Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”Stefanie” post=2759] I know that such behaviour (a male killing the offspring of rivals) occurs in many different animal families – is it known from paros?[/quote]
No, as far as I know it is not. But I think the interpretation has to be somewhat slightly different:
The male probably did not kill the offspring of a rival but either has taken the two larvae with him to his cave or simply cleaned an extraneous cave within his own territory; whatever “clean” means in this context. Speaking of a “rival” means an antagonistic behaviour against a second male. But this is a proof only that a male in a territory owns a cave and this cave was not his. It’s more directed against the cave (= the center of a territory) than against another fish (“rival”).
This was not aggression towards a rival but affirmation of the center of the territory. Although – I admit – it’s a slight distinction in the interpretation only, a difference in the perspective of description. I don’t think that the brain of such fish is sufficiently developed to be compared with that of a mammal or even a bird, animals who have developed forms of action against the belongings of their rivals. As far as I know fish only adopt offspring of other pairs but not kill them.
But I don’t know it for sure; it’s a hypothesis. I should be interested how things go on in your tank.
Indeed, it’s interesting and very useful to learn from such instances of deviating behaviour.
Factually, there is much more deviating behaviour than we have thought hitherto. Observing some “difficult” fish we all concentrate on finding out the standard forms of their unknown behaviour and often neglect many other things that don’t fit into the standard scheme.
When I first observed a female Paro guarding eggs (= paludicola) I quickly interpreted that as a reaction to the death of the male. Secondly, Linke observed a female linkei guarding her eggs although the male was present nevertheless. And thirdly I saw similar things with parvulus.
Probably, the following has happened in your tank, Stefanie:
1. The pair spawned in that other cave and the male stayed there with the eggs and young until now.
2. The female “stole” some eggs and transferred them to her own cave. I have observed this already with parvulus (not the successful raising, however).
3. The background is that the female Licorice Gouramies have a tendency to care for the eggs and young which is normally dominated by that of the male, but sometimes – for reasons that we don’t know: because of a special strength of the female or a special weakness of the male or something else)this normal scheme can be outdone by the female’s tendency to care for herself.It’s a theory, but the most plausible I have.
Very nice, Martin! Are there young nagyi too? (I am nearly convinced, they are).
Best wishes for further development, PeterTypical P. spec. “Blue Line”. Not P. spec. Sentang (wrongly named “sintangensis”); they are less brightly coloured, often with a brownish-greenish tinge in the body colours. As I said often before however, the trade-given name “Blue line” is not unequivocous; the misidentification is a leading principle of the trade of these fishes. We have seen at least three different fish named “Blue line” already, probably more, and sometimes the spec. Sentang is mixed in, too.
But the fish of these photos is a clear “Blue line” from Sumatra. Obviously, the original habitat which was exploited mainly 2004-2008, is still existent, or there are other unspoiled habitats which have not been made known since. The fish was the mostly traded Paro in that times (wrongly called “deissneri” of course). For some years, hundreds of thousands of “Blue lines” filled the trade-tanks in Europe and northern America.
“Blue lines” are beautiful Paros of the bintan-type; maybe subspecies or even the nominate species bintan itself. The taxonomists keep silent about this; they have no arguments without genetic data. The first genetic data we have see no decisive differences to the nominate species. But this maybe provisional.
Teunis, I wish you the very best for young ornaticauda. It could be extremely difficult to locate (and control) the clutch in such a complex surrounding. Of course that must not be the case, but then you will to have much patience to wait for young, It may take weeks until suddenly some are visible …
Good luck anyway!Without doubt P. ornaticauda, although not in display colours.
Teunis: It would be informative – for many readers – if you told us where you got this from: a private breeder or the trade. If the trade: which country and which town and which date. Where other species available there at the same time? Have these been named correctly?
You could identify the females, too: shorter, blunter dorsal, not whitish borders at the anal, in normal colouring no red “flag” in the caudal fin.
For a peat swamp tank, dried leaves of oak or beech should be added and the whole milieu should look darker. Your water seems to be clear water. P. ornaticauda is a typical blackwater species, and one of the more difficult to breed. It depends on good pairs and really ripe animals. In order to see the extraordinary intensive pairing colours and the astonishing zig-zag dance you need to give them the adequate environment. Plants are of minor importance, the (very small) cave, the tea-coloured water, the subdued light and the dancing space is necessary. If you happened to get a good pair, they will do it in clear water to, but not with a pH of 6 or more. 4,5 is good, 3,5 is possible (but not without adjustment time of about a week.
The fish on the pictures look very much like “blue lines”, at least in the dominant male. I suppose the other is of the same form.
The problem is the similarity between blue lines and spec. Sentang. They seem to occur in great neighbourhood and habe been definitely sometimes confused already in the trade business.
We cannot say it more precise. Only very big and sharp photos coukld help.
But the ventrals indicate blue line, too. And the fact that both forms are the most-traded Paros since years. Bot are variants of the bintan-species.Thomas, thank you very much for reporting that alarming news to us here. Jens Kühne, as we know him, is a very good specialist of the changing countryside in Thailand, Malaysia and the adjacent countries; snd so this is very important for us to know.
In the original text that you gave me beforehand he told us to collect money in order to buy the endangered land. Well, at first we should know whether the owners (the Malaysian state? or a private owner?) would be ready to sell it, at second we should know how much would the price be.
But the main problem seems to me the fact that it is useless to buy a habitat only. The important surrounding woods and swamps must be included, at least to sufficient an extent, in order to make the habitat sure for the future.
Are there people who could answer these questions?
