slinky Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 i was reading through some of the old post, and found out that our burundi strain is actually a hybrid strain. this kinda shocked me a bit. i kept reading on and one fellow aquarist(couldnt remember who) jokingly suggested we must have the Cyphotilpia frontosa 'aussie strain'. i think we should actually consider this (im not being sarcastic). this is because, it would be incorrect to call it burundi in the first place. also if ever we start importing in pure strains of burundis, this would create further problems for the australian aquarist, because this would cause problems such as to which burundi is the true strain and which is the the hybrid strain (which has been incorrectly labelled burundi). thus this would continue to create further problems for our burundi strains, by unwary aquarist crossing pure burundis with the local hybrid burundis (aka 'aussie'), thus further prolonging our problems of maintaining the purity of the strain. therefore i suggest we call our current stock of hybrid burundis, Cyphotilapia frontosa 'aussie' or in english the 'aussie frontosa' (or something suitable for our purpose), to save on all the problems we could face inthe future. i think the australian cichlid community should really consider this for the sake of the future of our frontosa stock (as we all now how hard it is to bring new fronts into the our country, and then to dilute the strain accidently) i know i have only been in the cichlid hobby for only a couple of years and dont compare in knowledge and experience as most people here, but i really think i have a point and a really good argument to back it up (im sure there a other reasons also). in closing, thanks for reading through my long long post(sorry bout tat) and thumbs up for our 'aussie frontosa' slinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anita_ozfish Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 If you are this interested, you should also study the history of our 'electric blues' and a few other species as well. Welcome to the intricate world of cichlids Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The cichlid Man Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Prove It. Regards, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ducksta Posted January 9, 2005 Share Posted January 9, 2005 Prove It. Regards, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The cichlid Man Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 As i i said prove it. Tell me so i know the full story. Regards, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 I think Slinky is stating somthing that he/she believes will be good for the hobby in the long run. Can criticism please be a little more constructive. More constructive criticism would be based around comments along the lines of: Is he/she correct in stating that "it would be incorrect to call it burundi in the first place"? Whould this be a good/bad idea and why? Anthony PS: We are all in this for the preservation of the hobby in Australia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter_Gun_Riff Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 in theroy its good but the practical part will be the hardest. also more facts would be good etc which fish are x'ed into the "aussie" strain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 It depends on how you define a hybrid........lets have another debate....... I think the point made in a previous post was that we wouldnt have a true burundi here in australia, because theres a good chance ppl have been breeding any number of the "6 bar" varients together. I would call it a cross, but others will call it a hybrid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckmeister Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Its a well known fact that the Burundi's in Australia are crossed. Frontys have been around a long time. In the 70's and early 80's there were no controls on what was allowed in AND such things as localitys on the fish were not an important issue as it is today. Have a look at the variations on the fish. I've seen some that are a grey blue and I've seen some that are a bright blue. I personally know of someone that brought in a batch of Zambian's from Germany many years ago. These were sold to a guy in Perth who mixed them in with normal frontys and later could not tell the difference between the two. So they stayed together. This guy was apparantly a large breeder and shipped and supplied fish Australia wide. At the end of the day the only frontys I'd bye are 7bars because there can be no confusion on what you have. There are many species in Australia that suffer the same fate. Altolamprologus calvus are another. There is no locality on that species because so many have been brought in with no concern to where it actually came from in the lake. Hence they are known only as black calvus. Really, for me, I'd prefer the question of prove that they are not.. Chuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Chuckmeister At the end of the day the only frontys I'd bye are 7bars because there can be no confusion on what you have. I have seen a pair of seven bar "burundi's" These are seven bar fish that have come from six bar parents. I have seen the parents. And the person is growing them to see if they grow six or seven bar fry. So as for knowing what you get, its not always that easy. I have also seen "7 bar burundi's" in stores being sold as kigoma's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E4G13M4N Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Chuckmeister is correct what we have here would be mixture of 6 bars but that doesnt mean their isnt still some pure ones around. The fronnies i have were brought over from Sydney and by pics i have