Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just received a telephone call from Horst Linke. He is very pleased about our plans and has agreed to come to Hamburg with videos and a lecture on his methods. Singapore 2015 be very good, too, but the hotels be very expensive. He suggests to reside in a hotel just outside of the town. I told him that we now first concentrate on Hamburg.
He said that Zahar Zakaria should be invited. O yes, that would be fine. Zahar, do you read this?[quote=”Jacob” post=796](…) Can that process really stress them enough to kill them not that long after? (…) [/quote]
Yes, to all we know it can. But in nature after having released the young, not before. We have not solved all aquarium-problems of the chocolates up to now. Even experts who succeeded in breeding them report about single sudden weaknesses and deaths. I am afraid I can’t tell you more. A week ago Horst Linke told me of sudden deaths of his Vaillants. He could not say why.
How easy are the licorice! 😉Mike, I cannot tell you whether your substrate is a good substrate for licorice gouramis since I mistrust any of these commercial products in respect of their composition. But perhaps there is a list of contents given somewhere. Could you tell us? What sort of gravel is the main substance in it? Quartz? Granite? Laterite? Peat? There must be some natural substance (like peat) or some artificial chemical product in it if the substrate is able to reduce the Gh, Kh and pH in such a big dimension that you told us. Until I don’t know the exact composition of that substrate I would not use ist. There may be grwoing substances for plants in it (for what else one needs such a substrate?) that may be of use in a standard tank with standard fish but of evil in a tank for blackwater fish.
The reduction of Gh from 11 to 6 is certainly good for our fish, or better: Gh 11 is absolutely of no use for them. But the more important values are the two others. The Gh is of no great value since it could consist of several different components. Licorice gouramis are not accustomed to any calcium in their waters. Therefore a Kh exceeding 1 is entirely unbiological. In this respect the reduction you told us is highly recommended. The same holds for the reduction of pH from 7.8 to 6.4. Any alcalic value is to be avoided because of it’s inevitably instigating the germs to propagate; the lower it is the lower is the germ-content. Eggs of our fish will not develop with a Kh more than 1 and a pH above 6.8 or even 7.
But I have another question to you. How do you measure that water values? The background of my question is that I mistrust that huge reductive powers of a commercial product which we do not know the composition of. Reducing the pH in presence of calcium is chemically highly improbable. Well, the calcium has been reduced too, that might explain that result. But by what substances? The question whether that will be a lasting effect is not to be answered without knowledge of the components. It is highly probable that it will not last. But by what method do you measure your values? Many methods will produce mistakes, even electronic equipment. If not calibrated very exactly, you receive fantasy numbers. Therefore it is good to know: The exact hardness and the exact pH is less important than the certainty of of pH below 6.8 (and above 3.0, but it is nearly impossible for you to reach that mark) and the certainty of having reduced calcium to nearly nil.
My last questions: Why do you need a substrate at all? For growing plants? That is difficult in a water of high acidity and a hardness near to nil. And adding plant nutrients will change your water values again in a direction not useful for the licorice. Of course there are plants in the natural habitats of our fish, but mind: That are flowing waters, and the plants are rarely true underwater plants. The majority are plants that build their leaves above the water surface (grasses for instance). They don’t affect the chemistry of the water to a markable degree, they are simply “structure”. There are only a few true underwater plants, but the flowing waters will carry the new nutrients and will carry them away, too.
But anyway: I have a substrate in my small licorice-tanks too. But it consists either of pure (!) peat, or of a very thin (max. 1 cm) layer of quartz or fire-clay gravel, and old beech’s and oak leaves. I take it to be a settling-structure for useful bacteria. They settle on all surfaces, but a thin layer of a gravel enlarges the surfaces considerably. I have plants in my small tanks too, but only javamoss and other moss, a few shoots or branches of Ludwigia or Rotala rotundifolia, rare a small flowerpot with a Cryptocoryne, and of course floating plants. I always recommend Ceratopteris, a plant that is highly valuable in a tank that need constant germ-reduction. There are more plants to be ued of course, but’s a science of its own.Bill, I like that Big time thinking of yours. I always like good, attractive goals. Well, we shall see. We collect all proposals, but Singapore is quite a location and 2015 within reachable distance (?) … But it’s well ahead, I admit.
