Peter Eichler
New member
Actually accotrding to fishbase they get to be about 15", but the 2' is in reference to the frerei AKA formosa which is very similar as a juvenille, hence why I have grouped them together.
Difficult and Special Care Species List (help me edit please!)
- Thread starter Peter Eichler
- Start date
Actually accotrding to fishbase they get to be about 15", but the 2' is in reference to the frerei AKA formosa which is very similar as a juvenille, hence why I have grouped them together.
Peter Eichler
New member
1.) That was something I missed in editing, thanks!
2.) Will think about it, but if we want to nitpick there are a couple more genera I could add as well. Maybe just different wording and leaving out Centropyge?
3.) Maybe I'll just make a general note about rabbitfish and some tangs being borderline.
Thanks for the help!
Peter Eichler
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14992516#post14992516 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MattL
Actually, may I suggest a reorganization of the list?
I believe that many people ignore these warnings because of the way the information is presented.
For example, clown tangs are listed on the list of species to avoid, and rightly so. They grow large and mean. However, if one has a big tank with aggressive tankmates, is there really the same issue? I believe, psychologically, people see someone keeping the fish with success, and then presume that they can do the same under their separate conditions.
Likewise, many fish that are listed as having poor survivability may be on the list due to poor collection techniques. Talking to importers and reputable (i.e., nationally know for their husbandry) LFS staff locally, if collected and handled properly, these very same fish can be the hardiest of saltwater fish.
Again, if a hobbyist sees someone with success unaware of the importance of collection, they will be inclined to disbelieve this list as nothing more than blowing smoke.
So I feel that above all, the fish to be avoided list should be eliminated or drastically lowered, as many hobbyists do have success with some of these fish.
I would like to propose an alternate structure:
1. Collection: Species where proper collection is critical to success (not to be bought sight unseen or from all but the most trusted of sources)
2. Diet: Species with specialized dietary needs (species that will not take prepared foods, or will require live foods in addition to prepared foods)
3. Size: Species that require larger than common (over 180gal or 6ft long) tank sizes.
4. Aggression: Species that are extremely aggressive, and/or require aggressive tankmates.
5. Timidity: Species that cannot be housed with other fish, or require very docile tankmates.
6. Venom: Species that are venomous or pose a hazard to the aquarist.
7. Delicacy: Species that otherwise just have a very poor survival record in captivity and are extremely intolerant of all but the most stable of conditions.
8. Endangered: Species where collection poses a hazard to either the native population or the surrounding environment.
Matt
As far as the clown tang goes I believe there are still problems in a large aquarium with aggressive fish... They often refuse to eat and often don't do well in tanks without something natural to graze on, at least at first. That presents a problem with quarantine and also with adding them to most tanks that have aggressive fish. Again, the survival rate is still dismal from what I've seen. Just a reminder, that first part of the list is not just the Impossible to keep section of the list, it's for fish with "incredibly low survival rates". IMO the clown tang and orange sot filefish still qualify. I also don't see a single fish on that part of the list that "many" hobbyists have had success with other than perhaps some of the wrasses. Maybe our definition of many differs, but I think people that have kept any of those fish longterm are an overhwhelming minority vs. those that have failed.
I've thought about a number system, symbols, graphs, a key, etc. in the past. I decided on just going with short explanations. If someone doesn't have the attention span to read the short explanations they probably won't be in the hobby for long enough for the list to even benefit them much.
Thanks for the feedback even if we don't see eye to eye on things.
Peter Eichler
New member
Re: Difficult and Special Care Species List (help me edit please!)
Just am reminder that I'm mainly looking for format, editing, and typo help right now. Other discussions would probably be best in the sticky thread at the top of the page.
Thanks,
Peter
Just am reminder that I'm mainly looking for format, editing, and typo help right now. Other discussions would probably be best in the sticky thread at the top of the page.
Thanks,
Peter
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Fair enough, but I'm 2 for 2 so far.
1 in 1,000 odds of that (right?), if you say 99 of 100 die.
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Oops, sorry. 1 in 10,000 (100 * 100). I was never very good at probability.
Jacob D
New member
I think your categories are good, I wonder what the psychological effect of reversing the order would be? As already mentioned, if someone reads about a 'fish to be avoided' and knows someone who has kept them, they might be inclined to pass on the remainder (their loss).
