Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Zahar, it’s clearly no deissneri. Whether it is a true bintan, is open for discussion. It’s near to it, since it looks very similar to it, but I hesitate to already claim it identical. There are two probems: (1) It’s definitely caught at a location different from all knowm hitherto in the literature or by personal information (Linke, Kishi) because all of these locations on Bangka were completely destroyed in 2016 already (dry, no blackwater anymore, even mostly no water at all = prepared for being used as arable land for planting oilpalm trees). Of course, bintan has been reported from Bangka formerly and it is possible that it occurs still today there at some other place. (2) The second problem is that we have other photos of a non-deissneri from Bangka that looks a bit different than your fish. I prefer to keep the species identification an open question.
If Martin Hallmann tells this, there is no doubt of identification. Both species are highly welcome. The aquarium population of P. parvulus is still very small since these animals have very small clutches only; they show a spectacular display dance similar to ornaticauda, but although the first parvulus were really difficult, the import that we got via Denmark (the only one hitherto) proved to be less problematic. And nice P. “blue line” were not present for a long time; we had really dull “Sentang” but true “blue line” could be sparkling in colours. Just as now described by Martin.
As he says: We should grasp the opportunity. With Paros in trade nobody knows whether it will happen again or not.Chris, there is no doubt about your personal motives and about the personal motives of many people in the Indonesian group. We know some of them personally.
The question is about the factual effect, the collateral damages of spreading such news. I think it was good that you clarified your position. That will help us to draw the borderline correctly. The spirit of the P-P is to reduce the commercial exploitation of the meanwhile very few intact biotopes of our fish. This is difficult, I know, but necessary. We must improve breeding and strive at getting rid of the “help” of the trade. We still are rather far away from this, of course.
Horst Linke has got a pair of deissneri from the re-discoverer Wentian Shi, the other pairs stay with him. There are other fish which we don’t speak about. We are in constant contact with the aim of preparing useful steps with the help of an international organization. Let’s be quiet now; it will be the best for our fish.
This is a very strange posting. It’s again about a “large scale order” for P. ornaticauda, that until now always has ended with hundreds of dead fish. But the strangest thing is that it mentions 10 pairs of true P. deissneri that an Indonesian “collector” has “organized” waiting for ornaticauda; the picture seems to show that species that has been never traded before.
I am very upset about this. P. deissneri is endemic on the island of Bangka only and, as we know personally by the joint expedition of the Chinese expert Wentian Shi and the Japanese expert Hiroyuki Kishi some months ago is left at one small place only in small numbers. All other known locations of that species have been completely dried and destroyed for the plague of new palm-oil-plantations.
The P-P cannot support any activities of “collectors” who engage in including a species left in minimum numbers at a single place only into that trade business of pure fish keeping. Announcing that collector-activity here is not meeting the mentality and spirit of the P-P. As an administrator of this forum I still hesitate to take stronger measures, but they perhaps maybe necessary.
True deissneri are present in Germany at two places with good breeders. There is no need to expoit the fragile source commercially!
It is often the case that a pair which is breeding well will produce offspring that breeds still better in the next generation.
Al our experiences with ornaticauda are diffferent. There were very few cases of pairs breeding successfully or even good, but the next generation failed again. There must be a factor unknown to us hitherto responsible for that negative series.
Surely, the stress of trade fish could be enormous. We should not engage in that business mor than absolutely necessary.
By the way, the oldest Paro i know about was a deissneri male (true deissneri!) by master breeder Günter Kopic. The fish still displayed and tried to breed aged 8 years. Most Paros do not reach that age by far because of less intense care and water not suited best.Of course, 7 Zwerge, you are right. Breeding Paros in 12 Liter tanks (as I do) is possible but surely not giving them a milieu they are accustomed to. But a 640 liter tank surely is just the opposite, and I doubt that there are serious problems to be solved by such a recommendation. Breeding is fully a matter of chance. But if it is an opportunity, then it might help in a special case.
I think we agree.“Keeping” ist not the point. It’s no news that you can “keep” Paros in normal or big or huge tanks. The whole intention of the Parosphromenus Project is to propagate the seed of a new thinking in the aquarum hobby, especially if fish are concerned that are threatened to extinction by the nearly complete destruction of their habitats. We do not need such fish for decorative aquaria.
From an aquarist point of view, these fish are not for keeping them but for participating in sustaining them. The proposal to use small tanks is led by the overall aim to breed them. And a 54 liters tank is still a small tank. Of course, you can breed Paros very well in such tanks. I have nothing against them. But you might tend to change less water. And that is not helpful for blackwater fish or the fight against Oodinium.
For me, the lesson of Marcin means probably: In a huge tank of 640 liters the milieu for Oodinium is much less favourable than in 10 or 50 liters. But it’s no useful recommendation for most people.
Chris, you have the best in mind for our project, I see it. Presently, we have no ornaticauda in our tanks. Our experience with breeding them is among the poorest of all Parosphromenus. We should really try to advance our konwledge of that fish which is still a riddle to us in many respects. But there are some counter-arguments to your suggestions:
1. I contacted Aquafish more than ten years ago with regard to that first import of ornaticauda. They were entirely unable to provide the right water conditons for them; they used the Northeim tap water (I knwo it because I lived in Göttingen south of that little town). Most fish died soon, some lived long but were irreversely damaged. They may have learned by now, but they are traders with a short experience in fish that look nice but are unsuited for the normal aquarist.