In principle the opinion “buy” is certainly fully right. But I fear that collecting the money would last some time and then it could be too late.
But I am really interested in the answers to my questions. Are there people who are able to reply?Leave them as they are, together with all others. Feed Artemia naupliae at least every second day, not too much because of water quality. They will survive and – slowly – grow.
Could you tell the species? The adult male must be conspicuous. Any red in the fins?You are fully right, Bill. Only a few drops will normally suffice if the water is near to destilled water! The pH runs down very quickly indeed. Working in a fully inhabited tank is out! This must definitely be done outside, separately, and the effect must be measured and controlled every few drops of the acid!
Natural means – als alder cones, beech and oak leaves – that could replace peat are very good, but often have a weak influence on pH only. But they deliver humid substances to the tank water, and that is nearly as necessary as the pH itself.
But our fish are accustomed to low pH-values by their evolutionary history. Again I repeat what I have said very often already: Not the pH is the decisice factor but the consequence it has: a low concentration of germs. That is the central point. Especially the eggs and larvae of our fish don’t stand the normal concentration of germs in a normal (“clean”) aquarium water. This concentration is a hundred or thousand times more than in nature, although everything looks clean.
The aquarist has only one means of influencing this markedly, and that is by lowering the pH. Which sort of acid you use is a secondary importance. Sulphuric acid is just as effective as other acids.
The distribution system should be made more efficient, without question. But there is a lack of constructive ideas so far. What is to be read in these postings exhibits the fact that the writers are inconscious about the problems we face. I shall mention only two major problems, there are more.
The first problem is that the breeders decide themselves whether they are willing to expose their names and addresses openly. We tried to get them agree to this idea, but most breeders refused to accept. There are different reasons behind. One that has to be taken serioulsy is the argument that you should not offer rare endangered fish as you do with “normal” aquarium fish. Serious Paro friends realize that there is a difference between trading normal stuff and living beings, especially if they are really endangered. The breeders are not willing to contribute to a situation in which a sudden run on such fish might arouse (as we have experienced it with catfish or cichlids or others). I think that this hesitation has to be taken serious, although I think it must not necessarily arise from a publication of the addresses. But I have to respect this opinion.
Most breeders are conscious about the fact that this is an obstacle to easier contacts between breeders and new Paro friends, but they deny to the publication of their address nevertheless. I have to accept it, although things would run much smoother and quicker the direct way. But if I loose most of the good breeders by going this path, it’s wrong.
The second problem is that the more difficult way we prefer presently has the advantage to let the project supervise the system of distribution. One central advantage of the Paro-Project-system is to give a certain control to the fate of endangered fish by giving vital information about the status of the different species and forms at the disposal of the project. It has been much praised for that, and this is a big difference to most other aquaristic activities. I don’t think it would be a progress to more existential safety for them if we would organize a complete free exchange between breeders and buyers. For them, it would make things easier, but for our knowledge about the state of the stocks it would not be helpful.
Nevertheless I think, we could improve the system. Ideas are much wanted. But they should reflect that without the consent of the majority of the breeders and without thinking of our knowledge of the state of the stocks this will not work. Making things easier cannot be the only directive one has to follow. Things are a bit more difficult.
And wordings like “One has to be German in order to understand this system at all” are not helpful. Let’s look for better solutions than those we have, but not neglecting the two points I have mentioned.
The white side-wall and the whole light regime does not fit to a blackwater swamp. Darken the glasses by black paper from outside, especially the back, and put some Boraras as companions in, then they will like you (but: No young will appear).
Compliment to Martin from my side, too. For the hitherto articles and the forthcoming. What you are doing is a great job for your home-country and the potential Paro-friends over there.
Equally compliment for Helene’s idea to put it here in a certain way (article or link) in our Website. I should like to generalize that: Important new articles on Parosphromenus (maybe old ones too, in the course of time) or closely related topics (the destruction of the south-east Asian rainforest, its biodiversity, developments in the situation of the peoples living there, essentials of blackwater aquaristics, etc.) could or should be collected here. As a long-time idea to be followed.
Third thing: If there are important articles in foreign languages which are hard to read for the international community (as is Polish or Japanese) we should investigate if the text could be translated to English by someone (without costs, of course; we cannot pay for that although I dislike the idea). The layout and the pictures could be viewed in the original Version, but the text should be made readable).
In this case: Could your friend help, Bill?
[quote=”Shi Xuan” post=2619]Hi Peter,
I’m glad for your response. 🙂
From what you mentioned, I believe what I’m doing is wrong. :unsure: Usually, I leave the leaves in the aquarium till they have fully broken down. I used to remove the mulm diligently but the fish don’t like it, so nowadays, I keep some of it. (…)
As much as I have said, I hope to hear from more opinion from as many blackwater fish specialists as possible. :)[/quote]Hi Shi Xuan, yes, in my opinion your practice is wrong, but equally is mostly mine although I think to better know it.
I am pretty sure that the final “mulm” is not the problem. On the contrary: I assume – as you do – that many useful microorganisms are living there. The problem – in my view – is the long process before, the process of decay in a very small amount of water. The difference of much flowing waters in nature and of little still waters in our tanks, may they be changed a bit nevertheless, is a big difference in structure. I am pretty sure that one has to diminish the time in which those processes afflict the milieu. The result, that “mulm”, is perhaps not nocious at all. But what was going on before is, as I see it.But I agree: Best would be a scientist who know this in Details. And second best would be opinions of experienced blackwater aquarists. Opinions could be based on experience. And that is better than nothing.
