how big a tank for small Cichlids???

[anewbie]

I mean, with a breeding pair of the smallest shell dwellers you could, at a push, maybe do it in a 10 gallon, but why would someone? 10 gallon tanks are for snails or shrimp, or small fry.

As an experieced fish keeper that you seem to be, I'm disappointed you would advocate for 10 gallon tanks for any cichlids unless they are fry. We should be striving to do better for our fish. They are used to small spaces when they are still in the retail path/journey, but we are supposed to be giving them the best home possible, not just the bare minimum.

I want to make it clear that i don't disagree with you that larger is better and in fact having several very large aquariums (500 and 600 gallon) I'm finding out just how small they are even for '8 inch' fishes that people say can fit in a 125. While close to a tetra i have come to the conclusion that HEMIODUS GRACILIS for example really need a 50 foot aquarium (my 600 is 4 feet wide and 10 feet long). However there are other similar size fishes that do just fine a the 600 like Anostomus ternetzi so the size require depends on a lot of factors.

 

[anewbie]

I'd argue there are veijita types, once the species get messed up by human breeders. I think the differences between species are evident in wild caught fish, with the great clue being locality of capture. But once linebreeding hits and they become marketed names, you aren't always dealing with species anymore.

I suspect you are doing a disservice as these fishes are almost certainly line bred macs and have nothing to do with the species vejita and that is my gripe about your posts. It would be like someone breeding extra large guppies and calling them a swordtail type.

They are simply two different species. At best they could be called vijita colour macs or you could call them macs with somehwat vijita colouring.

It is unfortunate that the industry has chosen to capitalize on a species name to use as a selling tool but pushing that narrative only makes the matter worse.

There has been genetic testing on those fishes for which the sp nomenclature has been dropped - there are fishes that are come in different colour forms in the wild but are the same species and those that appear to be very similar but different species genetically.


In the case of a. viejita there are two colour forums but the 2nd forum has not yet been genetically tested to determine if it is the same species but a. viejita was determined to be a similar looking but genetically different fish.

In the trade i would be hard press to believe that what is sold as viejita are either a hybrid with viejita or have any relationship to the species as the ones i've seen have all clearly been macs that have been line bred.

For those who care here is the complete species list:

Welcome to Toms Homepage

 

[GaryE]

It's a quibbling point, but once the beautiful wild appearances have been lost and the name has become commercial, it's hardly worth worrying about correct species names. They're a different part of the hobby, and has more to do with judging standards than species identification.

I saw some early linebreeding results from what what Linke and Staeck called veijita form 2, and they were colourful, and breeding true in the later 1990s. Not my thing, but skilled linebreeding. I also saw the same efforts come along with mcmasteri, a bit later, both out of Czech breeders. Both veijita and mcmasteri were easily available and not expensive at the turn of the century, when this linebreeding took off. Are these the same lines? Maybe. I stopped paying attention to what was going on with them, and may well be assuming both are around. Here, mcmasteri and veijita are reversed - call them mcmasteri and they are more expensive than linebred veijitas, which correctly named or not aren't rare. They're easy to breed and most regional sources here are hobbyist breeders.

I've seen fish sold as swordtail guppies, by the way.

If indeed the fancy veijitas are really mcmasteri, that's fine by me. They're just ornamental fish now.

 

[anewbie]

It's a quibbling point, but once the beautiful wild appearances have been lost and the name has become commercial, it's hardly worth worrying about correct species names. They're a different part of the hobby, and has more to do with judging standards than species identification.

I saw some early linebreeding results from what what Linke and Staeck called veijita form 2, and they were colourful, and breeding true in the later 1990s. Not my thing, but skilled linebreeding. I also saw the same efforts come along with mcmasteri, a bit later, both out of Czech breeders. Both veijita and mcmasteri were easily available and not expensive at the turn of the century, when this linebreeding took off. Are these the same lines? Maybe. I stopped paying attention to what was going on with them, and may well be assuming both are around. Here, mcmasteri and veijita are reversed - call them mcmasteri and they are more expensive than linebred veijitas, which correctly named or not aren't rare. They're easy to breed and most regional sources here are hobbyist breeders.

