Trading Length For Width And Height

[onidrase]

I noticed a rather nice looking 56 gallon tank from marineland, but instead of being like 4 feet long, it's actually 30 inches long, 24 inches tall, and 18 inches wide

Now, I like the fact that, since my room is small as can be (It barely fits in my queen sized bed ) this tank can more easily sit in my room than a 55 gallon with the 48x12 footprint

But I think it also might be a drawback

Even though this tank is significantly wider and taller, and has one extra gallon of capacity, is it a bad idea for it to fit in 8-10 inch fish in there due to the crippled length?

Even if it can't, it still really catches my eye, but I'll need to figure out how to stock such a thing

Replies and suggestions appreciated <3

 

[N0body Of The Goat]

The general absolute minimum dimensions for a fish of "L" size (without sonsidering its activeness) are 4L length, 2L wide and deep. So a 10 inch fish needs a minimum 40 inch long, 20 inch wide and deep i.e. both these tanks do not meet this theoretical 8-10" fish's needs.

 

[onidrase]

The general absolute minimum dimensions for a fish of "L" size (without sonsidering its activeness) are 4L length, 2L wide and deep. So a 10 inch fish needs a minimum 40 inch long, 20 inch wide and deep i.e. both these tanks do not meet this theoretical 8-10" fish's needs.

Why is it that the length width and height matter more than the area?

 

[Mikaila31]

Because fish need a distance to swim as well as area to claim territory. Thus usually tanks with larger footprints are more desirable them tanks with smaller footprints. Depth doesn't do a whole lot for fish in the aquarium. Basically put I would not even think of stocking that tall 55 the same way I would stock a standard 55.