Blue Spotted Ray

[Jonny967]

I am interested to know if anyone here keeps blue spolotted rays? I don't want one myself, but i do keep Rectic Rays in a freshwater tank which are quite demanding even compared to looking after a fully stocked 150g reef tank.
If i do ever lose my two freshwater rays i would be interested in converting my big tank to a marine for one of these guys. Unless of course they are very hard to keep which i am sure they are.

 

[andywg]

Ribbon-tail blue spots have a very poor captivity record, even in public aquaria.

 

[Straydum]

check the thread on a 8x2x2 marine set up. there's one in there i think

 

[andywg]

check the thread on a 8x2x2 marine set up. there's one in there i think

There was but as it wasn't eating, was heavily malnourished and exhibiting death curl, not to mention being kept in entirely the wrong sort of tank (too much rock and not enough sandy area) he gave it back to the shop.

If you seriously are interested in rays then a good starting place is Scott Michael's Aquarium Sharks and Rays. His tank sizes are somewhat on the small size, but other than that he gives great advice on keeping elasmobranches.

 

[Jonny967]

I am not currently interested in keeping marine rays, just interested in regards to their mortality rate and specific requirments. I do ok with my freshwater recticulater rays but they too are very demading so i guess i could times this by ten and then get somewhere close to marine rays. I think the other issue is the size that these rays can grow to, a rectic ray can get to 26" to the tip of its tail and requires alot of space but having seen blue spotted rays in the red sea you would have to have a monster of a tank to accomodate. I know there will be someone who says that they don't get that big in captivity but this is due to their grow being stunted by smaller tanks and would probally explain their mortality rate.

 

[andywg]

I think the other issue is the size that these rays can grow to, a rectic ray can get to 26" to the tip of its tail and requires alot of space but having seen blue spotted rays in the red sea you would have to have a monster of a tank to accomodate.

Are you sure?

The largest reported blue spotted ribbontail ray (Taeniura lymma) had a disc width of 30cm. With the long tail you can end up with a total length of 70cm on the largest examples ever found. That 70cm has it at about the same length as 27.5". Given the general population curve you will be lucky to get one which is longer than 2 feet including the tail. I can only assume you are getting them confused with another species in the red sea if you think a 27.5" fish which is more than half tail is so much bigger than a 26" retic.

Regards stunting, there is little actual scientific evidence of this providing for ill health, indeed Bignose has found scientific articles where they comment that the organs of a stunted fish look just as healthy as those of a normal fish. The problems with these rays in captivity is their tendancy to stop feeding and then die.

 

[Jonny967]

Nearly ever spotted ray i have seen in the red sea must have been fully grown then as it seemed to be that their disks were over 30cm, a rectic rays disk will not usually get so large but they have a much longer tail than a blue spot giving them their noted size.
The ones i have seen were said to be blue spotted rays by our dive leader but the amount of different species you actually see when diving doesn't really compare with the commonly found aquarium fish.

With regards to stunting - what i mean is that large specimens will not be found in captivity as they won't live long enougth,

 

[Jonny967]

I have just been speaking to a friend of mine who also is an experienced diver, i mentioned 30cm and he just laughed? the size Taeniura lymma can be anything up to 1 meter in disk diameter, i knew my memory was not failing.

 

[andywg]

I have just been speaking to a friend of mine who also is an experienced diver, i mentioned 30cm and he just laughed? the size Taeniura lymma can be anything up to 1 meter in disk diameter, i knew my memory was not failing.

Then he is either lying or wrong, I'm afraid.

Fishbase is based on scientific literature written by experts who spend their life studying fish and reports the largest as being 35cm disc. Click the link in my above post to see. Fishbase also tells you the publication where the largest is noted. Your friend is making what are called unsupported claims. The citation of the max size is in a publication called White W.T., P.R. Last, J.D. Stevens, G.K. Yearsley, Fahmi and Dharmadi, 2006. Economically important sharks and rays of Indonesia. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research, Canberra, Australia. The same size is quoted in Aquarium Sharks and Rays.

