Reef Safe Angels?
- Thread starter digidana
- Start date
Flavum
New member
Alot of the angels in the genus Centropygy which belongs to the family Pomacanthidae have a good shot at not eating your corals.
personally have only had only tried the flame angel (Centropyge loricula) and he was booted promptly for munching on my acans ! However Trey has a cherub angel and Ive known several people to keep the coral beauty angels without trouble. Flamebacks are another that do well but stay tiny.
personally have only had only tried the flame angel (Centropyge loricula) and he was booted promptly for munching on my acans ! However Trey has a cherub angel and Ive known several people to keep the coral beauty angels without trouble. Flamebacks are another that do well but stay tiny.
I kept a blue face angel in my reef for about 5 years with no problems, but I was probably just lucky. I had her in another tank that had to be taken down abruptly and didn't want to get rid of her so I put her in the reef. I kept her well fed, but if I was going to add any large angel I would watch it closely that is not the norm. Most dwarf angels are considered reef safe. Make sure they are eating frozen food good before adding to you tank and keep them feed well and you shouldn't have a problem.
cee
New member
Bellus and wantanabe (probably named after a Japanese ichthyologist)
vol_reefer
New member
Regals are reef-safe most of the time, but considered tricky to keep because it's hard to get them feeding. The orange-bellied ones from the Indian Ocean/Red Sea are supposed to do better than the bluish-bellied ones from the Pacific. I had an orange-belied one for about three years - all she ever picked on was zoas, and she left all my stonies alone.
When the Regal died, I replaced her with a Goldflake angel from Christmas Island (via DFS). This angel has also been very reef safe in my tank (although I haven't tempted him with any softies - zoas could be a problem again). And Goldflakes have a reputation for being much hardier than Regals. The big downside to Goldflakes is they are expensive and don't come up very often. But if your tank is nice and stable and has enough space with compatible tankmates, they're a decent investment in my opinion - awesome coloration and a decent community tankmate.
Jeff (vol_reefer)
When the Regal died, I replaced her with a Goldflake angel from Christmas Island (via DFS). This angel has also been very reef safe in my tank (although I haven't tempted him with any softies - zoas could be a problem again). And Goldflakes have a reputation for being much hardier than Regals. The big downside to Goldflakes is they are expensive and don't come up very often. But if your tank is nice and stable and has enough space with compatible tankmates, they're a decent investment in my opinion - awesome coloration and a decent community tankmate.
Jeff (vol_reefer)
Pandarian
Member
I've been on an angel binge over the last year and have been looking at reef safe angels. Also, at the MTRC frag swap, copps mentioned something that I haven't had much time to look at. It does, however, correlate with the thing's I have been reading and have found it true for the most part. So here is a summary of what I've learned. I could be wrong though as I have only had experience with a few species of angels in reefs.
From what I've found, the degree of reef compatibility pretty much aligns with their genera/subgenera. For instance, Centropyge subgenus Xiphypops (the pygmys, potters, flames...) are pretty much reef safe. However, fishes of the Centropyge subgenus Centropyge (bicolors, lemonpeels, eibl's...) are not. Paracentropyge (multibars, purplemasks) and Genicanthus spps are pretty much reef safe. I'm still undecided about the larger angels, as I have seen them in many reef tanks. I have heard they are suitable around sps and leathers/larger softies and will most likely be havoc on your lps and polyps. This is probably true among most angelfishes.
This part gets a little nerdy but, I've been looking at it and find it curious. I've only been able to skim through this article, but it's a study on the phylogenetics and distribution of angelfishes.
Bellwood DR, Herwerden L, Konow N. Evolution and biogeography of marine angelfishes. 2004. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33, 140-155.
One thing that prompt me to look at this is that in Endoh's Angelfishes of the World book, he writes that Centropyge Subgenus Centropyge have filed teeth on both jaws and are for eating polyps. I think it may be essential to look at phylogenetic relationships to help explain and categorize reef suitability for angelfishes. I think it will help explain a lot and hope it can make things clearer. Also, it would make more sense, because we would be basing the explanations on evolutionary advantages rather than speculation.
