Hybridisation , documentation and control?

Over the years I have seen the gradual improvements in marine fish breeding success and with it the growth of hybridisation. This is being driven from two angles as I see it;
1)   The need for commercial breeders to make a profit.
2)   Man's curiosity which is unquenchable as  we will always ask the question "what if". Some to greater extent than others.
 
Now I know this has been discussed at length before on many forums, and I don't really want to start the right or wrong argument. However, our hobby has many facets and there are a plethora of sites across the internet, but none that are really tackling this issue.
 
I would like to propose that consideration is given to setting up a seperate species list of hybrids on this site. In my opinion it's the best and where most value can be gained both in terms of understanding and most importantly documentation. As we all know there are many hybrids that occur in the wild some of which are taken into captivity more often than others. Leucokranos being one example. Im not suggesting that we promote this or award points, merely that it would be a great starting point for a centralised database for hybrids, and..............possibly where hybrids could have some provenance and traceability, captive bred or wild caught.
 
I for one have hybrid pairs (SA Snow Onyx), Thiellei Leuc, and I think a seperate hybrid species listing would be useful.
 
Thoughts anyone?

hmmm very excellent subject to look into here!
 
I'll ponder and wait for Andy and MP to chime in as they are much more educated about the hybridization problems and considerations. 

Pelagically yours,
~J      

It is something that we have talked about actually several times. The hybrid issue is one the seems to polarize breeders the world over. Up to now it's been pushed off to the edges to work on over issues but we aren't going to be able to ignore the issue for longs. I agree with you that the MBI is probably uniquely suited to build such a database due to the system we already have in place.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

I've gone round and round on this topic and actually always have to start off with the following:
 
1.  Hybrids create the potential for MANY problems as it pertains to breeders who have a conservation mindset.
2.  People involved in hybridizing species to create new things are, to some extent, driven to do so not out of any conservation mindset, but out of a desire to create and utlimately, profit.  I believe there are ways to create profit, and ways to innovate, that don't involve or require hybridization.  Therefore, I do view the pursuit of hybrids as "lazy" innovation..there's nothing *new* or innovative about hybridizing two species of clownfish for example.  They're still clownfish.  They still pair and breed the same way.  To take this approach is to reinvent the wheel.
3.  While these arguments have counterpoints that from a business standpoint are valid, I'm concerned with the bigger picture.   What businesses and individuals often overlook is that if we fail to preserve the foundation of species, we will lose what makes this hybrids in the first place.  So even for the breeder who is enthralled with hybrids, they must have a respect for the natural species and varieties, the raw materials, that are used to create this man-made fish in the first place.
4.  When wild fish are no longer available (yes, I've shifted from and if to a when, but that's simply a shift in opinion based on situations), we'll be left with whatever we've preserved.  Ask yourself...do we want 50 types of clownfish and not much else, or do we want the 1500 or so species of marine fish we currently keep all to be preserved?  I would guess the latter, as it is in the interest of BOTH parties.  Which means that now is not the time to make hybrids, now is the time to do the real tough innovative work and lock down more species.
5.  I have always said that when we're "done" with WC fish, by all means, pursue hybrids, because that IS the only way anything new or different will come about. 
6.  WHEN we pursue hybrids, we need to do it properly.  Right now we are in the wild west of hybrids.  The ORCHID hobby has 100 years experience on us.  Almost every hybrid can be traced back completely to every founding species, primary and subsequent hybrids that got you where you are.  Which means that should we LOSE that hybrid, but at some point wish to remake it later, we CAN do so because the lineage is recorded and the FOUNDING SPECIES are all preserved.  So in the end, we need to adopt a model similar to the way the orchid people deal with hybrids, which includes a globally accepted single governing body (the Royal Horticultural Society, based in the UK) who handles the registration of ALL orchid hybrids.  ONE source.  ONE governing body.  Yes, the MBI could take on that role, and there's already a model to follow.  The PROBLEM I see so far is that AQUARISTS don't want that.  They want to name their own hybrid their own thing, even if it's the same as someone else's. They want to claim propriety and not share such info, because if they hit on a real winner, better to keep everyone guessing so they have a competitive advantage.  In the end though, we all LOSE.
 
So in the end, there is little to gain at this time other than profits from the pursuit of hybrids, and that profit motive is, to some extent, further driven by the demand of an uninformed consumer base that will pay XXX more for something just because it is new and different, and has no clue or care for the intricate ramifications of what they push producers to do.  Afterall, even though ORA did not set out to create the Indigo Dottyback, it's not like they've stopped producing them - they sell.
 
So in the end, I'm fully willing to say that the MBI could and should take on the role of "registrar" for marine fish hybrids.  It would be a great resource.  Whether people would choose to recognize the MBI as the "defacto" registrar, or whether other orgs might prop up proposing that THEY in fact should be the registrar, are the big pitfalls of such an endeavor.  I should also point out that in the Orchid World, it costs money (last time I did it, $8) to register a new orchid hybrid.  That pays for the administrative costs of maintaining the DB.
 
The MBI, as a Marine Breeder's Award Program for clubs and orgs around the world, probably should not seek to reward hybridizers for their efforts however.  I believe that hybrids truly do create massive problems for breeders working to preserve natural forms (i.e. look at the recently shown Maroon Hybrids that have an uncanny similarity to straight up Ocellaris, and imagine how easy it could be for that fish to accidentally be used in a breeding project AS ocellaris, and what would that do to a breeder's attempts to produce nice quality ocellaris?)  I am apt to dismiss that argument that any captive-bred fish is good for "species conservation" because it equates to one or more wild caught marine fish.  That argument is true, but the benefit is offset by the additional risk that hybrids create.  Freshwater Breeder Award Programs generally award little or NO POINTS for hybridizers, because in the end, these programs are aimed at promoting and preserving the plethora of rare and unique species that already don't have mass market appeal (i.e. a Goodied or odd Tanganyikan Shell Dweller).  It is also generally accepted that many FW hybrids are abominations (i.e. the Parrot Cichlid) and shouldn't be promoted, lumping them in with other truly deplorable practices like the dye-injecting of fish.

