Hello guys, I need a fast opinion. Which is better, neon tetras or cardinal tetras? I have a 29g tank and I want to get either, thanks. 
Neon Tetras .VS. Cardinal Tetras.
- Thread starter PheonixKingZ
- Start date
The April FOTM Contest Poll is open!
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆
It isn't a question of better or worse but what will work for you and what you like. They are very different fish. Only their appearance is similar. Personally I prefer Hyphessobrycon innesi for obvious reasons.
Silencedogood
Fishaholic
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 560
- Reaction score
- 132
How many do you plan on getting? Sometimes it is nice to have a mixture of both but this is entirely up to you.
Retired Viking
Fish Connoisseur
I have neon tetras, for one thing cardinal tetras are more expensive and I heard that they are a little more differcult to care for and are larger than neon tetra
Neons were called Hyphessobrycon innesi back in 1936, but they've been called Paracheirodon innesi since 1983. Do you prefer the older name?
OP
OP
pH is around 7.5-7.8. Not sure out my GH, no one around here seems to know.
30 1/4 in. Long. It’s a 29g which is plenty if space right?
My water temperature is around 81 F.
30 1/4 in. Long. It’s a 29g which is plenty if space right?
My water temperature is around 81 F.
OP
OP
I ended up getting the neon tetras. It was a good deal because I traded 16 of my cherry shrimp for 8 neon tetras. (At my LFS)
They are acclimating right now.
They are acclimating right now.
OP
OP
The only problem is I have a lone zebra danio that I rescued from Craigslist.
Do you think that the lone ZB will be aggressive towards the new fish? Or should I just monitor it’s behavior?
Do you think that the lone ZB will be aggressive towards the new fish? Or should I just monitor it’s behavior?
The danio should be fine but would be happier with some companions.
Watch the neons for disease. If the blue or red lines start to fade, then post a picture asap because it can be the start of a bacterial infection that will kill them all in days if not treated immediately.
Watch the neons for disease. If the blue or red lines start to fade, then post a picture asap because it can be the start of a bacterial infection that will kill them all in days if not treated immediately.
OP
OP
Ok, the ZD has been known to be aggressive in the past, that’s why I ask. I’ll be sure to post a picture of them if they get faded, thanks.
When i added Cardinals to my 29g i did have a bit of chasing from the ZD's but it soon settled. I thought you was adding more danios first lol
Retired Viking
Fish Connoisseur
They may fad a little due to stress but this should go away as they get use to your tank.
I just love it when members give me openings like essjay did here 
[post #6]. I know not everyone is interested in taxonomy, but there are some who are and the rest can ignore this post. It is all about the names of the four "neon" tetras.
The first species discovered and described was the common Neon Tetra. This species was described by Dr. George S. Meyers in 1936 and named Hyphessobrycon innesi. The species epithet honours the American aquarist William T. Innes, who, among many other things, authored and published the book Exotic Aquarium Fishes which appeared in 1935 and has gone through 19 editions [to date]. The genus Hyphessobrycon--the name derives from the Greek hyphesson [believed to mean "slightly smaller"] and brycon [=to bite]--was erected by C.H. Durbin in 1908 and presently contains more than 100 described species. [To avoid cluttering the "neon" saga, I will put related comments on the genus below.]
The cardinal tetra (as it came to be known) was the next "neon" discovered, in the early 1950's; specimens were examined and described by two independent prominent ichthyologists in the United States with the results published in two journals. L.P. Schultz published in the March-April 1956 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist and named the fish Cheirodon axelrodi, while Dr. George S. Meyers and Dr. Stanley Weitzman published in the University of Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin and named the fish Hyphessobrycon cardinalis. It was determined that the Schultz article had been published on February 20, 1956, while the Meyers & Weitzman article was published the day following. Under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, priority must go to the first published name; the fish was therefore officially named Cheirodon axelrodi. The species epithet honours Dr. Herbert R. Axelrod, although this distinguished scientist had no direct connection with the discovery of this fish.
