David R

^ so going by that is it the LFS job, or the wholesalers job? Or the exporters job? How many interesting things have slipped through accidentally by being misidentified? Maybe we shouldn't be complaining at all?

I'm in the same boat as you, a big fan of hikari for large predatory fish, can't go past massivore of the food/jumbo sticks! But like you, thats based on experience rather than scientific research. For the other fish I'm becoming more of a fan of NLS because of its higher vege content.

More appropriate than jail time, IMO. The punishment should be proportionate to the crime, so the risk of big money from selling rare geckos smuggled out of NZ should be punished with a similarly large fine, maybe double the market value of what they're caught with...

Put your money in the bank and don't buy fish. Invest it in shares if you want to make a return on it. Unless you're willing to invest the money in importing and breeding something rare and expensive (certain plecs would be a good example, as someone already mentioned) then you're not likely to make a real 'profit'.

Its one of those things where everyone has a different opinion, kinda like trying to debate politics or football teams... Common names certainly have their place in the hobby, we just need to accept their inherent flaws and limitations. What vexes me is that in the recent years with the proliferation of internet forums the use of different common names and abbreviations has greatly increased, where I would have thought the use of a consistent name [ie Latin] that can be searched for would be more important than ever. Trying to search for "managuense" on MFK will only bring up a fraction of the threads about P. managuense aka jaguar, you need to search for jaguar AND jag, but many websites won't allow a search for a word of only three letters, so unless someone has bothered to write jaguar (or managuense) in full then the information won't be found. I would agree. In a case like the sterbais where there is already a widely used common name [which just happens to be the same as the species name] then making up another name for them seems completely unnecessary. How ever, I can see Hollywoods reason for sticking to it, if every other shop in town is selling "golden leopards" and someone who doesn't know any better comes in looking for a couple more they may miss out if they're only selling "Sterbai".

To me the whole "Rio Ucayali" thing just shows a lack of understanding of how scientific nomenclature works (sorry Thomas, I know you said thats not what this thread is about!). When a collector collects a fish that is not obviously belonging to a described species (as so often is the case with plecs) they will often give it a handle, like a common name but a bit more official, so that it can be talked about and called something until formally described and classified. It could be a collection number*, or a made up name like Heros Sp. 'Rotkeil' for the red shoulder severum, or as in this case a locality; Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali'. This handle refers to those particular fish, taken from that particular locality, and perhaps their F1 offspring, or at a stretch F2 (after that, IMO, it starts becoming irrelevant). It DOES NOT refer to every fish of that particular species. If you find a fish in another river that looks exactly the same that doesn't make it also an Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali'. Not until that species is described and its range and defining characteristics defined, can you look at a fish from another source and say it is the same thing. "Identifying" [using the term loosely] a fish that has most likely come from a fish farm in asia as "Rio anything" is a farce IMO. Imagine the confusion of some real wild-caught Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali' were imported. Would people want to mix them? What if they weren't exactly the same? What if five years later someone eventually describes the true Ancistrus Sp. 'Rio Ucayali' and it turns out it is subtly different to this other thing that has been imported from a fish farm and could be a mix of goodness only knows what? How many threads would we have trying to determine who had true "Ucayali" and whos were hybrids or the imported impostors? I know many people here have strong opinions about making up names for unknowns, but IMO it is a far better practice to admit you're not sure about the identity and give it a different name which people can use, and then if/when it is properly identified the name can be corrected. Taking a guess or making an assumption opens the door for the incorrectly identified entities to be mixed into the gene pool of the known species. So, to tie it into the topic on hand, having more common common names would be a good thing, but only to an extent. "Identifying" anything by using a common name must, from a serious hobbyists perspective, be regarded as impossible. Sometimes a common name will only refer to one true species, sometimes it will be used to cover several species (eg; rummy nose tetras), and some (like the SAE/flying fox example) will be interchanged freely and have several common names for several similar looking species. Hoping and expecting people to not do this is wishful thinking IMO, those who don't care will always muddle them up and not see the need to be concerned, and those who care enough will [or should] learn the Latin names of the fish in question. Shops will continue to sell their fish as what the wholesaler sells them as, and wholesalers will still continue to invent common names as they see fit. And really, there are no conventions governing the use of common names (as there are with scientific names) so expecting them to be logical and reliable is optimistic at best. * collection numbers are common in the plant world where people often collect seeds from the wild. You often see something like 'C128' tacked onto the name (even with known species) so the collection site can be referred to later on. With C128 the C stands for Cole, the surname of the collector, and the number references that particular collection locality.

Another interesting thing is that they all used to be considered one species (Scleropages formosus) and were so when the CITES agreement for trade was made. Now they have been split into several species and all have been included on the Appendix I by default, thus all asian Scleropages needing a microchip, from the basic green to the most expensive gold crossback purple base fluro head king VIP albino.