I do agree that issuing points for a hybrid is certainly a problem. I don't think we really want to encourage or reward people for creating hybrids when there are so many true species out there that we haven't scratched the surface on yet. We do need to maintain our focus there.
 
That said I also don't think that it is in the best interest of the hobby and captive breeding to ignore the issue of hybrid and marginalize it for very much longer. There are still many hurdles to overcome in making captive breeding of most species profitable. For commercial breeders to be able to have the capital to work on and research species that aren't profitable at this time they need to be able to sell easier species at higher prices. Creating hybrids is a way for these entities to do that. They can provide a unique product that they can charge a higher price than wild caught and make money. It's for this reason that it's simply not going to go away.
 
Your mention of the hybrid maroons actually I think highlights this very well. In a case like there if there was some sort of registry that recorded that information then perhaps the chances of that maroon getting accidental bred with ocellaris might be reduced. 
 
Will the world accept the MBI as such an entity? I don't know, maybe they will, maybe they won't. But let's face it right now there is a vacuum and as Matt put it we are in the Wild West right now...Maybe the town needs a new sheriff!

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

For reference here is the information on registering orchids:
http://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/Plant-science/Plant-registration/Orchids 
 
And specifically the registration form: http://www.rhs.org.uk/Plants/Plant-science/Plant-registration-forms/orchidform

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

I agree with the reasoning and sentiment in your argument Matt, but I think whilst we remain on the periphery we are merely observers and unable to influence, educate and encourage responsible breeding practice.
After all each journey starts with a first step! Should the MBI be the first to take that step?
The world we live in will always be driven by supply and demand, and one thing you can be sure of, hybrids will continue to become more popular as they become more available and cheaper.
 
Another relevant point you make is that Orchid registration enables lineage and therefore provenance of all hybrids. This was not achieved overnight and someone had to start it. Also look at Kew and the amazing resource library of seeds they have there, its absolutely mind blowing! ( EDIT: Just realised many people may not know what Kew is. Kew Gardens are the Royal Botanical Gardens in London. They set up a millenium project to ocollect every known seed in the world and store them for the future. It is the largest project of it's kind anywhere in the world. Here's a link if your interested.) http://www.kew.org/science-conservation/save-seed-prosper/millennium-seed-bank/
So why not have a documented certification for fish we are already breeding? This could be a form documented by the MBI and given to customers of the breeder proving provenance. That way we could keep track of captive raised fish for the day that will probably come when wild caught fish numbers are reduced or stopped all together. The MBI would obviously have a charge for this to cover administration.
 
OK, I know this sounds very involved and "pie in the sky" but I definitley think it's possible over time and as conservation pressures build. A Group like the MBI I feel, has enough passion to at least make a start at determining the process, or are we just observers?
 

I'm fairly new here, but I really think MBI should look at adding hybids and award points for them. It's not a reward. It's so that others know about your knowledge and what you're doing for the hobby.
 
There are several mass breeders of ocellaris and perc crosses and they are selling them for profit yes, but there was a lot of research that went into them being raised.  I would hate to see someone else step up and do this before MBI and we lose out on being THE place to go for registry. If MBI doesn't do it someone else will.
 
Yes there does need to be rules and regs and a heritage of the fish that they are breeding tracked and also be careful that people don't think they are breeding a clarki and thinking it's a perc. I know that's a stretch, but you get the point.
 
If they don't know what they are breeding then how can they have a name for the babies? That's why this site has you post up pics of the parents. There's always more than one set of eyes on the brood stock to make sure that the fish are what they say they are.

RLTW

180 Gallon Mixed Reef

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

hrmm  loving this discussion.  I'm on the road here and not exactly on my laptop so I'll give a quick simplified response and maybe follow up later if I need to.
 
In short, I think that the idea of having a hybrid registry and having the reporting functions built without award points is a great idea.  We can easily create either a schedule to review hybrid species for possible acceptance into point award status periodically (annually, etc.) or an on demand request feature.  We would obviously need to work in the back end on a review process regardless and I suspect very few if any hybrids may ever pass the review.
 
I do however support bringing hybrids into our database as hybrids and making sure we list and mark them as so as this will ease a lot of false reporting as this market gains popularity

Pelagically yours,
~J      

The Marketplace actually a step in the this direction. For those of you that have not explored the Marketplace yet one of it's features is to load your brood stock and attach them to offspring. It's the start of a lineage tracking system.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Here is an interesting take from ORA: http://www.orafarm.com/blog/2011/06/17/mystery-clownfish/#more-521

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

I think there are two important things that I want to be clear of. If it is decided to tackle the hybrid issue chances are that points will not be awarded for them and certainly not on the same basis as pure species breeding attempts. The council is pretty united on in that regard. I just want to be up front with everyone and let everyone know that arguing is not going to change that.
 
The real questions at hand are:

1. Do we allow information on hybrids to be logged in the MBI system ( Reports, you can already do journals )
2. Do we create a way to register/name a hybrid and keep track of that information.

 
Both these things will require a great deal of work and in the case of #2 even more planning. On the order of the amount of planning that went into creating the original MBI system.
 
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

I think this is a fascinating thread.  So far, I entirely agree that the focus of MBI should remain primarily and solidly on the breeding and perpetuation of species.  At the same time, hybridization is going to happen, and having a registry of marine fish hybrids with consistent naming of the hybrids ("grexes", if you will) would be a very good and useful thing, and something that should start sooner rather than later.  MBI is an ideal candidate to become that registry.
 
The analogy to the orchid world is imperfect, though, primarily because orchids interbreed across genus lines more readily than fish do (I believe).  This allows for exponentially more possible grexes in the orchid world than in the fish world.  My only point is that the complexity is somewhat reduced.  There are probably other distinctions that Matt or Andy could come up with.
 