Given that the fish was first described in the 18th century I am guessing they are by now fairly sure on the maximum size.

Hell, I know that the water and mask makes everything up to a 1/3 larger, but seeing a 35cm fish disc as 1m is pretty good. I guess in the same vein the pair of you must be diving down to what, 100m on a 12 litre air cylinder?

Maybe you should just accept that you and your friend are not as good at identifying fish to a species level as the ichthyologists

 

[Jonny967]

I love how forums like these get muppits like you who think they know it all from looking at a fish tank

Simply google Taeniura lymma and nearly every website will show their max size, even the deep at hull have one larger than 30cm. I keep fish because i dive and see them all - not because i cant be arsed and would rather read a book and look at my tank

 

[andywg]

I love how forums like these get muppits like you who think they know it all from looking at a fish tank

I too love forums because they throw up people who have no idea how to construct a proper argument and when they realise they are losing they move towards attacking the person writing rather than what is written. It makes it so much better when they can't even spell the insult they are trying to throw at you.

Simply google Taeniura lymma and nearly every website will show their max size, even the deep at hull have one larger than 30cm. I keep fish because i dive and see them all - not because i cant be arsed and would rather read a book and look at my tank

Wow! A website lists a different size! And who wrote the website? For all we know you and your friend who don't even know how to either recognise or correctly size a fish did it. I bet you can google and find a site that claims the moon landings didn't happen, the world is flat and that Elvis Presley is still alive. Googling is hardly an acceptable rebuttal to verifiable scientific sources.

Furthermore, 35cm is the disc size. Max size with tail is listed as being up to 70cm (which I noted above). If you can find me a single scientifically resourced piece which suggests the disc size gets to 100cm (which you and/or your friend are claiming in your earlier post) then I will happily change my opinion. We can also then write to Fishbase to inform it that it is using out of date information. The fact that this fish has been studied scientifically for well over 200 years and they still don't report a disc larger than 35cm makes me think you are in the wrong.

However, I don't expect you to believe what I have put so free to call me a "muppit" or perhaps even a "froggle"

And congratulations on diving. I wish I did that.

Oh wait, I already do. Silly me!

Now, before you reply to this post, try and avoid this key which you seem to have hit when coming up with your last post:

 

[Jonny967]

You can quote 'scientifically resourced' all you want but i couldn't really give a #### The fact that you spend all your time reading scientifically resourced Literature is quite sad and i think you may have too much time on your hands.

But if you do want to get all scientific then the below paragraph was extracted from a book by McEachen in 2004 and can be found on the Michigan Museum of Zoology webpage. I have even put the interesting sentance in bold which may help with your article to Fishbase!

"Taeniura lymma is a colorful stingray with distinct, large, bright blue spots on its oval, elongated body. The snout is rounded and angular with broad outer corners. The tail tapers and can be equal to or slightly less than the body length when intact. Its caudal fin is broad and reaches to the tip of the tail. At the tip of the tail are two sharp venomous spines which permit this ray to strike at enemies forward of its head. The tail of Taeniura lymma can be easily recognized by the blue side-stripes found on either side. It has large spiracles that lie very close to its large eyes. It can grow to a disc diameter of about 25 cm but has been reported as being as large as 95 cm in diameter. The mouth is found on the underside of the body along with the gills. Within the mouth are two plates, which are used for crushing the shells of crabs, prawns, and mollusks. (McEachran, 2004)"

 

[andywg]

All my time? Lolz. Remember what I said about avoiding that epic fail button? Seriously you should try and heed it It took me all of 10 seconds to find the scientific sources to show that your information is not correct. That's how much evidence there is backing up my view compared to you finding the odd bit here and there that doesn't really help you.

But, hey, why let verifiable scientific sources get in the way what of you and your diving buddy (think you) have seen? What the hell do people who spend their lives studying fish know about fish? They even spend a lot of their time reading scientific texts when not collecting and cataloguing fish and they haven't even seen a fish as big as you and your mate. They should probably bow to your superior knowledge. In a similar vein, all those idiots who spend their time looking at decompression theories, tissue compartments and the off gassing rates of different noble gasses for doing deeper diving are probably sad, especially those that use this knowledge based on science to dive in the 120m to 160m or 300m to 600m ranges.