First we should make Hamburg 2013 a success. We all hope to see at least one or two friends from America and at least one or two from south-east Asia …
The best precondition is an attractive program. I am pretty sure we could get a fine lecture with photos and movies by Horst Linke. He has wonderful movies fishing in Paro-habitats on Sumatra and Borneo and West Malaysia. If we could re-activate Allan Brown and his spouse Barbara (P. allani, B. brownorum) for a single lecture: that would be wonderful. But in this case I am not confident. Mark would be very good from the U.S. And somebody from the Singapore Museum. But … Maybe we have to “bake smaller rolls” (German saying).
But one thing we could assure you: There will be at least ten species to be distributed.Couldn’t one set the initial map showing up on a smaller scale, displaying “the world”? Everybody could change the scale and see more details. Although the present distribution of the Paro’s friends is very one-sided prefrerring central Europe (and many users would have a closer look on that region, of course), I feel a bit uneasy by putting Europe at a big scale in the center. Our project opens the view of our members to the world, that’s very rare for aquarists. Mostly they have friends nearby and think only in the distance of the next pet shop. Parosphromenus is different, and our thinking of the great network must be different. It’s a bit pedagogical, I admit; but that’s nothin bad? Maybe Europe in the center, but there should be America full on the left and Asia full on the right. (I feel uneasy about that already; but it might be a compromise).
[quote=”Nathea” post=776]Do all PP-Member have accounts here at the PP-site? Will it be possible to locate all of them here at our map?[/quote]
No, by no means all. We have nearly 120 members now that have logged-in here. But we gather names since 2005. And there are further actual and relevant addresses about the same quantity. When we send our newsletter we cannot do this for the first 120 only; we do it for all. When we create such a map we should display all, otherwise the map would be full of gaps. The problem is mainly situated in Europe, especially Central Europe, but some addresses are situated at other places too. Time by time the one or other of the second 120 logs-in. It’s a process; you cannot speed it up as you want; one needs patience.
But I admit: Perhaps it would be accelerated if we have the incomplete map first.This very interesting discussion reveals that we have to think carefully on the diverse solutions possible. There are good arguments for names (as Bill suggests), but there are good arguments for omitting names, too, als Sylvia suggests. The names are not lost in that case, but could be received on special request from our database. The question only is: Should they be readble readily by all internet-surfers or not? Possibly there are different traditions in Europe and in America as data security is concerned. Certainly, quite a few friends would be happy about seeing names directly, but I fear quite a few would request to cancel theirs if openly displayed. The latter is quite impossible if the location would be given in detail; but even if there is only the town given I know spontaneously some people who would not bear that. I don’t say now that we will not openly display names, but we must think it over carefully regarding the pros and cons. Again: Any mails to info@parosphromenus-project.org would and will be answered, and if it’s request to help with the nearest living friends of the licorice, we shall give that information in private eMail (if we have it), of course.
Therefore further arguments are very much welcomed. Let’s take the necessary time to find the best solution. Until that we should discuss it.
One thing is quite clear already: We are moving towards a big step in making our network more useful. Thanks to you I normally like to have a little microfauna in all my tanks, to help with clean-up and as a supplementary food source, but does anyone know if shrimp (Neocaridinia sp), amphipods (Hyallela azteca) or ostracods might impact breeding success through egg/larvae predation, or will the Paros defend their spawn sufficiently? (…) Tom[/quote]
Tom, I can fully comply with Bennie. In fact, I received C. parvidentata from him, all what he says is right. Other species mostly have problems with the water values in blackwater aquaria; obviously we have up to the present day not the species of shrimps that live in those waters. (For there are shrimps living, there offspring certainly represent a large part of the Paro’s diets. And the many shrimp-specialist we have today follwing the “nano-fashion” only think of their pets and cultivate them in tap water. They are nearly of no help to us).
