Electric Blue Jack Dempsey hybrid or not?
- Thread starter myster619
- Start date
This strain of fish didn't start off with any type of line breeding project, or years of inbreeding. It started off with two fish of unknown origin breeding in captivity, which resulted in fry that were later referred to as EBJD. By all acounts they were hard to keep and weak from the get go, way back with the very first spawnings. Have you not read the article by Marcelo Casacuberta?
As far as hybrids ........
http://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/hybrid.htm
Usually within the fish keeping hobby most people relate a hybrid to when two different species are crossed, but with all the changes back and forth in classification of various cichlids over the past 25 yrs, my opinion has always been that it's certainly a good idea to even keep geographical variants seperate when breeding. Unfortunately as Chris just stated this simple concept has been largely ignored within the hobby, as though all races found within an entire area, or large body of water, are all genetically identical. When researchers get around to examining & comparing DNA, this seldom turns out to be the case. The Amphilophus found within the Great Lakes of Nicaragua are a prime example.
+1
Wasn't going to bother to explain that-- by this point in this thread I don't have much patience with proclamations made in posts that misrepresent, or don't appear to even know, the history of this fish.
+1 on the last post or two on hybrids also. Some seem to be familiar only with the common hobbyist notion of a hybrid, not the general or taxonomic definitions.
Gosh, how is this discussion still ongoing.
Simply put, EBJDs are not inter-specific hybrids, that's all. They are a color morph, which is why two otherwise perfectly 'normal-looking' JDs can produce EBJDs.
Simply put, EBJDs are not inter-specific hybrids, that's all. They are a color morph, which is why two otherwise perfectly 'normal-looking' JDs can produce EBJDs.
LMAO - as much as I may lean towards EBJD being a pure strain, the logic used by some of you to argue that point is borderline ridiculous.
RD. Wrote..."This strain of fish didn't start off with any type of line breeding project, or years of inbreeding. It started off with two fish of unknown origin breeding in captivity, which resulted in fry that were later referred to as EBJD. By all acounts they were hard to keep and weak from the get go, way back with the very first spawnings. Have you not read the article by Marcelo Casacuberta?"
I might add that this is not quite the truth according to what we know of the breeding requirements needed to produce the EBJD. Nothing against you RD. You are accurately referencing the information source.
Mr. Hector Luzardo received his two fish from "a friend" and these two fish produced the first known EBJD...
I have a contention with THIS source information for a very specific reason... not the information itself, but rather what the information is providing without saying openly.
As proven by the EBJD ratio he stated as approximately 25%; what Mr Luzardo was given were a MATED PAIR of two Blue Gene Jack Dempseys, not just two happenstance fish.
We are all aware (I hope) that the results of breeding EBJD to EBJD as being futile, with near 100% unviable spawns, and if viable, near 100% fatalities of the fry within the first few days alone. This "fact" is exceedingly well documented.
We are well aware that EBJD x Wild Type produces 50% EBJD & 50% BGJD.
We are also well aware that BGJD × BGJD produces 25% EBJD, 25% Wild Type and 50% BGJD.
To this day, regardless of the cross which produced the EBJD fry, they are "Weak from the start" as RD well noted.
As Mr Luzardo documented, they are quickly preyed upon by their own siblings.
By all manner of statistics,
when combining their being physically weaker, growing much slower, being MUCH LESS CAMOUFLAGED, predited in the very least by both fish and fowl, to include their own siblings which outnumber them 3 to 1 and quickly outsize them. The strain of these specimens should have easily bred themselves into extinction, but such is not the case.
Agreed... the parents protect them; but not from their own siblings.
In my own observations of my own fry in the latest hatch from 25 July, I have already seen losses near 30% from the larger siblings opportunistically preying on their smaller siblings. They even do this when their bellies are already plump with food. Note... these are all BGJD from EBJD × Wild Type.. NOT BG preying on EB.
Within my current BGJD hatch, the larger fry l×h×w were already 8 times larger than their smallest siblings by the end of the 2nd week, and these smaller fry aren't even the even smaller and weaker EB!
I am of the opinion that there was no mistake made, nor any luck involved, when Mr Luzardo received his BGJD. I believe "his friend" had seen the EBJD specimens and knew Mr Luzardo would "discover" them also.
Why??? Because in the world of Jack Dempseys; from the time they mate, to the time the fry are free swimming - it is usually less than 6 days.
his friend should have also easily noted that something was different about approximately 25% of the young...
Why???
Mr Luzardo stated the explanation perfectly!
The EB fry start off mixed in amongst the normal looking fry. Well and good... hard to differentiate between them, but... and it's a BIG BUT!!!
Within days of the start of the predation by their siblings, the EB fry separate unto themselves!, and when grouped, their color differences can be readily seen.
If I had received such fish, I would be happy to credit my friend who gave them to me (in and of itself, that proves nothing), yet Mr Luzardo's friend remains nameless after all these years.
imho... Mr Luzardo's friend knew exactly what he was doing.
I might add that this is not quite the truth according to what we know of the breeding requirements needed to produce the EBJD. Nothing against you RD. You are accurately referencing the information source.
