Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
On the base of these images, it is impossible to identify the species. Although I know Michael Hellweg as one of the best specialists in the United States, I remain skeptical about that identification. I received the first P. spec. Danau Rasau (the later gunawani)by Horst Linke who found and imported them privately to Germany. I bred them, they were rather easy to breed. The offspring fish were less conspicuous and more similar to bintan variants than the wildcaught fish. These were distinctly stout in their bodily appearance and specific in respect to the small coloured fringes of their unpaired fins, but later on I saw some other wild caught specimens in Linke’s tanks that were less clearly shaped and coloured this way. So I think it difficult to recognize gunawani without doubt from a few specimens only; I even am not convinced that it is a clear separate species. It seems so, but there is a rest of uncertainty even with wildcaught fish. And I am very skeptical with respect to commercially traded fish named like this, since I know of several doubtful examples: the exporters had used the newest and most interesting names in oder to make sure they sell the fish.
We definitely need much better photos, big and sharp in best light conditions to say more.
This discussion needs to be differentiated.
The important point is not the absolute value of the ec or the Microsiemens-number, because this says nothing about the minerals that cause it. The decisive point is calcium, Ca.
Parosphromenus and other typical blackwater organisms are not very tolerant of calcium. They are not accustomed to it; there is nearly no Ca in the tropical waters they live in. This makes the decisive difference to the bulk of our tap waters. Mostly, Ca is the dominant factor in it. In some cases, however, we have a different, a-typical combination of minerals in tap-waters. In some Black Forest regions, for instance, you have a tap water containing very small amounts of calcium.
The conductibility says nothing about the combination of minerals that they contain. Therefore, two waters with the same ec can be composed of quite different minerals. Parosphromenus stand rather high values of Na, because they are biologically used to it, but not of Ca, because they are not accustomed to it at all. (Think of the treatment of some diseases by salt, Na; they stand it very well).They may live in Ca-waters for quite a time, but they age much quicker than in Ca-free waters.
This explains why there are seemingly some contradictions on a water with the same ec. It’s the same ec, but in reality the waters are quite different. The important point is: For Parosphromenus, try to avoid calcium Ca. Slow amounts maybe tolerable, but in most tap waters the amounts are far too high.
I never had jumping Paros myself, but … I always covered my tanks. The best Paro-scientist I knew, Dr. Walter Foersch, founder of Paro-aquaristics, never saw jumpng Paros, but always covered his tanks, too.
On the other hand I know of some people who were surprised by some Paros in this respect; trusting in the non-jumping they left tanks uncovered, and … the fish jumed out. But besides this happens rarely only, in the cases I came across those tanks either were meant as a provisionary home only, not equipped “orderly” as Paro-tanks, or the feeding or the water values were bad.
I strongly advise you to cover all Paro-tanks although fish accustomed to a good tank with a good milieu and regular feeding hardly ever jump.
We had rarely shipments of definitely mixed species (as it seems to be here). The problem are the females. As the males are concerned, waiting for some weeks mostly will reveal the species or at least to group (in case of bintan-like forms). But if there are indications that they sold a species-mix, we are hardly able to recognize the right females. We don’t know what the males are able to. Therefore, it is possible that hybrids have been already swimming in our tanks.
If you come across a mixed group, you must be very careful. By no means offspring of such fish should be traded any further. As I said, the problem are the females. Luckily, we rarely encountered mixed groups (and hence possibly mixed pairs) in fish from Ruinemans’ or Glaser’s. But in your case this might have happened. The mistake most probably was made in Asia already by the catchers who delivered their fish caught at different places to the exporters by putting several weak caughts together.
I should draw the conclusion that we must try to become better in discernng the adukt females of our Paros. There are differences, but less prominent than with the males. We need good photos of clearly determined females.
In identification matters I am mostly unanimous with Bernd, but not this time. First: I cannot see a clear dark spot. The colouring in the first photo is typical for a fish in a frightened situation, displaying several unclear weak spotlike patches. Second: the other fish is coloured in quite a different way, interestingly I admit, but the typical star pattern in all unpaired fins that P. pahuensis shows even in a rather young age is missing totally. Besides, the colour pattern in th end of the tail fin is different. This is an interesting fish and I cannot identify it at all. All Paros known to me do not match this pattern. Both fish may well represent different species.