Bennie stresses the fact that the adult Paros and their growing offspring feed on the offspring of C. parvidentata, but we are a bit unsure to which extent the adult shrimps feed on or at least molest the offspring of the licorice. This is a typical aquarium-problem; in nature nobody cares. But if one is on the trip to breed his rare fish he should – to my experience – leave Caridinas aside. The same holds for the small Hyallela. You could feed your adult fish some semigrown offspring of the shrimps; that would certainly stimulate their breeding capacities, but a breeding tank is not a fine community tank. It’s a tank with a clear destiny: to create offspring, either of your fish or of your shrimps. You should decide what you want.
Bigger and more beautiful tanks that try to simulate natural conditions to a greater extent are without doubt very attractive (see your own “bucket of mud” and all of our reactions to it) to all of us, and it is a good thing to see such a wonderful example set up by someone who thinks aesthetically and biologically. But it’s not the first “duty” of a friend of Parosphromenus. That is breeding, for we cannot be sure how long we still can import those rare species’. Even the hype of spec. Sentang seems to indicate that there are last productive habitats of that form on Sumatra to be expoited now, but that hype will end when they are destroyed (just as the hype of “blue line” has ended before or the greater quantities of rubrimontis, alfredi or tweedie even before in western Malaysia). Therefore breeding is the first thing a Paro-friend should learn. One can set-up such a wonderful tank like the “bucket” when one has many self-produced young of the rare fish, and there you can include the shrimps, of course. But I should give the advice not to do so in the small breeding tank. (At least, it’s my opinion).
Helene, please explain to everyone here how to do it: What should I do in order to place my location into that map? (And Tom: of course a single world map!).
After having discussed it here and found the best wording, we should repeat that manual in the general informations and the rules concerning the maps-button.Mike, congratulations to that video. We don’t need to discuss video-quality, but it is new and courageous that someone puts such a vew into a trader’s tank here in our forum. It’s a glimpse in a tank how it should not be and will in short time lead to the end that the Parosphromenus will become ill and die.
Thank you! One must see bad examples in order to understand what one has to obey and to look for.Big Tom, you did a big thing, just not asking but doing!
But I think one information should be added to each name: (nearest) town. Not more, no detailed address; that would be problematic in respect of data security. The nearest town would suffice and be enough. If there are special enquiries to contact the nearest Paro-friend, we could inform the person asking that question just as we do at present. But for many people it would help to see the clusters and the diaspora at one glance.
Tom, you added your spec. Sentang. Well, that might be done, too, but this personal stock will vary more or less rapidly; I fear a bit too old informations on that. The town is much more needed than the specific species, I think. But why not as an additional information? One only has to bear in mind that one should renew that species names if and when necessary.
I think it’s a very good idea to add a category “location” to the log-in-informations. Of course, we had to supplement that information for the hitherto members, at least we should try to achieve that goal, but all new people would see that category as obligatory to be filled out. And indeed, the usefulness of our network would be much more obvious to all who come new.
Then, when it’s quite filled up with names and locations, we could place it under the “maps”-button.
Helene, what do you think? That’s the solution, I think! Thanks to Sylvia, Bill and Tom! Or what do you think?
And then of course do the same for America and Asia!Martin, I have also seen that slightly lanceolate form of the caudal fin and it’s slightly brownish-reddish colour-tinge. The first aspect reminded me at spec. Langgam in the same way as it reminded you (although this feature seems to be variable in that species), but the second did not. The caudal of spec. Langgam is – whom to I tell that!! – brightly red and not that slightly brownish tinge only. But there is a third small thing that you don’t mention: that very short, but in some positions of the fish clearly visible filament in the middle of the end of the caudal. And I have never seen a spec. Langgam with that property. None of the wild-caught individuals Horst Linke brought home in 2008 (which I saw in original) nor any of your offspring-fish (as judged from your fine photographs) ever showed a filament like this. But I admit, it is not to be seen clearly on that movie. We need still photos in good light! Otherwise one cannot identify rare Parosphromenus.