Aggressive, venemous, very large fish... these are all things that might hold someone's interest until they get to the part where they learn that their know-it-all salty neighbor is keeping impossible fish and dismiss whatever else they read
Aggressive, venemous, very large fish... these are all things that might hold someone's interest until they get to the part where they learn that their know-it-all salty neighbor is keeping impossible fish and dismiss whatever else they read
MattL
New member
Oh, I do believe we see completely eye to eye on the specific fish. No one is denying that these fish are only for the most dedicated of aquarists.
I just feel that we have to be careful with our language, and include the full story with the most up to date findings.
From my experience (and this went in to writing the FAQ), it's not enough to simply tell a hobbyist 'no' -- an ironclad justification must be given; it must encompass all information, and it must always be correct, without fail. Many hobbyists who are receptive to suggestion will still believe the more optimistic appraisal of a fish when confronted with conflicting descriptions.
For the orange spotted filefish, how will the hobbyist reconcile the description you give:
with the following assessments from Matt Pederson in Coral Magazine and Marine Ornamental Fish & Invert Breeders Association; an assessment that basically states that the previous conventional wisdom of these fish being obligate coralivores is outdated and false. Are these fish for beginners? absolutely no, at least not now. But are they obligate coralivores? Apparently also no.
I'm not challenging their inclusion on your list. I simply believe the hobbyist will need more than a one sentence dismissal here, and we must adequately explain the success of others and what effort was required by those hobbyists.
There are other instances where I feel additional elaboration would be really beneficial for the hobbyist:
For Anthias, while I do believe you are 100% correct in recommending them only to experienced or advanced hobbyists, they vary in care so greatly that separate descriptions may be needed for different species. A Lyretail Anthia, while relatively hardy, is very different from the more fragile Anthia species. I think it behooves us to explain why the Lyretail may be a good choice, when any of the more fragile species may be a bad choice.
Likewise, for butterflyfishes, not all are fragile or specialized feeders. Many species of Chaeodonton live long lives in aquaria and are quite hardy. they just aren't reef safe, which is a separate issue.
I'm sure there are additional examples...
Again, I am not criticizing the inclusion or exclusion of any fish from this list. I jyst feel that more information is required, and in some cases, that information needs to be updated. Otherwise, I fear that we may be viewed as out of touch naysayers.
Matt
MattL
New member
I don't understand your response... Are you saying that previous statements on Mandarin Husbandry are incorrect?<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14997906#post14997906 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Elysia
Unless we are talking about the conventional wisdom of mandarin husbandry, then "ironclad justification" and "encompassing all information" isn't as vital...
Matt
Peter Eichler
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14995133#post14995133 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MattL
Oh, I do believe we see completely eye to eye on the specific fish. No one is denying that these fish are only for the most dedicated of aquarists.
I just feel that we have to be careful with our language, and include the full story with the most up to date findings.
From my experience (and this went in to writing the FAQ), it's not enough to simply tell a hobbyist 'no' -- an ironclad justification must be given; it must encompass all information, and it must always be correct, without fail. Many hobbyists who are receptive to suggestion will still believe the more optimistic appraisal of a fish when confronted with conflicting descriptions.
For the orange spotted filefish, how will the hobbyist reconcile the description you give:
with the following assessments from Matt Pederson in Coral Magazine and Marine Ornamental Fish & Invert Breeders Association; an assessment that basically states that the previous conventional wisdom of these fish being obligate coralivores is outdated and false. Are these fish for beginners? absolutely no, at least not now. But are they obligate coralivores? Apparently also no.
I'm not challenging their inclusion on your list. I simply believe the hobbyist will need more than a one sentence dismissal here, and we must adequately explain the success of others and what effort was required by those hobbyists.
There are other instances where I feel additional elaboration would be really beneficial for the hobbyist:
For Anthias, while I do believe you are 100% correct in recommending them only to experienced or advanced hobbyists, they vary in care so greatly that separate descriptions may be needed for different species. A Lyretail Anthia, while relatively hardy, is very different from the more fragile Anthia species. I think it behooves us to explain why the Lyretail may be a good choice, when any of the more fragile species may be a bad choice.
Likewise, for butterflyfishes, not all are fragile or specialized feeders. Many species of Chaeodonton live long lives in aquaria and are quite hardy. they just aren't reef safe, which is a separate issue.
I'm sure there are additional examples...
Again, I am not criticizing the inclusion or exclusion of any fish from this list. I jyst feel that more information is required, and in some cases, that information needs to be updated. Otherwise, I fear that we may be viewed as out of touch naysayers.
