What would it become

[walkinghorse]

Earlier I looked at an ad for kitumba " purple " for 65 dollars per inch , lmao but I digress. The male was f0 and and female was. F1.  Does that make it f2 or a mutt

[GrizzlysDad]

Earlier I looked at an ad for kitumba " purple " for 65 dollars per inch , lmao but I digress. The male was f0 and and female was. F1.  Does that make it f2 or a mutt

It's parental lineage would be just what you described: The male (father) was f0 and and female (mother) was F1.

So basically a mutt with good lineage.

The way the fish hobby uses the "F" method is not entirely correct. I'm sure Ron could explain this in more detail.

[Regalblue]

It would make it F2. You always go one more step/number from the original. 

A mutt would be if it was a hybrid with another species. 

[Ron]

It would make it F2. You always go one more step/number from the original. 

x2!

[GrizzlysDad]

It would make it F2. You always go one more step/number from the original. 

A mutt would be if it was a hybrid with another species.

Actually Blair I disagree with your statement but only in part. I would not consider the resulting offspring an F-2 but simply as "tank raised" but with good parental lineage. I believe an F-0 parent breeding with an F-1 parent is better than two F-1 parents, especially if the two F-1 parents are siblings. But IMHO, you can't have a fish rated as F-2 when there are two ways to reach that.
Example: F-0 x F-1 as opposed to F-1 x F-1 do not both equal F-2. 

This is another example why the way our hobby uses the "F" system is flawed. Too many differences of opinion when the parentage is not equal in generation.

And also, my statement about it being a mutt was poorly used. In Mike's question regarding the term "mutt" I was implying that it wasn't IMHO any "F" rating and was a mutt within it's own specie without crossing that line of hybridization. I should have taken the time to explain my post more efficiently, or just not used the term mutt.

You are absolutely correct though that when referring to any fish as a "mutt" it is generally meant as a hybrid (and totally a garbage fish that should be culled....but you know where I stand on hybrids, LOL).

[Regalblue]

Tank raised/captive bred is anything F3 & above.

F0xF1 would actually be F1.5, but you defer to the next designation. (Which would be F2)
& Yes, the F0xF1 should have slightly stronger genes than F1xF1=F2

Now correctly using the filial system (non-hobbyist) F0xF1 would be F1,  as long as the two parents were not related.

[dexternovice]

Tank raised/captive bred is anything F3 & above.

F0xF1 would actually be F1.5, but you defer to the next designation. (Which would be F2)
& Yes, the F0xF1 should have slightly stronger genes than F1xF1=F2

Now correctly using the filial system (non-hobbyist) F0xF1 would be F1,  as long as the two parents were not related.

What he said.

[GrizzlysDad]

Tank raised/captive bred is anything F3 & above.

Again, an instance where opinion and "general rule of thumb" by a consensus/majority of hobbyists make the system flawed.
I personally do not refer to any generation of fish beyond F-1 when it comes to offspring. Even a so called F-2 is just a simple "tank raised" specimen in my opinion.
When I had the room for a large multitude of tanks, all my breeding stock was either wild caught or F-1. And even my F-1 stock was not siblings. I would acquire two separate groups of F-1 stock from lineage that I was sure were non related. They were kept in separate tanks and grown out to a sexual maturity. Then I would swap all of the males from one group to the other and sell off one of the groups as F-1 non related (or keep two groups to breed if it was a very desirable fish).
The filial system as we hobbyists use it can get as confusing as so many of the "common" names that people attach to a fish. And the way these generalizations are varied across a regional area or numerous parts of the world.

[Regalblue]

Lol!  We're fish snobs!  Purging the wild lakes, lagoons & rivers for bragging rights & top notch specimens. 

The main reason I go to F2 is because the scientists generally only go that far.

[dexternovice]

Hijackers!  Turn yourselves in to the proper author the immediately.

[Regalblue]

Hijackers!  Turn yourselves in to the proper author the immediately.

I am the proper authority (cartman voice)

[GrizzlysDad]

One other important factor that was something I strongly adhered to was that I NEVER mixed F-0 and F-1 breeders.
I know a lot of people do that, and in certain fish it's important to reintroduce some wild genetic stock, but with the cichlids and catfish that I bred it was just a method I stuck to.....and then I never had to worry about selling my offspring as "this kind of F-2 but not the other kind of F-2" blah, blah, blah.

Actually I thought about this subject at the recent GVAC auction. There was a group of Taiwan Reef IIRC that had a wild pair and then a few non-wild specimens (don't remember if they were labeled as to their generation). I mentioned to someone I was talking to that if I bought that group of fish I would want to know which were the wild fish so I could separate them from the others.
In fact, I think Josh bought that group of fish.

p.s. Sorry for the hijack Dan...even though it was Mike's thread