From what I've found, the degree of reef compatibility pretty much aligns with their genera/subgenera. For instance, Centropyge subgenus Xiphypops (the pygmys, potters, flames...) are pretty much reef safe. However, fishes of the Centropyge subgenus Centropyge (bicolors, lemonpeels, eibl's...) are not. Paracentropyge (multibars, purplemasks) and Genicanthus spps are pretty much reef safe. I'm still undecided about the larger angels, as I have seen them in many reef tanks. I have heard they are suitable around sps and leathers/larger softies and will most likely be havoc on your lps and polyps. This is probably true among most angelfishes.
This part gets a little nerdy but, I've been looking at it and find it curious. I've only been able to skim through this article, but it's a study on the phylogenetics and distribution of angelfishes.
Bellwood DR, Herwerden L, Konow N. Evolution and biogeography of marine angelfishes. 2004. Mol. Phylogenet. Evol. 33, 140-155.
One thing that prompt me to look at this is that in Endoh's Angelfishes of the World book, he writes that Centropyge Subgenus Centropyge have filed teeth on both jaws and are for eating polyps. I think it may be essential to look at phylogenetic relationships to help explain and categorize reef suitability for angelfishes. I think it will help explain a lot and hope it can make things clearer. Also, it would make more sense, because we would be basing the explanations on evolutionary advantages rather than speculation.
Quiet Tempest
New member
I don't mean to hijack but since you guys are on the topic of dwarf angels... are there any discernible differences between Fiji coral beauties and Indonesian coral beauties?
acrodave
REEF NERD
slight color difference. but if you did not tell any one they would still not see much of a difference
like the flames that come from MI are a real fire red. while the others are just red
macclellan
New member
Donny, you're walking on eggshells with this "evolution" and "phylogeny" stuff 'round here. 
Are there any good phylogenetic trees of Angelfish? That, combined with a working knowledge of their morphology would give a pretty systematic answer of their reef suitability. That's assuming that the relevant apomorphies occur higher up the tree than species or even genus level, because it wouldn't be helpful if it varied species to species.
Are there any good phylogenetic trees of Angelfish? That, combined with a working knowledge of their morphology would give a pretty systematic answer of their reef suitability. That's assuming that the relevant apomorphies occur higher up the tree than species or even genus level, because it wouldn't be helpful if it varied species to species.
Flavum
New member
Thats intresting donny ive heard something similar about the Trigger family as far as thier mouth and teeth go. catagorize animals into groups to explain or assume there habits specifically seems like an aweful good way to prove yourself wrong. You can generalize but every animal has its own personality. Animals are unpredictable.
Hey whats wrong with talking about MICROevolution thats a scientific proven fact. E.G. darwins finch.
Hey whats wrong with talking about MICROevolution thats a scientific proven fact. E.G. darwins finch.
Not going to jump Joel. Until you change your worldview, until you allow the possibility of something other than evolution being the driving cause for all that exists, there is no need to discuss it with you. I could describe my world view to you, but doing so would not change yours. Besides that, the created "ลkind"ย that has through mutation and natural selection become an "ลangelfish"ย (and probably many other species), need not resemble an angelfish, any more than a wolf should resemble a poodle.
EvilMel
is a serious goby fanatic
Donny...I would love to study those kinds of relationships, phylogenetically speaking. I have the know-how, just not the funding. You don't even have to kill the fish to obtain their DNA as I believe you can get enough of it out of a fin clip.
It sure would be cool to set up a lab and study that stuff.
It sure would be cool to set up a lab and study that stuff.
gdwats
New member
I had a coral beauty, and had to get rid of it for polyp munching. However, I have had a flame angel for about 8 yrs, just lucky I don't have any acanthastrea I guess.
