Cichlid Fish Forum banner
1 - 5 of 5 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
So since Aulonocara Rubescens is line bred from stuartgranti maleri (i think, internet mentions different collection points) if you were to obtain a really red stuartgranti maleri male and give him a harem of females would the offspring still be considered ruby reds? the bigger question is would this help strengthen the bloodlines of the fish? The ruby reds that i've seen all look very healthy and happy but i wonder how much line breeding can you get away with before genetic problems (lowered immunity etc...) start becoming commonplace. Not really considering doing this but i got a ton of free time on my hands to think about fish...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,748 Posts
No one knows except the original breeders wheather this is a fish bred from a pure variant, But yep no harm in trying what you think you might try. Me, I would go for a good looking natural variant. So much easier to keep these guys good (far less culling) and no real problems with understanding the genetics.

Saying that the only guy I know in the UK who makes a living out of this stuff breeds these guys or rather firefish. Go figure no one went bust underestimating the stupidity/lack of taste of the cusotmer.

All the best James
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
40,517 Posts
I don't know if they would still be ruby reds though. It is my understanding that a line bred fish is not sold under the marketing name for the line bred product until many generations have been produced after introducing the new blood to ensure all fry are consistent and the fish are breeding true.

If you crossed a non-line bred fish with a line bred fish and tried to sell it to me, I would want you to tell me that...not call it a ruby red.

That's just me...interesting question. What does everyone else think? :thumb:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
391 Posts
I would say that there have probably been all sorts of permutations in breeders getting/producing Rubescens anyway.
I wonder how many different sorts of Rubescens are out here with different lineage.

As it is a 'Man made' peacock I would say as long as you have a very orange/tangerine looking Stuartgranti as your result the fact you added new blood shouldn't mean much.

Logic would dictate that you would end up picking out the reddest of those fry to breed from anyway and get back on the line breeding track anyway.

Obviously adding anything apart from Maleri into the mix isn't going to get you the desired result so I wouldn't see the name of Rubescens applicable or appropriate then.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,422 Posts
illpoet said:
So since Aulonocara Rubescens is line bred from stuartgranti maleri
I personally know breeders in North America who have mixed species to make the Red Peacock, so who cares what the original origins were, breeders for a decade haven't even tried to keep the Red Peacock pure in any sense of the term...

There is no such fish as Aulonocara Rubescens. Pseudo scientific naming should always be discourgaed. Common names only please!
 
1 - 5 of 5 Posts
Top