Oxymonacanthus longirostris - a week in review.

["Umm fish?"]

Mine haven't seen a coral since March 1st. The experienced reefkeepers are not correct.

This is what my pair's eggs look like:

Matt's successfully raised larvae to juvenile (and is still the only one to have done so) and he keeps broodstock in 24 gal. nano tanks.

Renee looks like she's doing fine to me. In fact, her fish is a lot farther along for its time in captivity as far as eating goes than mine were, and I do believe that I still own the record for shortest time from acquisition to documented spawning behavior.

 

["Umm fish?"]

Here's a link for you: http://www.ummfish.com/

You might also try the March/April issue of Coral magazine.

And another thread: http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=1922

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Matt

Matt

as in Wittenrich?

thanks for the links.

 

["Umm fish?"]

No, the other Matt, Matt Pedersen. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

no problem. I should have read the links first!

By your own admission Andy (and I quote you here):
"A disclaimer: While I believe that the harlequin filefish is not impossible to keep, it is still a very, very hard thing to get them to accept substitute foods. I have kept other difficult fish including cleaner wrasses and "œobligate" corallivorous butterflyfish. The harlequins were by far the most difficult to get onto substitute foods. If you wish to try them you should understand that these creatures require a large amount of commitment on your part, up to and including the possibility that you may have to provide these fish with live coral in a quantity that will sustain them every single day for the rest of their lives if you cannot get them to eat substitute foods. Or, the fish you get might be like mine who possibly never even took live coral. If they had not started on frozen foods they would have died. In addition, these fish require lots of care to their water quality, meaning you have to do what you have to do to keep quality high despite the fact that you have to feed them a lot of food. And you really cannot skimp on their feedings. If that means daily water changes, then that is what it takes to keep them. Most of all, keeping these fish means that you have to be able to tell yourself: I will do what it takes to keep them alive. If you cannot say that to yourself then please do not try them, for the sake of the fish. Thanks. Lecture over."
end quote

the aquarium in which your fishes spawned is hardly sterile. It strongly resembles a reef aquarium, correct?

 

["Umm fish?"]

Actually, it strongly resembles a fish-only aquarium. It had three pieces of base rock when it started. Now the rock's live. The only cnidarian is the occasional aiptasia that pops up and which they ignore until I kill it.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

from Matt Pederson's list (in the link) how many of these aquariums are "fish only" systems?

Blue Zoo - 1m/11f*
SaltwaterFish - 4m/2f*
Beyond The Reef (LFS) - 3m/9f**
Living Sea (LFS) - 5m/10f/1j**
Eric Borneman's Fish - 1f ***
Greg Hiller's Fish -1f ***
Stanley Genadek's Fish - 1f ***
Terri's Fish - 2m/1f*,***
Sara B - 6m*
StevenMI - 1f***
Charumi Aquarium - 1m***
netjammer - 1m/1f***
Atlantis Aquarium - 2m/2f*
Fish Planet - 11m/2f*
Umm Fish (Andy in CO) - 1m/1f***
craiglanda on RC - 1f***
Amphibious (thingy) - questionable, because it was once female, but now male. I'm putting it in the ? category
Kevin Pockell - 1m/1f***
Janelle (Phirefly) vai Blue Zoo -> 2?
Dom - 1m/1f*** - after seeing pictures at viewtopic.php?p=41269#41269 - they are male and female
Tabatha - 1f***

Total - 39m/47f/1j/3?

*denotes reported data
** denotes first hand data
***denotes data confirmed with photographs[/quote]

these are the aquarists I was referring to earlier in this thread.

BTW, the aquarists having the greatest success with this species are _not_ maintaining them in reef aquaria.

do you have others?

 

[LisaD]

apparently, success has happened both ways. I'll be interested in the continuing stories of ummfish's and seahorsedreams' files.

 

["Umm fish?"]

I think Matt's list was intended as a look at sexual distribution. I'm not quite sure what questions he intended to be answered with the data he was collecting. But, he did not put together his list with how they were being kept, and I'm not up on the particulars of all of them.

