some that have evolved just to fill a niche. as far as selling them? as long as you know what you are getting into then so what? better a healthy hybrid then some of the awful stuff i see in the "we want to sell dog and cat food but will bring in some half dead fish if it will get you in the door" stores

To me, the line is clear. If it is made by nature / God, without interference of man, it is valid and worth keeping and studying, even naturally occurring hybrids. You are a valid species, Homo sapiens, medically, not genetically, corrected for your ailments which is wonderful that our medicine can do this for us.

There is an ethical line everywhere, in every branch of human activity including medicine and "progress"... and including our hobby. To different people it differs, because it depends most of all on their view of life, its origin, and its purpose.

To me, the fact that people produce these hybrids is unethical. To you, may be not. And it's fine to disagree and be different. It's not the animal's fault and it deserves all the love and care as any other "valid" creature. However, our attitude towards their production and the consequences thereof can differ.

but when you put two fish, male and female in to a tank to try to get them to spawn you are interfering in nature's process, to say that naturally ocurring hybrids are ok is really cutting it close. read Darwin's Dream Pond. it's about some of the stuff we are talking about. it says fish evolve to fill a niche. some people might argue that the "creation" of a small, peaceful, beautiful syno cat is filling a niche, granted we have a hand in it but still if it gets more people to keep fish and there is a natural supply of the original species for people who want the pure form what's the harm? better than some of the stupid things that have been done, i.e. introducing tilapia into one of the rift lakes to feed railroad workers, what a disaster that turned out to be

if it gets more people to keep fish and there is a natural supply of the original species for people who want the pure form what's the harm?

But there isn't really a supply any more. Hybrid Synodontis are in every pet store I go to, but the wild types are extremely hard to find these days. I remember in the early 90s every store sold some wild synos. I would rather my money went to a fisherman in the Congo than to a Czech breeder that produces fish that I don't find interesting.

I think the point is, why, if they are going to the effort of breeding these fish for the trade do they produce these hybrids and not just the real thing?

i can think of some reasons, they are more attractive has to be at the top. they are cheaper to produce, they handle shipping better, they are more disease resistant. i'm not kidding myself. they have to be making more money because these are attractive fish but i think there's room for everyone. they are a major concern here but hardly the only examples, fancy goldfish, angel fish, most live bearers, and of course the (extremely attractive parrot cichlid heh heh)

i can think of some reasons, they are more attractive has to be at the top. they are cheaper to produce, they handle shipping better, they are more disease resistant.

Well the attractiveness is subjective of course. Being cheaper to produce I knew about (breeding with a female of high fecundity), but I did not know they are hardier and handle shipping better. Is this a fact, or just an assumption?

i asked a local retailer who deals with mostly high end fish and he said it is his impression (not fact ) that the hybids are hardier which would lend to them being easier to ship and better at surviving the shipping however i know of no hard statistics

plus the fact that they are so pretty has a lot to do with it to. don't know 'bout cross the pond but here there was this trend some years ago that if you decorated a tank with corals and put in really colorful african cichlids people would assume that you had the expertise to maintain a real salt water tank. to me this says a lot of why people want the hybdids - they are pretty and they are a "new look" designer catfish in a sense i guess. i mean that's the way i see it going. not sure about over there but glow-in-the-dark fish are pretty popular right now. now there is a real frankenstein

thanks, should have figured it would be here somewhere and done more eloquently than i could do

Hi All,

I did think about splitting this thread off and merging with the hybrid syno thread, but perhaps that's overkill. Think it's about done, but if anyone has a strong opinion, I'll move the off-topic(ish) part of this thread.

Cheers,

Jools

So long we are exchanging opinions, I think their aesthetics has nothing on the genuine species, just like Frankenstein has nothing on Apollon or Hercules or Lily Frankenstein has nothing on Venus or Aphrodite. They are produced in a cruel way that causes fish suffering and death. The goal is not to advance the hobby, I think, but to make fake fish that mimic genuine and more expensive species and make money off of this concept. They obscure the study and appreciation of nature for what what it is and promote the concept that we can and will create our own "nature", better and more advanced. What a pinnacle, or rather an abyss of foolishness!

******************

I am for adding this to the Syno hybrid thread. Thanks, Boss!

