So, are you saying that all "experts" agree with you? A strange statement to make. And as to me being an "expert", you can't beat me with that title.
No, I am not implying that all experts agree with me since I haven't talked to every single one yet. Nor that I am an expert myself. However, I am willing to bet that some hobbyists of various 'expertise' would agree with me.
What I said, or meant to say, was I have read a few posts in which the person implied that you are an 'expert' in some topics.
Or maybe I PM'd Lynden with how the list should be arranged and pushed him to improve the list and get it pinned?
I see, so you are the mastermind huh? Were you also the 'exhaustive research' as well (along with fishbase, of course)?
Before I forget, I am also wondering if you might be so kind as to where on one of fishbase's species profile does it say "this fish is reef-safe" or not? I seriously cannot find that. Granted, the website might give details on what a fish may eat, but other than the scientific information, I haven't seen anything which points out compatibility in an aquarium. And if it doesn't, I truly feel as though some of the assumptions that must be made are slightly flawed because all aspects of a fish's habits/behavior are not covered, and again, the fact that a fish doesn't eat corals or other inverts, simply isn't enough in my mind. However, I do notice that a decent assumption can be made through fishbase's information regarding the dragon wrasse as not being reef-safe since they explain how it turns over large rocks in order to find food...but until recently, that seemed to be ignored and so, I pointed it out (and of course, STD added further credence to that sentiment with his picture).
That being said, while I completely agree that fishbase is an excellent source of information of the various species such as diet and potential adult sizes, I do not feel as though it should be relied upon when seeking information regarding a certain fish and its habits/behavior/lifestyle in an aquarium. (and yes, I realize that is was probably not the sole resource used for this article, however, it is certainly has been brought up a quite a few times already; both in this thread and in other areas of the forum.)
didn't have the guts to admit publicly that some of your previous comments were wrong, but deleted it and apologized in private.
Again, my largest mistake here was to erase my posts before you had a chance to read it because I did publicly apologize for misunderstanding the gist of the 8 inch trigger statement....and will certainly be willing to do so again...but I assure you, it was nothing more than an unintentional mistake. And for the record, I don't feel as though anything else I said was hugely flawed and/or wrong.
I do not post two huge long threads full of sarcasm which are intentionally misunderstanding
Again, I did not do so intentionally and I believe I explained that I was not trying to 'rant', but only trying to 'sound' like a "newbie"....and not being all that sarcastic or upset at the time.
So you acknowledge the point of the post, but are still upset that factors not desired to be covered in the thread are not included?
Yes, I do understand the point of this thread --- however, my main argument here is that what a fish does or does not eat cannot always be used as a reason for being 'reef-safe' since these attributes are not the sole factors. For example, the rock mover wrasse may not eat coral, and could pose only a small risk to other inverts if some 'tricks' are used, however, as you can see in STD's photo, they may pose a risk to corals in a different way.
Otherwise, let me put it this way....the article answers the question "
What makes these fish reef-safe", but does not delve any deeper to answer the question "
What is the most probable reason for these fish to be excluded from the 'reef-safe' list". I mean, lets be realistic....there must be a reason why so many people make the blanket statement that Lynden is trying to disprove and the idea that you two are the first people in the world to realize everyone else is wrong is somewhat hard to swallow these days. Again, I am just trying to add a little bit from my own perspective because I feel that this somewhat misleading article - which seems to 'deem' certain fish as being reef-safe based upon only two, or sometimes three criteria - could lead to failure by those who don't really know what they are doing.
However, do not get me wrong here....I agree that every fish on the list can be kept in a reef tank; however, IMHO, there is a lack of sentences such as "This fish is ok in a reef tank so long as you do or do not _______ (e.g. keep snails in the tank, keep LPS corals in the same tank, secure your rock work well, etc...). In fact, the conversation surrounding lionfish is a GREAT example of what I mean in that a sentence such as "Since lionfish do not eat corals, they can be kept in a reef tank so long as there are no fish present which could fit in the lion's mouth (which is very large), and if you are aware of the fact that these fish can inflict a very painful wound if 'stung' by its fins". What, pray tell, is so wrong with suggesting that?