2. We have imports of ornaticauda nearly every year. Thousands of young of the recent generation are caught, kept alive to an unknown percentage for days or weeks in pools or concrete tanks with unsuited waters and exported in the world, to great an extent to Europe. If the fish are offered, nearly all greater importers in our countries will offer them in some weeks time. Among them are more experienced dealers than Aquafish. Ruinemans for instance, or Glaser, or Aquarium Dietzenbach.
3. The German members of our project are a large part of the whole, but are surely not to be persuaded to take ten ornaticauda each from a doubtful trader. They know that they have to wait for a little time, and this species will be available at the big retailers, too.
4. At that time about ten years ago a German retailer innocent of these fish ordered a thousand of them. Some hundreds werde dead when arriving, others died the days after, and only then he cried for help. A friend tried to help him, and indeed saved about a hundred fish, but that’s not a single event. Nearly every two years especially ornaticauda is traded in huge amounts and kept to death in the same amounts in some weeks or months.
5. What is the conclusion of that? The best of our breeders should try agian, no doubt, to learn waht even they have not solved until now: the riddle of that species. So we should be alert to see it on the lists of the experienced and conscious European importers. But it’s not a species for all, and it’s a bad and wicked business one should not be a part of. Aquafish may have learned some lessons in the meantime. Perhaps they are now among the others conscious of the problem. I hope so.Nice a story you told us, Marcin, but I have not quite understood what the lesson is … Anyway, hope to see you again in Hamburg this September, and the we can talk about it.
I just learned yesterday from Helene that there are only very few final applications compared with those we received als preliminary notes some weeks ago. The hotel needs the final numbers; so I hope that all friends who intended to come will come indeed.“I don’t use peat anymore”
Be praised, Dorothee. Many of the old and experienced aquarists, who should have learned the lessons, have not yet come to that insight.
Peter
I appreciate your thinking not to use peat. This would mean to engage in a destruction similar to that which we complain about.
But I should advise you not to use hydrochloric acid, it is much too strong. You cannot handle it with waters of very low a mineral content. Myself, I have made good experiences with phosphoric acid and market solutions harvested from oak tree acid. But, this is not safe at any case. There are brands that enhance the mineral content too much, whereas others are rather good for our needs. You must try. The same product could be differently composed in different countries ad at different times. Mostly, “Sera pH minus” was acceptable and effective in Germany, but in Britain it was not to be recommended.
Surely, the use of natural substances like fresh acid peat wood (“Moorkienholz”), dry leaves of oak, beech or Catappa, or alder cones is most to be recommended. But they have the disadvantage that the darkening of the water maybe too strong (especially in the case of too many alder cones); therefore you should prefer a misture of methods. Then, a few drops (not more!) of a phosphoric acid will help.
Very good, dear Deepin’ Peat. Please go on breeding parvulus. There were years in which we thought to have lost the species. And in case of such a fish this means: possibly for ever. Try to enlarge the small tank population and find a cooperator in your country. It was an exceptional situation that Helene discovered parvulus being traded really. That was one incident, it may never be repeated. Although parvulus, as we know now, is in nature not as endangered as many others of the genus (because of its bigger region of locations), this is by no means secure terrain. And whether there will be a second trade incident is completely uncertain.
Congratulations, and: Make it a second time.
PeterVery good idea, Rafael! So, everybody who is seeing a relevant article should contribute a link here!
Thanks Rafael!
PeterSo, everything is in order now: the cave again, normality, the moving, typical for parvulus, the phrase “wild fish”. Thank you Pavel for your explanations, and the most important of all: the name of a real location, Bukit Batu near Palangkaraya, Kalimantan Tengah. This is within the known parvulus area, and that’s a vast area compared with most other known locations of Parosphromenus species. As I just learned, some enthusiasts have begun to buy small pieces of locations in order to save them from destruction. Are your friends willing to do this, too? We currently think of the same at another place outside Kalimantan.
Thanks for letting us participate in a deviation that finally end in normality.[quote=”Deepin peat” post=6002] (…) He seems to be doing ok so far, wild fish are usually good parents (…) [/quote]
Pavel, you speak of “wild fish”. What do you mean by this? Have you been in Kalimantan catching the parents yourself? Where did you get these fish? P. parvulus has only rarely been traded; in fact we know of only one case in several European countries to which nearly all fish swimming presently in our tanks refer to. Before we had self-caught fish from different origin in Kalimantan Tengah only (Linke, Perrin), not mention the first appearance of this species that led to the description of the late J.Vierke.
If your fish refer to ancestors of the trade action I mentioned, we should not call them “wild fish”; if they refer to a new trade action, we should be cautious either since it is normally unclear what the line of descendance is. Normal trade fish are wild caughts, but meantime sometimes there are filial generations of aquarium fish mixed sometimes and at some places.
Helene mentions rightly that there are exceptions to the cave rule in some cases. It has been more often experienced with P. parvulus than with other species since parvulus tends more often than others to move their clutches to new places; mostly below dead leaves at the tank bottom (= that is a form of natural cave), but sometimes more openly as Helene proves by photo of a different species. It would be interesting to compare P. especially ornaticauda as closely related species. At the moment I don’t remember that we had a similar “open cave”-situation with it, but that maybe wrong. In other species, such a behaviour is possible (as Helene’s photo shows) but extremely rare, in each case an exception.
P. parvulus males normally care for their clutches and larvae rather tenderly and without any aggressive action; so I should try not to change that situation besides removing the female. When the young swim free, they hide very efficiently below leaves, dead wood and plants for some weeks, and it is only later that you will encounter them again. But surely, if your priority is raising this first clutch of a rare species, you will take the other path. I could understand that, of course.