*bump*

for crying out loud you are comparing live fish to a creature that never existed, it's a story. fiction, and not very good fiction at that. we are talking about live creatures/ cross breeding happens all the time. Frankenstein? seriously? . he was made out of pieces of other men / women. how does Lily Frankenstein. how does she even enter into this? if we are all creatures of nature then nothing we can do can be called truly unnatural, maybe immoral or socially unacceptable but not unnatural. the tone here seems to be that they are not natural and if they were created out of eggs and milt then guess what? they are natural maybe not in the way some people would like but i don't think that's our job to judge. don't keep them if you don't want but don't criticize others who do. hybrids are attractive, that's a given. are there syno species that are more attractive? i guess. they are what they are and as keepers of fish we don't have the moral right to say what should and should be. is keeping fish in a glass box with unnatural light, unnatural sound and unnatural food moral? are they not suffering on some level? okay, they are free from predation, but that was their life to live or not live 'till they got pulled out of the river ( i have seen tropical fish netted out of a river and there is nothing pleasant about it for the fish) then on an airplane, not in first class i don't think. then another pond and then another plane ride? that's okay because they are natural, right? and they were born just to spend the rest of their years in your (my) living room. as far as making money that's what the hobby is about. i see people who sell fish (they have spawned) for a lot of money what's that about? advancing the hobby? yeah, maybe some but the rest is good old American capitalism. hybrids advance the hobby? it is if it makes fish more affordable and more people keep tanks, then maybe it is in the best interest of the hobby. Who says that the fish don't suffer during the catching process? ivr seen fish nettout of a stream and im really sure they were nearly stressed out of their mind. holding bins, plane ride (not first class), another holding bin, another plane ride, that's okay right? how many fish die during the process? then how many die before they are acclimated? judging by the local retailers, quite a few No one except hard core aquarists are going to plunk 150.00 for a fish they are going to see once a year when they rearrange the tank. i have some hybrids and they are out all the time. the fish keeping game is changing. these fish are bred specifically to live in a tank, how many wild caught fish can you say that about? the hobby has made how many fish nearly extinct in the wild because people want the newest "thing?"
if they are being injected with hormones okay but is it that way? can anyone say for sure?
there are quite a few species we keep that need hormone injections to do what they are not in the mood for or are being kept in the wrong conditions for. i am under the impression that there are a lot of breeders in the far east who use this method, as it's fast. cheap, easy and no need for movies and dinner before. should we boycott their fish? as far as creating our own nature we force nature's hand all the time. are you sure you have never eaten hamburg that there was not some GMO in it or somewhere along the line. antibiotics? vegetables. if you don't want to keep them don't? but don't criticize those who do.

i know their is going to be a lot of anger here but i think an honest exchange of ideas out weighs that

So I was largely going to avoid this debate because you can't have profitable debate without some shared ground to start from and when it comes to morality there is very little shared ground in the modern world, but I do think it's worth pointing out some of the assumptions here so you can understand why not everyone finds your case compelling.

kvnbyl wrote: 08 Jan 2019, 01:04 if we are all creatures of nature then nothing we can do can be called truly unnatural, maybe immoral or socially unacceptable but not unnatural. the tone here seems to be that they are not natural and if they were created out of eggs and milt then guess what? they are natural maybe not in the way some people would like but i don't think that's our job to judge.

This defines "natural" in an entirely circular way. I think I might be able to declare concrete pilings natural given this. Viktor has given a definition of natural that he's using, I still don't understand yours.

kvnbyl wrote:is keeping fish in a glass box with unnatural light, unnatural sound and unnatural food moral? are they not suffering on some level? okay, they are free from predation, but that was their life to live or not live 'till they got pulled out of the river

Two notes here:
1) You invoke this interesting idea of freedom for fish. They could live in a hellish nightmare-scape of giant predators, food scarcity, and occasional drought, but they were free! I see no reason to assume that non-humans place value on freedom and I see good empirical evidence that some do not (for instance, the extremely restricted areas some species choose to use when given access to very large ones). I also see good reason to believe that humans themselves do not place value on freedom when their lives are constantly under threat.
2) This only applies to wild-caught individuals. Last I checked Viktor was arguing for captive-bred wild species. Most of the rest of this bit of argument embraces this idea, that Viktor wants fish caught in the wild, not captive-breeding of wild strains. For the record, this second one is what I endorse, in part for conservation reasons. Your hybrid syno has no real conservation value (there's no source population that could be restored from captivity) and is largely uninteresting from my perspective as an evolutionary biologist, while the Synodontis radiation in the rift lakes is a fascinating second take on the justifiably-famous cichlid diversification event.

kvnbyl wrote:hybrids advance the hobby? it is if it makes fish more affordable and more people keep tanks, then maybe it is in the best interest of the hobby.

This depends on what you think the hobby is and whether you think expanding that wing of the hobby is good. We could expand fish-keeping as a whole by adding more people who keep goldfish in unfiltered bowls but that would be, in my opinion, making the hobby worse at the same time and I would be against it.

kvnbyl wrote:how many fish die during the process? then how many die before they are acclimated? judging by the local retailers, quite a few

Which is one reason why I favor captive-breeding of wild strains. I think we do have a moral imperative to see that our interest in these animals does not threaten them.

kvnbyl wrote:No one except hard core aquarists are going to plunk 150.00 for a fish they are going to see once a year when they rearrange the tank. i have some hybrids and they are out all the time.

