ever notice the diff. in 'stats' for fish from site to site?

[Dabbler II]

Just to add that genitics (sp) also plays a part to. Just like people most people are 5' 10' tall some are 5' 2" and some are 6'8", fish will vary is size also. I have 4 Balas in my tank, they are about 10 months old, I got them when they were all about 2 1/2" now 2 are about 7" 1 is 6" and the last guy is about 4 1/2". I take the size that people and LFS say they get as an average, They may get bigger or smaller than the 12" they say.

 

[OrionGirl]

Actually, there is not as much genetic variability in fish as there is in humans. Humans are really unique in the animal kingdom in this fashion, as are our domestic animals. Wild animals survive in conformity--for example, elephants have a very narrow variance. Schooling fish, birds, deer, elk, etc all vary from one another very, very little, once age is accounted for. Even predators will acheive similar sizes as their peers. Extreme differences in size make the animal stand out to predators, or make them weaker and less able to survive.

Fish should get to the same size, with the exceptions of those restricted by water parameters, tank size, or gender hierarchy.

 

[aquariumfishguy]

I agree with most people here and especially with what RTR says. If people would stop writing down their experinces on the net and try to write down what are FACTS, the less experienced wouldnt be so confused after going to a couple websites. But I also agree with the fact that not everyone out there knows what they're talking about. Watch closely and observe from a distance before making any dicisions on fish you will get after just looking over a few sites...

 

[dwf73]

Facts are established through experience. I do not see why you would ever criticize people for trying to share their personal approaches, successes, failures, or suggestions. Subjective accounts are only going to be harmful for those observers who fail to distinguish between imperatives and perspectives. In all my years of working with fish, I have found that very few hobbyists concern themselves with experimentation and instead seek to abide by some collection of rules. In my mind, this is a drastic misfortune not only to the individual aquarist but also to the hobby in itself. There are certainly factual bases that one must incorporate in order to maintain a successfull aquarium, such as water parameters, dietary standards, and so forth, but to reduce the practice of fishkeeping to a simple "formula" would be naive. It is my belief that the more experiences one may become enlightened to, the more accurate and educated his or her approach will become. The entire hobby of fishkeeping is unnatural by its own definition, and it would be foolish to restrict its development by settling on certain "facts". I have yet to keep two fish that respond identically to all circumstances, so for my part I would much rather have accounts of personal experiences as a reference than a list of predetermined statistics. The only true danger arises from people trusting whatever they read or hear without first exploring it in further detail, and I believe that is both detrimental and irresponsible to discourage any method by which personal experiences are made available to others.

 

[aquariumfishguy]

Ok, wow...I think you read far too deep into my post.

You said:
"Facts are established through experience."

While this is true, take the following circumstance for example:

someone buys a common pleco and had him in a 10 gallon for 5 years. He grows to 4 inches and is then stunted. He then dies. The "author" then publishes an article online talking about common plecos. He goes on to tell people that plecos grow to about 4 inches and live 4-6 years.

......a newbie would take that seriously. Many make the mistake of believing everything they read and if they make the critical mistake of only reading one article on the fish they are interested in, thats a fatal error.

Dont tell me thats not a realistic approach to what you claimed was wrong about my statement...because experienced fishkeepers can verify that there IS infact hundreds of so called "websites" out there with this kind of misleading info.

So while experience is what proves facts, experience from unknown sources can lead to information which is backed up by errors...tragic errors.

 

[aquariumfishguy]

BTW...if people want to talk about their experiences, thats fine and dandy but what happens is people start claiming their experiences as facts. That is what this whole thread is about...misinformation based upon what we "find to be true".

...sry, hope that clears some confusion up.

 

[dwf73]

I suppose my question to you would then be, at what point do you consider someone's or some group's findings/experiences to be the "truth." I am arguing that, when dealing with fishkeeping, there are really no hard facts to speak of, since all that can be discerned are generalizations. Perhaps I misread what you are saying to imply that there is essentially some strict formula by which the process should be approached, whereas you actually mean to say that oftentimes people tend to assume that there is no foundation whatsoever and as a result go about the hobby erroneously and then provide that misleading data to others. I also may be fooling myself in believing that the majority of people are able to seperate this data from the rest. My main point in all of this is that I do not think anyone should present their knowledge or experience of the matter as immaleable fact. No hard feelings of course, I probably did read far too deep into what you had said, and thank you for clarifying.

 

[aquariumfishguy]

You say,

I suppose my question to you would then be, at what point do you consider someone's or some group's findings/experiences to be the "truth."
-----------------------------------------------------
I say,

The thing is, the newbies dont know what right or wrong. And they dont nessessarly know to look at multiple sources either. And what I consider to be truth is when I can read (from well respected people, companies) from multiple sources the same data, then I can get an idea of what is "truth" or not. My only concern is that there are far too many "fish profiling" sites out there which have inaccurate info and this can mislead the average fishkeeper.

I hope that helps...

 

[RTR]

To take AFG's idea a bit further, the experiences of any fishkeeper are hopefully reported factually, and are thus "true" for the circumstances under which they were observed. The issues arise when the circumstances are not reported along with the results. The pleco in a ten gallon tank is an excellent example - if the writer stated that it had 24" of fish in the tank and that it was filtered with a mini HOB, and 10% water partials were done approximately monthly if the fishkeeper wasn't too busy, then we would all know that 4" and 4-5 years was not bad considering the circumstances. A novice might not, but then they might also consider 4-5 years outstanding. That the fish only made that size could well be true and thus is a fact. But it would also be fact that fish was severly stunted and died very young due to long term effects of poor water quality and insufficient oxygenation. The latter facts wre undoubtledly not reported, as you would hope that the keeper would have handled the fish differently had they known all the facts.

 

[aquariumfishguy]

You said that perfectly...did you take a nap or something or are you naturally that keen when it comes to 'taking ideas further'. Ahh...I need sleep.