Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”Deepin peat” post=3779] Peter, do you think this is becouse of low content of ekdysteroids in the commonly used food? Of course there may be multiple causes for this but I was not able to find any data on ekdysteroids content in Artemia and Moina even though common logic makes me think they have to be there becouse they are also moulting.[/quote]
I really don’t know, but I could imagine that this is the cause. Sorry, I can’t say it more precisely. I say “thank you” for the paper, too.
Mosquito larvae and pupae are the best food for Paros readily available during the warm season everywhere. There are two reasons for it:
1. This food is the nearest to the natural food they get and like at home, not the same, but near to it. They like it very much. If you feed them several different foods at the same time including mosquito larvae they go straightly for them. This is due to the bigness and quickness of their movements, too.;
2. Adult Paros get safely ready for spawning by it. This is sometimes a problem. Some other foods do not safely lead to that end.
If you are used to feed Artemia naupliae to them (only good when they are freshly hatched) you are much astonished about Paros trying to catch big mosquito larvae. Before having seen this one does not think them to be able or willing to take such big stuff. But having seen that, you see that permanent feeding on that small stuff Artemia is good with respect to the nutritional value (they mostly get ready for spawning by this either), but bad with respect to missing bigness and motion of the prey.
Unfortunately, the biggest mosquito larvae and very often the pupae are too big even for big adult Paros. Nevertheless, they try to catch them but often fail. The biggest pupae are too hard, too. But you can harvest them in any stage of development, even as eggs for hatching in the tank of small young fish. They have the best nutritional value of all foods. Often, during winter time you are unable to get Paros spawning. But when temperatures rise and mosquito larvae are available, this period ends after a few days only.
Deepin’ peats remarks are exactly to the point. Moina is a very good and potentially fast growing food for Paros of nearly each age (from very small to adult), but they need more attention than e.g. Daphnia. You cannot culture them for months in the same water. But there are different methods possible.
I tell you mine: I kept them in small shallow vessels of about one or two liters each with some (but not much) artificial light and fed with yeast. No aeration; it’s contraproductive. I had at least three or four such vessels at the same time. (I never tried bigger and deeper vessels with success, but I know it’s possible, too). Kept this way they are very productive but very instable too. They need nearly daily care (= food supply). If you are absent for three or more days the culture is at the edge of death if not fed regularly. Feeding by algae results in a slightly minimized reproduction but makes the culture a bit more stable, although not very much. The necessity of starting new cultures is a constant task; I did that every week or ten days with the oldest vessel. I did not clean the vessel completely fed but reduced the free floating debris only. With this method I had a constant high production and could feed all my Paros in more than thirty small (12 liter) tanks, including growing young of many species.But longer absence or neglect of the constant changes of water/of vessels will definitely result in a catastrophe. The method is good for high production but there is no stability for longer periods of neglect. This is quite different than with Daphnia which need much less attention if kept in larger vessels even with irregular food supply and a better oxygen content than is necessary for Moina. Therefore, Deepin’ peat is fully right in pointing out the need for water change and the need for continuous beginning with new cultures. This is indispensable with Moina. If you manage to find a habit suitable to your presence and awareness, Moina is an ideal food for Paros over many years. If you don’t, it’s a nuisance since it will die out soon.
That is exactly the case. The problem begins with the catchers at the locations already. If they catch too little amounts of fish at a special place they will add others from a second location in the same bag if they look similar to the first ones. They have not the special perspective of the trained specialized aquarist and they are not used to the fact, that Parosphromenus fish are still differentiating by lively evolution even in near but distinct locations (as do Cryptocoryne forms in a similar way). Their employers, the exporters, either are equally well-informed or – more often, generally – are not interested in disclosing their productive locations. Their clients in Europe are unable to change this mentality and mostly factually unable to tell an exact location; so ist the shop-owner as last link in that chain.
We must try to inform the Asian partners that this would be necessary in order to pay attention to ongoing evolutionary processes, keep fish from different locations separate and not to mix them. From a biological point of view the clear naming of locations would be the best strategy, but the economic fears will prevent this. The best we can do is to name those fish with the safe names we have: their sellers and the year of import of that stock.