Matt
So first you want a simple number system with a key and now you want long explanations with "an ironclad justification... that must encompass all information, and it must always be correct, without fail" ??? Sounds like you're speaking of absolutes and trying to turn this list into something it was never intended to be. It's been a long time since philosophy 101, but I remember enough to know I don't want to have a debate about absolutes and that very little"ironclad information exists in this hobby.
This list is supposed to be a jumping off point for people to delve fruther into a fish they may be interested in and a somewhat easy reference for beginner and intermediate hobbyists.
I don't feel we have to be careful with out language and give people the most up to date findings. At least in the sense that if I'm steering a few people away from an orange spotted filefish that might have had some success with it, I'm ok with that. There are plenty of hardy fish out there for people to get in its place.
I've been in this hobby long enough to see many fads come and go and I think I've seen the mystery behind Moorish Idols solved at least a dozen times now
All I'm saying is it might be a little early to look at spotted filefish much differently than we have in the past. The recent news is encouraging and I will change the wording on it to reflect that. I will also reread the article in Coral, upon first read I worried about the fish becoming more popular again and many more people obtaining the fish and killing it. Which would leave us with even more dead spotted filefish than before, despite some success stories. That's another thing I've seen happen in this hobby plenty of times as well. Goniopora stokesi comes to mind...
On that note, for those of you having some success with spotted filefish, how many years have you had them?
"Umm fish?"
Premium Member
Of course, I'm still measuring how long I've kept mine in months. But, here's a spawning video from this evening for your consideration:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/23399115@N07/3527513422/?processed=1&cb=1242184329748&likes_hd=1
If I was successful in collecting eggs, I'll let you know.
Sorry about the quality of the video. It's just a little webcam.
Peter, I've meant no disrespect here. I really _do_ appreciate the work you've done with your list. I was just trying to help.
Peter Eichler
New member
No disrespect taken from you or anyone else that has posted. Debate is a good thing IMO. Thanks for the video and good luck with your filefish. Keep us updated on how they do.
Aquarist007
New member
this bears repeating IMO
"This list is supposed to be a jumping off point for people to delve fruther into a fish they may be interested in and a somewhat easy reference for beginner and intermediate hobbyists."
This was interpretation of the first list and it has steered me clean from alot of possible mistakes
"This list is supposed to be a jumping off point for people to delve fruther into a fish they may be interested in and a somewhat easy reference for beginner and intermediate hobbyists."
This was interpretation of the first list and it has steered me clean from alot of possible mistakes
MattL
New member
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I never wanted a simple number system and key. If you read my post, I simply suggested we recategorize what you had already written. It was just a suggestion.
No one is having a debate about absolutes. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I am arguing the contrary; simply suggesting that we include all the pertinent information in addition to what we have written so as to create a (more) "ironclad" argument for not keeping this fish.
That's totally cool, and I agree with that.
This is the only place where I object.
If we are perceived as lying to people (or lying through omission) to steer them away from a fish, then everything we say loses credibility. How many times, when I have been trying to steer people away from a fish, has the other party said: well, you're wrong, because so-and-so says the opposite.
We can have our cake and eat it to here. We can steer people away from certain fish, and include all the most up to date information.
That's all I'm saying. You can't call something an obligate coralivore if it eats flake in captivity, but you can say that the survival rates are almost zero due to collection issues and this fish should not be attempted.
I don't want that any more than you do. If you read my posts here (in fact, read the FAQ and see my tone), I continuously attempt to steer people away from problem fish.
I'm just saying we have to be up to date and accurate in how we do so, and that there must be a justification.
Of the three that I am aware of locally, one lived for five years and then perished but never took prepared foods. The two that do take prepared foods have been alive for over a year, which is not very long. Neither of these can be counted as success stories. It is, after all, the obligate coralivore portion of the statement, not the survivability, that must be updated.
Matt
dudley moray
sisternofuselessknowledge
i think hawkfishes should also be on the extreme aggressive list ...just my opinion
Peter Eichler
New member
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15004187#post15004187 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MattL
I'm afraid you are mistaken. I never wanted a simple number system and key. If you read my post, I simply suggested we recategorize what you had already written. It was just a suggestion.
No one is having a debate about absolutes. In fact, if you read what I wrote, I am arguing the contrary; simply suggesting that we include all the pertinent information in addition to what we have written so as to create a (more) "ironclad" argument for not keeping this fish.