But it is too early to quarrell about this. Both fish are still too young, do not show full courtship colours, and the photos are bad. Be patient for some weeks and repeat the photos with a better technique.Dear Bill and Martin, thank you for your votes. I need a week of holidays in the Netherlands, but afterwards Helen and I shall ask all members in a newsletter for their opinion. Because we must know a certain magnitude of the interest to really come.
No, the IGL will not meet in Hamburg next year. But we could probably arrange the availability of certain Non-Paro-fishes, if the species and quantities are clearly ordered in time. But this is no issue now.
For me, P. bintan is one of the riddles of the genus. It was described at a time where we were far of the knowledge of the many local forms that are more or less similar, quite a few of them native to Sumatra that was hardly well-known at that time. This holds for Maurice Kottelat, too. in the two decades since we came across many bintan-like forms. Take Belitung, an island near Bangka on which Horst Linke found P. spec. Belitung. The problem is at least as much a problem of theoretical biology than as much a problem of empirical knowledge of localities. It is mirrored by the fact that Kottelat is silent on Parosphromenus since his last description of five new species in 2005. They were rather clearly separable by structural criteria, not by mere colour. Since then description has become difficult: You hit the border of the traditional methods that ignore genetic means. But all we have learned since then by genetic analysis is that the many different but similar forms are extremely near to each other. Since then bintan has become a catch-all-species, and as aquarist-specialists we react by speaking of bintan-like fish.
Clearly, these fish to be seen here are bintan-like. If you take only the well-described species they are bintan, no doubt. The association “P. deissneri” is clearly wrong, for that species can be distinguished by clear structural criteria. Without any reliable information on their location there is no other determination possible. But a question remains: Are all those bintan-like forms bintan or not? Is blue-line bintan? Is Sentang bintan? Is Belitung bintan? And that reduces to the question: Is the description of bintan sufficient and final even in 2016?
My position is the following: Parosphromenus is so interesting a genus since we come across fish that are highly diversified locally. Why? Because the species are still developing, on the basis of local segregation. Presently, we encounter a still-photo of a highly dynamic evolution, the evolution of different species from a common mother-species, but in many cases the process has not come to an end so far. This is the reason why Kottelat is silent. What with his traditional taxonomic methods and in the light of the genetic similarity should he do otherwise?
Conclusion: The Glaser fish is not deissneri, but a bintan-like form. Whether it is bintan, is not a question of exactly looking at these fish but a question of the species-concept we use in the case of the dynamics of presently ongoing evolution. My tendency is to use it in rather restrictive a way, say: all are bintan, because for developing species I prefer to be a lumper. And that means we have to reformulate – at least to supplement – that decription of bintan in the light of the many new forms. But my impression is that many people, even taxonomists, and especially aquarists (even notorious discoverers as Horst Linke) prefer to be splitters; they tend to take developing species to be (hitherto undescribed) species already.
I don’t think we could say more at present. For a more detailed analysis we need better photos (lighter!); then we could possibly make some suggestions on the locality the fish might come from. But that’s all. We could not say whether they are bintan or only bintan-like. Since that’s a question of how to deal with ongoing evolution in the taxonomic business.Dear Lawrence, it’s fine that you had the opportunity to visit Germany, travel with Peter Beyer and visit Martin Hallmann. It’s a pity that there was only one imported species (a bintan-form) at Glaser’s in Rodgau (the centre of imports for Europe since decades); they use the names given by the exporters in Asia, but they will change it after the German experts have identified the fish, if they are able to. A pity that you could not visit Hamburg and see the stock of Bernd Bussler’s, who has at least twelve if not fourteen or fifteen species , some of them in good numbers. You wouldn’t have left him without offspring of less than five or eight species.