To “ourmanflint”:
Ourmanflint, indeed you should refer to your Paros as coming from Jambi/Sumatra. But even in 2005 we in Germany distinguished Jambi I and Jambi II already, and in the years since one man alone, Horst Linke, travelled three or four times in Jambi specialized in finding Parosphromenus habitats, and he found six or seven different forms. “P. spec. Jambi” is far too general and non-distinctive in order to be acceptable as a proper name for a hitherto undescribed form. You should use an exact as possible name of the importer to make these fish recognizable among the many forms from Jambi (since you do not know the exact location; Jambi is not very small, but the locations of the different forms which we know from there are relatively small). For instance, we called a distinctive form “spec. Mimbon 98”, later on one other “spec. Mimbon 2008”, since it had been imported via this whole-saler. If you have a look on the “Other forms”-chapter that you will find on this homepage in the main menue (left!) within the chapter “The fish” then you will see a long list of provisional but well-introduced names that have been used in order to make different undescribed Paros discernible. The list is not complete, but you will find Jambi I and Jambi II, for instance. It is highly unlikely that the now-called P. phoenicurus (former P. spec. Langgam) is identical we the fish you speak of since it was hitherto found and imported (and later on described) only once privately by Linke.
To “deepin’ peat”:
The fish shown in the photos is definitely not phoenicurus. No phoenicurus shows these bright blue-green bands in the unpaired fins. Nearly all those parts are brightly red in phoenicurus. I am sometimes not sure whether phoenicurus might be perhaps a synonym only for the formerly described P. tweediei. The locations of both forms are not far distinct, and the sealevel in between was far lower in former times; that means: the habitats were connected by a land-bridge and completely different rivers, swamps and creeks. The form of the tail, the extension of the red parts and the white lines in between which were taken to be species-distinctive by the describers Schindler and Linke (2012) disappeared rather completely in the many offspring that we raised from the imported specimens. Compare the original photo by Linke with the photos of direct offspring males by Fischer (for instance at the Wikipedia-page on “Prachtguramis”, which was written bei Martin Fischer.
The fish on your photos is very near to the from which was in the beginning of the Sumatra-boom traded as “spec. Blue Line” (a name given by the traders), very nice, very beautiful, brilliantly coulored fish. They were caught and exported (and cared for to death by “normal” aquarists looking for something nice and new for their “normal” flakes-fed and tap-water-filled community tanks) to Europe in many thousands for at least four or five years. Later on they mixed them with other forms from Sumatra obviously from other locations by far not as brilliantly looking as the original “blue line”-Paros. Your fish resemble (as far as I can see) these fish, but they are definitely not phoenicurus.
Dear Schellfisch, I remember that Foersch had such problems with some pairs too, but most of these eggs developed properly nevertheless (if the water was OK). This may – hopefully! – be the same in your case. I am sure, you will try to raise young even from eggs that lie on the bottom of the cave. Those eggs should be fertilized and may develop although they are not as eagerly cared for by the male. But often they are: most males try to fix them again and again, without success but probably by cleaning them nevertheless from adhering bacteria or fughus.
Time changes and (some) people learn. Some years ago one of our best breeders, Günter Kopic, tried to sell about 20 nearly adult P. nagyi at at fair for special fish (Apistogramma, Spaerichthys, special barbs and others). He demanded 5 Euros for one individual. He sold none. People said: 5 Euros for such a small fish? No, much too expensive! – I am quite sure, the situation would not be very different today. But I admit, that this here (the environment of the P-P) is something different. There are people – f.i. the members of our project – who have a more realistic view on the value of such a small endangered fish. But I doubt that this a widespread conviction already. In the U.S. and in many other countries the price for “ornamental fish” in the pet shops – “dead? No problem: buy a new one!” – has resulted in super-market-like dimensions. Even in Germany it was hard work to come to the conviction that a pair of Paros should cost at least 15,00 Euros, some more (parvulus, ornaticauda). Transnational transfers work if the single fish is either big like a Discus or cheap like a Neon; all our hitherto experience shows it does not yet work with Paros. Hopefully we can change it, then there will be a way to go on. It may work already presently with definite specialized partners, but these connections must be established beforehand. Otherwise it’s a play with uncertain result hat no breeder will be ready to undertake.
And Bill: Buying from a breeder personally means that you get what you want, species and sex. Sometimes even with locality. That’s an important difference and it may cost a bit more. Pet shops have mixed calculations, breeders are specialized and must calculate acutely. As the world of today is, the value of an animal is to be expressed in money. You cannot describe a Paro as endangered and rare and sell it for a few cents only.