That's totally cool, and I agree with that.
This is the only place where I object.
If we are perceived as lying to people (or lying through omission) to steer them away from a fish, then everything we say loses credibility. How many times, when I have been trying to steer people away from a fish, has the other party said: well, you're wrong, because so-and-so says the opposite.
We can have our cake and eat it to here. We can steer people away from certain fish, and include all the most up to date information.
That's all I'm saying. You can't call something an obligate coralivore if it eats flake in captivity, but you can say that the survival rates are almost zero due to collection issues and this fish should not be attempted.
I don't want that any more than you do. If you read my posts here (in fact, read the FAQ and see my tone), I continuously attempt to steer people away from problem fish.
I'm just saying we have to be up to date and accurate in how we do so, and that there must be a justification.
Of the three that I am aware of locally, one lived for five years and then perished but never took prepared foods. The two that do take prepared foods have been alive for over a year, which is not very long. Neither of these can be counted as success stories. It is, after all, the obligate coralivore portion of the statement, not the survivability, that must be updated.
Matt
C'mon Matt, you may not have been intending a debate on absolutes, but some of your expectations are unrealistic and would suggest that absolutes are possible in this hobby. With such buzzwords as, ironclad, must always be correct, without fail, at least that's what I think of.
Anyhow, those are just semantics. I really didn't want to get into this here as I made it pretty clear from the start that I didn't want species discussion in this thread and was really only wanting help editing the list. But, the thread has been derailed for too long and too many times to hope for someone pointing out a mispelled word at this point. No big deal, I'll live
By the way MattL, sorry for misunderstanding what you were intending with the list of categories.
So, on with the debate...
I'd really like to know what I wrote could be perceived as lying, even with the recent "success" with this species. I'd also love for you to point out where I call the fish an obligate corallivore. I simply said it's a "specialized coral polyp feeder". I don't care what Matt says in his article or how many people have kept this fish alive for months on prepared foods, that statement is as true today as it was many years ago when I made the first draft of this list.
You've done little but create a strawman out of my original statement. In addition, I could nitpick the FAQ you came up with to death, which I feel you have done with me in addition to creating that straw man. I won't because I understand the basic intentions and believe most of what is said in the FAQ to be generally true. Though,may I point out, not "ironclad", nor "without fail", and certainly not "always correct", as few things in life are even capable of being.
Even if I didn't say they're obligate corallivores they ARE, as in factually, a corallivore and most likely an obligate corallivore. Obligate in the sense that in nature they probably can't compete well enough for other foods to sustain themselves longterm. Simply because something accepts prepared foods in an aquarium doesn't mean it can't be an obligate corallivore in nature. Also, even Matt ackowledges in his article that O. longirostris is one of the first fish to disappear during bleaching events.
I do believe that it's quite possible that there isn't anything these fish require in coral flesh. But, I do feel it's hasty to dismiss the possibility based on Matt's article. That said, again, this fish is a corallivore and probably, by most reasonable definitions, an obligate corallivore (in nature) whether there is some unknown nutritional benefit to coral flesh or not.
I'd like to remind you and others that Matt Pedersen hasn't had any of his filefish very long and that the lengths he goes to in order to keep them alive is beyond what an overwhelming majority of aquarists are willing to do. In fact reading the article again I feel even more confident that this fish is exactly where it should be on the list. Also, my fears were reaffirmed. I have no doubt Matt had good intentions in writing the article, but I think it's biggest impact will be to give people false hope and increase the popularity of a fish that had thankfully greatly decreased in popularity in recent years. The fact that you and others seem to have such a rosier outlook on this fish based on some short term success and a couple of fry whos ages are still measured in months only seems support my fears.
Lastly, for those of you preaching the hardiness of fish that you've only sustained for a short time, think of how you're influencing others. Some of the statements in this thread would almost lead someone to believe that all it takes for success is some flakefood and an orange spotted filefish. You're doing this fish and its potential owners a disservice for portraying it as anything but a VERY difficult fish to keep alive long-term. I'd venture a guess that Matt Pedersen would feel the same way.
Regards,
Peter
Last edited:
Peter Eichler
New member
One last thing... In no way am I trivializing nor criticizing what Matt Petersen has accomplished with O. longirostris and wish him and all the other attempting this difficult species nothing but the best of luck.