In 1960, Dr. Jacques Gery erected the genus Paracheirodon for the type species P. innesi (Neon Tetra) and Gery also moved the Cardinal Tetra into the new genus. The name Paracheirodon derives from the Greek; the older genus name Cheirodon derives from cheir [= hand] and odon [= teeth], and the prefix para means "beside" to distinguish Paracheirodon from Cheirodon.
Three years later, Gery--who was arguably the most respected and knowledgeable authority on the characidae during the 20th century--described the third "neon" that was discovered in 1962 from individuals that were mixed in with cardinal tetras. The original description by Gery (1963) placed it in the genus Hyphessobrycon as H. simulans; the species epithet simulans is Latin for "similar" and references the colour pattern similarity to the neon tetra. Fink & Weitzman (1977) placed it in the genus Paracheirodon with the two other neon species, and subsequent DNA analysis has confirmed this placement. The Cardinal Tetra and the Green/False Neon have 26 and 25 chromosomes respectively, while the common neon tetra has 16.
I mentioned four "neon" tetra. This species was discovered by Heiko Bleher in 2006 and has yet to be described and named. According to preliminary DNA studies, this new species is very close to the true Neon Tetra, whereas the Cardinal Tetra is genetically closer to the Green/False Neon Tetra. Photos of Heiko's collected fish (none of which lived through the journey home unfortunately) suggest this relationship in the close similarity of colour pattern.
Additional comments on Hyphessobrycon:
The classification is deemed incertae sedis, a Latin term meaning "of uncertain placement" that is applied by taxonomists and biologists when the classification is known to be unreliable or questionable. Hyphessobrycon was formerly considered within the subfamily Tetragonopterinae, but Javonillo et.al. (2010) suggest that this subfamily should be restricted to species within the genus Tetragonopterus since they do not share physiological characteristics with species in other genera such as Hyphessobrycon.
Authors that have recently studied the systematics of the genus Hyphessobrycon have unanimously pointed out that the group is not well defined and its monophyly is yet uncertain. [A monophyletic genus is one wherein the species share a common ancestor, thus linking them together physiologically.] Mirande (2009) for example has proposed several revisions to the family Characidae based upon phylogenetic diagnosis. Some genera have been moved to a new subfamily, while others are now (temporarily) assigned to a specific clade within the family pending further study. The recognition of groups of species [clades] within Hyphessobrycon is based primarily on similarities of color patterns; an hypothesis of its intra-relationships is currently unavailable, except for the rosy tetra clade proposed as monophyletic by Weitzman & Palmer (1997).
Hyphessobrycon has until recently been differentiated from Hemigrammus solely on the basis of the fish in Hemigrammus possessing a scaled caudal fin; this however is now known to be unreliable, since it occurs in intermediate conditions (de Lucina, 2003). Both genera are polyphyletic [meaning, the species are derived from more than one common evolutionary ancestor or ancestral group and therefore not suitable for placing in the same taxon. Given the number of species, this work will take some time before it is resolved.
[post #6]. I know not everyone is interested in taxonomy, but there are some who are and the rest can ignore this post. It is all about the names of the four "neon" tetras.The first species discovered and described was the common Neon Tetra. This species was described by Dr. George S. Meyers in 1936 and named Hyphessobrycon innesi. The species epithet honours the American aquarist William T. Innes, who, among many other things, authored and published the book Exotic Aquarium Fishes which appeared in 1935 and has gone through 19 editions [to date]. The genus Hyphessobrycon--the name derives from the Greek hyphesson [believed to mean "slightly smaller"] and brycon [=to bite]--was erected by C.H. Durbin in 1908 and presently contains more than 100 described species. [To avoid cluttering the "neon" saga, I will put related comments on the genus below.]