But we discuss matters here, in the P-P. This is the right context to get understanding from well-informed people. If you start this discussion in a normal aquarium journal you are surrounded by special-price offers and meet dozens of people who do not consent at all. It’s this climate of the super market which makes international distribution of Paros as difficult as it is up to now. Most aquarists are not open for discussions on rarity or threat; for them the price is all. This even leads to the opposite end: Koi junkies spend hundreds of Dollars for one – big – fish; it’s an investment like a house or a car. We Paro-friends are extremists, a minority that must pay the real price of good transport for fish often in their caves not to be seen at all. But there is no alternative: Breeders sometimes have too many fish and aquarists in other parts of the world have too little. They must be connected. Therefore we discuss things here.
There is a better solution, however, in the long run: There should be more Paro-breeders not in Germany only, but in many other countries too; that should minimize the ways and costs for transport. To my impression, this is in the very beginning in the U.S.only, and in very early stages in many European countries. Let’s discuss this as one prime issue at our first international meeting next year in Hamburg.
It’s not my way of thinking to divide Paro friends into two categories; it’s the experience with many of the good breeders who need to be taken – as you put it – “with velvet gloves”. It’s a pity, but it’s reality. They do not behave rational, but they are as they are. Therefore we can try something similar to what you suggest, but i am pretty sure we need a communication expert for that sensitive communication nevertheless. Until now we hav not found someone.
The other point that Deepin’ peat mentions – transfer of Paros to other countries – will again be discussed in Hamburg, too. In principle, the thing is easily to be solved: There are companies which have specialized in the animal transportation business, but … it’s a matter of money. You can get a perfect solution but then one fish will cost 10 Euros or more. Nobody wll pay this. And you cannot compare this with the normal transport of ornamental fish from wholesalers in one county to partners in another: Either, there are people willing to pay (say with special Discus or large garden pond fish), or there is a huge loss of small mobile, oxygen demanding fish calculated. An sometimes it even struck Paros: I shall always remember te sight of 800 P. ornaticauda with 400 dead by arrival already; 300 followed during the next days. With many fish transports this is quite normal. That’s one reason why I hate that business and work for the private solution.
Unfortunately, I am unable to tell you why this happens. All we know about the sticking if eggs at the ceiling of the cave amounts to waht Walter Foersch had found out more than 35 years ago. That it is a matter of a too high mineral content, especially calcium in the water.
It would help if we knew about other species in your water. Have you made the same observations with the eggs of them or not? Personally, I do not think it to be matter of the age of the male, since we had older males (of other species) with normally sticking eggs. But it maybe an individual problem of that male, of course.
The other thing is that I had some success with reducing the pH below 4.0, even to 3.5 in some cases. This may help, but it’s not sure, of course.
Anyway, you should try to raise at least a part of the clutch artificially. I think of the fact that the main breeder of phoenicurus during the first years, Martin Fischer, had strange difficulties himself with the last clutches. The only thing I can say is that we must try not to loose the species altogether. So, it would be good news that the development of the larvae is going on.
Your suggestion of a geographically differentiated exchange forum open for registered members only is worthwhile to be dicussed. It is possible that this will be used by “normal” Paro-aquarists who need a male of this or female of that species or want to offer their 10 young nagyi or 20 young filamentosus. We shall do so at the meeting of the steering group in Hamburg in the beginning of September.
But your opinion about distribution in general is far from reality. We had a very good distribution manager in the first years who was communicating fast, friendly and with pleasure. But when he had to give up this function because of illness we unfortunately chose the wrong person to succed him. He was eager to get this function this but came out as lazy and not interested at all. Unfortunately, it needed time to realize this and fire him to hell.
The point is not this function, but the mentality of the good Paro breeders whom we have in Germany and some other countries. Most of them will not use the means that you suggest. It will probably be used by the occasional breeder who wants to see his offspring in good hands or is intested in the rather well-spread species (whom you think of, and that is OK), but we must have a constant contact to the specalist breeders with many species und rare species. I think their mentality to be wrong and told them more than once, but it did not change their minds. They dislike communication and forums; that’s stupid, but it’s reality. Bernd is an exception, or have you seen here other good breeders offer their fish? Unfortunately not. To hold them in our distribution boat you need a good internal communicator, who is eager to actualize the available offspring at different places and holds contact to the imprtant breeders nearly constantly; as we had one formerly, and not such an ill-suited person we had lately, unfortunately.
So, a combination of several methods seems to fit the needs better than one method only. We shall discuss it.
What’s about the gen-pool?
The question is justified, but the issue is overrated, too.
