Risky Stocking Options For Your Marine And Nano Tanks

[Lynden]

Perhaps, but if I remember correctly some Canthigaster eat mostly algae, making them a very small risk. Diodon species I agree with you are a risk to invertebrates, but there seems to be a 'trick' to these species and several others; buy them young, feed them well, and they may not ever even think of a hermit crab or shrimp as food. I know for a fact that they do not eat cleaner shrimp under most circumstances; indeed, cleaner shrimp are "immune" in a sense to most piscine predators.

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Perhaps, but if I remember correctly some Canthigaster eat mostly algae, making them a very small risk. Diodon species I agree with you are a risk to invertebrates, but there seems to be a 'trick' to these species and several others; buy them young, feed them well, and they may not ever even think of a hermit crab or shrimp as food. I know for a fact that they do not eat cleaner shrimp under most circumstances; indeed, cleaner shrimp are "immune" in a sense to most piscine predators.

-Lynden

Thinking you recall a single species eats mostly algae is a bit different from catgorically stating that the entire genus is safe in a reef.

The "trick" is probably little more than luck. I would wager that one day the fish will wake up a bit bored or hungry and eat the inverts. Until you have managed to do so with a large number of the species then it can hardly be referred to as a trick.

Someone tried this with an Mbu puffer kept with other fish once, and it worked for 2-3 years, until one day the Mbu didn't like the company and decimated the tank.

 

[Lynden]

Fair enough. That "trick" has, however, worked on several occasions with different species; but like you say it can eventually backfire.

Regarding the puffers;

There are numerous reports of Canthigaster and Diodon living in reef tanks and disturbing nothing.

I still stand by my original statement. Whether or not certain specimens will turn mean is a matter of luck, but again most Canthigaster consume little to no coral. Shrimps are riskier; but I still call these animals reef-safe. Who here wouldn't refer to a Psuedochromis as reef-safe? They are just as likely to consume shrimps as any Canthigaster...

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Regarding the puffers;

There are numerous reports of Canthigaster and Diodon living in reef tanks and disturbing nothing.

I still stand by my original statement. Whether or not certain specimens will turn mean is a matter of luck, but again most Canthigaster consume little to no coral. Shrimps are riskier; but I still call these animals reef-safe. Who here wouldn't refer to a Psuedochromis as reef-safe? They are just as likely to consume shrimps as any Canthigaster...

-Lynden

But you are selectively quoting yourself. Your very next sentance from the above quote was

I consider these two genera reef-safe, though the Diodon species grow very large.

Surely one cannot consider the entire genera reef safe when it eats the very creatures we are trying to keep?

Furthermore, as I said earlier, there are "numerous" reports of frogfish living with tank mates. That does not mean one can recommend them as fish safe.

This thread is all about saying what can work, but has risks involved. The fact that so many of the puffers and porcupinefish will naturally predate on many of the creatures considered as requisite in a reef tank means they should be inlcuded on the list. Being on the list does not mean they should never be kept, but that one should be aware of the risks if one chooses to include them.

 

[Lynden]

I consider those genera (especially Canthigaster) reef-safe and would be perfectly willing to put one in my reef tank (assuming the few most vulnerable species of invertebrate/fish were not included, such as Thor amboinensis; or for Diodon, most shrimps, brittle stars).

Though FishBase's coverage of this genus leaves some to be desired, I was able to amass a list of Canthigaster that could be, to an average hobbyist, be considered (depending on the species) lower risk to no risk in the reef tank since they feed largely on algae.

http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=6541
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=6544
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=61201
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=6543
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=4291
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=6578
http/www.fishbase.com/summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=12829

As you may have noticed, this list outnumbers those species listed by FishBase as being mostly carnivorous; still others fed on benthic invertebrates (such as sponges, small crustaceans) that are rarely kept as an ornamental animal. Thus, my opinion is, and shall remain, that these animal are reef-safe. I would recommend them to other hobbyists so long as they did not have any very small shrimps in their tank.

I assume that you have no argument with the other fish I mentioned, the Triggerfish and Batfish, then?

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

You are missing the point entirely.

This is a thread about fish which one should think very carefully about before adding them to a tank.

One cannot deny that you revel in stating fish which most wouldn't consider for reef tanks are fine. Hence your stout defense that an entire genus of fish is perfectly reef safe when evidence suggests there are a number which are no such thing.

You yourself said you would err on caution with small shrimps, hence confirming that those fish belong on the list above.

It is not a list of fish that should never be kept in a reef setting, but fish which one should think long and hard before including. The generaly consensus in fish keeping is not to put puffers in reef tanks. That is the way the general thoughts go. I am sorry but no amount of you finding a few exceptions will change the general advice offered by experts that puffers do not normally belong in a reef tank (unless you like taking risks).

A reef safe fish is one which will, in all but the most extremely rare circumstances, live happily in a tank of small inverts (both motile and sessile). One cannot say that for pufferfish when generalising to the family level. Sure, if we go down to the nth degree we find exceptions, but then there are individual exceptions. Look at how my Ribbon morays feed. This is very rare and I would never recomend someone to just get ribbons as such behaviour is far from standard.

I disagree on the batfish as all the ones I see are those that grow to at least 18" tall in a tank and are open water swimmers. That means a minimum of a 3 foot tall tank with large amounts of open room. This does not fit my view of what most aquarists will manage. Anyone buying a 500+gallon tank and not checking on the livestock going in has too much money and deserves to get burnt.

Giving advice on fish that stay small and never enter the trade is not a good example, otherwise we would be pointing out a number of the never traded Pangassius genus as examples of why one can purchase an ID shark for the home aquarium.

Triggerfish I know little of, but I know there can be issues and a number grow large and/or aggressive and/or predate on inverts so I would advise against them without first researching. Hence I say they belong on the list above.

