tangs debunked

Status
Not open for further replies.
R

royalflushcusto

New member
I don't know if this has ever been brought up but im curious. Im a big fan of tangs and surgeonfish. I see alot of discussions on here about them many time s not very nice things from ppl saying certain ones get too big for x amount of gallons or x feet long etc.. when I do research online or in books ill see some of these fish being claimed to grow huge lengths. My main interest would be sailfins that I've seen 18-24 in max size or clowns that are est. 18 in and powder blues that are 10in. Also regals that are 14est in. But what I see in the industry are never close to those sizes. I don't deny that maybe on one reef on one island there is ideal conditions that allow these fish to grow that big but what about a average size. Even in very economic friendly giant public aquariums I see this fish only maxing 75% of their est max growth. Am I the only onem that thinks this? Is it possible that something as small as elevation contributes to the size of a fish.
 
Which public aquariums have you been to? The Georgia Aquarium, Mandalay Bay in Las Vegas, Monterey Bay, and Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach are just a few of the ones that I've personally been to, and seen full grown sailfins, hippos, sohals, vlamingis, etc. They really can get that big in captivity... full max size.

That said, I'm sure there are many factors that contribute to fish growth, besides tank size. I had a friend with a 200+g tank with a hippo that never grew past 3" in a few years. Not sure why...
 
Last edited:
The Steinhart Aquarium here in SF has many fully grown tangs too. As for the actual growth of the fish in tanks, it is simple:if they are not growing to their maximum size in a tank it's either because 1) they are missing something in their diet, 2) their growth is constrained by the small size of the tank they are in, 3) that particular fish is just naturally small (there are naturally short people and naturally tall people, same goes for fish) or 4) a genetic defect or chronic disease.
 
I've been to Vegas long beach and montery bay as well as birch aquarium . I've never seen a sailfin bigger than 12 in and seen a bunch of them. Same as clown tangs. I've never seen one 10 in. Powder blues id say 7-8avg. Regals I've seen prob a 10 but just one mostly 8-9. I seen bigger in Vegas show aquariums at hotels etc but I will never believe that any of those are grown in tanks more or less replaced everyday from overcrowding and lack of consideration. I mostly goto aquarium of the pacific in long beach. Avg 2x a month I really enjoy their tropical display. I do believe that Nasos in particular do get huge. But I do still see info on them that seems hard to believe. Its like saying humans grow to be 6foot 10". Which isn't true but doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
 
I guess we saw different fish when we were at those aquariums :) .

Well, to be fair, max size is max size. Max does stand for maximum, as Luis pointed out.

So that said, I'm not sure how shaving off a couple inches changes anything. Different people have different thoughts on tank sizes and tangs. I don't think anyone's opinion would change based on +/- 1 or 2 inches.
 
What are you using to judge scale? (I'm seriously asking, not being snarky) I have the worst time judging scale in large displays, or even when I've been snorkeling. It always seems like the fish are smaller to me than ones that I have seen in smaller displays? When snorkeling, its either huge or tiny, very rarely in between.
Also, I disagree with the 4 simple reasons above. I think they are valid, but I just don't think its that simple. These fish have evolved over millions of years to their specific environment... the number of factors involved in that are immense, and even the 4 broad based categories don't seem to cover it IMHO. There's no mention of water parameters in those, nor the effect that millions upon millions of gallons of water being pushed and pulled by the moon has... As hard as we try to provide an "natural" captive environment, even in large aquariums, we aren't even coming close to what is really occurring. So, while I'm in no way saying those 4 factors aren't valid, I am saying that there are things that we don't even know we SHOULD be measuring that we aren't providing the animal. I don't believe we are necessarily harming them, and wouldn't keep them if I did, but I do believe we as a species aren't nearly as advanced as we fancy ourselves to be.
 
spieszak said:
Also, I disagree with the 4 simple reasons above. I think they are valid, but I just don't think its that simple. These fish have evolved over millions of years to their specific environment... the number of factors involved in that are immense, and even the 4 broad based categories don't seem to cover it IMHO. There's no mention of water parameters in those, nor the effect that millions upon millions of gallons of water being pushed and pulled by the moon has... As hard as we try to provide an "natural" captive environment, even in large aquariums, we aren't even coming close to what is really occurring. So, while I'm in no way saying those 4 factors aren't valid, I am saying that there are things that we don't even know we SHOULD be measuring that we aren't providing the animal. I don't believe we are necessarily harming them, and wouldn't keep them if I did, but I do believe we as a species aren't nearly as advanced as we fancy ourselves to be.
Click to expand...

Ok, add a number 5) unknown environmental factors.

As for the original topic, I totally agree with Peter, even if we change the max size by 2-3 inches, min tank sizes won't change.
 
Ok im not trying to nit pick on 1-2in just examples. But how about two specifics: clown and sailfin tangs. If its recorded that a sailfin will grow to be 24 in. But really averages 12 in that's a huge difference in aquarium suitablity in my opinion. Same for clown tangs. I read 18 in but only see averaging 10 in. Both I have seen cause major arguments on how big of a tank ppl have them in and criticism on how they will absolutely outgrow anything.
 
I think clown tangs get more attention due to their aggressive nature and size, not size alone.

I've never heard of a sailfin tang getting 2 feet long. They do get more than a foot, though. Whether it's going to get 12", 14", or 16", I don't think makes much of a difference.
 
