Marine Fish Safe For Ten Gallons

[Tommy Gun]

Hmmmmm....I doubt if I will ever know why I let you drag me into this all of the time; but I will take the bait again.

As this is based purely on scientific research, and not just a story of a capture with no evidence to back it up.

Not to imply that there could be mistakes or misunderstandings but I would tend to believe the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and in an indirect way, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are reliable sources of information and would further add that they both would be considered an acceptable resource in academia. In fact, I have used information on the NOAA website within a research paper at least a couple times recently.

If your reported catch is indeed true, perhaps they should inform the scientific community

I see your point here and I cannot answer that question. However, if you are trying to imply that the person who supposedly saw the 17" lionfish was lying about it, then let me pose this question...Can you be 100% proof-positive that the person who is providing that info on fishbase is a true scientist? While I am certainly not trying to imply that fishbase is not scientific, I thought it might be 'food for thought' if I brought up the fact that, other than someone telling you (including fishbase itself), how do you know it really is scientific? That is all not to mention the idea that the scientists who provide the information on fishbase couldn't possibly have seen every lionfish in existence in order to give an exact length, so all of these numbers (on any site) are most likely averages of a number of fish...which means some were larger than 14" and some were smaller. Again, I am not trying to say that fishbase isn't all you claim it to be, but just providing some food for thought since you seem to have jumped to a rather quick conclusion about that USDA link I provided.

There is a world of difference between reaching less than a foot and a half (even on your unsubstantiated length) and saying they get to one or two feet, implying that 24" can be attained

Once again, I should have said "the larger lion fishes can reach a length of between one and two feet", but probably failed to do so because exact length of these larger fish was not my point, but rather, to give some comparison between 'large' and 'dwarf'. I also did not specify exactly what type of lionfish I was talking about since I was merely speaking in a general sense so giving a 'range' is more appropriate than any specific number. Make sense?

However, let's be honest here, this 'debate' we are having has nothing to do with which fish can fit into a 10 gallon tank other than ruling out a large lionfish...and IMHO, the dwarfs should also be ruled out because, as I was trying to say, the term 'dwarf' doesn't always mean 'very small', but rather 'small in relation to something else....so we can quit this nonsense.

I apologize for hijacking this thread....it won't continue.

 

[Lynden]

If nothing else Tom you make this forum plenty more interesting.

 

[andywg]

Not to imply that there could be mistakes or misunderstandings but I would tend to believe the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), and in an indirect way, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) are reliable sources of information and would further add that they both would be considered an acceptable resource in academia. In fact, I have used information on the NOAA website within a research paper at least a couple times recently.

They did not actually catch the fish, and they have no linkable resources about the catch. How do we know this isn't a fisherman's tale that they have bought? Also, the site seems to back up its profile page with an (incorrect and invalid) link to fishbase.

I see your point here and I cannot answer that question. However, if you are trying to imply that the person who supposedly saw the 17" lionfish was lying about it, then let me pose this question...Can you be 100% proof-positive that the person who is providing that info on fishbase is a true scientist?

YES! That is the point of how fishbase works. I posted the reference where fishbase gets the max size from. You can then go and check that publication (which will have undergone some peer review as well, no doubt) to ensure the flow of information is not contaminated by inaccuracies or exaggerations. If you like you can check on the publication and its authors to see if they are a true scientist.

While I am certainly not trying to imply that fishbase is not scientific, I thought it might be 'food for thought' if I brought up the fact that, other than someone telling you (including fishbase itself), how do you know it really is scientific?

That is why I posted the details of the scientific publication which fishbase got its information from. If anyone is in doubt of the science they can check the referred article. Surely you can see how redundant your question above is by the fact I put said reference into my last post.

That is all not to mention the idea that the scientists who provide the information on fishbase couldn't possibly have seen every lionfish in existence in order to give an exact length, so all of these numbers (on any site) are most likely averages of a number of fish...which means some were larger than 14" and some were smaller. Again, I am not trying to say that fishbase isn't all you claim it to be, but just providing some food for thought since you seem to have jumped to a rather quick conclusion about that USDA link I provided.

No. The max size is the max size found after catching a number of the fish, not the average size of fish caught. Otherwise many fish would have max sizes which are regularly exceeded in aquaria as males are often much smaller than females and then you have to take juveniles into account.

It is possible that some lionfish grow larger, but consider this: Pterois volitans was first described scientifically by Linnaeus in 1758. Since then it has been the subject of many scientific studies. This species is very well known to the scientific community. As a result of the above facts, the maximum size is going to be pretty accurate. The only way I am going to go against the agreed size of the scientific community is if someone puts up a new article (detailing pictures of the fish) and the article passes peer review. Until then I will be very skeptical of anything that suggests a larger size, especially without pictures.

I also did not specify exactly what type of lionfish I was talking about since I was merely speaking in a general sense so giving a 'range' is more appropriate than any specific number. Make sense?

Actually, no. Your lower value is over twice the size of the smallest growing lionfish encountered in the trade, and your maximum size was around 9" larger than the largest scientifically recorded specimen. While I can understand the intention of giving an idea of giving a range of the potential sizes, the simple fact here is that your figures appear incorrect.

 

[Tommy Gun]

I apologize for hijacking this thread....it won't continue.

If you would like to discuss this further, lets do so elsewhere...just let me know where to find it and I will be glad to continue this debate.

 

[andywg]

Then go for a PM