The cardinal tetra (as it came to be known) was the next "neon" discovered, in the early 1950's; specimens were examined and described by two independent prominent ichthyologists in the United States with the results published in two journals. L.P. Schultz published in the March-April 1956 issue of Tropical Fish Hobbyist and named the fish Cheirodon axelrodi, while Dr. George S. Meyers and Dr. Stanley Weitzman published in the University of Stanford Ichthyological Bulletin and named the fish Hyphessobrycon cardinalis. It was determined that the Schultz article had been published on February 20, 1956, while the Meyers & Weitzman article was published the day following. Under the rules of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, priority must go to the first published name; the fish was therefore officially named Cheirodon axelrodi. The species epithet honours Dr. Herbert R. Axelrod, although this distinguished scientist had no direct connection with the discovery of this fish.
In 1960, Dr. Jacques Gery erected the genus Paracheirodon for the type species P. innesi (Neon Tetra) and Gery also moved the Cardinal Tetra into the new genus. The name Paracheirodon derives from the Greek; the older genus name Cheirodon derives from cheir [= hand] and odon [= teeth], and the prefix para means "beside" to distinguish Paracheirodon from Cheirodon.
Three years later, Gery--who was arguably the most respected and knowledgeable authority on the characidae during the 20th century--described the third "neon" that was discovered in 1962 from individuals that were mixed in with cardinal tetras. The original description by Gery (1963) placed it in the genus Hyphessobrycon as H. simulans; the species epithet simulans is Latin for "similar" and references the colour pattern similarity to the neon tetra. Fink & Weitzman (1977) placed it in the genus Paracheirodon with the two other neon species, and subsequent DNA analysis has confirmed this placement. The Cardinal Tetra and the Green/False Neon have 26 and 25 chromosomes respectively, while the common neon tetra has 16.
I mentioned four "neon" tetra. This species was discovered by Heiko Bleher in 2006 and has yet to be described and named. According to preliminary DNA studies, this new species is very close to the true Neon Tetra, whereas the Cardinal Tetra is genetically closer to the Green/False Neon Tetra. Photos of Heiko's collected fish (none of which lived through the journey home unfortunately) suggest this relationship in the close similarity of colour pattern.
Additional comments on Hyphessobrycon:
The classification is deemed incertae sedis, a Latin term meaning "of uncertain placement" that is applied by taxonomists and biologists when the classification is known to be unreliable or questionable. Hyphessobrycon was formerly considered within the subfamily Tetragonopterinae, but Javonillo et.al. (2010) suggest that this subfamily should be restricted to species within the genus Tetragonopterus since they do not share physiological characteristics with species in other genera such as Hyphessobrycon.
Authors that have recently studied the systematics of the genus Hyphessobrycon have unanimously pointed out that the group is not well defined and its monophyly is yet uncertain. [A monophyletic genus is one wherein the species share a common ancestor, thus linking them together physiologically.] Mirande (2009) for example has proposed several revisions to the family Characidae based upon phylogenetic diagnosis. Some genera have been moved to a new subfamily, while others are now (temporarily) assigned to a specific clade within the family pending further study. The recognition of groups of species [clades] within Hyphessobrycon is based primarily on similarities of color patterns; an hypothesis of its intra-relationships is currently unavailable, except for the rosy tetra clade proposed as monophyletic by Weitzman & Palmer (1997).
Hyphessobrycon has until recently been differentiated from Hemigrammus solely on the basis of the fish in Hemigrammus possessing a scaled caudal fin; this however is now known to be unreliable, since it occurs in intermediate conditions (de Lucina, 2003). Both genera are polyphyletic [meaning, the species are derived from more than one common evolutionary ancestor or ancestral group and therefore not suitable for placing in the same taxon. Given the number of species, this work will take some time before it is resolved.
Last edited:
This is much too warm a temperature for neon tetra (which you subsequently said you acquired). They should not be maintained above the mid-70's F because they will weaken and succumb to this and that. Cardinals would be fine at such warmth, but not neons. What fish are in this tank that need such a high temperature?
Temperature is very important for fish because they are ectotherms and the temperature of their environment waters drives the metabolism and the acceptable range for most species is quite limited.
Most reactions
-
286 -
228 -
159 -
146 -
138 -
132 -
121 -
119 -
108 -
97 -
88 -
85 -
78 -
70 -
65