Mr. Hector Luzardo received his two fish from "a friend" and these two fish produced the first known EBJD...
I have a contention with THIS source information for a very specific reason... not the information itself, but rather what the information is providing without saying openly.
As proven by the EBJD ratio he stated as approximately 25%; what Mr Luzardo was given were a MATED PAIR of two Blue Gene Jack Dempseys, not just two happenstance fish.
We are all aware (I hope) that the results of breeding EBJD to EBJD as being futile, with near 100% unviable spawns, and if viable, near 100% fatalities of the fry within the first few days alone. This "fact" is exceedingly well documented.
We are well aware that EBJD x Wild Type produces 50% EBJD & 50% BGJD.
We are also well aware that BGJD × BGJD produces 25% EBJD, 25% Wild Type and 50% BGJD.
To this day, regardless of the cross which produced the EBJD fry, they are "Weak from the start" as RD well noted.
As Mr Luzardo documented, they are quickly preyed upon by their own siblings.
By all manner of statistics,
when combining their being physically weaker, growing much slower, being MUCH LESS CAMOUFLAGED, predited in the very least by both fish and fowl, to include their own siblings which outnumber them 3 to 1 and quickly outsize them. The strain of these specimens should have easily bred themselves into extinction, but such is not the case.
Agreed... the parents protect them; but not from their own siblings.
In my own observations of my own fry in the latest hatch from 25 July, I have already seen losses near 30% from the larger siblings opportunistically preying on their smaller siblings. They even do this when their bellies are already plump with food. Note... these are all BGJD from EBJD × Wild Type.. NOT BG preying on EB.
Within my current BGJD hatch, the larger fry l×h×w were already 8 times larger than their smallest siblings by the end of the 2nd week, and these smaller fry aren't even the even smaller and weaker EB!
I am of the opinion that there was no mistake made, nor any luck involved, when Mr Luzardo received his BGJD. I believe "his friend" had seen the EBJD specimens and knew Mr Luzardo would "discover" them also.
Why??? Because in the world of Jack Dempseys; from the time they mate, to the time the fry are free swimming - it is usually less than 6 days.
his friend should have also easily noted that something was different about approximately 25% of the young...
Why???
Mr Luzardo stated the explanation perfectly!
The EB fry start off mixed in amongst the normal looking fry. Well and good... hard to differentiate between them, but... and it's a BIG BUT!!!
Within days of the start of the predation by their siblings, the EB fry separate unto themselves!, and when grouped, their color differences can be readily seen.
If I had received such fish, I would be happy to credit my friend who gave them to me (in and of itself, that proves nothing), yet Mr Luzardo's friend remains nameless after all these years.
imho... Mr Luzardo's friend knew exactly what he was doing.
Buphy, allow me to attempt to explain this to yourself, and others, one last time.
There are MILLIONS of cichlids in this hobby that appear "normal-looking" to the naked eye, but the naked eye is not capable of determining genetics within an organism. So, what happens when two "normal-looking" fish that carry a recessive gene (introduced by whatever means) breed, the result is a percentage of offspring will retain that certain trait, be it albinism, blue gene morph, or whatever. If that gene has been introduced via a natural method, or the crossing of two different species makes not one wit of a difference in how the carriers of those genes appear to joe blow. Those fish may look perfectly normal, yet may have some genetic code imprinted in their genetic make-up from God only knows what.
Now factor in what Shadow just stated and it certainly does make an old jaded dog like myself go hmmmm.
This is all true Shadow, but the fact remains that IS the story, so one can only go by THE story. This is exactly why I stated what I did previously, about the STORY told sounding sketchy. Perhaps there never was a "friend"? Hmmmmm.
So where exactly does that leave us, exactly where I entered this discussion. To date there is no definitive proof one way or the other as to the origin or purity of this strain of fish. Everything else is just speculative hyperbole.
There are MILLIONS of cichlids in this hobby that appear "normal-looking" to the naked eye, but the naked eye is not capable of determining genetics within an organism. So, what happens when two "normal-looking" fish that carry a recessive gene (introduced by whatever means) breed, the result is a percentage of offspring will retain that certain trait, be it albinism, blue gene morph, or whatever. If that gene has been introduced via a natural method, or the crossing of two different species makes not one wit of a difference in how the carriers of those genes appear to joe blow. Those fish may look perfectly normal, yet may have some genetic code imprinted in their genetic make-up from God only knows what.
Now factor in what Shadow just stated and it certainly does make an old jaded dog like myself go hmmmm.
This is all true Shadow, but the fact remains that IS the story, so one can only go by THE story. This is exactly why I stated what I did previously, about the STORY told sounding sketchy. Perhaps there never was a "friend"? Hmmmmm.
So where exactly does that leave us, exactly where I entered this discussion. To date there is no definitive proof one way or the other as to the origin or purity of this strain of fish. Everything else is just speculative hyperbole.
edited to add the word "hybrid". 
There are MILLIONS of hybrid cichlids in this hobby that appear "normal-looking" to the naked eye, but the naked eye is not capable of determining genetics within an organism.
There are MILLIONS of hybrid cichlids in this hobby that appear "normal-looking" to the naked eye, but the naked eye is not capable of determining genetics within an organism.
