Bol
Fish Addict
Ok, so two people have seen it. That's good to know.
However, I'm still doubtful (not an unusual situation for me
), and here is why, mostly summed up in this comment (which seems to be the basis for this idea in general -- i.e. I don't mean to be picking out drobbins):
First, I have no reason to doubt that angels in the wild eat neons, if they live in the same waters. Seems reasonable to me, and I have no other data to go on. But, ...
1) I would guess (could be wrong, of course) that a great majority of angels in aquarists' tanks have not been "wild" for quite a few generations. Especially, from what I understand, the blacks and koi angels, which I believe are the results of selective breeding. If so, then it could be that their "natural" food could be flakes and pellets. However, I have no idea how many generations it takes to remove a natural instinct, so I'm unsure about this.
2) It's often claimed that angels eat neons in the wild. However, I've never seen it stated that there are other, just as appetizing and readily available, food sources for them -- in particular, I've never seen it stated that there are other fish, roughly the size of neons, widely available, but the angels leave those fish alone, while targetting the neons.
As a bad example of what I'm thinking here, in my experience and research I've found that platys will sometimes eat certain algae, but usually not when there's other food available. So, I kind of wonder if the "angels are neon eaters" idea is in some ways like saying "platys are algae eaters".
3) In the case where angels do eat neons, I have to wonder if it's because they're neons, or merely because they're small. This may be sort of a moot point to an aquarist, becuase you'd probably still want to avoid having small fish, which will include neons. However, there is still a distinction, and accuracy is generally a good thing.
So, my experience (it's just one datum, but I've introduced neons into a tank with 3"+ angels in it before, with no ill effects), and what I've read (or perhaps more to the point, what I haven't read), mixed in with my general skepticism, makes me wonder if the idea is perhaps somewhat specious.
Perhaps not the idea itself, but the way it's presented. Usually, you will find advice similar to the quote above, which seems to imply "never keep angels and neons together, because the angels will eventually eat all the neons" -- or, at least, that's a fairly obvious conclusion you could draw. Similarly, because of its explicitness, it seems to imply "you can keep other neon-sized fish with angels, and they'll be fine". The first implication is obviously wrong, as many people successfully keep the two kinds of fish together. And, I have a feeling that the second implication could be wrong, too.
Who knows? Certainly I don't. Just a little food for thought.
However, I'm still doubtful (not an unusual situation for me
), and here is why, mostly summed up in this comment (which seems to be the basis for this idea in general -- i.e. I don't mean to be picking out drobbins):First, I have no reason to doubt that angels in the wild eat neons, if they live in the same waters. Seems reasonable to me, and I have no other data to go on. But, ...
1) I would guess (could be wrong, of course) that a great majority of angels in aquarists' tanks have not been "wild" for quite a few generations. Especially, from what I understand, the blacks and koi angels, which I believe are the results of selective breeding. If so, then it could be that their "natural" food could be flakes and pellets. However, I have no idea how many generations it takes to remove a natural instinct, so I'm unsure about this.
2) It's often claimed that angels eat neons in the wild. However, I've never seen it stated that there are other, just as appetizing and readily available, food sources for them -- in particular, I've never seen it stated that there are other fish, roughly the size of neons, widely available, but the angels leave those fish alone, while targetting the neons.
As a bad example of what I'm thinking here, in my experience and research I've found that platys will sometimes eat certain algae, but usually not when there's other food available. So, I kind of wonder if the "angels are neon eaters" idea is in some ways like saying "platys are algae eaters".
3) In the case where angels do eat neons, I have to wonder if it's because they're neons, or merely because they're small. This may be sort of a moot point to an aquarist, becuase you'd probably still want to avoid having small fish, which will include neons. However, there is still a distinction, and accuracy is generally a good thing.
So, my experience (it's just one datum, but I've introduced neons into a tank with 3"+ angels in it before, with no ill effects), and what I've read (or perhaps more to the point, what I haven't read), mixed in with my general skepticism, makes me wonder if the idea is perhaps somewhat specious.
Perhaps not the idea itself, but the way it's presented. Usually, you will find advice similar to the quote above, which seems to imply "never keep angels and neons together, because the angels will eventually eat all the neons" -- or, at least, that's a fairly obvious conclusion you could draw. Similarly, because of its explicitness, it seems to imply "you can keep other neon-sized fish with angels, and they'll be fine". The first implication is obviously wrong, as many people successfully keep the two kinds of fish together. And, I have a feeling that the second implication could be wrong, too.
Who knows? Certainly I don't.
Just a little food for thought.