You have problems with pure strains of Synodontis that hide all the time? I don't associate that behavior with Synodontis at all. That's a pleco problem, generally.

kvnbyl wrote:the fish keeping game is changing.

That's a given, in that we have much better technology for maintaining a good environment for fish than before. But is the game changing to favor hybrids, or is the game changing so that what were once difficult wild strains are now easy to keep?

kvnbyl wrote:these fish are bred specifically to live in a tank

In the sense that someone bred them to sell them for that, but that sense applies to anyone breeding any fish to sell. Not in the sense that someone selected these fish traits to make them better adapted to tanks.

kvnbyl wrote:the hobby has made how many fish nearly extinct in the wild because people want the newest "thing?"

I don't know. How many is it? An integer greater than zero or not?

kvnbyl wrote:if they are being injected with hormones okay but is it that way? can anyone say for sure?

I'd say not, unless you're running some sort of serious conservation project.

kvnbyl wrote:there are quite a few species we keep that need hormone injections to do what they are not in the mood for or are being kept in the wrong conditions for.

Which is one reason why breeding fish without having to use these shortcuts is a sign of at least adequate husbandry.

kvnbyl wrote:i am under the impression that there are a lot of breeders in the far east who use this method, as it's fast. cheap, easy and no need for movies and dinner before. should we boycott their fish?

Yes.

kvnbyl wrote:as far as creating our own nature we force nature's hand all the time. are you sure you have never eaten hamburg that there was not some GMO in it or somewhere along the line.

GMO beef isn't a thing. That's off topic, but my students are all convinced that McDonald's is selling them GMO meat, but GMOs are currently almost all crop plants (as far as agriculture goes - there's also some GMO salmon).

kvnbyl wrote:antibiotics? vegetables. if you don't want to keep them don't? but don't criticize those who do.

I actually have serious problems with the way both antibiotics and GMOs are used in the United States because both have human health and environmental implications that go well beyond the end-user.

So, anyway, there are a lot of statements here that I think are either dubious or you seem to think I (or some hypothetical audience) should answer one particular way but I answer the other way, and so I don't find the argument convincing.

There's a very real reason that hybrid synos get a lot of hate: they've polluted the market for pure-bred synos. I generally agree that hybrid synos aren't some crippled abomination like, say, balloon anything. Instead, they are more like fancy guppies. But does anyone really hate fancy guppies all that much? As far as I can tell the worst fancy guppies get is eye-rolling about what beginner fish they are. And that's because no one is shelling out money for a pure Trinidad Poecilia sp. and getting a red cobra guppy instead. But there are people shelling out money for purebred synos and being sold hybrids on a pretty regular basis, and so they are frequently seen as a plague on the hobby. Hybrid pimelodids are the same way.

And let's not forget all the hybrid Ancistrus too. One good thing about hybrid Synos versus guppies or Ancistrus? They don't reproduce in aquarist's tanks although that also helps their sellers. For me, I can see their outer beauty but the way in which they are produced worries me and they are often unscrupulously sold. On balance, a net negative for me.

Jools

keeping any live animal captive, to some degree, is cruel no matter how you try to justify it.
concrete is not living no matter how you many words you move round and i can't see how that even came up
pulling them out of a stream to transport them 4000 miles away to "captive" breed them is certainly not moral in any sense of the word
we don't breed them. we provide conditions similar to nature and they take care of the rest
there's nothing special glorious or special about it, it's the way things are supposed to be
they weren't put here for us to exploit or to "captive" breed they were there to live out their life that's irrefutable
Haven't seen many " hellish" streams lately but i guess you know more about that i do
hybrid fish were designed to be kept in a tank, that is why they were created, they've never known freedom
if you don't like them don't keep them but don't use 16 paragraphs to say you don't like them, just say it
any comparison to Frankenstein is ludicrous and so is this discussion, you took it way out of what was being talked about and dragged "science" into it to try and justify what in the end can't be justified, namely man's attitude that everything here for his use or disposal.

If we

-- cut out the emotions,
-- stayed on topic and not throw the whole kitchen cabinet,
-- and took the time to reply,

I think it'd be helpful.

I don't intend to change anyone. Why are you taking my opinion so painfully and personally? I am nobody.

I was only expressing my opinion and I didn't criticize or judge anyone. I read your opinion. I was speaking my opinion of the phenomenon of hybrid synos. If my words could be construed as a personal criticism or discrimination of peers by their syno-keeping preferences, I bow down low admitting my guilt and apologize.

