Freshwater Archers

[CFC]

I was at Wildwoods last week and saw the archer fish in question, i would be pretty certain to say that they are T.microlepis but their was no mention on the tank label to say that they were (or were not) freshwater fish, last year when they had the freshwater T.chatereus in stock they made a big deal of the labeling with bold lettering saying "TRUE freshwater archer fish" which makes me somewhat skeptical of these T.microlepis origins.
If you purchase them i would recomend keeping a close eye on them for the first six months and watch for signs of darkening and lethargy/loss of appetetite, if these should happen then i would add some salt to take the SG to around the 1.003-1.005 level and see if their condition improves.

 

[nmonks]

How can you do this? I find the markings on T. microlepis and T. chatareus to be very similar at first glance, and haven't yet mastered the art of counting scales on live, swimming fish! What's the secret?

I hasten to add, CFC's advice is sound, and at the very least, I'd plan on keeping them with salt-tolerant freshwater species, so if you needed to raise the SG to 1.003 because the fish looked off, that would be fine. Rainbows, gobies, most cichlids, freshwater puffers, etc. will all do fine at this trivial salt dosage.

Cheers,

Neale

I was at Wildwoods last week and saw the archer fish in question, i would be pretty certain to say that they are T.microlepis

 

[CAC]

Allright.
well on the wildwoods site, it says they are freshwater species (might even say fully, im not sure)
but im going to have to wait to get them, as at the moment im getting the senegal...
also, cos i live in cheshire, id have to arrange a visit in advance.
if you know anything about senegals, and you could help me on them, then id appreciate it, cos im hopefully getting my 3foot soon(but only if i can have a senegal etc.) otherwise i wont get it, and just get a larger archer tank instead, in a few months, rather than both.
Mikey

 

[CFC]

How can you do this? I find the markings on T. microlepis and T. chatareus to be very similar at first glance, and haven't yet mastered the art of counting scales on live, swimming fish! What's the secret?

To my eye the 3 traded species are quite different in markings. T.chatereus have a "dirty" look about them and smudged half stripes in between the bolder full stripes, T.microlepis have smaller stripes which barely extend down past the lateral line, they also have more stripes than the other two species with an average of 7 complete stripes compared to 3-5 complete stripes in chatereus and jaculatrix. T.jaculatrix is told from the others by its cleaner looking stripes with bold half stripes between the full stripes, less stripes than T.microlepis and a brighter yellow in the tail from T.chatereus.

Of course i could be completely wrong but having kept 2 out of 3 species and having kept groups of T.chatereus and jaculatrix together the differences become quite apperent, i think .

 

[nmonks]

Have a read of this, a scientific paper with the latest ket to identification of archerfish.

Summarising:

Four dorsal spines, 4-5 black bars on upper sides = T. jaculatrix
Five dorsal spines, pattern consisting of a series of 6-7 alternating, large and small black spots = T. chatareus
Five dorsal spines, pattern 4-5 vertically elongate, black bars or triangular saddles interspersed with smaller black spots on upper back; soft portion of dorsal fin with pair of large black spots = T. microlepis

Now, while I can't see the dorsal fin on the picture at Wildwoods, the rest of the image seems to match the description.

On the What's New web page, the wording is that this "species of archer fish lives entirely in freshwater" which isn't precisely true, as sometimes this species is found in brackish water. But then again, so are pike, roach, and bream, and no-one considers then brackish water fish.

The Aqualog book says the following: The species T. microlepis ... and T. oligolepis ... are also largely inhabitants of fresh water but are nevertheless found in the lower courses of rivers and will readily tolerate a salt content of up to 15 ppt. The emphasis is mine, as the sense of the sentence is that this species tolerates, but doesn't need, brackish water. Furthermore, Schaefer goes on to say: The species best adapted to the brackish water habitat are T. jaculatrix and T. chatareus.

I'm not sure how much more plain this needs to be: T. microlepis apparently doesn't need brackish water. Now, I haven't tested this, but having comfortably debunked the "glassfish need brackish" and the "wrestling halfbeaks need brackish" myself, I'm willing to give the Aqualog book credit here. Schafer knows what he's talking about.

Cheers,

Neale

To my eye the 3 traded species are quite different in markings. T.chatereus have a "dirty" look about them and smudged half stripes in between the bolder full stripes, T.microlepis have smaller stripes which barely extend down past the lateral line, they also have more stripes than the other two species with an average of 7 complete stripes compared to 3-5 complete stripes in chatereus and jaculatrix. T.jaculatrix is told from the others by its cleaner looking stripes with bold half stripes between the full stripes, less stripes than T.microlepis and a brighter yellow in the tail from T.chatereus.

 

[beechey]

mine was sold as a fresh water fish