Pandarian
Member
Joel, I didn't think I would be walking on egg shells talking about phylogenetics and evolution. I knew that there are a few academics that would appreciate it. Ie. you, Mel, Matt C., etc. But yes, there are a few phylogenetic trees on angelfishes that have been published. I believe the one I posted was the most recent one. I should probably sit down and dive into it deeper though. I did skim it and find their tree very interesting. They placed the C. Xiphypops subgenus in the same clade as Genicanthus and Paracentropyge. That is interesting because it moved C. Xiphypops, the reef safer Centropyges, to be more closely related to other reef safe genera and separated them from C. Centropyge. Anyway, you can probably check out the paper if you're interested. LMK if you can't find it. Also, yes you're correct. It's all relevant to the plesiomorphy/apomorphy.
Russell, yeah man. You're absolutely correct. Individual personality can influence how an angel acts in a reef tank. There are other influences that can come in effect as well. Ie. captivity, nutrition, etc... Those are all determinants on reef suitability. But, being able to look at phylogenetic relationships may help find some answers. I find the article posted interesting because the authors placed the Centropyges that we traditionally think are reef safe, to be closer related to other reef safe angels (ie. Genicanthus). I believe other phylogenetic trees in the pass combined C. Centropyge and C. Xiphypops. I just find it interesting.
Mel, yeah, I think that would be awesome to do that kind of work. And you can actually do it as well. Did you ever meet Tom Near? He was the professor of my Ichthyology class, but he worked on phylogenetics of fishes. Before he left UT, he said if I ever wanted to do that, to look him up. Imagine if I went that route instead. But they did just use fin clippings to get the genetic data.
Sorry to be long winded, but about the evolution vs. creationism argument... I will say that I would consider myself a hard core Christian. At the same time, I graduated with a degree in ecology and evolutionary biology. I believe it is futile to debate about either/or. I find it comical actually :lol: Bring on the flames...
Russell, yeah man. You're absolutely correct. Individual personality can influence how an angel acts in a reef tank. There are other influences that can come in effect as well. Ie. captivity, nutrition, etc... Those are all determinants on reef suitability. But, being able to look at phylogenetic relationships may help find some answers. I find the article posted interesting because the authors placed the Centropyges that we traditionally think are reef safe, to be closer related to other reef safe angels (ie. Genicanthus). I believe other phylogenetic trees in the pass combined C. Centropyge and C. Xiphypops. I just find it interesting.
Mel, yeah, I think that would be awesome to do that kind of work. And you can actually do it as well. Did you ever meet Tom Near? He was the professor of my Ichthyology class, but he worked on phylogenetics of fishes. Before he left UT, he said if I ever wanted to do that, to look him up. Imagine if I went that route instead. But they did just use fin clippings to get the genetic data.
Sorry to be long winded, but about the evolution vs. creationism argument... I will say that I would consider myself a hard core Christian. At the same time, I graduated with a degree in ecology and evolutionary biology. I believe it is futile to debate about either/or. I find it comical actually :lol: Bring on the flames...
Last edited:
gdwats
New member
Joel, I didn't think I would be walking on egg shells talking about phylogenetics and evolution. I knew that there are a few academics that would appreciate it. Ie. you, Mel, Matt C., etc. But yes, there are a few phylogenetic trees on angelfishes that have been published. I believe the one I posted was the most recent one. I should probably sit down and dive into it deeper though. I did skim it and find their tree very interesting. They placed the C. Xiphypops subgenus in the same clade as Genicanthus and Paracentropyge. That is interesting because it moved C. Xiphypops, the reef safer Centropyges, to be more closely related to other reef safe genera and separated them from C. Centropyge. Anyway, you can probably check out the paper if you're interested. LMK if you can't find it. Also, yes you're correct. It's all relevant to the plesiomorphy/apomorphy.
Russell, yeah man. You're absolutely correct. Individual personality can influence how an angel acts in a reef tank. There are other influences that can come in effect as well. Ie. captivity, nutrition, etc... Those are all determinants on reef suitability. But, being able to look at phylogenetic relationships may help find some answers. I find the article posted interesting because the authors placed the Centropyges that we traditionally think are reef safe, to be closer related to other reef safe angels (ie. Genicanthus). I believe other phylogenetic trees in the pass combined C. Centropyge and C. Xiphypops. I just find it interesting.