We are not sure that the second meeting of the project that was postulated by all visitors at Hamburg 2015 including those from overseas will be really possible in Britain, as we actively tried to arrange; Helene has travelled there and asked our friends for their opinion. The main disadvantage is that there would hardly more than two or three species be available for the participants. And the other suggestion to meet at Singapore would mean that there would be even less.
In view of that fact we serioulsy think about a second meeting of the project taking place in Hamburg again. Bernd would make it possible that all visitors who want to take Paros away could do so with et least ten or twelve species, including tweediei, parvulus (presently his stock is more than eighty individials), paludicola from different locations, harveyi, spec. Lundu (“Sungai Stunggang”) and others.
For me, it sounds ridiculous that a global project like our PP should meet at the same place for a second time; we did not think of that ever before. But maybe that’s a prejudice. Seen in clear light one must admit that presently there is no place on earth where you could see and get hold of more Paro-species than Bernd Bussler’s private breeding station in Hamburg.The consequence is this: In a few week’s time I shall write a newsletter to all members in all continents asking them what to do, telling this fact and offer the opportunity to arrange a second meeting maybe next year at exact the same place we had that in 2015: Hamburg, the same hotel, and the same offer: to visit Bernd Bussler’s breeding station and carry as many fish away as people would like to do. But I must ask another question: Would you, or someone living in Poland or in France or in Ireland or in the U.S. or in Malaysia or in Japan really t r y to come to Hamburg, again or for the first time? Nobody can tell this definitely by now, but we must have an impression of the understanding of our argument and the serious interest in our solution. Or should we meet elsewhere in spite of the lack of Paros?
What do you think? Would you try to come? Or would you think that the availability of Paros is of minor interest and there would be a preference for the global aspect of the PP?Dear “Kawa”:
1. There are four forums: Asian, American, European, and Global. In all, the language is English because the Parosprhomenus-Project is globally oriented.
2. If you live in Germany and look for a personal contact, you should go to the European forum. It’s simply stupid to open a new subject in the Global forum entitled “Ruhrgebiet” and it is stupid again to write in German. You are neglecting the fact that you are not living in the center of the world.
3. And then it’s stupid a third time to simply ask whether someone lives “near” Duisburg. Bernd replied very correctly: Yes, Hamburg. From the Parosphromenus-Projects view all our adresses in Berlin, Paris, Copenhagen, Italy etc. are “near” Duisburg. Especially if asked in the Global forum.
4. I am very grateful to all our members in the different places of the earth that normally they think a second time before writing what they are doing.
I and other Paro-breeders have used both types of bagy without any difference – for Paros. With other fish there might be advantages of the breating bags. And breathing atmospheric air by labyrinths is of course made safer with breathing bags. But it’s not necessary for Paros.
Best however are small plastic containers – e.g. small drinking water bottles or special containers with big round cap – for one or at most two Paros each.
That’s fine a transaction, good to know it’s functioning.
But you cannot conclude from the fact that the fish arrived living that the “breathable bags” were necessary. They maybe of great use for oxygen consuming Rasboras and even other labyrinths that really need atmospheric air. But our Paros normally do not make use of their labyrinth. We sent them very often safely in normal fish bags. They don’t swim around in their bags, simply lie down below a leaf and wait. Of course you can use that special bags, but this is not necessary.
We bred P. allani from Sibu and the rather similar P. spec. aff. allani form Lundu (“spec. Sungai Stunggang”)in Germany some years ago, f.i. Bussler, Linke, Hermann, Finke and a few others. Allan Brown (“allani”) bred “his” species in rather big numbers between 2000 and 2005 in Britain. I had a very good pair that was caught at the traditional place of origin by Horst Linke, often spawning in one of my small 10 liters tank.
I my view the species is not more difficut to breed than others. Presently, only spec. Sungai Stunggang is bred in some numbers by Bernd Bussler and Martin Hallmann.
Parvidentata was mentioned several time here in the PP-texts, in forum discussions and in my background texts. They could hardly live with our Paros in nature, but they do in our tanks. They do not represent the shrimps of the Paro-biotopes which we don not know up to the present day, to my knowledge.