I disagree that creating a fish hybrid registry would be a daunting task.  To record a cross's two parents, and what the name of the cross is, is basically all that is required (together with the registrant of the cross and the date, perhaps).  Now, to be able to VERIFY that a given cross is what the registrant says it is would be another matter.  As far as I'm aware, the RHS doesn't require verification of the parentage of new orchid hybrids, aside from requiring a photograph of a primary hybrid.  The information shown on the form in the link that Chad gave is just a handful of fields -- much less complicated than the MBI report forms are!

These days, for Orchids, you can have hybrids that consist of far more than simply one or two genera.  I don't preceive that to be the case in Marine Fish..it seems that at least in the wild, hybrids are pretty much limited to the same genus, or at best, the only real intrageneric hybrids I'm familiar with have been Premas X other Amphiprion, which as it turns out shouldn't be so surprising given the genetic research that suggests that Ocellaris, Maroons, Percs and Latezonatus are much more closely related to each other than any other grouping of fish.  Will we ever see a hybrid of Premnas X Chrysipetera?  Possible, but highly unlikely.  It's far easier to attempt a hybrid in the Orchid world...you can store pollen in the fridge, and mate selection is 100% up to the hybridizer...not the plants. 
 
In the orchid world, you do have to have bloomed the hybrid to register it.  That can easily be 5 years after creation of it.  You're right about the photographic requirements, but I think we're at a point in the world where we can certainly require photographic evidence for ALL hybrids, and yes, even the broodstock.  WILD hybrids are also handled in the orchid world...i.e. I believe at least one Paphiopedilum "species" has been determined to be a naturally occurring hybrid.  So too, the MBI's Hybrid Registry could be used to track and record WILD occurrences of hybrids, which would perhaps preclude them from being simply bought and named by the purchaser. 
 
Overall, the rules for orchids fit well for fish.  The modern requirements of proof in the MBI BAP would work well for marine fish.  The rules of precedence dictate that there is one originator, and the first person to register with proof is the one who gets the credit, and that name, once approved (pretty much by virtue of not being confusing or otherwise already used) is the one that we all use.  Indeed, it IS pretty easy.  In the world of fish, we will primarily deal with "primary" hybrids.
 
Here is the PROBLEM.  In the world of fish, we have seen that this isn't limited to species hybrids, but also mixes of different variations.  I.e. the "Black Ice" or the "Snow Onyx".  We could one day see a "Blue Dot Lightning Maroon" or "Gold Strike Maroon" developed.  So it's not just species that we're dealing with, and that's where everything breaks down.  Because in truth, a "Black Photon" is NOT the same as a "Percularis", even though the parental species are the same.  So we'd have to track one additional level in...the "cultivar" level.  The naming conventions around that are already well established, but the registry of "cultivar" crosses is a bit more complex.  In truth though, I think it could simply be managed by treating each "cultivar" as the finest level...which means that technically even a regular old Percula X Picasso Percula might have it's own "name"...or it might not.  Afterall, A. percula X A. percula "Albino" will yield more A. percula and could or could not yield Albinos as well.  A. percula X A. percula "Picasso"....will we get "B Grade Picassos" and straight up Percs, or could we get full blown "A Grade" Picassos out of the mix? 
 
It can get pretty complicated when you realize that the results of a crossing may not be consistent.  So for that, I would turn to another interest group - Ball Pythons.  In that interest group, they have a pretty good understanding of the genetics in play, and they know that if you cross X with Y, you may get X, Z, ZZ and YZ, all of which have their own names.  Considering that "Picasso Perc X Picasso Perc" may yeild "Picasso and Platninums", and you'll see how they're all still within the same species, but the results have different names and phenotypes.  It can get pretty messy in some respects, and that's where the real issues of creating a DB to track all this could wind up being more difficult.  Still, I think that it is manageable if we treat the "cultivar" as the base unit....so when a new "cultivar" is created, it would get entered as a new base unit to use.
 
Matt

I can state for certain that I get the whole gamut from every batch of Picasso offspring from my pair. Normal (slow) barring Percs, normal 3 bar Percs (fast barring, similar to Occys), all grades of Picassos, 70-80% white like Doni's Snowcassos, and 95% white Platinums. 

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

I also think that scientifically it would be very interesting and informative for us to understand if indeed hybrids are able to produce viable offspring. If so what hybrid crosses? I am aware that in Thiellei and leukocranos, wild hybrids  in capativity have never been successfully raised to any extent, although crosses of sandracinos and "an other" have. So what do we actually know about hybrids in captivity and their fecundity? How many F2's of hybrids are there? I see a real opportunity here to do some great work in collating these facts.

I have held onto a pair of Platinums for breeding purposes. I'll let you know in a year, or so, what happens.

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

Haha...My Leuc, Thielei pair whilst eating plent the female Leuc certainly doesn't look like she is going to spawn anytime soon. The male Theilei gets fatter than she does. I personally don't think she will spawn, even though the male spends all day cleaning a spot in the pot she very rarely takes an interest.
On the other hand my Snow Onyx pair are the most fanatical courtship pair I have ever seen, but they eat so little. Barely enough to keep them healthy let alone breed.......Ahhhhhh.......Time and patience.

 
At least two examples of this already exist.  Joe Lichtenbert spawned F1 White  Tip Clownfish (polymnus X sebae), and that mating (White Tip X White Tip) produced viable F2 offspring which we'd also consider "White Tips".
 
A second example would be Sanjay's Half Black Photons, which were a Black Photon (Onyx Perc X Black Ocellaris) backcrossed to one of the parents (I can't remember which one at the moment), with the resultant F2, HalfBlack offspring being "75%" one species, and "25%" the other.
 
FWIW,
 
Matt

Perhaps we should diferentiate here the offspring of very next of kin "sibling"species which should be fertile; from the others,which might not be.
Polymnus/sebae share the same meristics and intergrade at Bali.Also hybrids within the same tribe,tomato/melanopus,ocellaris/percula or my Chrysiptera parasema/hemicyanea.

