Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
[quote=”RafEg” post=5841]Hi Stefanie, i use the same one and it works really well. Now after some years i had to buy a new sieve because mine wont let the wasser through anymore…[/quote]
Hi, Rafael,
yes, I also know this problem. You can solve it for a while by cleaning the sieves in water adding a denture cleanser tab. It works very well. So you have to buy new sieves only after a rather long time – and I am glad that it is indeed possible to buy replacements!I use this incubator set. (There’s an English instruction manual pdf).The small sieve is lifted containing the artemia naupliae, and can so be rinsed. Then I empty it into a small bowl with the right water and pour this into my paro tanks.
Hi, Bennie,
thank you for your efforts to enhance the participation in the census.
As I understand you have already decided to send two reminders now – one at the beginning and one at the end. And that you will not again extend the census period – what I find absolutely right.
In my opinion it is rather a matter of individual discipline of the members than a matter of how often we are reminded. As 7Zwerge wrote – it is no problem for anyone to make a mark in one’s own calendar and so be reminded as often as necessary by your own PC alarm.
I think it is an imposition to expect to be reminded by you.
(A large screen popping up when logging in to the forum will only reach those members who visit the forum regularly. Due to personal matters I don’t visit the forum very often at the moment – but I take part in the census. It IS possible ………)
Peter, I am sorry, but I can’t help having the impression that you didn’t read my post thoroughly and completely. Don’t be cross with me: Your answer seems to be the spontaneous reaction of someone who is annoyed of being criticised.
If you read my post again you will find at last that we share a similar opinion: One method (e.g., museum taxonomy) is not enough for thoroughly describing a new species.
This is something I already agreed with you in my last post.But how but “condemnation” would you call this phrasing:
The old science of the birds was a pure museum-science. People shot the birds and then science began: measuring, weighting, describing the bodies and so on. We can thank god that this has ended by the protest of many laymen in the late 19. century! But in our fish, we still have that museum-taxonomy. That is the problem.
I could not let this form of words pass unchallenged. There’s nothing that let’s us recognize that you still believe this method to be a valuable one – among many others. It simply sounds like a clear and total refusal. It definitely doesn’t sound like:
“entirely insufficient for describing new species of Paros in cases where only slight differences in structure and colouring are to be seen at the phenotypes”
I did not mean to offend you – but I think it should be permitted to contradict you if one has another opinion (or knowledge!).
(By the way – killing and collecting animals for museum collections was definitely not ended by layman protests by end of the 19th century. There have been many expeditions which collected lots of animals for scientific purposes up to the 60s and 70s of the 20th century …)
Thank you, Ekona ………… yes, I think an age of about 4 month sounds very plausible. This is about the time that my nagyi-young needed to grow up to a similar size and colouration.
But nevertheless, when reading all the reports here in this forum on the rearing of fry of the most diverse species or forms, I have got the impression that the growth rates are very different, indeed – depending on various factors, as Peter already concluded.
[quote=”Peter Finke” post=5172]Dr. Kottelat, who did the scientific descriptions of these three species only lately, in 2005, decided from dead museum specimens to distinguish these three species. It’s the same problem we know from ornithology: The old science of the birds was a pure museum-science. People shot the birds and then science began: measuring, weighting, describing the bodies and so on. We can thank god that this has ended by the protest of many laymen in the late 19. century! But in our fish, we still have that museum-taxonomy. That is the problem. As long as an outdated method of describing new small fish defines the species, we are often incapable of to determine rightly our living fish that has not been assigned with undoubtedly true a location.[/quote]
Hello, Peter,
I understand what you mean by condemning the “outdated method of museum science”. But I think you wrong this method by completely rejecting it. And fortunately it is not true that the “old museum science” including measuring, weighing, describing has ended (but luckily most of the killing on purpose has!).The museum science still has it’s value – in no other way you will be able to make precise measurements, to count feathers (or scales), to compare a great lot of individuals. This would not be possible using living animals – not to speak of the fact that in museum collections you have access to species from regions which might be out of reach today (e.g., due to political facts, due to destruction). You have access to species which already suffered extinction in nature. But I agree with you when you say it must not be the only method to describe species.