**************

for crying out loud you are comparing live fish to a creature that never existed, it's a story. fiction, and not very good fiction at that. we are talking about live creatures/ cross breeding happens all the time. Frankenstein? seriously? . he was made out of pieces of other men / women.

*****I am using the common trait of Frankenstein and the hybrid synodontis, which is man-made in an unnatural way, to describe the synos. I am not comparing apples and oranges. Just picking an adjective / descriptor that expresses my thought in a concise and precise way, IMHO.

how does Lily Frankenstein. how does she even enter into this?

*****F. and his bride I used to express my view of the external beauty of the hybrids versus the natural ones. I was using mental images to convey what I see in terms of aesthetics. Obviously diametrically opposite to your view, which no one is seeking to tear away from you. By all means, keep yours. Jools agrees somewhat with yours. Others agree with me. Yet others are in the middle. This is what makes life interesting.

if we are all creatures of nature then nothing we can do can be called truly unnatural, maybe immoral or socially unacceptable but not unnatural. the tone here seems to be that they are not natural and if they were created out of eggs and milt then guess what? they are natural maybe not in the way some people would like but i don't think that's our job to judge.

*****Been addressed above professionally. This black and white logic qualifies everything we do as natural, so we might as well do away with this meaningless word.

don't keep them if you don't want but don't criticize others who do.

*****Addressed above. Plus, I keep them.

hybrids are attractive, that's a given. are there syno species that are more attractive? i guess. they are what they are and

*****Addressed above.

as keepers of fish we don't have the moral right to say what should and should be. is keeping fish in a glass box with unnatural light, unnatural sound and unnatural food moral?

*****Depends on perspective. To us, yes. To PETA, no.

are they not suffering on some level?

*****I am suffering as I am reading this and answering. But I grin and bear.

okay, they are free from predation, but that was their life to live or not live 'till they got pulled out of the river ( i have seen tropical fish netted out of a river and there is nothing pleasant about it for the fish) then on an airplane, not in first class i don't think. then another pond and then another plane ride? that's okay because they are natural, right? and they were born just to spend the rest of their years in your (my) living room.

*****Do you know that it is scientifically proven that plants feel pain and anguish too? Following your logic to its end, we should stop eating, walking, and breathing too, because with every breath, the immune system in our lungs kills a myriad of microscopic animals (something PETA should think about). Really black and white thinking is futile.

as far as making money that's what the hobby is about. i see people who sell fish (they have spawned) for a lot of money what's that about? advancing the hobby? yeah, maybe some but the rest is good old American capitalism

*****If done in a way that's seen as humane (or at least adequate as Lycosid put it) by experts, I don't see anything wrong with this. What we say, as Jools noted, is the trickery that's objectionable.

. hybrids advance the hobby? it is if it makes fish more affordable and more people keep tanks, then maybe it is in the best interest of the hobby

*****Many would agree with you. Some and I don't. We view the hobby advancement differently. That's why. And there is definitely space for both of us in the hobby and on this planet. For now.

Who says that the fish don't suffer during the catching process? ivr seen fish nettout of a stream and im really sure they were nearly stressed out of their mind. holding bins, plane ride (not first class), another holding bin, another plane ride, that's okay right? how many fish die during the process? then how many die before they are acclimated? judging by the local retailers, quite a few

*****This is a broken record.

No one except hard core aquarists are going to plunk 150.00 for a fish they are going to see once a year when they rearrange the tank. i have some hybrids and they are out all the time. the fish keeping game is changing. these fish are bred specifically to live in a tank, how many wild caught fish can you say that about? the hobby has made how many fish nearly extinct in the wild because people want the newest "thing?"

*****Can't add much to what Lycosid said above.

if they are being injected with hormones okay but is it that way? can anyone say for sure?

*****It is common knowledge from fish farm procedure protocols to scientific papers reporting advancements in fish farming.

there are quite a few species we keep that need hormone injections to do what they are not in the mood for or are being kept in the wrong conditions for. i am under the impression that there are a lot of breeders in the far east who use this method, as it's fast. cheap, easy and no need for movies and dinner before. should we boycott their fish?

*****Yes. On my humble end.

as far as creating our own nature we force nature's hand all the time. are you sure you have never eaten hamburg that there was not some GMO in it or somewhere along the line. antibiotics? vegetables.

*****I am against any GMO. Obviously, I am a conservative.

if you don't want to keep them don't? but don't criticize those who do.

*****Broken record word for word. Yet, again, I apologize if my words could be viewed as such. I was aiming to speak of the phenomenon and its implications that I see and of my personal opinion.