Yes I agree Luis. I think my Snow Onyx pair will probably spawn having closely related parents, where as my Lecokranos, Thellei pair I am not so sure, although at the moment they seem to be displaying very sexually active posturing and the female has started chasing the male as he keeps nudging her and cleaning their pot. He has also started making drumming noises which I know to be a pre spawning sign.

I just wanted everyone to know that the Council is taking this issue very seriously and we are looking at what it would take to make this happen. We have not at all forgotten about this. We would like to continue to get more feedback and thoughts from the public on this.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

It's my understanding that you can make a report as of right now with a hybrid, however points will not be given. Is that correct?
 
I think you have to do a new species and also a breeding report. I asked this question before and was told we can.

RLTW

180 Gallon Mixed Reef

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

You can create a journal for for the pair and keep track of the information there but right now there is no way to submit a report. If you notice when sumbitting reports you have to select the species from a drop down of classified species. Since you are only able to select a single species there is no way to submit a report that uses parents from more than one species or morph.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

I would like to see a system for hybrids, both to journal and report. Just my 2cents

Our goal with "The Clown Factory" is simple....Raise healthy, beautiful, captive clownfish and ...his is our small part to help keep the Worlds reefs as God intended them to be.....Beautiful

I'm in the no points for hybrids boat.  99% of hybrids in the marine ornamental field are clownfish.  Why? Because clowns sell.  And they are easy to breed and raise.  Perhaps is the science guy in me but lets worry about the 90000 other species of fish we haven't bred before we cross another species of clown. 

While I agree that hybrid pairs should be documented, and can be in a journal, I do not think it should be encouraged by rewarding such with points.
 
I understand that there will always be people out there that are looking for the newest "designer" hybrid but, it is my opinion that the true focus should be on breeding species that have not already been raised in captivity. Rather than promoting the production of hybrids simply to make a buck, or to see what happens.
 
That is purely my opinion and not necessarily the opinion of the MBI Council.
 
There are several articles in the latest issue of CORAL magazine with different takes on this subject.

http://www.fishtalpropagations.com/#!home/mainPage
"Making captive breeding easier."

For sure it's a difficult issue.
I would also ask the question how many commercial breeders (outside of asia, where labour and land are cheap) would make money if they didn't hybridise? The markup on designers is significantly more than standard species.
Also take a look at the morality within the food fish aquaculture industry.  There is money available for research here, but not so for ornamental species. The Uk has a massive commercial interest in fish farming all over the world and alot of cash is spent on researching hybrids to improve feed conversion rates and grow out reduction times.
Also how many of us eat shrimps? Up until recently eye ablation was common practice to improve fecundity. Is that moral and how many of us would stop eating them if they knew? Destruction of mangroves blah, blah, blah.
I agree with Tal and many other people that share the view lets concentrate on breeding and learning about species that are presently undocumented and difficult. However honestly I love designer clowns albeit somewhat vulgar. Money will always play a part in our hobby and I think whilst we shoud not promote hybrids we need to accept them and do what we can to control and document them.
 
FWIW.

I pretty much agree with you Duck...They aren't going to go away anytime soon. As long as there is a demand for them and it makes sense financially to produce them. Someone is going to fill the gap in the market.
 
We are better off finding a way to work with the industry than fighting it.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

You can learn a lot from trying to create a hybrid.  May not make any money off it, but playing with genetics you can start to flesh out dominate traits in various fish and start to seperate genetic traits vs environmental ones.  I agree generally with the concept that trying to have a vast market of hybrids could create issues and should not be encouraged.  Still the inate curiosity within me always wants to know what would happen if you could mate a pig with an elephant?  (see if anyone catches the reference )

Rook

Yep, I think we (The MBI Community) are in  a unique position. We have the ability to influence and inform on the importance of attempting new and not tried species, as well as encouraging the documenting of hybrids and at least trying to control what is and isn't a "good idea" when crossbreeding fish.
Documentation is the only way to go with crossbreeding, as has been pointed out by the Orchid example and the RHS.

Just to keep everyone up on things the Council has not forgotten this issue at all. We are working on how we can introduce this capability to the system and make it work within the current MBI structure while creating a system that will allow us to both record and name both hybrids of different species as well as varieties of the same species.
 
In the mean time we are still interested in hearing everyone's thoughts.
 

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

lol so much fun being on council!!  Especially with this particular subject!  Chad is definately correct in that we have all been seriously considering this in the back end.  Most likely to the degre of offering the ability to report on hybrids without points.  We are very early in the game here as it relates to methodologies and knowledge and *any* insight is premium, barring insight from hybridization at this point would be counter productive.
 
That said I too am a fan of no points for hybrids.  I am curious to see however, what hybrids people are working on outside of the typical clownfish arena?  There are so many other species out there ripe for the picking (species in the Salarias arena particularily intrigue me) that I think there is a lot of useful information hanging on the fringes if you will. 
 
 Anyone trying anything interesting?

Pelagically yours,
~J      

Couple questions/statements at least to me are fundamental because I find the some of the arguments at odds.
 
I think everyone agrees hybrids are not going to go anywhere.  I do agree there is clearly many more fish to work with than this, but the reality is there are really only a handful of people in the world with the capacity (knowledge, resources, access to stock, material, space...etc...etc..) to work on 'advanced' fish.  As we all know, clownfish are easier and make themselves a natural candidate for hyridization.  From what I can tell from my reading, to some degree this occurs in nature...obviously not on the scale that we do it in our aquaria.  So given this....
 
1a) Should captive breeding be purely for advancement of the topic (personal or community)?
1b) or is it a process to increase our capacity to supply the market (profit or not.) with CB?
1c) or there other motivations involved such as collector items, etc...?
 
If exclusively 1a, then the reality is there is very little need for this site.  There are simply not enough people out there that can adequately contribute in any way other than providing a random idea to break the status quo.  Many who broach this hobby quickly find out that even breeding an Oc requires more time and money than they can reasonable afford.  This leaves us back to the reality that information sharing is not needed accept for a few elite or heavily dedicated individuals.
 