At the end of the day, your objections are your opinions. How many batfish have you actually kept, or studied? How many triggers have you kept and/or studied? Now, how do these figures compare to the experts such as Bob Fenner or Scott Michael? Both of those aquarists advise broadly similarly to above.

The one concession I would make is to change puffers to "rarely reef safe" to indicate that there are exceptions, but these are by no means the rule.

I would also question the " Thier poor eyesight can mean they mistake your hands for food if you dont treat them with respect" statement about frogfish. I have seen nothing of the kind and my original frog could recognise me from Nina from across the room and would immediately stop luring at her as she didn't feed him. However, I only have experience of 3 frogfish, so I may be in the exception stage at this time.

 

[Lynden]

Well considering that much of my research is in fact done on wetwebmedia, and the other half on FishBase... I do tend to have a different opinion than most people. I gave up on sites like Liveaquaria, et cetera for information long ago since the information those sites offer is extremely limited and often times very blanketed. I got the idea of Canthigaster being reef-safe from a writer of 'Marine and Reef USA', who I, and I would imagine most others would refer to as an 'expert'.

How many people, if you were to ask, would tell you that trigger fish will eat any invertebrate they find? Probably quite a few; but that is far from the truth and in fact a trigger that does do this is exceptional, not the other way around. Especially the 'pelagic' triggers Melichthys. But, since people are so 'brainwashed' that these animals are killing machines, no one would dare include one in their 'precious lil reef'. In fact, Melichthys, Xanthichthys, Odonus, and Sufflamen make great reef fish and many are very peaceful. I don't see what the problem is with me trying to turn this view around.

But, I suppose that I was missing the point with this entire thread. Even still, I would like to see this list updated, such as with a list of "exceptions" to the balnket statements.

-Lynden

 

[andywg]

Well considering that much of my research is in fact done on wetwebmedia, and the other half on FishBase... I do tend to have a different opinion than most people. I gave up on sites like Liveaquaria, et cetera for information long ago since the information those sites offer is extremely limited and often times very blanketed. I got the idea of Canthigaster being reef-safe from a writer of 'Marine and Reef USA', who I, and I would imagine most others would refer to as an 'expert'.

Yet it took me about 2 seconds on fishabse to find a problem with Cathigaster as an entire genus being reef safe. Be wary about making sweeping gneralisations about something that you have not researched entirely.

But, I suppose that I was missing the point with this entire thread. Even still, I would like to see this list updated, such as with a list of "exceptions" to the balnket statements.

I wouldn't. The thread tells you to research these types of fish as there often problems. Otherwise, someone could see that some triggers are fine, remember that and feel happy picking up a clown trigger after the lfs says it is reef safe. This thread is a stepping stone for people to realise what fish to be careful with and need more research. Posting a huge list of exceptions for people to try and remember will not improve it.

If you are that bothered about some fish getting a bum deal then write a decent article referencing why certain species are in fact fine. Then people can add to that and eventually it can get pinned.

 

[Lynden]

Be wary about making sweeping gneralisations about something that you have not researched entirely

Don't tell that to me...

If you are that bothered about some fish getting a bum deal then write a decent article referencing why certain species are in fact fine. Then people can add to that and eventually it can get pinned.

Suggestion accepted.

 

[steelhealr]

Hi....I don't want to close this thread as it was started from the point of view of helping initial entrants into the nano reefing hobby to NOT make early mistakes...to get them thinking...to get them to do research...and to make logical decisions about what to put in one's tank. This thread should not deteriorate and I don't want to have to delete posts.

Deciding what goes in one's nano tank is a personal choice. As a moderator here, I know that it is 'painful' for some to read that sea stars and mandarin dragonets should NOT be put in nano systems. These recommendations are based on my personal experience, my LEARNING experience from others and the research and reading I do throughout the year to support my hobby and also as a responsibility I take to my appointment here.

Anyone...with DUE DILIGENCE, hard work and attention to detail CAN have success putting some of the above animals in their tank but CERTAINLY it should only be attempted after one has gained a few miles under their belt. They should be able to be, (cough), 'expert' water keepers, have the time, experience and dedication to take care of these more difficult additions and they should demonstrate a clear understanding that marine tanks under 20-3o gallons are INHERENTLY UNSTABLE MICROSYSTEMS.

Finally, we should all remember that everything you read in print on the internet is NOT always true...someone who writes a book is not necessarily the BEST EXPERT in their field and we probably shouldn't just trust ONE source of information. Reading and research....of all sorts..will only make us better. Diversifying our source of information will only establish a better knowledge base and make us better conscientious aquarists.

Let's keep this thread open and friendly. Thank you.

SH

 

[Lynden]

Thanks anyways, but I think we have that covered

 

[Musho3210]

what about cowfish in nanos?

 

[Matt_northants]

[I wouldn't. The thread tells you to research these types of fish as there often problems. Otherwise, someone could see that some triggers are fine, remember that and feel happy picking up a clown trigger after the lfs says it is reef safe. This thread is a stepping stone for people to realise what fish to be careful with and need more research.

IMO unless I am shopping at my "regular" LFS, which I have used for ages, I never pay any attention to the advise they give, as without a sound relationship I dont feel that I could trust their opinions completely.
I much prefer to completely research an animal, using books, magazines and the internet, then inquire my LFS's opinion and then ask them to order it, and if they are unable then look around in other shops for it.

 

[GShorty1981]

Still kinda funny you guys are arguing about wther all these big fish are reef safe etc when its in the nano section meaning nobody would look at them anyway,and if they were stupid enough to buy them for it..then they'd be to stupid to read this forum

 

[DigitalStorm]

Funny topic.