Since 2005, some breeders exchange individuals of secured identity (location!) at meetings. Even the exchange of of specimens of the same stock the have been grown at different places with different breeders add a certain amount of security. At the first international meeting that we shall organize at Hamburg 2015 there is a possibility to do this again. But identity not only of species but of its original location must be certain beforehand. Otherwise the procedure is likely to be contraproductive.
One could do this with commercially traded fish, too, although there is nearly never a given locality. But it is to be recommended with secure species determination only. That means, all Sumatranian bintan-variants should be excluded. For linkei or filamentosus or ornaticauda it could be worthwhile, not for bintan-types.
On the other hand the following is to be taken serious: The issue is overrated. What we do, is artificial breeding, i.e. we can, should and do exclude aberrant or ill young individuals from further breeding anyway. In this respect the issue is blown-up to a huge problem, but it exists in nature only if the real gen-pool has become very small. There is nobody who controls the reproduction; this is quite different in our case. Most cases of complaints about genetic defects in breeding fish are due to mistakes of the breeder. He is responsible; the issue of the “too small gen-pool” is mostly an excuse for a bad care and conditions not provided as optimal as possible.
See the following example which is really impressive: There was only once an import of P. quindecim. All quindecim we have all over the world refer to this import. There is one German breeder, Bernhard Lukiewski from Berlin, who since the breeds quindecim in high numbers in the twentieth or so generation. He does it with excellent care, feeding and knowledge. He never observed any signs of degeneration in his fish. The point is important for natural stocks, but highly overrated for aquaristic ones. Nearly all amounts to the skills and consciousness of us, the breeders.
No! This is typical behaviour of exporters who do not bother about identity very much and add confusing names rather freely to the list of official names.
There is P. gunawani, a not-well-known but well-described species, formerly known as P. spec. Danau Rasau. It’s a good species, the hitherto last one scientifically described. I received living specimen from the original collection by finder Horst Linke and bred them rather easily. It is well to be identified by a rather stout body and a special colouring of the edges of the unpaired fins of the males. It is known from one location in Sumatra only, the lake Danau Rasau. It was imported only twice by finder Horst Linke and since then possibly by commercial traders, but this remains unclear. The truth is that among the traded fish bearing this name were specimen which resembled the real gunawani very much, but they were mixed with others definitely not gunawani.
Then there is P. spec. “Blue line”, a hitherto undecribed species (or subspecies), bintan-like, with very brilliant iridiscent blue stripes, which was named “blue line” by the trade business for trade purposes. The fish appeared first in the pet shops in Europe via wholesaler Glaser (Germany) and were distributed in great quantities between 2005 and at least 2010, maybe even today, and subsequently in other countries Too (U.S.!). Its original locality is the district of Jambi on Sumatra (as it is the case with gunawani) but well separated from other forms. Nevertheless, there were often different forms traded bearing this name (for instance with very long or with very short ventrals). It is highly probable that they were mixed ba the catchers already when they left one locality to enlarge their catch at a second and third.
The “blue line”-fish are not safely distinguished from other undescribed forms from Sumatra, most of that have not been named by the trade and were freely mixed bearing this name or that. The fish mostly traded during the last years (from about 2009 till today) are the so called P. spec. Sentang (or “sintangensis”) which have less brilliant colours than the original blue-lines and are sometime referred to as the “Green speckled licorice gourami”. They come from Jambi too, but are not as clearly distinguished from other bintan-variants from Sumatra than gunawani or the original blue-lines.
To sum it up: The trade business is responsible for these mixtures and equivocations of names and fish, since they don’t bother about clearly separating the localities of the fish they trade. Their commercial interests are superior over the interests of distinction which should be from a scientific or preservational point of view. It’s a pity, but it’s reality. We cannot blame the catchers whose behaviour is the origin of these mixtures and failures, because they are paid cents only for a hundred or more fish. The true responsibility for the given confusion is by the export-companies, and – not to forget – the scientists of course, who have been unable to do enough research on Sumatra during the last twenty years in order to prevent such developments and get the relation between the forms and variants clear.
The newest development is what we learn here: that the trade confuses well-described P. gunawani and not-decribed spec. blue line. These two are definitely not identical. It is a superfluous confusion added to those that we have already. The reason is quite clear (becuse both forms are clearly and easily to be distinguished): to sell fish with the interesting new name “gunawani”. People want fish that are new to them, and “gunawani” is still new. I should not be astonished if the fish would be neither gunawani nor “blue line”.
This is a serious posting.