Or maybe, just maybe, they like to base their knowledge on that which can be verified?

And now let us turn to your quote. You have a source which has the maximum size as being less than I quoted and reports of larger. There are reports of all sorts of things, such as 10 feet red tail catfish and electric eels killing horses. These are what are called unverified reports as it is just someone claiming something without any evidence to back up what they say. There was no evidence of someone alongside the fish with any measuring aid, nor has any specimen been caught and pulled up anywhere near that size.

I and my diving buddies could claim that the seals we were diving with in July were 20 feet long; just because we have reported it to have happened does not make it true. When such claims are made people turn to what can be evidenced, in the case of maximum sizes they will look at the largest specimens caught and catalogued. In 200 years no one has ever managed to catalogue a Taeniura lymma larger than 35cm. If they are so abundant in the red sea at the size you claim surely a fisherman will have passed a catch to a scientist or they would have been caught by an ichthyologist?

I repeat again, show me a scientific resourced article saying they grow to 100cm. Your own source says they only grow to 25 cm and then mentions unconfirmed reports (most probably from divers who either cannot size or cannot identify to a species level, such as you and your friend on one of your 100 metre deep air dives - are you sure you weren't just narced? Since you like to ignore science, no doubt you ignore any sort of diving table or computer because, after all, what do those scientists who look at scientific texts and data know about decompression theory compared to you and your buddy?).

If these things really did grow to 100cm do you not think someone would have found a 100cm body for ichthyologists to study? Remember, 200 years have these fish been described and scientists and fishermen have only ever been caught these fish up to a maximum disc size of 35cm. Or do you have a better explanation; maybe the bigger ones have a cloaking facility?

So, I ask (again) do you have scientifically verifiable evidence of a 100cm disc on a Taeniura lymma? If they are as common as you say at these large sizes then surely many fishermen must have caught such large specimens?

Or maybe, just maybe, it was a case of mistaken identity. Within the same genus is Taeniura grabata which is somewhat more drab in colouration than T. lymma but once one is down to a fair depth the colouration will be somewhat more similar due to the absorption of the redder end of the spectrum I would wager they are not too dissimilar. T. grabata is reported to grow to a 250cm disc and maybe the smaller ones have a similar body shape to their smaller relatives T. lymma? Their distribution matches up with

Sadly, I feel with the stance you have adopted you will not countenance the idea that your original belief was wrong, but I may be wrong. I have been before and no doubt will be again in the future.

And for the shorter attention span:

TLR - You have provided nothing to actually back up your claim and refute my points. Try again.

 

[Jonny967]

Jesus Christ! You nearly wrote your own book with your last post. Another sign that you have too much time on your hands.

I could really laugh at you all day, had quite a few PM's all in agreement at what an absolute idiot you are. You still seem to be missing the point here though?
I said that if their max size were 30cm then i must have seen all fully grown adults, is this not a possibilty as young rays will prob we harder to find?
Is it also not possible that i have seen larger rays how about 31cm or 32cm? thats still larger but seems not possible in your world.

I also refer to your earlier post about me not being able to spell my insult correctly? This was rather pathetic for someone to say, as what you don't know is that i am Dislexic and sometimes i do mix letters up, but again in your world i am prob wrong and am not dislexic because you have found 'scientifically resourced' information saying that i am not. Also dislexia does not mean that someone is thick or slow as i have a degree in electro-mechanical engineering to prove this.
I would also request that a moderator on this forum remove you, as i am absolutly disgusted by your apparant arrogance towards peoples view not only in this topic but others i have read.

So to sum up - Shut up and get a life.

 

[chesterscot]

wow i love ppl who get personal lol
and for someone who doesnt care you seem to be getting a little irate now that is SAD and im sure if andy gets pm's saying what a div you are he wouldnt try to discredit your character as this is a fish forum not a social network site
scot