I tried to keep it short--it got long. sorry. it is personally important to me that everyone in the fishkeeping community understands what we are attempting to accomplish, why, and how we go about it. I want us to be completely transparent
First, a comment about NCIAC.net. Our goals and the information we publish at our site.
We have no desire to become a source for fish care information to the hobbyist. Will a hobbyist find accurate information about basics at our site--if he or she goes there we would certainly hope so. We do not want to be (and I personally will not allow it to be) a hobbyist oriented site. Our orientation is to the sellers of fish and the products sold and how they presented to the new and less knowledgeable hobbyist. That said, we expect that a hobbyist will find accurate information if they do look at what we publish on our web pages.
about species sizes. i will go back (or somebody will) and look at the specific species listed above.
I too have kept species that have far exceeded, or been smaller than the sizes listed. And, when I started keeping fish in the 60's I kept some of the same species as I do today, albeit in smaller tanks. The same species kept in smaller tanks in the 60's and into 70's did not grow as large, live as long, or have the same body shapes as the specimens kept at later times and today in significantly larger tanks. In addition to tank size and stocking another factor in that size and longevity issue may well be a radically different approach to water changes. Way back when 25% water change a month was considered as potentially harmful (did it and more anyway). Today we know that more frequent and larger volume water changes are required to achieve better fish health.
The point being that based on my personal experiences NCIAC.net could list different and larger sizes. The same could be said of species other hobbyists participating in the NCIAC.net effort keep. That is what we are trying in part to eliminate. The arguement could be made from a mass merchandiser side of the equation that the hobbyists they poll (or the few books written for the hobbyist they cite) about fish sizes are what they utilized for the information they provide. My personal belief is that there is no absolute size a given specimen will reach. Rather there is an approximation that can be generalized for the species.
So, what does that mean in terms of what we are trying to achieve with NCIAC.net in relationship to the sizes listed?
A baseline has to be hammered into place when advertising fish sizes by the mass merchandisers (even the small pet stores and lfs's). So much of the information is so obviously wrong. Where does the baseling come from? You will find differences in sizes of species when examining Baencsch, Axelrod, and Fishbase--3 of the more well regarded sources of information. You will find differences in sizes when looking at the data published at other species specific forums that are well regarded (I hestitate to list other forum names here because in my mind it is a bit of disrespect to the owners, mods, and members here). You can then find differences in information listed in many, many of the "consumer" literature and periodicals.
How did we develop the nciac.net line in relationship to sizes? We took the first three sources cited and said "let's use those as a framework for our structure. Then we will plug the data from other sources into that structure and see how it compares". Then we discussed sources with a major retailer--the individual is actively involved in aquaculture from the DVM side and the hobbyist side, as well as the mass merchandiser side. We found that utilization of the three sources that create the framework fit the bill of "authoritative source", a key phrase in advertising. The reason that phrase is so important is that the advertiser has the responsibility and obligation to substantiate their claims. A consumer has no obligation to disprove the advertisers claims--the ball rests in the advertisers court to show he is accurate. To do that "authoritative sources" are required. We utilized 3 sources that can be and are considered "authoritative".
The line of data we label NCIAC.net is consistent with authoritative sources. When it varies from the three "authoritative sources" listed above the alternate sources utilized are clearly identified in our master document. In the instances of conflict about the sizes among the three baseline sources the autmatic default has been to the largest size. Then an examination of secondary and tertiary sources has occurred in an effort to reconcile the differences. The most likely size as a potential maximum has then been utilized.
The use of anecdotal information from hobbyists without clear visual documentation or statistically significant sample sizes has been disregarded for driving a baseline into place. The use of "typical" species size in home aquaria listed at so many sites (even the well regarded species specific sites) has been relegated to a "probably" and "interesting" category of information. The reason being is that there is no way to easily and readily quantify and objectify the parameters that constitute "typical". And, as is often the case the information provided at the sites as "typical" is often followed by the disclaimer that hobbyists may have specimens achieve larger or smaller sizes in their tanks.
We are trying to drive a baseline into place by which advertising standards of accuracy can be judged. And, which most fishkeepers will look at and say: "looks pretty good I can see or at least understand that". We are attempting to put an end to information that says the clown loach is a 6" fish suitable for a 10-gallon tank, or, a Red Belly Pacu is an 8" fish suitable for a 20-gallon tank, or an Eclpse Cat is an 8" fish suitable for a 29-gallon tank. We are approaching this from two sides: accuracy (within a reasonable norm) from the retailer about specimen and tank size; and accuracy for the consumer in terms of what to expect size wise (within a reasonable norm) and minimum tank sizes that permit "responsible husbandry and humane and ethical treatment of animals" (the claim and phrase promoted by the mass merchandisers).
freshwater, brackish water, marine waters
well noted.
That is on the master document--we have substantially more data than that presented in our summary line. Our intent was not to show all information. or care information. just a quick summary of some of the information until we get the final kinks worked out of our database--data entry and programming inconsistencies. We are about there so we felt comfortable with a very temporary, interim presentation. We have been going around and around a bit on the marine salt thing with a specific vendor--we have it as a topic of conversation with specific species.
Moral Highground
Uncomfortable place for this kid and anyone else involved with NCIAC.net. That is not what we are attempting to achieve at all. i truly apologize if that is the way this effort is being percieved. As a matter of fact, if the people that knew me well saw that they would be rolling all over the floor laughing. That is not a description very often used to describe sully--lol.
The ground is simply one that we think of as a level playing field. Or, to cop a phrase from a book ("The Laws of the Game") I read often to guide me in my endeavors as a ref for a sport i love, "Fair Play Please". That is all we are after "Fair Play". We understand fish and home aquaria are a lot like the fine print on the "MPG" sticker in the window of a new car--"actual results may vary".
I hope that helped you guys understand what we are about--and how the information was compiled--a bit better.
rip us apart. rip the info apart. if fishkeepers do it we are better prepared. the retailers don't know nearly as much--or at least they pretend not to--lol.
BTW, i expected a hue and cry about something that shows up here and there on the quick summary. I hope that the absence of response on a particular type of nciac.net line continues to go unquestioned. I'm not saying what the line, or the species that get that line are--lol. Thanks for the feedback!
sully
/www.noclownsinacube.net/fish_chart.html
