Need your opinions on my cory situation

[Byron]

Stocking is fine so far. You do however need another shoaling species for mid-water. Marble hatchetfish fine for surface, pygmy/dwarf cories fine for substrate and above, both species do spend a lot of time (the majority) mid-water, and they do seem to really enjoy company of smaller shoaling characins. I won't suggest any at the moment, but am prepared to comment on any suggestions made.

 

[OliveFish05]

Stocking is fine so far. You do however need another shoaling species for mid-water. Marble hatchetfish fine for surface, pygmy/dwarf cories fine for substrate and above, both species do spend a lot of time (the majority) mid-water, and they do seem to really enjoy company of smaller shoaling characins. I won't suggest any at the moment, but am prepared to comment on any suggestions made.

Will the pygmies and hatchetfish benefit from a mid water species, or is it for visual affect? I was afraid with the tank only being 12 inches tall it would feel a bit squished. If they would benefit from a midwater schooling species, I will attempt to locate some green neons, if I can’t find green neons I can get some normal neon tetras from my LFS.

 

[Byron]

Will the pygmies and hatchetfish benefit from a mid water species, or is it for visual affect?

Both. I am of course thinking very small fish--green neons meet this, as would the dwarf rasbora species in Boraras for some bright red.

 

[OliveFish05]

Both. I am of course thinking very small fish--green neons meet this, as would the dwarf rasbora species in Boraras for some bright red.

Ok. I may just pay to have marbled hatchets and green neons shipped to me, if it’s the best way for me to get them. I’ll shop around online for good prices. Thank you so much for your help!

 

[Byron]

Ok. I may just pay to have marbled hatchets and green neons shipped to me, if it’s the best way for me to get them. I’ll shop around online for good prices. Thank you so much for your help!

Don't be in a rush. I've been waiting six years for my hatchets. And I am not going to fill up the 29g until a rarer characin, small tetra or pencilfish, are available.

 

[OliveFish05]

Don't be in a rush. I've been waiting six years for my hatchets. And I am not going to fill up the 29g until a rarer characin, small tetra or pencilfish, are available.

That’s true. I will be having to move the tank to a new stand mid November, so I’ve got some time. My LFS does not have the best prices though, so it may be a wash either way. They said the hatchetfish are typically $6, I was able to find some online for $4 each plus shipping. I remember the green neons being over $3 when they had them last year, theyre $2 online.

Have you ever seen Veilfin Tetras (Hyphessobrycon elachys)? Absolutely stunning, but I’ve never seen them available and only heard of them for the first time about 2 weeks ago. Supposedly native to Paraguay and one of the smallest tetra species.

 

[WhistlingBadger]

What an interesting thread. Thanks @OliveFish05 and @Byron for letting me eavesdrop on a very interesting conversation.

 

[Byron]

Have you ever seen Veilfin Tetras (Hyphessobrycon elachys)? Absolutely stunning, but I’ve never seen them available and only heard of them for the first time about 2 weeks ago. Supposedly native to Paraguay and one of the smallest tetra species.

This species I have not only not seen but not even come across previously, at least so far as I can recall. There was an article in TFK in 2009 with some info that I assume is reliable:

Hyphessobrycon elachys

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk

This species was described to science by Marilyn Weitzman (1985). She was the wife of the great American ichthyologist Dr. Stanley Weitzman, and the two worked on several projects together during their years at university and later. Marilyn was primarily involved with botany, Stanley with biology. The species epithet comes from the Greek for little or small, a reference to the diminutive size of this fish. Here is a link to the paper describing this species:

v.98 (1985) - Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

 

[OliveFish05]

This species I have not only not seen but not even come across previously, at least so far as I can recall. There was an article in TFK in 2009 with some info that I assume is reliable:

Hyphessobrycon elachys

www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk

This species was described to science by Marilyn Weitzman (1985). She was the wife of the great American ichthyologist Dr. Stanley Weitzman, and the two worked on several projects together during their years at university and later. Marilyn was primarily involved with botany, Stanley with biology. The species epithet comes from the Greek for little or small, a reference to the diminutive size of this fish. Here is a link to the paper describing this species:

v.98 (1985) - Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington - Biodiversity Heritage Library

The Biodiversity Heritage Library works collaboratively to make biodiversity literature openly available to the world as part of a global biodiversity community.

www.biodiversitylibrary.org

Interesting! I had never heard of them before until I was looking into a Parana River Biotope. I wish I could find a big group of them, they’re stunning

 

[OliveFish05]

@Byron what is, in your opinion (if you have one), the ideal GH, KH, and PH range for guppies? I am getting a lot of mixed opinions on this and have seen it come up in recent threads. What about for pygmy Cories? I see many members here (mainly adorabelle dearheart and perhaps sgooosh) successfully keeping Cories and guppies together, while others say their water parameter ranges do not overlap. I have seen Seriously Fish highly praised by many here at TFF, and according to them there is overlap in their water parameter needs. It seems like no one can agree on anything! Though I suppose what else can you expect in a hobby like fishkeeping? I just wanted to hear your thoughts, you take many factors into consideration that many other experienced fish keepers would never consider.

