|
|
Angelfish and other loners
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes
from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche). For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish, which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli. Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo. My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color morphs. Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? -- www.NetMax.tk |
Angelfish and other loners
"NetMax" wrote in message ... Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche). For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish, which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli. Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo. My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color morphs. Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? -- www.NetMax.tk How about clowns loaches? I know there are several Botia......species, but clowns have distinct colouring from them, their behaviour is unique, and their synchromised swimming is superb, like none others. Mary |
Angelfish and other loners
NetMax wrote:
Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche). For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish, which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli. Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo. My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color morphs. Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? Interesting, and I have somthing for you the Coelacanth is a 400 million yeas old has no relations, especilly to the fact that is has limbs like our arms. No I'm not crazy I saw it on NOVA. science thinks that this is a link to Darwen's idea that all life came from water. Here check it out. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html |
Angelfish and other loners
"Mary Burns" wrote in message
... "NetMax" wrote in message ... Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche). For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish, which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli. Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo. My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color morphs. Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? -- www.NetMax.tk How about clowns loaches? I know there are several Botia......species, but clowns have distinct colouring from them, their behaviour is unique, and their synchromised swimming is superb, like none others. Mary While nothing compares with the precocious nature of the Clown loach, it could be argued that some of their uniqueness is lost to their 34 other cousins (from WebCity master Index). Because I was curious (and control-C and control-V are so easy, and I hope Mary won't mind) here is the WebCity samples for your viewing pleasure. Botia almorhae "Yellow-Fin Botia" `Netzschmerle` Botia beauforti "Beauforti's Loach" "Beaufort's Loach" `Beauforts Schmerle` Botia berdmorei "Polkadot Botia" Botia birdi Botia caudipunctata Botia dario "Bengal Loach" "Queen Loach" `Grüne Bänderschmerle` Botia dayi Botia eos "Sun Loach" `Sonnenschmerle` Botia fasciata, Botia multifasciata Botia geto Botia helodes "Banded Loach" "Tiger Loach" `Tigerschmerle` Botia hymenophysa "Banded Loach" "Tiger Loach" "Indonesian Banded Loach" Botia lecontei "Le Conti's Loach" "Red-Finned Loach" "Red-Tailed Blue Shark" "Leconte's Loach" "Gold Fin Loach" `Le Conte-Schmerle` `Rotflossenprachtschmerle` Botia lohachata, Botia lochata "Pakistani Loach" "Pakistani Shark" "Yo-Yo Loach" "Y-Loach" `Netzschmerle` Botia longidorsalis Botia longiventralis "Eighteen Barred Loach" Botia lucas bahi "Barred Loach" Botia macracanthus, Botia macracantha, Botia macranthus "Clown Loach" "Tiger Botia" "Tiger Loach" `Prachtschmerle` Botia macrolineata Botia modesta, Botia rubripinnis "Orange-Finned Loach" "Blue Botia" "Blue Loach" `Grüne Schmerle` Botia morleti, Botia horae "Hora's Loach" "Cream Botia" "Skunk Loach" `Horas Schmerle` `Aalstrichschmerle` Botia nebulosa, Botia Acanthocobitis Botia nigrolineata `Schwarzstreifen-Prachtschmerle` Botia pulchra Botia pulchripinnis "Red-Finned Loach" Botia reevesae Botia reversa Botia robusta, Botia rostrata, Botia hirdi, Botia histrionica, Botia geto ? "Ladder Loach" "Mongoose Loach" `Kansuschmerle` Botia rubipinnus "Red-Finned Loach" `Grüne Schmerle` Botia rubrilabris Botia sidthimunki "Dwarf Loach" "Chain Botia" `Zwergschmerle` `Schachbrettschmerle` Botia striata, Botia strigata, Botia weinbergi "Zebra Loach" "Striped Botia" `Aebraschmerle` `Steifenschmerle` Botia superciliaris `Spitzkopfschmerle` Botia taenia Botia variegata Source: http://www.webcityof.com/miffidx.htm I don't know if any of these can do synchronized swimming like Clowns do, but they should all be given a fair chance ;~). As botia, the Clowns *are* probably unique for their eventual size in the wild though. -- www.NetMax.tk |
Angelfish and other loners
"Justice" wrote in message