If exclusively 1b, then we must accept the movement of the market.  If the market is willing to shift to hybrids, thus acheiving the goal of captive breeding aleviating some of the import requirements, then hybrids should be welcome with open arms.
 
If 1c, which I assume works it's way into the notion that animals should not be collected for posessions, but I think we can all accept that is, in fact, what the aquarium trade is.  And is likely, at least in part, what got each of us into this hobby.  Vanity and fundamental morals surrounding 'owning' anything is at play in this discussion and should be assessed by each individual as they explore this topic for themselves.
 
Alteratively, even if the answer is a combination of either 1a or 1b or 1c, as long as 1b is in accepted as part of the mission of MBI or breeding in general, then the answer becomes the same...hybrids should be accepted.
 
Now to push this arguement a bit further, I find that most people commonly accept inbreeding as an acceptible practice.  As I understand it, including many on this site opposed to hybrids.  The interesting part of this is that, as I see it, hybrids are the natural conclusion of this commonly accepted practice.  Certianly correct me if I am wrong, but these are the very reasons why inbreeding is not allowed in humans, as passive traits become active and we can cause many unpredictable results.  Clearly we all accept our beloved dogs, which are often the result of hybridization and extensive inbreeding.  So on the counter, I think one can take 100s if not 1000s of years of more conventional animals and argue that inbreeding and the side effects can be not only acceptable, but desired.  I am merely suggesting both sides of the same coin, either way you come to the same conclusion.
 
Therefore, assuming my understanding of the natural conclusion of inbreeding, any hybrid should be accepted as a valid fish genre as long as inbreeding is accepted.  To me these arguments are equal in weight.
 
I recently read an acticle, that I believe was from pederson, that suggested even at this point, one could not utilize captive stock to restock the oceans as indentifying the origins would be near impossible.  If this, in fact, is a valid arguement, then that furthers the case that hybrids should be accepted as part of a market solution to assist in providing captive bred fish as a market alternative.
 
Now, should there be a hybrid database, maybe.  I am not sure if I have an opinion.  I think it is most likely a good idea, but can be a precarious one.
 
Should points be awarded?  I think I fall into the category, that if the purpose of MBI is to support captive breeding, and assuming my arguements above are rational, and that MBI is going to go to the extent of maintaining a database, then I think the answer is yes.  Maybe limited the F level to which points can be awarded, or maybe a reduced point level.  But to ignore the accomplishment in itself (which seems to be a major focus here), I do believe underminds the nature of MBI, captive breeding in general.
 
Now to be clear on this, I actually do not have an opinion, well one that is 'passionate' (which is ironic if any of you knew me very well).  Do I feel objected to owning a snowflake?  Nope, I think he is the most beautiful fish I own, but note I 'own' him.  I don't see him every day when I go swimming in the ocean.  He resides in a fake environment, born in a fake environment, raised on fake food and he is still as wonderful as any of the other fish I have, totally irregardless of the 'purity' of his parents.
 

 
All 3 and then some.


 
"Accepted" in what form/capacity/manner?
 

 
In fact the very act of hybridizing is taking the concept of OUTCROSSING to a whole new level, wherein you are jumping across the boundaries of naturally occuring forms and creating something that most often (but not always) would or could never occur in nature.  
 

 
You can't equate fish to humans - the genetics are far too disparate.  Inbreeding (line breeding and backcrossing)  is a tool breeders can use to "refine" or "fix" a trait, indeed.  But it takes several generations for inbreeding to be a problem in FISH. Outcrossing (by breeding two fish from unrelated lines) provides the influx of non-related genes that would/could 'dilute' the negative effects of inbreeding.
 

 
Dogs are domesticated, they are not fish, and dogs are not at risk of being exterminated from the planet (whereas many of our beloved reef fish are, if you consider the implications of climate change and ocean acidification).  So dogs are really a faulty argument in support of both hybridizing and inbreeding.  And in fact, while there is inbreeding in dogs, one of the primary goals of records such as those maintained by the AKC is to reduce inbreeding in a breed.  The reality is that "dogs", to a great extent, are more an example of man's ability to "accelerate" the presumed natural processes of evolution.


 
They are fundamentally different propositions.  Inbreeding for example, will happen in the ongoing efforts to ensure the long term captive population of Amphiprion mccullochi.  It's a necessary tool given the foundation stock of only 4 spawning pairs.  That said, there is ample opportunity for enough offspring to be produced via sexual reproduction that perhaps there is enough foundation genetic diversity to create a stable captive population.  None of this has anything to do with hybridizing (i.e. the act of mixing A. mccullochi with A. frenatus for example).  And to take it one step further, the act of hybridizing a struggling species like A. mccullochi creates problems for the actual preservation of the species, as well as potentially muddying the genetics of a few other species along the way through indiscriminate breeding practices.


 
While I'm not sure what article you are pointing to, here is a example of the problem you might be trying to draw on.
 
Amphiprion pacificus vs. A. akallopsisos.  They look virtually identical.  The former, a new species described recently, but found in a place where aquarium fish collection is common in the Pacific.  The latter, a long standing species that hails from the Indian Ocean, where I *believe* collection is not *quite* as common but still, certainly it has been collected.  These two species no doubt have entered the trade being considered the same.  If these fish were not kept through the entire chain of custody with proper geographical collection data, there is little if any chance of determining which species one actually had.  Of course, back in the days, no one even thought about geographic collection data, so when trying to breed what was then A. akallopisos, you simply grabbed what was sold as such.  The unfortunate reality is that now, because we've learned we are actually dealing with 2 species, EVERY captive bred A. akallopisos in the trade is of questionable heritage, and any wild caught "Akallopisos" Skunk Clown is all null and void unless collection origin is comfortably known.

So the reality here is that because of the questionable genetics of these fish, you could probably never take captive bred stock at this point in time and use it to repopulate a location where A. akallopisos had been extripated.  The only responsible way to work with this species now is to go back to fish of wild origins and know exactly where wild caught broodstock came from.  Everything else will be suspect.
 