found on the net they look very close to the northern zaire variant but i wouldnt go around selling them as that, and they look nothing like what is being sold in SA as Burundi's. I have seen fry from 7 bars with 6 on one side and 7 on the other i have also seen the same produced from 6 bars in SA. Even years ago it was rumoured that some zaire blues were bred with burundi's to increase the blue. This could prove to be an interesting topic,so many rumours and induendo with this one. To call them hybrids in not the way to go as they are all the same family not 2 different species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuckmeister Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 My guess is that if 6's are throwing 7's then they are really 7's that should have been culled but were sold for profit none the less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E4G13M4N Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 Anything is possible there, i dont know where the parents originated from but they bred mainly 6 bars but threw the occasional one with 7 on one side. So one of the colony may have been a decendant from a 7 bar at some stage this was 7 - 8 years ago at least when 7 bars were unheard of in SA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 They are from six bars. They aren't kigoma's with 6 bars. There were only two fry out of one spawn that were like this. 6 burundi's have less spine's in there dorsal fin which is also the case in these fish. The fish have what look like perfcet 7 bars no defects and the untrained person would never pick them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinky Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 To call them hybrids in not the way to go as they are all the same family not 2 different species. sorry, i forgot, i meant crossbreed, or am i still wrong. but my point is we should stop selling our original burundis as 'burundi' frontosa but maybe as only frontosa, and reserve the name of frontosa 'burundi' for the people who have pure stock of the variant. this would save on all the trouble in the future of the classification of fronts in australia. especially for the burundis sake. slinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinky Posted January 10, 2005 Author Share Posted January 10, 2005 They are from six bars. They aren't kigoma's with 6 bars. There were only two fry out of one spawn that were like this. 6 burundi's have less spine's in there dorsal fin which is also the case in these fish. The fish have what look like perfcet 7 bars no defects and the untrained person would never pick them with id problems like this, we could also dilute the kigoma variant. i believe its always best to refer to species by its locality variant rather than its physical description. i just really hope no one has already bought a 7 bar burundi and breed it with the kigomas mistakenly. so the point is we should buy from reputable breeders and stores. too bad our importations laws are so strict, otherwise we could have just imported more fronts, and wouldnt have to worry about the quality of the strains in our country. (well one day). slinky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The cichlid Man Posted January 10, 2005 Share Posted January 10, 2005 As i said you must be able to prove your theroy. I am still yet to see this. 6 Bar Frontosa have always been sold in Australia as the Burundi variant. This come about from top line breeders who were pumping out the fry. So what you are suggesting is that most of the renown breeders on the forum past and present have lied to people about the location varient, fully knowing that they are crossed. If so this would just create yet another set back in the hobby. Regards, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ant Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 That would be good slinky to just be able to import more fish and not worry about the bloodlines we have, but in the end the new bllodlines will be crossed with the old and this will further confuse the situation (not that top breeders will do this). This topic highlights the need for us to preserve the bloodlines we already have for the sake of the hobby in Australia, it also highlights what slinky said about buying from reputable breeders. Anthony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crabros Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Hi there, too bad our importations laws are so strict, otherwise we could have just imported more fronts, and wouldnt have to worry about the quality of the strains in our country. (well one day). In the last year there have been at least 4 to 6 shipments with new bloodline of Cyphotilapia frontosa 'Burundi' Kigoma Ikola Zaire Blue Mpimbwe Zambia If you are worried about a bad strain don't buy them. Look around before you buy. See the Adult fish before you buy. I have been told that in the lake there are Frontosa with 6 bars on one side 7 on the other. Broken bars is another thing that also happens. HTH Brett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Josh Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 too bad our importations laws are so strict, otherwise we could have just imported more fronts, and wouldnt have to worry about the quality of the strains in our country Those who are into frontosa will always have to worry about the bloodlines in this country, wether new fish are coming in or not. The old stock will always be bred back to the new. I am sure no-one is going to throw out their old fish and start again when the good fish here arent really that bad to start with and as brett said there has been 6 varients come into the country in the last 12 months or so. So wether they are legal or not they still get hear if someone is willing to buy