flame angel

that needs some researching, or even a lot. As far as 'reef safe' I think they are on a par with the Lemon Peels.
I agree with that - though I only have my one fish. If I add a brain to the tank, he finds it & goes to munching immediately as if I'd called him to dinner :rolleyes: Kind of makes me feel like I should be providing this in his diet, but we won't tell Matt, ok? :D lol

From what I know of Heraldi's they have a sweeter dispostion than lemonpeels, similar to the sweet bicolors - have you noticed this? It is certainly interesting that the 'woodheadi' color morph has black with blue trim - the same colors as the lemonpeel juvenile. On the other hand - in the photo I have - the blue is more like the bicolor's blue.

Does any of this factor or is it just DNA testing that tells the story?
 
My guess is that DNA testing would show near identical results, like a Great Dane and a Dalmation.

I want to get a number of frozen ones of each and compare . First need to get some original descriptions of each, and see where the holotypes were taken.

The Haraldi are a tad less expensive then the Lemonpeels I have seen so far. That itself may get them into my tanks first.

Does yours browse on any of the soft corals ? I am still surprised not nipping on the tridacna. My last Lemon Peel wouldnot leave the soft corals alone even though the tank was loaded with amphipods.

I have had mixed results with the Flames, most didnt browse the soft corals, but did have one that would take an occasional nip, I didnt think it was grabbing a pod.
 
Yes,I also thought in heraldi,which show dirty faces and no eye make-up.:D
One of my lemonpeels,formerly a female,but now a male,has a nice orange colour.I was concerned because this colour,according to Scott M.was produced by collecting drugs.:(
That was not the case,luckily.:cool:
 
Luis is yours in a fish only tank or reef tank ?

I am again/still wondering about their reef appetites. Tropicorium has some soft corals in each tank with them, apparently for brunching. Both the Lemon Peel and the Lemon. Lots of algae also, (ulvaceus ??) I call it sea lettuce.
 
Mine are in 120-40-40 cm,with rocks.No live corals.
My pigmies don´t like especially the pigmy formula.:o
They eat mainly crumbles/pellets,with an occasional sheet of nori.Plus tank growing algae which they browse all the time.
 
Yes,Frank B.says they´re larger and green(mine were not).I only had eggs of lemonpeels and eibliis so far.
 
Im just tagging onto this post, but I must confess, I am a bit concerned with some of the comments.

I will only ask questions to get the true inpretation from the parties involved.

Are we really stating that as long as these fish are surviving for the purpose we deem fit, we are quite allowable to hold them in as small a tank as we see fit? Whether it be 2 centropyge in a 24 gallon or a 10 gallon, or a 5 gallon?

Does the concept of humanity apply to non-humans? In my mind, we are discussing morals and ethics, not humane conditions. Now morals and ethics are quite subjective, but we all consider and abide by these principles.

While I think it is possible to maintain 2 centropyge in small quarters as listed, I certainly do not think it is appropriate. What is possible and what is appropriate are night and day.
 
No matter what we do, we are manipulating the natural world. We humans do what we do with the creatures we have to work with.

There is no condition create-able by man that is "better" than the wild. If you keep fish in a box, however big, and say you are treating them humanely, you just guessing at best.

Until we can ask the fish, and get an answer we understand, your guess is as good as mine. I have great respect for life, but I do not anthropomorphize. Just my opinion.

Let's not talk about ethics unless you want to start a new thread. This thread is about breeding angels.

Let's get back on track.
 
Am I off track by saying that keeping 2 territorial fish in a 24 gallon tank is improper? If so, I will zip it.

I personally will not omit my moral obligation when keeping these fish in captivity, but if it will offend others, I will not continue.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8281092#post8281092 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jmaneyapanda
Im just tagging onto this post, but I must confess, I am a bit concerned with some of the comments.

I will only ask questions to get the true inpretation from the parties involved.

Are we really stating that as long as these fish are surviving for the purpose we deem fit, we are quite allowable to hold them in as small a tank as we see fit? Whether it be 2 centropyge in a 24 gallon or a 10 gallon, or a 5 gallon?

What is possible and what is appropriate are night and day.
Answer to both questions is yes,it is appropiate if fish breed.I support Matt´s point that breeding fish are healthy happy fish.This is a breeders forum and breeding is the purpose we aim here.Non breeding issues like ethics,belong elsewhere.
Just came from extinguishing a war fire between two exceptional aquarists along those lines.Don´t start a new one here,it doesn´t help.;)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8281890#post8281890 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kathy55g
No matter what we do, we are manipulating the natural world. We humans do what we do with the creatures we have to work with.

There is no condition create-able by man that is "better" than the wild. If you keep fish in a box, however big, and say you are treating them humanely, you just guessing at best.

Until we can ask the fish, and get an answer we understand, your guess is as good as mine. I have great respect for life, but I do not anthropomorphize. Just my opinion.

So are you saying that "until we can ask the fish" it's ok to keep them in any size tank?

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8281890#post8281890 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Kathy55g
Let's not talk about ethics unless you want to start a new thread. This thread is about breeding angels.

Let's get back on track.
:confused: I suggest you read the initial post - the question was about the number of angels in a given tank size.