news:9o4gf.153496$Io.26657@clgrps13... NetMax wrote: Most fish have a tremendous amount of 'cousins'. The Neon tetra comes from a huge family of tetras - danios, mbuna, corys, rainbowfish all have huge 'families'. Plecos are so diversified that new discoveries are all simply numbered (ie:L121, L122 etc). Even fish which we might think are unique, such as the Siamese fighting fish come from a very large 'family' (Genus Betta). The same for Guppies, Firemouths, Geos and many others we might think unique. At the other extreme, for whatever evolutionary reason, certain fish are practically 'alone' in this world (thinking along the lines of shape, behaviour and niche). For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. My vote for the top three unique fish would start with the Angelfish, which incidentally is classified into more than one species, but among the experts, this topic is hotly debated and rarely agreed upon. At a glance, it started with Pterophyllum scalare & P.altum with discussions about P.eimekei - but now it's P.scalare, P.altum, P.leopoldi and P.dumerilli. Experts aside (and I'm sidetracking), these evolutionary variants are fairly 'recent', and if experts have trouble distinguishing between them, then perhaps we shouldn't worry about it ;~). In practical terms, 99.99% of the Angelfish sold today are P.scalare in color/fin morphs (marble, black, golden, veiltail etc) and the remaining .01% are wild caught P.altums (silver wild coloration/marking)..imo. My vote #2 goes to the Pompadourfish (what?). Now more commonly called the Discus ;~). Here again, perhaps the experts are splitting hairs, and there are two species Symphysodon discus and S.aequifaciatus and various sub-species (willischwartzi, axelrodi, haraldi etc), but essentially, besides slight variations in color patterns and ray counts, it's the same fish, and there are many color morphs. Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? Interesting, and I have somthing for you the Coelacanth is a 400 million yeas old has no relations, especilly to the fact that is has limbs like our arms. No I'm not crazy I saw it on NOVA. science thinks that this is a link to Darwen's idea that all life came from water. Here check it out. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/fish/anatomy.html Yup definitely holds the record (imo) for most unique. Thanks for the link. That notocord is a real throwback. I *was* thinking about freshwater fish we could keep in an aquarium though ;~), and if we open this up to marine life, then it will get really weird (how about the Seahorse?). -- www.NetMax.tk |
Angelfish and other loners
|
Angelfish and other loners
On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:01:49 -0500, NetMax wrote:
Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? The reedfish is the only fish in its genus, and the only fish in family polypteridae to depart from the basic bichir body. The FW butterfly is likely a good candidate for this honour as well. |
Angelfish and other loners
NetMax wrote:
For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche? In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped cichlids? Cliff |
Angelfish and other loners
On 21 Nov 2005 00:52:45 -0800, "Cliff L"
wrote: NetMax wrote: For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche? In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped cichlids? Cliff You all are discussing part of my problem with "Evolution", how enough survived accidents in particularly unique niches can survive twice within a reproducible time frame, it does take two to reproduce. Think male and female Peacock, sure you can argue the female is attracted to the beautiful feathers, but also think how hard it is for the male to run to catch her or evade destruction from a less beautiful display. And, how did the female come to find the riot of colors and patterns "sexy?" Further, I would like to see a specific gene that can accidentally change to create a pattern such as seen on the Clown fish (or peacock). You may find a nich rational, but finding one survivable gene change requires real imagination. To make things more complicated, recent knowledge about genes suggest one gene does more than one thing, then there are all those other cellular functions that must cooperate for the gene to survive and do something useful. dick |
Angelfish and other loners
On Mon, 21 Nov 2005 11:40:51 -0600, Rocco Moretti wrote:
What you are neglecting in your conception of evolution is time. Evolution happens slowly over a long period of time. Species develop gradually - a new species doesn't just spring fully formed from Zeus's head. snip Thanks, Rocco. You saved me a bit of writing with that excellent exposition. People just don't realize how long a few billion years really is :-). BTW, for the original poster, I recently read of a computer simulation which suggested that a complete eye could have evolved from a slightly photosensitive cell in less than 500 generations. In actuality, it probably took quite a bit longer due to horde of other factors. |
Angelfish and other loners
Dick wrote:
On 21 Nov 2005 00:52:45 -0800, "Cliff L" wrote: NetMax wrote: For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche? In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped cichlids? Cliff You all are discussing part of my problem with "Evolution", how enough survived accidents in particularly unique niches can survive twice within a reproducible time frame, it does take two to reproduce. Think male and female Peacock, sure you can argue the female is attracted to the beautiful feathers, but also think how hard it is for the male to run to catch her or evade destruction from a less beautiful display. And, how did the female come to find the riot of colors and patterns "sexy?" What you are neglecting in your conception of evolution is time. Evolution happens slowly over a long period of time. Species develop gradually - a new species doesn't just spring fully formed from Zeus's head. (Even when you hear about certain theories arguing for "quick" speciation, they're talking about over dozens of generations, at least, not in one generation.) "Species" as a distinct grouping only makes sense if you look at a single period of time. If you look through time, one generation blends into the next. To take your example of peafowl, there wasn't one sunny day when a peacock with a large tail and a peahen with a lust for large tails hatched and found themselves together - the species developed over time. "In the beginning" there was probably just a dull bird. For some reason, there happened to be a subset of females which *slightly* preferred male birds with larger, brighter tails. Just through natural variation within the species, there were males with slightly larger, slightly brighter tails (but nothing close to what we see in peafowl today). These birds mated, and produced offspring which were more likely, on average, to have bigger tails, and like mates with bigger tails (since offspring are more like their parents than a random bird in the population). It turns out that the females which preferred birds with big tails did better in their mate choice than those who preferred ones with duller tails, even if you ignore tail causing genes. It takes energy to grow a bigger tail - birds with big tails are more likely to be good at finding food than dull tails (the ones that weren't would die). Birds with bright tails are healthier (sick animals look paler) - more likely to have genes that protect against disease. Mating age birds with big tails are better at avoiding predators - they're easier to spot, so if they survive, they must be better. Females which pick males with big tails will thus select mates which are more likely to survive - their children will be more likely to survive than those of dull females who choose dull males. There can be some "freeloaders", birds with bright tails who don't have other good genes, and are just lucky to have survived that long. But over time, their offsprings' luck will run out, and bright tails will be correlated to good genes. Over time a few things can happen: a) Some other influence becomes big and disadvantages those birds with big tails (e.g. increased predation). The species makes a turn and other traits besides big tails get selected for. b) The bright females choose bright males, and the dull females choose dull males. Over time, they get more and more selective in their choices, and the two groups no longer interbreed - you now have two species, one bright, one dull. c) The bright birds have enough of an advantage from those other genes that they become more numerous than the dull birds, and eventually, the dull subset fades away. The important thing is this all happens over time, and works with averages and populations - there isn't a single moment or single bird which we can point to and say "this is the first peacock!" The peacock grew slowly from its duller ancestor. Individuals don't evolve - populations do. Further, I would like to see a specific gene that can accidentally change to create a pattern such as seen on the Clown fish (or peacock). You may find a nich rational, but finding one survivable gene change requires real imagination. To make things more complicated, recent knowledge about genes suggest one gene does more than one thing, then there are all those other cellular functions that must cooperate for the gene to survive and do something useful. You answer your own question. Genes do multiple things. There (probably) is no single "peacock tail" gene. The tail is created by multiple genes which are also involved in other things. A slight perturbation in this network may cause death (and routinely does - look at the number of dead baby animals in the wild), but it may be more-or-less neutral, or may cause a slight change that makes the animal *slightly* more likely to pass that gene onto it's children than a "normal" animal will pass its "normal" gene onto it's children. Over time that slight advantage will build up in the population. "Evolution" doesn't care by what mechanism it happens, or what the result appears like to humans - as long as the animal is more likely to pass it's genes on than its competitor, that's all that matters. |
Angelfish and other loners
"Alpha" wrote in message