I've seen fish sold as swordtail guppies, by the way.

If indeed the fancy veijitas are really mcmasteri, that's fine by me. They're just ornamental fish now.

Well i think we are going to have to disagree at least on one point. Calling a mac a veijitas is not good. Now go buy some fancy guppies that are really bumblebee mbuna and have a good time after all if they are tank raised and not wild caught the species name no longer has value.

 

[anewbie]

Gary - i guess what i am saying is i could care less what you call them to yourself but when a company or an individual promote pictures of a fish as a species that it does not represent and then say it doesn't matter since they are tank bred it seems an odd position to myself.

The presumption seems to be that it doesn't really matter if it is v or m since the two are similar at least in looks and i guess with the way people treat fishes looks are the important thing even if two species have different behavior.

A simple example i can provide is in the genus ivanacara. There are two relatively similar species in this list - adoketa and bimaculata - and while they look similar they have radically different behavior esp with regards to a community aquarium. If a seller finds and advantage to use one name over the other for marketing purposes does it really matter what the consumer purchase ?

It sounds like your position is since they look similar and the individuals were tank raised it doesn't really matter.

 

[GaryE]

I take a 'defensive position'. If it is linebred, it doesn't get into my tanks. Simple.

I'd like to help out local aquarists (who don't care about our opinions) by breeding them some Apistogramma, since I bred and raised dozens of species 20 years ago and back. No local store carries them and they're much discussed at the fish club.
I wouldn't make much money, but they'd be happy with them, and might learn some interesting things. It would be a nice easy plan, but all the fish I see in local stores and online offerings are human modified forms, and to me, not worth distributing. Show me a wild caught mcmasteri or veijita, and I'll easily identify it. I kept both a lot. Show me the modified ones and the trade name is good enough. In my snobby way, the fish isn't.

Poecilia reticulata is a guppy, but not all guppies are Poecilia reticulata, and the hobby versions can be hybrids (I used to keep P. obscura, and endler's are in the mix a lot), or just hard to recognize as what they were. So snakeskins, Moscow Blue, whatever name they're marketed under makes a good identifier.

If a hobbyist can't grasp the idea of species, whether from lack of curiosity, religious thinking or lack of interest, they're missing something fun. Not everyone would agree with that, but hey, I'll argue it. I take species identification seriously, especially since I'm a fish breeder.

Pelvicachromis kribensis is one of my favourite dwarf Cichlids. Until 20 years ago, they were called Pelvicachromis taeniatus. A re-study of them using DNA techniques proved some in Cameroon were kribensis (the hobby krib is P pulcher - someone made an identification mistakes ages ago and it stuck), some were drachenfelsi and some (in Nigeria) remained P taeniatus. But the taeniatus we have in the hobby is sold as 'Nigerian Red', and there's a high probability that it is a linebred form, and that the natural appearance (and possibly behaviour) of the original fish is lost to the hobby. The wild caught pulcher I kept were quite aggressive compared to the domestic ones I used to have, so changes through linebreeding can affect the entire experience of keeping the fish.

I'm a species purist in the hobby, so I'm trying to get taeniatus sent from Nigeria through commercial channels. I could use a vacation, so I'm hoping to get to West Africa in a different part of their range over the next while to collect them in their habitats. It isn't likely to interest many people, but I think we should be able to look at fish as windows into nature and evolutionary history. The Nigerian Red will always sell better, but my interest isn't the business side.

If I were writing an article on taeniatus today, I would make it very clear that my subject was the Nigerian red hobby form, and that my experiences might not reflect the actual look and behaviour of the biological species. But unless I encounter something very close to the Nigerian Red form in my quest, I wouldn't bother writing that article now.