The correct and comprehensive description of a taxon is like putting together pieces of a mosaic – every piece is important – museum taxonomy and morphology as well as behavioural studies in nature and captivity, genetics, molecular investigations, DNA-barcoding and so on. Not one of these methods is the ultimative and only one – and none is completely to be abandoned.
An excerpt I love very much, from a wonderful book of John Steinbeck (and Ed Ricketts) – “The log from the sea of Cortez”. To show that I understand that museum taxonomy can not be all ………… but I have to strike a blow for it if you condemn it like you do ……….
[i]”The Mexican sierra [a kind of fish] has ‘XVII-15-IX’ spines in the dorsal fin. These can easily be counted. But if the sierra strikes hard on the line so that our hands are burned, if the fish sounds and nearly escapes and finally comes in over the rail, his colour pulsing and his tail beating the air, a whole new relational external reality has come into being.
The alternative would be to sit in a laboratory, open an evil-smelling jar, remove a stiff colourless fish from formalin solution, count the spines, and write the truth ‘D. XVII-15-IX.’ There you have recorded a reality which cannot be assailed – probably the least important reality concerning either the fish or yourself.”[/i]
[quote=”helene” post=5171]
Martin wrote some thoughts regarding why he consider this identification to be more right than p.tweediei, – and he also gave me permission to explain this in forum (together with the photos) he send, – but I simply have to admit, that my understanding of the german is not good enough – as well as my understanding of the different problems around identification of species, so I am afraid of saying too much about this, – I might get it wrong.
[/quote]Helene, I think it is interesting for the community what Martin Hallmann thinks of your fish – so if I can help by translating Martin’s statement, just let me know.
Thank you for these photos!
But I am sure you wanted to write “10 month old”, didn’t you? These fish can not be only 10 weeks old …………
Thank you, Ekona – I didn’t know that tweediei-females show that much red in their fins (I never had P. tweediei – but the day may come 😉 ). Very interesting!
And yes, your female looks very similar to the tweediei-female from the link you posted.Thank you for the photos!
This female really shows very much red in the unpaired fins during courtship display – I have never seen this before! Is it really such a pure red – no photographic artefact? I find this extraordinary!
[quote=”Fredd” post=5005]
One question about the other Linkei i have, one of them have clear brown stripes all the time but when one of the other fish
come close stripes disapear and fish turns stripes of, i tryed to make photos but its more visual looking with the eye!What kind of beavior, mating, agressive?
//Fredrik[/quote]
Hi, Fredrik,
I think your question hasn’t been answered yet.
Definitely looks like mating colouration and behaviour – head down, normal stripes “turned off”, sexy eyes ………….I use a minimalist solution – small LED-lamps from a well known Swedish furnishing house ……. You can get these lamps in two versions: with a heavy foot or as a clamp spot, both versions having a flexible, adjustable lamp arm. This makes them very versatile – you can change the angle of light by adjusting the arm, and you can clamp the spot to a shelf above the tank, and so on. They have an energy consumption of 3 W and their light colour is warm white (3000 Kelvin).
Ekona, I posted some more photos of my nagyi in the nagyi-thread – just to show how different the colouration of one male looks under different circumstances. Most of the time when I watch the fish they seem to be greenish-golden, like in my avatar.
I do not want to disturb your thread with other species and to become too much OT.
I put some more pictures here to answer Ekonas question from this thread.
These photos all show the same male:
Two pictures taken at the same day with the same camera:
Same fish, about one year later:
Another month later, still the same fish:
And it is the fish shown in my avatar!
I once thought there might be a difference in colouration depending on the age of the fish – but I now think it is a matter of light. It’s a characteristic of these structural colours – contrary to pigment colours – that they never seem the same under different light incidence.
Ah, I see, Ekona.
Yes, I agree that the colouration of the females during display should be regarded with more interest, here one might see differences that otherwise can not be seen.I already posted some photos of the courtship of my P. nagyi from Pekan Nenas a while ago – here you can see how dark the unpaired fins of my female become.