Carpintis have much larger blue spots. carpintis: http://www.portcityunderground.com/pcuimages/fish/lahillas.jpg cyanoguttatus: http://www.flickr.com/photos/centavo/2532601802/in/set-72157605312951329 Prime example of why don't like common names, people google "texas cichlid" and get pics of both and don't learn there is a difference..... Sounds like you've got some good fish already, would love to see pics!

I don't even think they're required to do that now, AFAIK all shops are open and its business as usual (but without the dodgy staff who broke the law and the companies rules)...

Thats the thing with CITES, it only looks into their status in the wild when considering the status. It doesn't matter how many thousand asian arowana are bred in captivity for the aquarium trade, as long as their environment remains threatened by pollution, habitat destruction and over-fishing they will remain on the CITES Appendix I (most endangered). The only other bonytongues on any of the appendices are Arapaima, and they're only Appendix II which means not as endangered (again they are farmed in their thousands for food and release into habitat). Asian arowana aren't being bred for release back into habitat (AFAIK), I guess increasing numbers would just encourage people to catch them for the black market. Many of the strains being bred in captivity have been captive bred for several generations and are quite different to what you would find in habitat anyway. The microchip and certificate is required for any trading of them as they are Appendix I, it is to show they are at least second-generation captive bred. More reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_arowana#Conservation

yeah, depending on the tank, both altifrons and heckelii aren't the fastest growers (compared to something like oscars).

Sounds like the best idea. Its a shame we don't get Geo. Sp. 'Pindare', they'd be perfect for you and have 'the look'...

They get to a similar size to altifrons so not sure I'd trust them with smaller fish when they're full grown. Could be worth a shot with either though, if it gets to the point where you think their mouths are big enough to grab a panda then move them on? What about Biotodoma cupido?

Yep a big altifrons might be able to snack on smaller fish like ottos, or maybe even cories or apistos. A "jurupari" might be a better choice, shame we don't get the orange/red heads here...

There's a slightly bigger market for prawns than arowanas.... Hardest part with the thermally heated pond idea would be keeping it constant. I've got no idea how consistant the temp of the water coming out of the ground would be, but it would be an expensive mistake if it suddenly got hotter or colder.

Festae are out there and on the increase in numbers..... 8) Wouldn't recommend mixing fish like severums and uaru with large aggressive central/south americans like the ones you mentioned, it can work some times but could easily lead to trouble depending on tank size and the fish involved. You've basically listed everything we get here, with a few exceptions; Cuban cichlids (Nandopsis tetracanthus) are on the list but I have only ever seen one here in person, Herichthys cyanoguttatus (true texas cichlid) is also on the list but I've never seen or heard of them here (and most people don't seem to know the difference between them and H. carpintis anyway), and Parachromis friedrichsthalii is another thats on the list but not imported. Apparently trimacs were imported back in the pre-flowerhorn days but aren't on the list, and there's a good chance that the surviving ones have been mistaken for and crossed with flowerhorns.

I found its best to boil them and add the concentrate to the tank until the desired colour is achieved.

Only thing you might want to elaborate on is "catfish", given that there are about 3000 different species inhabiting almost every possible environment....

If they're on "tank water" isn't it it more likely to be rain water than ground water? What are the "horror stories" you're talking about??

Given the costs of achieveing it, there isn't really a market here for locally bred arowanas. Given that the bulk of them come from asia where they can breed them in outdoor ponds, land and labour are cheaper, no need for heating etc, it would be completely uneconomical to try to do it [almost] anywhere else.

With the fish you're keeping and the size of your tank leaves will be nothing but a hassle IMO. The problem I had with peat is that its really hard to filter out the fine particles. Best thing for making blackwater (if all you want is the colour) is Alder cones. Its nearly about the right time of year to collect them too.

They [Al Qaeda, not the Taliban] were already a "hydra" with many heads operating in many countries around the globe, Bin Laden just happened to be the only one that was a household name thanks to the publicity the media gave him after 9/11. TBH I think they would have been better to cover it up and pretend they were still looking for him, all this hype and flag waving is just adding fuel to the fire and helping radical Islam recruit more radicals now they have a martyr to champion.

Seems a bit silly IMO that we can't discuss relevant topics like this. I know its a family place, but how about an "Adults Lounge" R16 forum with looser guidelines for discussing politics, religion, world news, etc....

:facepalm: :oops:

What is "fine"? AFAIK many rainbows prefer harder more alkaline water than the typical "community aquarium" with wood, plants, tetras etc. Also I'd increase the water changes to weekly rather than fortnightly, less accumulation of waste = better.