 
Actually, the above is a prime example of how hybrids, and indescriminant breeding, can be damaging to a species as we know it, and is the primary cause of the problem that you cite as a justification to continue the problem.  In other words...since we made the same mistakes before, we might as well keep making them in the name of commerce and profit.  I'd argue we can do FAR BETTER, and we don't need hybrids to acheive all the goals of captive breeding (except for the goal of some to intentionally create hybrids).


 
Why is this a precarious idea?  What harm does it do to document the results of hybridization, to give a new hybrid only one name, and to make that information available?  It is quite well documented that other interests where species preservation is vitally important, this has worked fine for over a century.  I'm talking ORCHIDS.  I would argue that one of the only redeeming qualities that the pursuit of creating hybrids has to offer is a deeper understanding of how a species genetics may work and display influence on another, and the very fact that we can look at such a database and simply have the knowledge gained.  Granted, these are pretty flimsy reasons to justify hybridization, but if it's going to be done, better to document the outcome for the benefit of all than to not do so.  Perhaps the documented hybrids of species could be used to help identify the random wild hybrids that may very occasionally pop up.  Again, really shallow redeeming merit, but some.


 
But what is the real accomplishment of creating a new hybrid, other than "creating a new hybrid"?  Little useful knowledge is gained (in my opinion).  There is no breakthrough in breeding techniques to create a hybrid (except perhaps the actual pairing or mating process).  However, as illustrated many times over, the downsides of intentional hybrids are many and great.  That is why I cannot encourage the pursuit of them at this time in our hobby. 
 
That said, I am very guilty of creating many Orchid hybrids...far many more hybrids than breedings of actual species.  But the ORCHID hobby and industry is in a far different place than the marine fish breeding hobby is, hybrids still pose risks to the Orchid Breeder but not at the level that fish hybrids could represent.  That, and orchid breeders follow a much better ethic about their breeding, primarily due to a long engrained practice of doing things the "right way".  There will perhaps one day be a time where I might have no qualms over the intentional creation of a new fish hybrids.  Now is simply not that time.

So while I cannot speak for the MBI Council as a whole, I can speak for my own stance on the issue.  Opening up the MBI systems to be able to document the activities of hybridizers is GOOD, given the fact that regardless of what I say about it, people are going to do it.  That said, I cannot condone or encourage this direction of breeding at this point in time, so I am vocally against "awarding" the efforts of a breeder who I see as doing something counterproductive to the overall aspect of preserving natural biodiversity. 
 
In addition to all the risks and issues that "designer" fish represent, the undeniable truth is that they are taking the spot of a naturally occuring species in your tanks.  There is an undeniable struggle between commerce and conservation, yet we can have our cake AND eat it too, but only if we think about this in the long term.  It can be very difficult to take a long term view when earning a paycheck is difficult enough, but for the hobbyist breeder who presumably is breeding for reasons other than profit, there's really no justification other than ones own whim.
 
Look at the freshwater hobby...they've been around for a LOT longer than we have.  It cuts both ways.  Good luck trying to find natural forms of certain fish...they just don't exist in the trade any longer.  And perhaps that's OK, unless that natural form is also gone in the wild.  That's a tragedy.  That's where pursuing designers and hybrids at the expense of natural forms is going to take the marine aquarium hobby.  That's why I won't do anything to encourage these lines of breeding, but knowing that they will happen, try to encourage what little redemption can be had while also perhaps trying to steer folks in directions that are not as harmful as, perhaps say a Percularis.
 
There's my buck and change...
 
Matt

I agree, simply put, I picked what I see to be the top three most fundamental questions to push at this topic.
 

 
Of course this is part of the larger question, but at the fundamental level, this topic started as a question of 'should it be accepted' by MBI, and my suggestion is the answer to that question lends itself from answers to the questions above.

As i understand much of the 'designer' fish development it is not outcrossing, but line breeding and inbreeding to produce the desired results.  While the origination of the attempt (and possible reiforcing efforts) is out crossing, it takes considerable efforts to selectively pull the traits out of each batch.  These batches, from what I have read, occur through extensive inbreeding and line breeding.  While I understand that you are suggesting that if the original outcrossing did not occur, the designer fish would not be as likely to occur naturally, I think we can both agree that extensive inbreeding or line breeding is involved in order to develop these 'designer' fish.  Thus lending itself back to the original point that if inbreeding was not accepted, the passive traits that are brought into dominance would not have a slim possability of enduring. 
 

 
I hesistated to use dogs or humans as an example because of worries that someone would try to 'split hairs'.  As best I understand the genetics, the fundamentals are stil lthere.  Several generations is absolutley correct, as most 'designer' fish require several generations to develop.  Again, I understand and acknowledge what you are trying to state about two unlrelated, and geographically disparate specices being forced to breed.
 

 
Not to be rough on this rebuttle, but many of the current dogs we view as normal are the result of undomesticated dogs being outcrossed, inbred and linebred.  My beloved Molly, my rottweiler, is the product of such things.   They were undomesticated and intentional forced to breed for 100s of years to produce what we now call Rotweillers, much like we are doing with our fish.  A response to food does not mandate 'domestication'.  If that arguement is standing, then our fish are entirely domesticated and the argument does not apply.
 
In regards to the AKC and other such organizations, while they have gone through great efforts to certify animals, the ever present momentum of hybrids is growing rapidly in that market too.  With the same conversations occuring.  There is no depletion of dogs, yet the momentum behind this same question exists in that context too. 
 
Issues like ocean depletion and extinction are very seperate topics and I don't think there is one person on these forums that can successfully argue that they have not contributed to this problem, in countless ways.  So, in reality, such an arguement needs to be carefully considered in the background, but has a very small amount of standin in the conversation of hybrids.

 
I find this arguement to be difficult to maintain, as you are justifying when it is appropriate and inappropriate to violate the 'rules'.  This becomes a moral question for the individual, which pushes us back into the very topic. At least in my opinion.

 
Which was the point I was trying to make, by definition, our broodstock serves no purpose other than to serve one of the questions in 1a, 1b or 1c.

