Rare Fish pic From Rare Fish series
- Thread starter fugupuff
- Start date
a blast from the past, I remember this fish so well, I really liked it!
Ossubtus xinguensisfugupuff;230661; said:
Fantastic fish. I also have some (10) I am not familiar with that common name. Oliver Lucanus has always sold them as the Parrot Pacu. I got my first one 10 years ago and his picture was shown in TFH in 1997.
Really like your thread and fish. Thanks for sharing
arapaimag;1342022; said:
thanks for liking my thread, cuz I sure love yours!
I use to have a store, sold it one year ago today. Now I can focus on my hobby again!
so the text book definition of different species:
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Nowadays, the breeding line is the one most biologists draw
But these apply mostly to larger animals, mammals, fish is not often discussed. With all the talk about rare fish, new species, stingrays hybridizing, and what's the most sought after species in the hobby, I'd like to get some feedback.
With fish, most were described over 100 years ago, based on morphological distinctions and geographical distributions, and probably breeding line as well, most fish have not been scrutinized under DNA or genetics testing. Here comes the what if...
We all know that flowerhorns are hybrides of various central and south american cichlids, which we all know are prolific breeders, so that knocks out the notion of not true species or hybrids being "sterile"
People use to think only fish in the same genus or family can be hybridized, however we have seen the Oxydoras niger (niger cat) x Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum (tiger shovelnose cat) mix, 2 different genus of fish, and more recently Pangasius sp. (paroon shark) x Phractocephalus hemioliopterus (redtail catfish), which are fish from complete different families and opposite sides of the world!
With all the talk about different species of african tiger fish (hydrocynus sp. ), and Potomotrygon sp. stingrays, maybe new species are being created naturally, and we just don't know it, as species go extinct in some parts of the world, some new ones are created.
I've mentioned this before, hypothetically speaking, if a Flowerhorn cichlid was released into the wild, lets say in Florida 200 years ago, in a remote lake, and someone discovers it today, they'd think they have a new species on hand, and probably would get named after them!
In the scientific community, there are the "lumpers" and "splitters", proposing new species of cichlids and bettas and grouping them or seperating them, but how much truth is there really?
Many people still say that certain brackish fish "must" have salt to grow or live healthly, but that is all based on old literature, there is not scientific evidence supporting it.
In the end, nothing is concrete, all is relative, its relativism, existentialism. What do you all think?
There is nowhere else for me to post this and have an audience, so I did it here, and it relates to the fish I collect and have posted
A species is often defined as a group of organisms capable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring.
Nowadays, the breeding line is the one most biologists draw
But these apply mostly to larger animals, mammals, fish is not often discussed. With all the talk about rare fish, new species, stingrays hybridizing, and what's the most sought after species in the hobby, I'd like to get some feedback.
With fish, most were described over 100 years ago, based on morphological distinctions and geographical distributions, and probably breeding line as well, most fish have not been scrutinized under DNA or genetics testing. Here comes the what if...
We all know that flowerhorns are hybrides of various central and south american cichlids, which we all know are prolific breeders, so that knocks out the notion of not true species or hybrids being "sterile"
People use to think only fish in the same genus or family can be hybridized, however we have seen the Oxydoras niger (niger cat) x Pseudoplatystoma fasciatum (tiger shovelnose cat) mix, 2 different genus of fish, and more recently Pangasius sp. (paroon shark) x Phractocephalus hemioliopterus (redtail catfish), which are fish from complete different families and opposite sides of the world!
With all the talk about different species of african tiger fish (hydrocynus sp. ), and Potomotrygon sp. stingrays, maybe new species are being created naturally, and we just don't know it, as species go extinct in some parts of the world, some new ones are created.
I've mentioned this before, hypothetically speaking, if a Flowerhorn cichlid was released into the wild, lets say in Florida 200 years ago, in a remote lake, and someone discovers it today, they'd think they have a new species on hand, and probably would get named after them!
In the scientific community, there are the "lumpers" and "splitters", proposing new species of cichlids and bettas and grouping them or seperating them, but how much truth is there really?
Many people still say that certain brackish fish "must" have salt to grow or live healthly, but that is all based on old literature, there is not scientific evidence supporting it.
In the end, nothing is concrete, all is relative, its relativism, existentialism. What do you all think?
There is nowhere else for me to post this and have an audience, so I did it here, and it relates to the fish I collect and have posted
fugupuff;1376267; said:
I think we like pretty pictures
As far as hybridization from different genus (or from different locations) I doubt the products of such crosses should be considered valid. Test-tube creations may technically "fit" into the idea of a new species, but there should be limits in our quest to classify.
Perhaps speciation as a mechanism is best thought of as fluid, where there are subtle but significant changes over time. This does not erase the truthiness (Stephen Cobert nod) of their classification, as the truth gets more perfect over time. Scientific nomenclature (to tie in with your philosophical line above) is perhaps the finest example of Pragmatism there is.
