Is there really much difference between a Gold Fish, & a Rosy Barb???

been looking at some long fin Rosies, & they look just like Gold Fish... is there much care differences??? they must be pretty closely related

... and are these more newly developed, just about every place that sells them, advertised them as males only

Even if they've been wrecked by bad breeding, rosy barbs are far smaller, extremely social (shoals are important) fish. Goldfish are carp, larger, longer lived and extensively modified by human breeders.

It annoys me to see fast, active fish like rosys being burdened with fancy fins. I've seen long finned versions over the years though. The principle isn't new.

Carp and barbs are related, like deer and horses. It's not that close, but the bred deformities follow similar patterns.

If you get the feeling I don't like longfins, you might be right...

I had LF rosy barbs over 20 years ago. I managed to have them breed two more generations and this was in 3 different tanks as I kept moving them. They were in planted communities and the survival rate of the fry was not high. Thiey did not have long flowing fins. What hey had were clearly longer fins than the "normal" rosy barbs.

I do not feel the same way about long fin fish as GaryE. In addition to the barbs I have had LF BN which bred like rabbits. These days I have a few long fin plaeatus cory now called Hoplisoma paleatum.

However, my favorite long finned fish is naturally that way and which I kept many years ago is the Xiphophorus montezumae.

Naturally long fins I don't mind, but I'm not a fan of the "easy to breed for" traits. Albino, most different colors, long fins are just ok-ish. Worse are balloon fish of any species, those are obscene to my eyes. I prefer my fish to look & be able to swim "normally".

As with others, artificially bred long fin varieties are, for want of another term, criminal.

Lock me up......


Play Me. ▼

There's no right or wrong in the long fin debate. It's a matter of what you like.

Where I get annoyed is when the mutations are bred back into the natural fish. I've had longfin paleatus fins show up in regular (Cory group) paleatus, and that means someone was a careless breeder. At the same time, in a few generations, the deformity can be bred out. It isn't like a hybridization, which is forever.

Cruelty breeding exists - where the handicap chosen harms the animal. Balloon fish, celestial goldfish, fish where the fin growth curls on itself and overwhelms the ability to move - that's wrong. Otherwise, it's just what one person thinks is ugly and another likes.

It's like music. I'd argue that most Sixties bands were not very good. But I can argue all I want - that's an opinion, and it's only of value if you agree or find the debate fun. There are no facts either way there.

GaryE said:

There's no right or wrong in the long fin debate. It's a matter of what you like.

Where I get annoyed is when the mutations are bred back into the natural fish. I've had longfin paleatus fins show up in regular (Cory group) paleatus, and that means someone was a careless breeder. At the same time, in a few generations, the deformity can be bred out. It isn't like a hybridization, which is forever.

Cruelty breeding exists - where the handicap chosen harms the animal. Balloon fish, celestial goldfish, fish where the fin growth curls on itself and overwhelms the ability to move - that's wrong. Otherwise, it's just what one person thinks is ugly and another likes.

It's like music. I'd argue that most Sixties bands were not very good. But I can argue all I want - that's an opinion, and it's only of value if you agree or find the debate fun. There are no facts either way there.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ Gary. The fins on the regular examples of fish evolved over a very long period of time to the optimum size and shape for their function. Perhaps millions of years, trial and error. The long fins effect the hydrodynamics of the fishes movement, basically increasing drag, and therefore the energy required to move..

Apparently there are natural fish with these traits, to line breed towards, so they must show up occasionally in wild form… of course, in the wild, most of the fish with traits like long fins, would easily become lunch for someone… when I was younger, I often pondered what it would take to have a balanced tank, between several layers of food sources, up to a final predator… I would dream of having a small pond, I could scuba dive in, and underwater landscape for various organisms, and fish… now with age and maturity, I understand my aquariums are limited and not natural ( I think that group that tries to do the no water change tanks are not understanding the limitations )… so, without a chain of life, the sky is the limit on what will survive, with enough work… I typically like wild types, but admit to having line bred traits, on several fish… I do try to draw my own line in the sand, at anything that limits the health of the fish, in an aquarium, as they are not being put back in the wild… longer fins, don’t seem to fall into that category… balloon bodies do…

I’ll go down this path one further… line breeding… OK in some cases if done right, but if the gene pool is so small that the life span is effected, I try not to support the hobby that far…
My how this has strayed from the original title to the thread

@Lateral Line I agree with you, but this is a commercial trade. I've learned that my vision of tanks as windows into evolution isn't widely shared, and most people are buying living ornaments with no cares about natural history. I would feel pity for a long finned fish, and I think the practice of breeding them into forms farther and farther from nature is unfortunate. But others would argue that once they are captured, they are biologically dead to their species, and anything goes.

We're into what for generations was called the ornamental fish hobby, and it's always been a small minority of people who were interested in natural history.

Mixing a montezumae swordtail, whose long tail is a natural feature with a function with a zebra danio that carries a mutation that destroys its ability to control fin growth is not understanding the issue. I would never buy a long finned rosy, a goldfish, a fancy Betta or a long finned white cloud. Glo-fish are out in my books too, even if the fish isn't harmed.

When I pass a rack of long finned Betta splendens, there's nothing to see there. But when I had wild caught Betta splendens, now that was a great fish. People who visited my fishroom walked right by it, or nodded politely when I showed the group and their young to them. I was even asked if I had ever bred bettas after showing someone my Betta fry.

There are a couple of hobbies marching side by side here, and they don't always overlap. Fair enough. They all take skills we can share.

Ooo… lights are starting to come on… gotta go

Magnum Man said:

My how this has strayed from the original title to the thread

Click to expand...

I don't know if it has strayed, or gone to the heart of the matter.

When I see a fancy goldfish, I think we're awful creatures to have done that to a fellow creature. So with that thought in my mind, when you compare a long finned rosy (I like rosy barbs a lot) to a goldfish, my first thought is 'is it as messed up as a goldfish yet'. And goldfish have to be kept certain ways because of their handicaps, so that affects your question about them having the same needs in a tank.

The genes are there in them and pop up in the fish. It's the same as for us. I have a couple of things my genetics threw my way I wish they hadn't, and if we're some alien's ant farm, I hope that ET hasn't been breeding for them. They cause difficulties. But yes, they are naturally there.