Ha Andy, you really didn't understand that argument LOL!  You may think it's "unethical", but that's not how it was meant.  It is however, pragmatic to explain to someone who is "pro hybrid, pro designer" that they still need the wild, natural forms, and that they benefit from preserving them now while we still can.

I think it's HIGHLY ethical to reach across the aisle and say "I don't think it's right, what you're doing and all, and you may perceive my proposition to be injurious to your own endeavors.  But frankly, what I propose not only benefits me, but intrinsically benefits YOU as well.".

I've never said I am 100% against the hybridization and "ornamentalism" of marine fish, although a LOT of people believe that is precisely my personal stance.  I.e., Ret Talbot's short article - http://fishinsects.suite1...t_designer_clownfishes - the bottom line is that from a HOBBY standpoint, now is the time that we MUST focus on preserving the natural biodiversity.  That's a truly never-ending proposition and always must be the BASE and top goal.  From a conservation / preservation standpoint, let's look at A. mccullochi.  We have ONE permitted collection of the species in the industry's history.  This species will likely never be collected again.  If we fail to appreciate and keep this fish around going forward, it will disappear from the hobby / industry.  Bad enough for us.  But what happens when Lord Howe's reefs are gone, and the Mcc along with it.  Now we have an extinct species that could've been kept going in the hobby if nowhere else.  It is only a side argument, and a side benefit, to say "so long as the captive population is secure" go ahead and use it for selective breeding or hybridization projects to create whatever new thing you want.  For all we know, the hybrid of lets say Mcc X Clarkii produces the most stunningly beautiful clownfish on the planet.  For the person who values ornamental aspects and works towards these ends, losing the MCC to them means losing a building block, it means losing the "most beatiful clownfish in the world".  Again, I can only sit idly by and accept that hybridizing and such IS going to happen, so in that aspect, I can only reiterate the vital importance of the natural forms at this point.  They're important to ME as a conservation-oriented person, but they are JUST AS IMPORTANT to someone who'd like to use them to make 10 other types of clownfish.

There is the secondary aspect that I've fought /argued many times over which is the RESPONSIBLE approach to ornamental breeding programs.  What generally screws everything up for breeders is hybrids being passed off as legitimate species (i.e. percularis being blatantly sold as ocellaris).  The reason this is a problem is because it puts the ORIGINAL WILD lines at risk of disappearing.

On another related note, please also check out Daniel Knop's "letter" on page 2 of the current CORAL magazine.  The entire first paragraph offers yet another viewpoint on the whole species debate.  Of course, Knop does hit on several key points I've made regarding "nature" vs. "captivity" and thus the stance that the definition of a species still hinges on what happens in "nature" and more specifically, outside of man's direct or indirect influence.

No, I get where you are coming from. But that argument, at least, is entirely based on the organisms' _use_ for humans. That doesn't mean that the argument isn't true. (That is, aquarium keepers as a group certainly might need to keep these lines if we want to continue to breed from them in the future.) There's just nothing ethical about it. In fact, it's kind of the opposite of ethical: You are making a judgement of the value of these organisms based solely on their usefulness for some human goal.

I mean, it's fine as far as it goes. I keep animals just like everyone else here. There are many motivations there and at least some of them revolve around entirely selfish ends. But I try not to fool myself about my selfish desires being ethical. And I try to offset as much of the unethical behaviors as I can by doing things like advancing knowledge of courtship for species, breeding what I can, etc.

BTW, I completely agree with you that breeders need to be entirely up-front about all that is known about the geneology of the fish that they sell. In fact, I would _love_ to see the MBI also offer fish registration, where all that is known of the geneology of your fish is available for anyone to see. That would be way cool.

--Andy