them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YeW Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Hi Guys - What we probably have with our 6 bars is C. frontosa 'Aust. aquarium strain'. I have no problem with this and agree that 'Burundi' is probably not the best way to refer to them. I would encourage anyone "importing" frontosa - not to import 'Burundi's (this seems unlikely to me anyway - there's more money to be made with other morphs after all!). Hybrid, cross-breed etc mean the same thing (ie: one species bred with another (different one)).. In the case of our 'Aquarium Strain' frontosa this doesnt apply as they arent interspecific hybrids. They are essentially random intraspecific mixes of different colour morphs. HTH - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anita_ozfish Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Ben Cichlid Man, you said 6 Bar Frontosa have always been sold in Australia as the Burundi variant. This come about from top line breeders who were pumping out the fry. I would agree with you that people have been selling them as 6 bar fronts but not necessarily as Burundi as what we have here in Oz is a compilation of over 30 years of breeding frontosa before locations were even considered important and well before quarantine was even thought of I don't know what sort of proof would satisfy you as paperwork was not an important part of a deal then. I imported 6 bars from the US in the very early eighties but 6 bars was all that was ever available then, anywhere. Guess you have to have been into fish for a lot of years to understand the differences of how things were handled then and now. I just remembered the humble black calvus - how many variants of this fish do we have in Oz since they started the location syndrome?? We call them a black calvus but are they 'inkfins', 'blackfins' etc etc all of which are supposed to come from different locations (Congo, Kapampa, Zambia). I think the quality we have here is fine in most cases and would explain why we have such variations in both fronts and calvus. Just some food for thought Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The cichlid Man Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 Anita, Good points but i can remember being told by numerous breeders on this forum past and present that the only six bars that were originally bred all those years ago were from the location Burundi. Now obviously they were incorrect and i have only gone by what i thought was correct as they were the experts. Stories unfortunately change over time. Regards, Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cichlabxr Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 too bad our importations laws are so strict, otherwise we could have just imported more fronts, and wouldnt have to worry about the quality of the strains in our country I don't really know a way around the 'variant' problem for any fish except maybe a register. But then who is going to keep it? Also who is going to admit where they bought their "Wild Caught" species from, especially when they are not on the Import List. Imagine the paperwork I have been out of the scene for a couple of years due to illness but I remember asking questions of "very well respected members of the NSWCS" about the availability of certain species only to be told "they haven't been seen for years". I think it was Mark Coleman who put a lot of work into the Species list in 1997 with obviously quite a few others. Have a read of that list and then compare to the amount of F1 fry available from species rated 1-4. Never mind the F1 just look at the Eartheater re-emergence! I don't think anyone doubts the honesty of "dedicated cichlidophiles" to keep all species true to form. Look how many people have bought Anita's yellows to improve the quality of their own. (me included). Just bought 3 from Michelle that she got from you Anita. The previous have gone sorry to say. There are many others, too many to mention known for the species they kept and the quality of that stock. I always wanted some of Lee Miller's saulosi. I have bought fish from the NSWCS Auctions and have been careful to note what variant of the species I was buying, as a newbie it seemed really important to me. My only remaining colony L.trewavase came from one of these auctions and just recently I was asked which variant. I have no idea but the dominant male looks as blue as "Zimbabwe Rock" but his dorsal is more like that of "Maleri Island". I'll try and get a decent pic and post it. There is no doubt in the last 3 or 4 years which "variant" has become more important in the hobby. The only problem is there are many more people buying and selling cichlids than those that belong to a Club, Society or forum. As people have said a lot of things could have happened in the last 30 years or so. That being said, Simon de Voorwinde started a Kribensis improvement study a few years ago. He had done a lot of research on the genetics and discovered you can breed back the best of a species from a small number through selective culling and line breeding. Maybe we can do that with the'burundi'. Just a few thoughts. Regards Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlakeyBoyR Posted January 11, 2005 Share Posted January 11, 2005 It has been said, but I dont think it is fair to refer to aussie-bred fronts as cross breeds. A "locality morph" perhaps, but not a cross-breed. As much as it must be a pain in the neck for breeders who'd like to know the purity of their fish, as most of you know there are very few guarantees as to heritage of bloodlines in Australia unless you yourself import them or know first hand that the person you are buying them from imported them. Just my 2 cents Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.