These “contests” are typical events of the commercail aquaristics, this one is sponsored by JBL. We as aquarists keeping and breeding fish that do not feed on artificial foods, that are not adapted to tap waters, waters that exclude most of the decorative plants of the commercial “beautiful” tank, which exclude the bright light of those tanks, and which could be managed without most of the modern equipment of the aquarium industry (mine even without any filters) should be happy to be as independent as an aquarist could be from the marketing interests of these sellers of things and mentality, which is largely useless to blackwater aquaristics.
The main interest which is behind these events is commercial: the propagation of the “beautiful” aquarium which attracts the masses and helps in selling equipment. Every year new form of equipment are presented that make aquaríum keeping still more easy or pleasant; turuely it serves the interests of the producers. I do not think such contests to be of any value for us. I did not found the Parosphromenus project to serve such interests in decorative aspects only. They allure contesters by money, not by the interest in preservation of biodiversity. The project was founded in order to serve the interests of highly endangered fish and the preservation of their habitats, not the interests of an expanding market of decorativ aquaristics. Most Paro tanks are not decorative and will not be ranked highly by such people who serve the interests of big business and not of the dying biodiversity of south-east Asian rainforests.
This is a point of principle. Our forum is open to anybody, but we dislike marketing ideas to be propagated by it. Let them be performed, but not by the means of a project centered on the ideas of opposing the tragedy of transforming huge areas of the highest biodiversity on earth into agrarian oil palm country. Those events concerning aquarium design are not responsible for this, but they serve other interests than that of the project. Therefore I ask all to stop the discussion on this in this forum. People who are willing to take part of such events should do that, but our forums are no stage for them.
Let us try to get this clear without excluding anybody or any posting from our project. Mr Musyupick should have read the texts on the background of this project before advertising that JBL-event. An Pavel should be concious on that, too. Until now our website was free from commercially driven ideas. The steering group will meet in less than three weeks at Hamburg and discuss these matters, too. Presently, I am not able to say what the result will be. But I do not exclude that we shall draw severe consequences if the majority thinks that our ideas, our aims and our profile is marred by the hobby market or by anybody who is not able to differentiate between interests of a non-profit organization and those of a mass-market.
Personally, I should immediately draw the consequence of leaving my child at once as its scientific supervisor if there is no other way out. Therefore, this is an earnest issue. Until then, I ask all to leave it as it is, and not to start a discussion which marres the frontiers between a serious NGO-activity and activities of the hobby-market which are not part of our intentions.
Parosphromenus species have a fully developed labyrinth organ, but they don’t use or need it for normal life in floating waters with a rich oxygen content. If the milieu degenerates what whatever reason (and you can sometimes watch it in bad aquaria) they can use it and they do.
In your case it’s something different. As Deapin’ peat says your linkei male builds or renews a bubble nest. And here one must know that different species act in different a manner. P. linkei or P. filamentosus males in such situations frequently rise to the water surface and fetch air; their bubble nests are the biggest of all Paros.
With many other species you rarely become a witness of this; they do it at night or they do it much less than the named two. Many of their “bubble nests” are hardly existent, for instance ornaticauda or parvulus nests consist of the clutch only and nearly no bubble at all. Many other species (alfredi, tweedie, quindecim, pahuensis and most others) have very small bubble-nests that tend to diminish in the course of time; it’s a relic of a behaviour which is no longer needed.
So in your case it’s a typical behaviour of P. linkei or filamentosus (to a certain extent of the true deissneri and spec. Ampah, too) that belongs to his special way of building a relatively big bubble nest and his manner of renewing it eagerly during the first days of care for the eggs and larvae.
Rod, most maps available are bad; such lakes are not named or even wrongly named. You are surely right in thinking that it is one of those.
And you are probably right guessing that your Parosphromenus spec. is one of those many slightly different variants of a bintan-type coming from Jambi/Sumatra.
The “Borneo Pisciculture”: I have just tried (14.08.2914) to scan the pictures at the site, but I did not see any species name (it was a facebook site; I could not find any free direct site). There are linkei and spec. Blue line and possibly others to be seen, but no fish that resembles the original P. gunawani that I had and have bred (Linke’s won picture ist to be seen at the species account in our website; it is a very good photo which shows the stoutness of the body and the colouring of edges of the unpaired fins quite nicely).
The photo is reproduced in the Finke/Hallmann 200-pages-book on Parosphromenus (“Prachtguramis”) containing many photos never shown before; some copies (not many) are still available.