 
I have read many of your respones to this topic and I find many of your comments well thought out and articulated.  I have alot of respect for you holding your position regarding your point of view, but I can say that you have softened your stance considerably since some of your responses, to this topic, compared to several years ago.

 
Precarious, only in the administration.  I should have expanded on my statement.

 
I will simply respond to the first set of statements.  If there is no value in such efforts, then where is the value in someone sharing their experience breeding a pair of clownfish.  There is little to be gained from the community as a whole and this goes back to my original questions, 1a, 1b and 1c.  One who is learning, such as myself, finds great value in each attempt I read, regardless if this attempt is a 'pure' species or a 'hybrid' and regardless of past history regarding the species.  The accomplishment is the same if it is a perc or a snowflake.  To ensure we are talking the same thing, I am referring to, say someone breeding picassos instead of someone trying to create a new 'designer' fish.
 
I mean no disrespect via my rebuttles, in fact, I have a great respect for your writings and honesty regarding your opinions, observations and experience regarding this trade. 
 
Also, I appologize for poor gramar and spelling..really ought to be sleeping =)

I think Matt's point is that there is no value to be gained from hybrids, that cannot be learned from breeding same species clowns. We can all learn something from pooling our attempts and seeing what we do differently as you state.
 
You do have a valid point though, when you say "why do we want to document if it is no use"?
 
In my opinion the answer contradicts the first point that it has no value. Well in fact it does because it enables us to have some traceability as to what was crossed with  what to produce x. Which in itself could be useful in the future. It would also help to clarify the miriad of hybrids that are already sold and have different names.
 
Should we also take more care to understand where our fish were caught and document that? I would say definitely yes! As Matt has pointed out Many fish of same species but specific geographical locations will undoubtedly be lost in the very near future. Clownfish in particular have many different colours and markings dependant upon location. Crossbreeding will only exacerbate this and quicken their demise.
 
We have to document, educate and inform the wider audience to further their, and our  understanding to ensure a more balanced approach.

Very true. I would love to know exactly where mine where caught or where their parents or blood lines are from.  It would help to preserve the species and to get the right hybrids if you choose do it that way.

RLTW

180 Gallon Mixed Reef

Then I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send? And who will go for us?" And I said, "Here am I. Send me!" Isaiah 6:8

I think other there is some confusion here as well because we are talking about two different things in is conversation. Hybrids and selective breeding. Selective breeding is what we see in our dogs. The same species is used for both parents but those parents are selected for certain traits in the hopes that those traits are passed on and become more dominant. These are the snowflakes, Picasso's, Onyx percs. In these cases both parents are of the same species the parents are just picked specifically for certain characteristics. These are varieties or morphs of a species. Not a hybrid

The other. Issue is hybrids were the parents are of different species. This would be your Black Photon clowns, one parent is an onyx percent the other a black and white occy.

The system we are talking about will serve to document both hybrids and morphs/varieties . Why? Several reasons actually. First and foremost to begin to establish some sort of standards. So that a person selling a specific morph or hybrid calls it the exact same thing s someone on the other side of the world selling the same exact thing. Right now there is nothing out to document any foe this stuff. It's a totally free for all and there is no comprehensive documentation out there. At the same time we create a record of how these morphs and hybrids are created.

Chad Penney - MBI Council
Agis quod Adis

Good afternoon Caesra, I've omitted the topics where I believe we've found common ground, and only addressing the points where our views may differ.
 

 
OK, that was a very political non-answer, so I'm going to repeat the question.  Define "accepted".  What does "accepted" include as it pertains to hybrid breeding within the MBI?
 

 
I think the part that you're missing is that the creation of a hybrid does not involve inbreeding.  Hybridization is, by definition, the polar opposite of "inbreeding".  The process of what is being done, and the reasons for doing each, are drastically different.  Now you COULD use hybridization as a jumping point to then take the resultant offspring and line breed that new hybrid to stabilize some particular outcome within the hybrid, but that's a secondary situation that your arguments did not even consider....in other words we're not even at that point yet.
 

 
Which "batches"?  You're being perhaps a bit vague.  Are we talking Picassos?  Platinums?  Black Ice?  Snowflakes?  Mochas?
 

 
I think there's some ongoing confusion of jargon, and that's making your statements a bit confusing to follow:
 
Hybrid = the result of mating of two separate species
Outcrossing = the act of breeding two unrelated fish with each other
Inbreeding - far too vague on some levels, as it encompasses both line breeding (pairings of siblings in each subsequent generation) and backcrossing (normally the pairing of offspring back to their parents), and perhaps other forms of breeding that serves to concentrate the overall gene pool rather than diversify it..
 

 
"passive" is again perhaps a bad choice of words.  We need to think of genetic traits using more genetic jargon, i.e. dominant, codominant, recessive etc.
 
For example, it does seem that one or more genes plays a role in the breeding of Picassos and Platinums, and that these genes are perhaps rather dominant.  Meanwhile, something like Albinism is a well understood recessive mutation.  The simple truth is that it requires minimal inbreeding, if any, to establish Albinism for the long term.  So too, Picasso percs CAN be outcrossed to normal SI perculas (or any percula for that matter) with the expectation of getting Picasso genes.
 
I believe the implication of some is that people are intentionally inbreeding over many generations to cause mutations to occur.  I cannot speak with any certainty that such breeding is actually being undertaken.  What I can say is that such breeding would indeed have downsides.  But so far, from the honest mutations that we DO see, they have been random mutations that breeders then capitalize on.  That's not the same thing.
 
 
 
It's certainly not splitting hairs.  If human siblings have offspring, there are immediate genetic problems that can result.  That is NOT the case with fish.  Dogs, so too, cut both ways, and again, the AKC registries exist to help PREVENT 'inbreeding' and ethical breeders strive to eliminate congenital genetic problems within their breeding lines (while questionable ones don't).
 

 
Yes, but no.  the "designer" fish we've seen to date did not require several generations...in fact, I would not be surprised to learn that the original Picasso at ORA could very well still be spitting out Picasso offspring.
 