I think Eric had his in a lagoon habitat (corals and seagrasses) and wound up losing the fish in hurricane Hugo.

http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=6254

http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=5474

http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=5606
(I think Sanjay has since lost some of his fish. I personally believe that they are very aggressive to conspecific consexuals, so my suspicion is aggression within the group.)

http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=4730
(This one's in a reef.)

http://www.marinebreeder.org/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=191&t=4746
(This one is also in a reef, but has been trained to alternative foods, though there's been no recent updates and I think the blog referred to in the post no longer exists.)

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Matt's list may have been originally intended as a look at sexual distribution but it serves equally as well to show just how many experienced reefkeepers are keeping them in reef aquariums.

The experienced reefkeepers are not correct.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

apparently, success has happened both ways. I'll be interested in the continuing stories of ummfish's and seahorsedreams' files.

not to take away from anyone's experiences but I'll be interested in ALL of the continuing stories. Wouldn't it be something if they all lead to the same conclusion...

that perhaps Oxymonacanthus longirostris benefits from being placed in a reef aquarium (or FOWLR) because it requires a constant supply of food?

 

[SDguy]

that perhaps Oxymonacanthus longirostris benefits from being placed in a reef aquarium (or FOWLR) because it requires a constant supply of food?

Do you mean constant as in added continuously, or as in food items available in the tank?

 

["Umm fish?"]

Matt's list may have been originally intended as a look at sexual distribution but it serves equally as well to show just how many experienced reefkeepers are keeping them in reef aquariums.

How? I don't see any data in the list on how the fish are being kept. As I said, I'm not up on the particulars on most of those situations.

You said above that experienced reefkeepers claim that corals are necessary to keep these fish. If it is the case that experienced reefkeepers claim that, then experienced reefkeepers _are_ wrong. I have two absolutely lovely examples of these fish that exist with no corals. They spawn--repeatedly and regularly--which was your definition of success. So, it's pretty clear that "necessary" is not the relationship of corals to these fish. Gut content analysis of wild specimens does not show 100% acropora polyps in the bellies of these fish (it's a pretty high percentage though). So, even wild specimens are eating things other than coral.

Given that I've shown you fish that exist perfectly happily for a decent term with no corals in the diet, I think it's now up to you to tell me what the "magic" ingredient in coral flesh is that these fish cannot live without. I personally believe (theory alert ) that there is no magic ingredient. Coral flesh is, in the end, flesh and probably not very nutritious flesh at that. If you can teach them that other flesh is food, then they will likely get _better_ nutrition than they would on a coral diet. (End of theory.)

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

Do you mean constant as in added continuously, or as in food items available in the tank?

rarely (if ever) can they survive long term (and spawn) without a continual supply of food items within the aquarium and purely on aquarist preparations.

 

[SDguy]

rarely (if ever) can they survive long term (and spawn) without a continual supply of food items within the aquarium as opposed to purely on aquarist preparations.

Is that what you meant?

 

["Umm fish?"]

So, Gary, it sounds like your definition has changed. You started the day with these fish as obligate corallivores and now you're willing to allow them to be omnivorous carnivores?

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

yes, Peter- the shortcomings of a sterile FO environment will not be corrected by any aquarists round the clock feedings.
As for the nutrition of coral flesh I wonder myself.
If I knew the answer I would be keeping a lot of obligate coral feeders.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

So, Gary, it sounds like your definition has changed. You started the day with these fish as obligate corallivores and now you're willing to allow them to be omnivorous carnivores?

actually it hasn't. Re-read this thread.
IME this species isn't an obligate corallivore by any stretch of the imagination

 

[SDguy]

yes, Peter- the shortcomings of a sterile FO environment will not be corrected by any aquarists round the clock feedings.
As for the nutrition of coral flesh I wonder myself.
If I knew the answer I would be keeping a lot of obligate coral feeders.

The ones I saw last week were in fact in a reef, but no SPS that I could see. They were literally obese, IMO. I'm sure they are fed often per day.

Gary, I am right there with you waiving the flags of nonsense when people buy ornate butterflies and such, but it seems people are in fact keeping this filefish alive. It just takes work.

 

[Gary Majchrzak]

having kept one myself I totally agree with you, Peter

The OP here lost one so very quickly I thought a helpful suggestion might save the second one: get it out of QT and into a reef aquarium ASAP.

not a good scenario