I priced it, and to wait for my LFS to get the marbled hatchets and green neons it will be around $160 for 12 marbled hatchetfish and 16 green neons. Seeing as I have plenty of time to wait for my LFS to get them, I could save up. To order online and have them shipped it should be around $180. I have just been looking around to see if there are any more affordable options, and guppies come up again and again. In addition, though they are typically considered “beginner“ “common” or ”over rated” I find them absolutely beautiful and like them very much, from the way they move to the way they look. I love guppies, but would of course never consider them if they couldn't thrive in my tank. That is just what I am having a hard time figuring out though!

 

[Byron]

@Byron what is, in your opinion (if you have one), the ideal GH, KH, and PH range for guppies? I am getting a lot of mixed opinions on this and have seen it come up in recent threads. What about for pygmy Cories? I see many members here (mainly adorabelle dearheart and perhaps sgooosh) successfully keeping Cories and guppies together, while others say their water parameter ranges do not overlap. I have seen Seriously Fish highly praised by many here at TFF, and according to them there is overlap in their water parameter needs. It seems like no one can agree on anything! Though I suppose what else can you expect in a hobby like fishkeeping? I just wanted to hear your thoughts, you take many factors into consideration that many other experienced fish keepers would never consider.

First, I consider all species relative to their habitat water parameters. No one has ever provided evidence that fish do not do well in water comparable to their natural environment. Regardless of commercial breeding, this does hold true. This does not mean some species cannot be healthy outside their preference parameters, just that using their habitat parameters will be safe.

Second, within the above, I group fish into very soft, soft (usually consider these the same frankly), or moderately hard (or harder) water. The "middle ground" between these can be suitable for some soft water species and some harder water species, within reason. This is a generalization obviously, but it holds.

Guppies will be healthy in moderately hard or harder water, because that is in their evolution. This does not mean they cannot be healthy (or manage at any rate) in somewhat softer water. I had a female guppy acquired by accident (came in the bag with other fish) that lived for months in my soft water tank. However, if I were to keep guppies or any of the commonly-available livebearers, I would do so in moderately hard water and not in a soft or very soft water tank. In the 1980's I had a tank of black mollies and I used a calcareous substrate to maintain the GH and pH suited to mollies. Mollies are very different from guppies, but the point is that if I intend keeping "x" fish I will provide what it has evolved to require, regardless.

Guppies acquired from stores today are genetically compromised, according to most reports I've seen. Many commercially-raised fish are suffering the same fate.

Concerning Corydoras pygmaeus, this is a soft water fish. It occurs in blackwater as well as clear water, but this water is very soft and on the acidic side. There is nothing wrong with keeping it with guppies so far as the two species' behaviours, etc, but they do not share similar water parameters naturally. There is probably some overlap however; this is the general view of most sources. I would want to provide parameters closer to the cories simply because they are more likely to be affected long-term, especially if wild caught [not sure if this species is being commercially raised somewhere or not]. As I said above, I always aim to provide water as close to the habitat as I can, and I do not differentiate between wild/commercial fish in doing this. It has worked for me, because I only keep soft and very soft water species so I am not going to be pushing the envelope, so to speak. Following this is one more step to trouble-free tanks.

 

[anewbie]

First, I consider all species relative to their habitat water parameters. No one has ever provided evidence that fish do not do well in water comparable to their natural environment. Regardless of commercial breeding, this does hold true. This does not mean some species cannot be healthy outside their preference parameters, just that using their habitat parameters will be safe.

Second, within the above, I group fish into very soft, soft (usually consider these the same frankly), or moderately hard (or harder) water. The "middle ground" between these can be suitable for some soft water species and some harder water species, within reason. This is a generalization obviously, but it holds.

Guppies will be healthy in moderately hard or harder water, because that is in their evolution. This does not mean they cannot be healthy (or manage at any rate) in somewhat softer water. I had a female guppy acquired by accident (came in the bag with other fish) that lived for months in my soft water tank. However, if I were to keep guppies or any of the commonly-available livebearers, I would do so in moderately hard water and not in a soft or very soft water tank. In the 1980's I had a tank of black mollies and I used a calcareous substrate to maintain the GH and pH suited to mollies. Mollies are very different from guppies, but the point is that if I intend keeping "x" fish I will provide what it has evolved to require, regardless.

Guppies acquired from stores today are genetically compromised, according to most reports I've seen. Many commercially-raised fish are suffering the same fate.

Concerning Corydoras pygmaeus, this is a soft water fish. It occurs in blackwater as well as clear water, but this water is very soft and on the acidic side. There is nothing wrong with keeping it with guppies so far as the two species' behaviours, etc, but they do not share similar water parameters naturally. There is probably some overlap however; this is the general view of most sources. I would want to provide parameters closer to the cories simply because they are more likely to be affected long-term, especially if wild caught [not sure if this species is being commercially raised somewhere or not]. As I said above, I always aim to provide water as close to the habitat as I can, and I do not differentiate between wild/commercial fish in doing this. It has worked for me, because I only keep soft and very soft water species so I am not going to be pushing the envelope, so to speak. Following this is one more step to trouble-free tanks.

