I understand suggested tank sizes but I don't want a suggestion I want science. So if you or anyone else can't give my a scientific answer to what size fish can live in what size tank I'll use my own opinion.
While i agree that tank size recommendations are largely over rated and inaccurate in the saltwater trade, i don't think we agree on the reasons why.
The reason why i believe tank size recommendations are ridiculous is because IMO its really footprint that matters and not actual volume of the tank. With so many custom footprints out there, it is really hard to make a definitive statement about water volume recommendations.
For example, I have a 100g tank that has the same footprint of a standard 125, but it is shorter in height, thus reducing the tank volume. Would fish recognize the difference in volume from my tank to a 125? The answer is No. That additional height added to volume on the 125 goes largely unused by livestock anyways.
I however don't agree with your premise that because there is no science behind recommendations that we should keep whatever we want based on personal opinion. Common sense comes into play here.
I personally think the tank size recommendations for most bristle tooth tangs is on the low end. IMO its because so many hobbyists want to squeeze a tang into their tanks, that tank size recommendations shrink to the bare minimum for Bristle tooth tangs.
Personally i believe in overstocking tanks, but i don't believe in forcing a fish into a tank footprint that will be uncomfortable. There is definitely a difference.
Locally there is a Tomini tang living in a 600g. He is the most active fish in the display. he shares space with a Red Sea sail fin tang, purple tang, Naso Tang, and i know there's one more tang, but i cant remember what it is for the life of me. Point is the Tomini is the most active fish in this display, and that Tomini really changed my opinion on tank dimension recommendations for bristle tooth tangs.