Identifying Parosphromenus to species niveau affords very good pictures; such a movie is unsuitable for that purpose. One needs to see details of the finnage, not the colouration only, must be able to count the rays and to compare dimensions.
The fish is definitely not alfredi and definitely not filamentosus. It is bintan-like, but has a short filament like sumatranus. However, it is definitely not sumatranus because of totally different colouration and structure. From this movie I cannot tell you more. As it seems, it is a form neither of the hitherto scientifically described species, nor of the hitherto known undescribed other forms. One could think of a hybrid, but it was probably not bred in an aquarium but is a wild catch imported from south-east Asia. Maybe it’s stemming from Sumatra; we have quite a few new forms known from there in recent years, but it’s none of them. Maybe from Kalimantan Tengah. I should exclude West Malaysia or Sarawak. Kalimantan Timur is equally improbable, since the catchers usually don’t go there. Kalimantan Barat is perhaps possible, but improbable too. Ans these are the large regions only. We need a definite location, a town or a river system.
Therefore go to your dealer and insist that he gives you that details. Mostly they can’t or they are unwilling to to so. But he could ask his supplier in Asia. It would be interesting. In the history of the Parosphromenus aquaristics we had that situation for several times: a single fish that did not fit into the known categories.
And you should take good photographs showing clearly or species-relevant details of your fish. It’s a pity the females have died. At any rate you should keep such fish in a smaller tank for their own, leaving all those Trichopsis and Bettas out. If you can get hold of females (of this species, not of others, don’t make a hybridization-experiment!), then you must try to breed them.Yes it’s an impressive list. But as licorice gouramis are concerned one should know, that
– “P. blue line” ist rightly called P. spec. blue line or better P. spec. aff. bintan “blue line” (an undescribed bintan-variant from Sumatra)
– there is not accepted name “P. sintangensis”. This is a trade name faking a scientific name without any scientific corroboration. The better trade name is P. spec. Sentang (from Sentang area on Sumatra, the most traded Parosphromenus of the last years; see Christian Hinz’ and mine new entries in our Forum), and
– “P. deissneri” is in all probability not that species (endemic from Bangka) but a bintan-variant; which one is unclear. I have never met a true deissneri in trade although most fish are sold bearing that name.
I should pay a hundred dollars if it were the real deissneri. It never was. We must be concerned about real deissneri, in nature and in our aquarium stocks. Some of the original habitats on Bangka are destroyed or polluted by tin-mine sewage. And unfortunately, our once big stock of that fine species in Europe has declined to one pair (?!) left at Helene Schoubye’s tanks …
– As P. nagyi is concerned one should know which local form is sold: the nominate form from the Kuantan area with white band in the caudal, the form from Cherating (with blue band in the caudal, the intermediate Cukai form, or the Pekan Nenasi form which has appeared during the last years in our stocks). In Europe we lost Cukai; the others are present in good numbers.You are right, Christian, nobody confirms that. We detect no serious differences, the fish are sold with the same name, so we think they come from the same source. Yes, that must not be the case. Nevertheless, it is probable that even if most former habitats in the Sentang-area are destroyed in the meantime, some ditches or other waters are still existant. The fish of today may not come exactly from the same source, but they might come from nearby sources, that is: from the same place (if “place” is taken in a generous sense).
We shall see: I feel reminded at the “blue line – hype” some years ago. There were “blue lines” everywhere in Europe to be found in the fish-shops, and then, suddenly, it was (nearly) out. This time, it is likely to go the same way.