Last edited:
I have a digital camera that has a range finder. I can take the image with the distance I have a program that can give me the length. And I've seen a sailfin in Vegas that was 18+ in. I asked this question because I was tired of seeing everyone using info formation that may not be correct or realistic to tell someone else that what they are doing isn't right. But clearly its a matter of no matter what topic it is you are right and everyone else is wrong. I give up.
 
royalflushcusto said:
But clearly its a matter of no matter what topic it is you are right and everyone else is wrong. I give up.
Click to expand...

Wow, ok.

I'm not sure what your point of this thread was, so I'm not sure I ever said everyone else is wrong. Sure, you are wrong about sailfin tangs getting to 24" max size. But I see Luis and I both said that not all fish reach their max size.... not that it really makes a difference regarding tank size though. And I think that's the most "realistic" point here...

BTW, you seem awfully agitated about this whole topic, for a new member...
 
Last edited:
You have to take into consideration that most of the fish don't grow to max size in captivity. The lifespan of fish seems to be longer in the wild than in captivity(not including the ones eaten by predators). If they did younger in captivity they don't grow as big. Fish don't grow the way humans do. They don't reach 6" and stop growing. All fish grow as long as they live. So if you have a fish for 16 years, then it has been growing everyday for 16 years.
 
Based upon LA, the maximum size for a sailfin tang is 1'4" (16 inches) and the recommendation is a 180g tank. It sounds like the OP wants to "debunk" the idea that tangs should be kept in larger tanks (e.g., 180g for a Sailfin Tang) because they don't really get to their maximum size as mentioned in various sources. The OP apparently has a 120g tank. This means that based upon the recommended sizes, he should not have a Sailfin Tang or a Clown Tang (or a Hippo Tang) for that matter. I surmise that he actually wants to put one or more of these tangs in his 120g tank and is using his personal observations that these tangs don't grow as large as claimed purportedly as a justification for putting them in smaller tanks. But it sounds like from the other posters in this thread, max size is not the only factor utilized in determining the appropriate minimum tank size. So the OP's personal observations (even if accurate) do not appear to be a valid justification for deviating from the recommended minimum tank size. Perhaps, the OP wanted to find others on RC who would agree with his personal observation as a justification for deviation so that he could purchase the tangs he wants for his 120g? That is my reading of this thread. Maybe I am wrong.
 
SDguy said:
Wow, ok.

I'm not sure what your point of this thread was, so I'm not sure I ever said everyone else is wrong. Sure, you are wrong about sailfin tangs getting to 24" max size. But I see Luis and I both said that not all fish reach their max size.... not that it really makes a difference regarding tank size though. And I think that's the most "realistic" point here...

BTW, you seem awfully agitated about this whole topic, for a new member...
Click to expand...

Actually, given the newness to this board, the OP is copping quite an attitude. That will not take him/her very far here.
 
royalflushcusto said:
I have a digital camera that has a range finder. I can take the image with the distance I have a program that can give me the length. And I've seen a sailfin in Vegas that was 18+ in. I asked this question because I was tired of seeing everyone using info formation that may not be correct or realistic to tell someone else that what they are doing isn't right. But clearly its a matter of no matter what topic it is you are right and everyone else is wrong. I give up.
Click to expand...

And I am wondering why you are showing such an attitude for a new member with little perspective of the board and other, more experienced member's view points.
 
Daniel Reef said:
Based upon LA, the maximum size for a sailfin tang is 1'4" (16 inches) and the recommendation is a 180g tank. It sounds like the OP wants to "debunk" the idea that tangs should be kept in larger tanks (e.g., 180g for a Sailfin Tang) because they don't really get to their maximum size as mentioned in various sources. The OP apparently has a 120g tank. This means that based upon the recommended sizes, he should not have a Sailfin Tang or a Clown Tang (or a Hippo Tang) for that matter. I surmise that he actually wants to put one or more of these tangs in his 120g tank and is using his personal observations that these tangs don't grow as large as claimed purportedly as a justification for putting them in smaller tanks. But it sounds like from the other posters in this thread, max size is not the only factor utilized in determining the appropriate minimum tank size. So the OP's personal observations (even if accurate) do not appear to be a valid justification for deviating from the recommended minimum tank size. Perhaps, the OP wanted to find others on RC who would agree with his personal observation as a justification for deviation so that he could purchase the tangs he wants for his 120g? That is my reading of this thread. Maybe I am wrong.
Click to expand...

Sounds right on to me. He has his new clown tang now for a month. :spin2:
 
SDguy said:
I think clown tangs get more attention due to their aggressive nature and size, not size alone.

I've never heard of a sailfin tang getting 2 feet long. They do get more than a foot, though. Whether it's going to get 12", 14", or 16", I don't think makes much of a difference.
Click to expand...

Look at the diffrence in reality- your 12 14 or 16 is a small medium or large pizza sizes- and when you add mass of the circle it is a huge difference. One must remember that many of the standards of fish length were first published by axelrod and burgess- and are not terribly accurate- but often repeated as correct. I have had several fishes get larger than their max recorded size, while in the aquarium. Fish stunt for many reasons- schooling fish in particular exibit this behavior-so tang stunting when alone even should not be a suprise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
Compatibility
Replies
3
Views
259
wvned
wvned
Z
Tank Size For Pairing Fish
Replies
7
Views
529
OrionN
OrionN
Guygettnby
How old of a tank to buy?
Replies
8
Views
353
griss
griss
Z
Wrasse compatibility
Replies
0
Views
348
ZanaZoola14
Z
P
DIY Hang on back Sump Tank
Replies
14
Views
445
kharmaguru
kharmaguru
Back
Top