The hybrid debate-scientifically explored?

[Matttoadman]

So we have all heard of the in hobby cultures regarded/debated as hybrids. Blaberus fusca, Blaberus discoidalis, and several of the hisser genera. My question is, are any of these verified? We know assumptions have been made, but assumptions mean nothing in the world of science. So it seems the main assumption is that since there are no scientically identified examples of a particular culture it must be a hybrid. Since the culture has existed for many years and no fresh wild collected examples have been found it must just be a hybrid. There are many species of roach that are currently in the hobby that have not been identified as of yet. Eublaberus serranus was only recently identified yet had been in the hobby for years. No one ever debated its purity . This does not make them hybrids just unidentified. Has any actually tried to cross to proven separate species of Blaberus or Gromphagorhina to see if they actually will produce viable offspring that are not sterile? Are there variations between stock and within stock to give evidence of hybridization? For example, crossing two distinct species, expecially varying percentages, will produce varied genotypes. Sizes, colors, morphology, fecundity will all fluctuate. I have spent countless hours studying the results of wild gamefowl to domestic chicken crosses. The variability in the offspring is amazing. 

  I think it would be interesting to begin an actual review of one of previously mentioned species. Recording all the information needed to verify a species. To compare different populations. From what I am learning genitalia is one of the main things that is used to distinguish one species from another. I think the members on this sight would have an accurate representation of the species to compare. Also actual hybridization trials would be helpful to dispel or confirm viability. Responsible dead end crossing could be done. 

 So thoughts?

[Hisserdude]

Yes, people have actually seen these hybrids being created, and some strains can be traced back to keepers who kept multiple species together. 

The genitalia of all Gromphadorhina and "Princisia" are identical BTW, that plus the fact that their hybrid offspring are fertile, not sterile, makes me think that they are all just one, variable species.

[Matttoadman]

Gotta love irresponsible keeping. However, we can’t undue this. Are fusca and discoidalis actual ID’d species in nature or are these their given names in culture? I do not have an issue in maintaining them as they are, hobby forms.

[Hisserdude]

9 hours ago, Matttoadman said:

Gotta love irresponsible keeping. However, we can’t undue this. Are fusca and discoidalis actual ID’d species in nature or are these their given names in culture? I do not have an issue in maintaining them as they are, hobby forms.

I'm not sure who originally ID'd the Blaberus in culture, I'm fairly certain the B.discoidalis in the hobby (pure strains at least), are indeed actually B.discoidalis, however there is some debate as to whether the "fusca" in the hobby are actually fusca or if they are a color variation of craniifer, (they can both interbreed with each other BTW).

[Hisserdude]

Huh, actually after doing some research, "Blaberus fusca" isn't even an actual species! Blabera fusca is a synonym of Blaberus atropos, and the "Blaberus fusca" in the hobby are definitely a lot different from B.atropos, and can't hybridize with them. So, I think the "B.fusca" in the hobby are probably just a geological variation of Blaberus craniifer, just like people in Europe have been labeling them.

[Matttoadman]

Ahhh see research must be done. Well if fusca is just a variant of craniifer than it should be easy to figure out. Merely a comparison of the two.