Mel, yeah, I think that would be awesome to do that kind of work. And you can actually do it as well. Did you ever meet Tom Near? He was the professor of my Ichthyology class, but he worked on phylogenetics of fishes. Before he left UT, he said if I ever wanted to do that, to look him up. Imagine if I went that route instead. But they did just use fin clippings to get the genetic data.
Sorry to be long winded, but about the evolution vs. creationism argument... I will say that I would consider myself a hard core Christian. At the same time, I graduated with a degree in ecology and evolutionary biology. I believe it is futile to debate about either/or. I find it comical actually :lol: Bring on the flames...
Someone asked about luck with certain angels, now, what on Earth are you talking about/to here? Perhaps it is my own degrees in chemistry and physics which are preventing me from seeing the big picture here. Did you answer a question? Because I was looking forward to a suggestion for the gut looking for a reef safe angel fish. Or maybe I missed the point altogether! Never-mind.
macclellan
New member
I'll have to check out that article; I'm sure I can get it online through UT.
Eddie, It's unfortunate that you think I need to change my worldview to discuss the issue; I like to think that rational debate is possible amongst people with different worldviews. I never claimed that it's impossible that there are other causes for all that exists. That's absurd; I'm a philosopher - researching and teaching possibilities is my day job. You are correct, however, that describing your worldview won't change my view on the truth of evolution (of course, there's much more to our worldviews than this, much of which is shared). I think that a basic requirement of any worldview is that it be consistent with available empirical evidence (what we can see and touch, etc) and the best explanations of this evidence. Evolution is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the best explanation of the empirical evidence in the life sciences. Does this mean Christianity is false? Of course it doesn't. Does this rule out some particular beliefs and reading particular biblical interpretations? Of course it does. Just like it did with the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism. A wise man I know says to "choose your Christianity carefully." What you say in your last sentence - that created kinds can mutate into one or more other species via natural selection (which is different from dogs and wolves, which are the same species) - is what evolution is (macroevolution is the creation of new species; mutation + selective pressure + time). If so, that's one more thing we agree on. :fish1:
Eddie, It's unfortunate that you think I need to change my worldview to discuss the issue; I like to think that rational debate is possible amongst people with different worldviews. I never claimed that it's impossible that there are other causes for all that exists. That's absurd; I'm a philosopher - researching and teaching possibilities is my day job. You are correct, however, that describing your worldview won't change my view on the truth of evolution (of course, there's much more to our worldviews than this, much of which is shared). I think that a basic requirement of any worldview is that it be consistent with available empirical evidence (what we can see and touch, etc) and the best explanations of this evidence. Evolution is, beyond all reasonable doubt, the best explanation of the empirical evidence in the life sciences. Does this mean Christianity is false? Of course it doesn't. Does this rule out some particular beliefs and reading particular biblical interpretations? Of course it does. Just like it did with the shift from geocentrism to heliocentrism. A wise man I know says to "choose your Christianity carefully." What you say in your last sentence - that created kinds can mutate into one or more other species via natural selection (which is different from dogs and wolves, which are the same species) - is what evolution is (macroevolution is the creation of new species; mutation + selective pressure + time). If so, that's one more thing we agree on. :fish1:
Amen. The either/or is passing to a both&and - these things take time. Just look at the history of heliocentrism overtaking geocentrism, which took centuries. Belief in evolution is as high as 80% in some Western countries (the U.S. is second to last amongst Western countries at about 40%), and Christianity is the main religion in almost all of these countries - many already hold a both&and view, including the Pope, slews of scientists, and philosophers, myself included.
Last edited:
gdwats
New member
Again, what on Earth are you people talking about? I thought the topic here was reef safe angelfish. I do get your Galileo vs Copernican metaphor, and associated ramblings, but what has that to do with reef safe angel fish? I'm so confused. My mom said I could talk about angelfish here, not angels. This has nothing to do with anyone's world views. I will check with her again.
Similar threads