@Byron your description is good but you do not mention what is soft or hard water. Also it should be clear with regards to both kh and gh. I.e, if you have kh 0 and acidic water but gh 7 is very different than kh 4 and gh 0...

 

[OliveFish05]

First, I consider all species relative to their habitat water parameters. No one has ever provided evidence that fish do not do well in water comparable to their natural environment. Regardless of commercial breeding, this does hold true. This does not mean some species cannot be healthy outside their preference parameters, just that using their habitat parameters will be safe.

Second, within the above, I group fish into very soft, soft (usually consider these the same frankly), or moderately hard (or harder) water. The "middle ground" between these can be suitable for some soft water species and some harder water species, within reason. This is a generalization obviously, but it holds.

Guppies will be healthy in moderately hard or harder water, because that is in their evolution. This does not mean they cannot be healthy (or manage at any rate) in somewhat softer water. I had a female guppy acquired by accident (came in the bag with other fish) that lived for months in my soft water tank. However, if I were to keep guppies or any of the commonly-available livebearers, I would do so in moderately hard water and not in a soft or very soft water tank. In the 1980's I had a tank of black mollies and I used a calcareous substrate to maintain the GH and pH suited to mollies. Mollies are very different from guppies, but the point is that if I intend keeping "x" fish I will provide what it has evolved to require, regardless.

Guppies acquired from stores today are genetically compromised, according to most reports I've seen. Many commercially-raised fish are suffering the same fate.

Concerning Corydoras pygmaeus, this is a soft water fish. It occurs in blackwater as well as clear water, but this water is very soft and on the acidic side. There is nothing wrong with keeping it with guppies so far as the two species' behaviours, etc, but they do not share similar water parameters naturally. There is probably some overlap however; this is the general view of most sources. I would want to provide parameters closer to the cories simply because they are more likely to be affected long-term, especially if wild caught [not sure if this species is being commercially raised somewhere or not]. As I said above, I always aim to provide water as close to the habitat as I can, and I do not differentiate between wild/commercial fish in doing this. It has worked for me, because I only keep soft and very soft water species so I am not going to be pushing the envelope, so to speak. Following this is one more step to trouble-free tanks.

Ok. This makes a lot of sense. What I am understanding from this is that you can never go wrong matching the parameters of your tank to what the fish would naturally be in out in nature. You also point out that because of breeding and such in captivity and most likely in waters that do not completely match that of those in their wild habitats that it is possible they are able to do well in a lower GH and there is potential overlap in the adequate GH for both species. Am I understanding this correctly? As far as I can tell, if someone WERE to match the tank’s parameters to suit both fish, they would want to aim for a GH of 7. Does this sound about right? I want the fish to be able to thrive. This is of course my main concern and much more important to me than budget. I struggle to understand sometimes when someone says “this is BEST for the fish” (lets use the GH of the fish‘s natural habitat as an example here) vs “this is acceptable/sufficient/adequate/just fine” (this is the generally accepted range for that same fish, let’s say). Is it cruel not to provide the absolute best for that fish, even if what you are providing is generally considered acceptable/sufficient/adequate/just fine?

 

[WhistlingBadger]

Good questions, for which there are no absolute answers. Here's another twist: Many, perhaps most, fish do not have a single natural habitat. For an extreme example, take one of my favorites, the panda garra. This species is native to ephemeral streams. During the monsoon, these streams are rushing torrents of very soft rainwater. During the dry season, the rivers turn into still, barely-moving, densely populated pools of quite hard water. The garra roll with it and do fine, which is one of the reasons they are so sturdy in aquariums.

When you look at a site like seriouslyfish or planetcatfish, you'll see that some fish have quite a wide range of "acceptable" parameters. These are probably fish that live in a wide variety of habitats. Other species are confined to one habitat. That's one reason it's important to read up on a species, rather than just check the numbers: It often helps to know not only what the "acceptable" parameters are, but why.

 

[Byron]

@Byron your description is good but you do not mention what is soft or hard water. Also it should be clear with regards to both kh and gh. I.e, if you have kh 0 and acidic water but gh 7 is very different than kh 4 and gh 0...

Soft, hard, moderately soft/hard are all subjective terms. I have seen quite variable numbers for each. "Very soft" and for me "soft" means a GH as low as it can get. My tanks are zero GH/KH, and I have no problems with any fish native to soft/very soft waters, which means almost all of South America and SE Asia--with a few isolated exceptions. I would if pushed for a number have to say a GH of 6-8 is about as high as I would consider for such fish. Harder water fish are easier to deal with...a GH of 10 dH is absolute minimum for livebearers that need moderately hard water (again, this is a generality) but mollies absolutely must be in harder water, at minimum 12 dH.

I also firmly believe that GH is the most important parameter (of GH, KH and pH). The pH will usually be comparable, and fish will manage fine. But the GH does have a very direct impact on the fish's physiology and is thus more critical.