Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 20 of 67 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
F0 is wild caught or is it Pond bred?
F1 to mean first generation from these?

Both terms are thus ambiguous. Kind of wish folk would stop using them.

Very good looking Tropheus though. 8)

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
F0 means wild. Always. F1 means both parents were wild. If it's an F0-F1 offspring, it's F2. Same with F1-F1. Basically, you take the highest F# and add 1 for the subsequent generation.

Awesome Trophs! Love the close-up/silly shots, too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
dielikemoviestars said:
F0 means wild. Always. F1 means both parents were wild. If it's an F0-F1 offspring, it's F2. Same with F1-F1. Basically, you take the highest F# and add 1 for the subsequent generation.

Awesome Trophs! Love the close-up/silly shots, too.
So what are the pond bred Tropheus sold as? :wink:

Hate to be a pedant.

These are conventions used by cichlid keepers. I am afraid they hold no legal status and F0 and F1 can under the filial system be used to describe any cichlid you like. Be it hybrid or pond bred for generations.

For example a German F1 Aulonocara Red Rubescens may be a the first generation of a cross of two lines be they pure or hybrid.

Same with Tropheus.

Only wild caught means wild caught.
and only first generation from wild caught, means first generation from wild caught.

The terms F0 and F1 are ambiguous.

Sorry. :oops:

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,304 Posts
Wild caught doesn't mean wild caught, either, by those standards. You can say whatever you want. But if someone is being honest about what they're keeping/breeding/selling, that's how you'd go about it. F0 = w/c, F1 = their offspring, etc. By those standards, there's no such thing as an F0/F1/Fwhatever hybrid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
24Tropheus said:
These are conventions used by cichlid keepers.
Are we not cichlid keepers? You accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers, but wish to argue it on a cichlid forum. Pedant indeed.

We all know it is flawed, we all understand it's meaning within this hobby. Time to get off the pedestel.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Fogelhund said:
24Tropheus said:
These are conventions used by cichlid keepers.
Are we not cichlid keepers? You accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers, but wish to argue it on a cichlid forum. Pedant indeed.

We all know it is flawed, we all understand it's meaning within this hobby. Time to get off the pedestel.
Quite clearly I do not accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers.
It is confusing and is being used in a silly made up way.
As you say I have argued this before and will contine I think.
The arrogance of cichlid keepers is quite staggering.
Now some even go so far as to claim folk who use it in its original form, Gregor Johann Mendel, a 1856 to 1863, I think it was, are wrong. It would be funny if it was not so sad.

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
24Tropheus said:
Quite clearly I do not accept that this is the standard for cichlid keepers.
It is confusing and is being used in a silly made up way.
As you say I have argued this before and will contine I think.
The arrogance of cichlid keepers is quite staggering.
Now some even go so far as to claim folk who use it in its original form, Gregor Johann Mendel, a 1856 to 1863, I think it was, are wrong. It would be funny if it was not so sad.

All the best James
For good or bad, it is the standard for cichlid keepers, and it isn't confusing in the least.

There is no need to bring this argument up, at any and every opportunity. Let's keep this argument out of discussions moving forward, unless they are specifically to discuss Mendel's system and the modified usage for the cichlid hobby.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
The problem is the refusal of some cichlid keepers to accept that other cichlid breeders use the system in its original form. Thus the confusion every time it is used without clarification. IE I have no problem with F1 from wild or wild caught. F1 and F0 alone means different things to different cichlid keepers. To deny this and discourage discussion of it is bizarre.

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
24Tropheus said:
To deny this and discourage discussion of it is bizarre.
A member wanted to show pictures of his/her Tropheus, and you wanted to turn it into your personal crusade against an accepted cichlid convention. This thread wasn't about Mendel's system, it was only derailed due to one members need to push their personal cause. I am stating that we need to keep discussions on topic, instead of this silly tired argument.

Perhaps submitting an article would be more productive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
F0 means wild caught animal past the normal stages of high mortality... in other words, breeding age captured animal.

If one captures fry or other juvies from the wild, then they are captive reared. If one rears them behind walls or netting in the lake, then they are captive reared.

In this hobby, no distinction is made between the above... unfortunately.

Any animal that is captive bred cannot be labelled "wild caught" no matter the circumstances of it being bred. Lake water pumped into a vat is meaningless. Raised pond side is tank raised, same as tank raised in North America...

Although I agree that it isn't necessary to harp on it on a cichlid-forum, I can also relate to those who get irritated by those who refuse to clearly communicate because of some selfish reason (like selling fish at some sort of premium). Hobbyists can be excused more than vendors! :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
There is an article on this already. http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/c ... _terms.php
However it fails to mention some cichlid breeders use the Mendelian/filial system as originally intended.

Not a massive re write but a good one I would have thought.
As to me writing the articles well I guess I do not have a balanced enough approach. :wink:

Personal crusade. I have heard that one before. :( Not really just like things that are written to be true.

The one question I have is. Who first (miss) used the filial system to describe distance from wild and when was it?

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
It is NOT just a "standard for cichlid keepers"; these terms have actual meaning and definition within the world of science. F0 has nothing to do with Mendel; it is, however, a term used in scientific research to designate wild captured individuals (I had a scientific terminology reference for this, cannot find it at the moment). F1 and beyond do have definition as found in Mendel, and are used for all kinds of breeding, both plants and animals. This is not limited to how many generations from wild the fish might be, but how many generations from a given Parent generation they are. F1 does not always mean first generation from wild, so when it is used to indicates such, the proper term is "F1 from wild". The egotistical attitude of many in the cichlid hobby has corrupted the proper use of the term by insisting that it only be used "their way".