... This is the one. http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/gpantodon.html I have to admit that when I was in the trade and could've ordered any fish I wanted, I never bought any Butterfly fish. I'd have to research their requirements, set up a tank, train the staff and have a story ready for customers, and I wasn't even sure if they were appropriate aquarium fish. Sure interesting looking though. -- www.NetMax.tk |
Angelfish and other loners
"Cliff L" wrote in message
ups.com... NetMax wrote: For these loners, was the process of evolution so harsh that every other variant was exterminated, or perhaps their environments were so inhospitable to having more than one of something? If their survival was so precarious, it gives me the feeling that it's only by the slimmest of chances that we have them here today, and that many unique fishes simply did not survive long enough to have been seen by modern man. Or perhaps these unique fishes were so successful that they simply mastered the niche they found and prevented any competition through diversification. I'm grateful we have discus and angels. But what *is* their niche? In what situation do they have an edge over standard-shaped cichlids? Cliff Stealth. Most predator fish register much more predominantly across a prey fish's lateral line, due to their width. Because Angelfish are so narrow, they can literally sneak up directly behind an unsuspecting meal, and gobble them up. Most cichlids use speed, manoeuvrability and strength in their attack. Angelfish lack those talents, but they can drift around like a flat leaf toward unsuspecting prey. I don't know Discus well enough to be familiar with their survival techniques, but I assume their unique shape is for a reason. I have the impression that they are more of a micro-predator grazer, so their shape might have something to do with their environment (squeezing through tight roots), but this is speculative on my part. -- www.NetMax.tk |
Angelfish and other loners
"Empty" wrote in message ... On Sun, 20 Nov 2005 11:01:49 -0500, NetMax wrote: Vote #3 is not so obvious. perhaps the Elephant-nose fish or Mono (Monodactylus argenteus with one cousin, the Sebae). Hatchetfish are quite unique (Silver or Marble species). Anyone have any other suggestions? The reedfish is the only fish in its genus, and the only fish in family polypteridae to depart from the basic bichir body. The FW butterfly is likely a good candidate for this honour as well. Indeed it is. |
Angelfish and other loners
"NetMax" wrote in message ... "Alpha" wrote in message ... This is the one. http://www.aquahobby.com/gallery/gpantodon.html I have to admit that when I was in the trade and could've ordered any fish I wanted, I never bought any Butterfly fish. I'd have to research their requirements, set up a tank, train the staff and have a story ready for customers, and I wasn't even sure if they were appropriate aquarium fish. Sure interesting looking though. -- www.NetMax.tk I have had great success with them in community tanks. They are one of the few with their own genus and species. |
Angelfish and other loners
"Alpha" wrote in message ... I have had great success with them in community tanks. They are one of the few with their own genus and species. =================== So did I, until they reached sexual maturity and decided to breed. They'd then take over most of the 55g tank for themselves. I wont keep Angels anymore. -- My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o |
Angelfish and other loners
Koi-lo wrote: "Alpha" wrote in message ... I have had great success with them in community tanks. They are one of the few with their own genus and species. =================== So did I, until they reached sexual maturity and decided to breed. They'd then take over most of the 55g tank for themselves. I wont keep Angels anymore. -- My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o So did I, until they reached sexual maturity and decided to breed. They'd then take over most of the 55g tank for themselves. I wont keep Angels anymore. -- Thank goodness!!! Spawning Angelfish should be in a tank by themselves anyway. |
Angelfish and other loners
"Tynk" wrote in message oups.com... Koi-lo wrote: "Alpha" wrote in message ... I have had great success with them in community tanks. They are one of the few with their own genus and species. =================== So did I, until they reached sexual maturity and decided to breed. They'd then take over most of the 55g tank for themselves. I wont keep Angels anymore. -- My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o Thank goodness!!! Spawning Angelfish should be in a tank by themselves anyway. =================== Exactly. Since I had *no interest* in spawning them or raising Angel fry they were not given a tank to themselves. I sold them. -- Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995... My Pond & Aquarium Pages: http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy ~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:43 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FishKeepingBanter.com