This is a breeders forum and breeding is the purpose we aim here.Non breeding issues like ethics,belong elsewhere.
You kicked him out?? What a way to treat someone who is politely stating his opinions. And I don't think you are even correct about what you're saying. Is it not reasonable that ethics of breeding would be discussed here? Or is it that ethics don't apply to breeding?
 
Hi Marie,
No one kicked anyone out. We are all just a little weary of discussing the ethics of what we do as if there was a fixed thing called ethics. What one person thinks is ethical is what another person thinks is inhumane. No one asks the fish. Until we hear from them, your guess is as good as mine. The only surely ethical thing to do is to leave them in the ocean. By this definition of ethics, all aquarium keepers are un-ethical. Given that this forum is about fish breeding, we are not leaving them in the ocean. We are un-ethical.

We are taking them out of the ocean to breed them and hopefully keep their relatives IN the ocean. We are ethical!

Very complicated ethics there. Do the ends justify the means? No one has an answer to that one. We are weary, I say.

I reread the initial post. Here's the answer to that post. The reason that some say not to put 2 angels in a small tank is that some think it to be unethical. Some do not. No one asked the fish. Given that all systems are different, all caretakers are different, and give different levels of care, you cannot send the ethical police without knowing more than tank size. Do you at least agree that the chances of 2 angels being happy in a small well cared for tank are at least as great as 2 angels in a large neglected tank? In my opinion, if you are concerned about ethics, don't keep fish, cats, dogs, or any living thing for your own selfish pleasure. Why should they be kept dependent on you and what you imagine is required for their happiness? Your imagination is the only data you have about their happiness. You can look at a dog and say it is happy, but how do you really know?

That said, there is hardly a single thing that Man does that does not take advantage of the natural world. Good or bad, it is what we do. Humans, like other animals, cannot survive otherwise.

That said, we are all guilty as charged, and we should all be nice to one another and not hurl accusations of inhumanity without first hand knowledge of all the facts, including what the fish think. Marie, jmaneyapanda and everyone else are certainly welcome to express their views about fish breeding right here in this thread, since it does seem to be about ethics, whatever that means.

Having said my thoughts on the matter, I bid you adieu, God bless, and good luck. I am too weary to post further. Gotta save my energy to go siphon fish poop.
Kathy
 
Last edited:
Kathy,
Fair enough - I fully understand the "weary" reference in your post - so I won't argue with anything you said. :)
 
I agree with Kathy, Luis et als,

this is a breeding forum, discuss ethics somewhere else, I havent dropped any flames but this brings me close. I have just dealt with some PETA, HSUS crap elsewhere and dont want to redo it here.

I enjoy this forum a LOT, great input here, from people who care. Thanks to their efforts, and others, many of these species that we love have a real chance to continue in the wild .

In many many years of breeding livestock, and working with fish I have never seen anyone of these "expletive deleteds" contribute anything positive to the future of a single species.

It takes incredible hutzpah for them to come here and to question 'ethics' of those working towards the future of our species. I no longer have the patience to deal with them, especially as respectfully as kathy and Luis have answered.

Nuff.
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=8287194#post8287194 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jake levi
I agree with Kathy, Luis et als,

this is a breeding forum, discuss ethics somewhere else, I havent dropped any flames but this brings me close. I have just dealt with some PETA, HSUS crap elsewhere and dont want to redo it here.

I enjoy this forum a LOT, great input here, from people who care. Thanks to their efforts, and others, many of these species that we love have a real chance to continue in the wild .

In many many years of breeding livestock, and working with fish I have never seen anyone of these "expletive deleteds" contribute anything positive to the future of a single species.

It takes incredible hutzpah for them to come here and to question 'ethics' of those working towards the future of our species. I no longer have the patience to deal with them, especially as respectfully as kathy and Luis have answered.

Nuff.
Maybe there should be a sticky explaining that ethics don't apply in the breeding forum. Or a an explanation that all of the breeders are trustworthy & good and have completely researched & thought these issues already and you may not question them. If you try to disagree or question any of us you will be asked to leave.

As far as hutzpah goes ??? I'd say Matt is the one with that - it looks to me like he just threw a couple of flames into a tank without the slightest effort to sex them first. Why? He doesn't "believe" in sexual dichromatism - (some of that is on the other thread)

I'm inclined to not accept coloration as a definitive identifier to begin with...we're not dealing with something as readily noticeable as an elongated dorsal spine (mandarins), completely different dorsal fin (i.e. scooter blennies), completely different coloration (i.e. many wrasses, anthias etc), or even worse, different morphology (i.e. seahorses). Instead, it seems like the flame angel sexing is on-par with bangaii cardinalfish sexing...there are "tendencies" but nothing definitive.
That not exactly the cutting edge kind of knowledge I'd expect from someone who is apparently considered beyond reproach.

Why Kathy and Luis jumped in to defend this kind of thinking is way beyond me - but it was obvious that Kathy jumped in without even reading the thread. I am still at at loss what Matt's experiment was even for - a little reading might have convinced him this was doable - & had already been done.

Matt's flame pairing log thread-http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=929670
 
Back
Top