Fish that are raised in a pond or behind a net in the lake itself are still, as noted, cultured animals. But some people think they can play games with the proper labeling by raising them in their native waters. When such fish are called F0, the person may try to rationalize it, but they are just lying about what they are to use it as a selling point. IF they call the young from these fish F1, there is an argument to be made for that to be acceptable; however, it would require tracking every generation under culture.

Here's a brain twister: If you catch a female mouthbrooder in the wild, strip fry from her and raise them in an aquarium, are these still wild since that's where you caught them, or are they cultured, since that's where they were raised? If the latter, at what point are wild caught young still considered wild even though they might be raised to maturity in captivity? Collectors often bring in young fish, as they take up less space and allow the transportation of more individuals of a given species. But is an immature collected specimen still to be considered "wild" when it matures and spawns in captivity?

The obsession with how removed from wild a fish might be is something I do not understand. Knowing where a line originated I do consider important, but whether the individual fish actually grew up there, or whether it grew up in a glass box in Michigan, I find irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
Thanks to be honest I do not know. It kind of depends on what you want to follow. All I would say is things become a lot less clear if you use F0 and F1 rather than words to describe the cichlids origins and providence. I kind of think that that's why the system was miss used in the first place. To disguise rather than to clarify.
I do however disagree that it does not matter (if thats what you said) a wild caught Tropheus is different from a pond bred Tropheus and should command a higher price. A couple of generations down the line then it may not matter at all I agree.

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
Chromedome52 said:
F0 has nothing to do with Mendel; it is, however, a term used in scientific research to designate wild captured individuals (I had a scientific terminology reference for this, cannot find it at the moment). F1 and beyond do have definition as found in Mendel, and are used for all kinds of breeding, both plants and animals. This is not limited to how many generations from wild the fish might be, but how many generations from a given Parent generation they are.
Exactly!

Chromedome52 said:
Here's a brain twister: If you catch a female mouthbrooder in the wild, strip fry from her and raise them in an aquarium, are these still wild since that's where you caught them, or are they cultured, since that's where they were raised? If the latter, at what point are wild caught young still considered wild even though they might be raised to maturity in captivity? Collectors often bring in young fish, as they take up less space and allow the transportation of more individuals of a given species. But is an immature collected specimen still to be considered "wild" when it matures and spawns in captivity?
They are not considered "wild caught" according to Cites and other recognized authorities... they are captive reared as I mentioned... they are (both legally and genetically) identified as different than wild caught.

Chromedome52 said:
The obsession with how removed from wild a fish might be is something I do not understand. Knowing where a line originated I do consider important, but whether the individual fish actually grew up there, or whether it grew up in a glass box in Michigan, I find irrelevant.
A "wild caught" specimen is considered to be the true genotype of the species.

Captive reared and F1 are considered as one step removed from that genotype. I, personally, might like a captive reared fish over a hobbyist bred F1 as I know that natural pairing of mom n dad still took place, so we avoid sloppy breeding practices by some dumb hobbyists who think that using unrelated individuals is the most important thing to do!!! Just today on this forum is a case of someone hybridizing some wild caught Tropheus with a different genetic population! Made me squirm...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
31,206 Posts
24Tropheus said:
I kind of think that that's why the system was miss used in the first place. To disguise rather than to clarify.
:lol: You can't really be serious can you? You are suggesting that most of the hobby, ACA etc. are attempting to deceive people through using F0 originally?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Ah well maybe the effect rather than the intention. Was it the ACA that started this (miss) use or was it the BCA as sadly I think it was?
Or older than iether of these associations?

All the best James
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
912 Posts
A "wild caught" specimen is considered to be the true genotype of the species.

Captive reared and F1 are considered as one step removed from that genotype.
This is an incorrect use of the term "genotype". Genotype refers to the genetic characteristics of an individual, not a population. Wild fish are part of a gene pool, and young from two of those fish are equally related to other fish in the same gene pool, just as they would be if the parents had bred in the wild. However, they now make up a new gene pool because they were removed from the original. A new pool becomes narrowed as the captive fish are linebred, and adding new wild stock does not necessarily improve it; it simply modifies the pool. Genetically, F1 from wild are NOT different from wild young, that is the falsehood that is perpetuating this garbage. The real differences resulting are environmental - the way they are raised. F0 fish are only important if you are preserving them for ichthyological work.

James, the use of F0 was originally a shorthand way to let people know the fish were collected, rather than bred. Since the people doing the original collections were often scientists, they were familiar with the use of the term. 30-40 years ago it was actually preferable for the average hobbyist to get "tank raised", as they were expected to have grown up acclimated to aquarium life. That's why I do not understand the change in attitude, with everyone wanting wild fish. My only reason for wanting a wild fish would be if it is a new species/population, and having an opportunity to be one of the first to breed them. Wild specimens of fish that have been in the hobby for generations serve little purpose IMNSHO, contrary to the "genetic alarmists".

I would note that the organizations have nothing to do with the use of F0, F1, etc. It is people within the organizations, and those who concluded that they could find a profit in pushing the concept of wild fish as more valuable. I would also note that this "push" seems to have started with Rift Lake Cichlid sellers, though New World seems to have eventually caught the bug. Profit motive may not be everything to a lot of the keepers, but the sellers certainly seem to have smudged the edges of ethical behaviour for these reasons. Profit is also the reason they developed the concept of stripping female mouthbrooders. Take the eggs/wiggler stage young, the female is back in breeding condition in a fraction of the time. This "F0bsession" is simply the latest in marketing tools.

As a longtime Killifish hobbyist, the importance of not mixing populations is ingrained in my psyche. Mixing Tropheus and lying about it, while directly of no importance to me, has an underlying ethical dissonance that the hobby does not need. Shoot the ********. :x
 
1 - 20 of 67 Posts
Top