 
Actually I'm just going to have to outright state that the above is fundamentally incorrect.  While there are many definitions of domestication, the reality is that the process you described, the "outcrossed, inbred and line bred" is a human-imposed mate selection and is part and parcel of how an animal becomes domesticated.  To use the breed you cite, the Rottweiler, I'd suggest starting with the AKC's breed history - http://www.akc.org/breeds/rottweiler/
 

 
As you can see, even in this particular breed, the ancestors have been domesticated animals for centuries.
 
To compare that to fish, we have truly only begun the process of "domestication", and the vast majority of the fish we keep are still from wild origins.


 
Well first, again, perhaps the misuse or misappropriation of a term, "hybrids".  If every breed of dog were thought of as a species, then yes, the "mutt", the Labradoodle, would be a hybrid.  However, I believe that we have overall come to accept that all dogs are still considered one species, and we are looking at breeds within them.
 
So, to take that to fish, the "Labradoodle" of the clownfish world might be...well actually that's just it....we don't really have "breeds" of fish in the way in which dogs, or goldfish, have been forced into "artificial speciation" through selective breeding.  Fundamentally, you can't compare the two or use the same arguments at all because they're not the same situations.  So humans, and dogs, should just be thrown out.  


 
Again, I'll just have to take the opposite position that because of the "we're all guilty" factor that you described, we should be even more sensitive to the potential damage that man-made hybrids offer in the face of conservation / preservation oriented breeding.  Again, I see your standpoint as "we've already screwed it up this much, so why bother" and "breeding and conservation are mutually exclusive", which in fact they are largely mutually dependent in my eyes.


 
This comment is in regards to the Mcc' example.  First, I am making no such "justification" to violate any "rules" because first off, there are no "rules", but there are principals and facts.  
 
Second, there is probably going to be a certain amount of inbreeding with a foundation population of 8 fish...that's an unavoidable reality.  But responsible breeding will negate any of the potential ill-effects.  Irresponsible breeding will bring about problems and we'd lose the species in captivity.
 
But here's the killer - it supposedly took 4 lionfish to populate the entire Atlantic with the species.  What does that mean?  It means that due to the fecundity of a species like A. mccullochi, you will very quickly give rise to a large captive population, all produced through sexual reproduction and thus all with some genetic variation.  And thus, in the end, it is completely realistic to say that 8 fish, 4 foundation pairs, can quite comfortably start the a stable and self sustaining population of A. mccullochi, even though initially, there could be some inbreeding.  The best breeders would seek to work with the source producer (Ryan Dwyer) to create as many F1 pairs as can be created with offspring from the original 4 pairs.  What do the F1 pairs from such breeding then look like?
AA
AB
AC
AD
BB
BC
BD
CC
CD
DD
 
That's 10 different pairings at minimum.  If we toss out the sibling pairings (which are the AA, BB, CC, and DD) we are left with 6 pairs in the F1 broodstock and zero inbreeding in the F2 offspring.  You can even then backcross the F2 offpsring to F1 offspring to get further initial genetic diversity, i.e. A X BC, D X BC etc....
 
Now here's the interesting part.  I came across a nice little gem of information - http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/AD013E/AD013E04.htm
 

 
Some of the critical components of the above.  1. the population size is kept "in check" at 50 fish.  2.  even then, 20-30 generations to lose 25% of the genetic variation within the population.  The reality is that with a fish like the MCC, we can easily avoid inbreeding AND avoid even this short term genetic issue because a single pair in a generation may produce 200,000+ offspring over the course of their lifespan.  
 
In the end, you can quite quickly overcome the problems of inbreeding solely by thinking your breeding through.  So too, the same concepts can easily be applied to the establishment of a fish like the Lightning Maroon (in my case, the entire PNG bloodline preserved in 4 fish, only 2 pairs).  
 
And in the end, none of this has one iota to do with hybridization.
 
 
 

 
I'm still not following your point here.


 
Ha - regardless of what you may have been led to believe, I can certainly be open to changing my point of view or acknowledging when I'm wrong
 
I think one of the biggest eye-openers for me was that the Picasso percula is a naturally occuring variety in nature.  The one thing that I've held near and dear for years is that breeding should serve to preserve natural biodiversity.  As such, I'd be a hypocrite to condemn the Picasso percula given the revelation that it IS part of the natural biodiversity of the Percula species.  Still, IF I were to ever own a pair of Picasso Percs, I'd be going back to the ORA bloodline, looking for F1's, which are straight up Solomon Island Percs carrying the Picasso gene.  From there, I could outcross to other SI percs, come back in, and ensure a nice, diverse, healthy population of A. percula with a geographic origin (Solomon Islands) while having the Picasso mutation (or not).  And since the doubling down of Picassos seems to be what produces Platinums, you could argue that you can even have a Solomon Islands Platinum Percula.  Same line of reasoning behind why I have a Lightning Maroon, and why it was important to have the PNG bloodlines intact.  
 
Conversely, it seems that A. ocellaris vs. A. ocellaris Darwin may well be separate species.  And A. percula and A. ocellaris certainly are.  Given the problems that hybrids / cross breeds of these create for people who are trying to preserve the natural species, I can't in good conscience condone such lines of breeding.


 
I think I stopped short of saying "no" value.  More like "little".  Truly though, I think your argument is valid on one level - is there really anything new that someone else might gather from the massive compilaiton of breeding accounts for A. ocellaris.  On the surface, there probably isn't.  The individual accounts may serve little in regards to providing any new or profound insights.  
 
However, going through the motions of a BAP is more an opportunity for troubleshooting, community building, and content generation at the participating site or club.  There may come a point when such a data set can in turn be mined, researched, and perhaps interesting revelations CAN be had from the data.
 

 
Ah, but if you can learn the same lessons from breeding standard A. ocellaris vs. Percularis, I'd rather encourage breeders to do the former because of the RISKS that the latter creates that the former does not.  It is about a bigger picture and long term responsibility, vs. the short-term gains that the latter might offer.