David R

Could also use cement/mortar, depending on the fish you're keeping and the size of the tank. In a smaller tank with no wood it may have an undesirable [or desirable, depending on what you're keeping] effect on the water.

I went from a 5' tank with a bunch of cool big fish to a 3' planted tank when I moved out of home and went flatting, and also had about 4 months with no fish when I went overseas and decided to move to Hamilton when I got back. Sometimes it can be good, sometimes it can be bad. Its taken me about 8 years to get hold of another black aro since I sold my last one, but at least now I'm settled in my own house and will be able to house it for life.

Hovmoller; my only guess would be marketability, "golden leopard" sounds so much more enticing than "sterbai"... Maybe you're right. Perhaps I'll just lurk in the background making cryptic one-line posts and stating "facts" to contradict people trying to make a genuine contribution... I've tried to start the ball rolling. Let me know if you want a hand with your submission livingart....

Society for what? There is a big difference between catering to the lowest common denominator and accommodating hobbyists of all levels, unfortunately the society is more interested in the former than the later. The real reason a lot of things don't get done is because the society as a whole is stagnant, so many "advanced" hobbyists have dropped off the top over the years and don't even bother with this forum let alone the society as it offers them very little. Yes it is important to embrace the new-comers, but isn't it also important to encourage them to progress and become more educated? I'm sorry you view my attitude as intolerant, but if I'm going to be shot down for encouraging people to learn the correct Latin names for their fish by someone who is supposedly the "Fishroom Sage" (who's job description included "to offer help and advice mainly in Cichlids, Rare and Unusual") then what do you expect. If we aren't even willing to talk about the fish using their correct names how are we ever going to fulfil the requirements of MAFs paperwork to get new species added to the list? At the end of the day I couldn't care less if people don't bother to learn the Latin names of their fish, but it really grinds my gears when I get called out for trying to encourage it.

Right-o, I'm out, sorry for trying to encourage people to raise the bar a bit. Good luck to FNZAS getting new species added while continuing to cater to the lowest common denominator. [and I don't mean that in a sarcastic sense]

I didn't realise there was a difference and freely interchange the terms. I guess you're referring to the difference between "fish havers" and "fish keepers", and I'd like to think that anyone willing to go to the trouble of signing up to a club or internet forum falls into the later category. Regardless, it is still no reason not to encourage the use of Latin names, especially amongst keener people such as the users of this forum. Known hybrids like flowerhorns or discus are a completely different kettle of fish [excuse the pun] to unintentional hybrids created through ignorance. This thread on MFK is a perfect example of what I'm talking about, only in NZ we aren't lucky enough to be able to buy from people like Ken Davis or Jeff Rapps who correctly identify their fish. MFK - Please read before asking if you have a Midas or Red Devil We only have Amphilophus citrinellus [midas cichlid] on The List, and the fish we get here are almost certainly mutts, but people still talk about "red devils"....

... and then bred them and started selling them under the wrong name on TradeMe. What difference does it make? If we did happen to have H. carpintis and H. cyanoguttatus here (which AFAIK we don't) and we just called them both "texas cichlids" and didn't worry about their real names, how long would it take before they start being cross-bred and we end up with "texas cichlids" that aren't actually texas cichlids but a hybrid between the true species native to Texas and one from south of the border? I agree that common names have their place, but thats no reason not to learn the correct Latin names so you can correctly identify the fish you are keeping/breeding. Smidey; how can you have accurate common names when there is no convention governing their use? They are simply made up for convenience sake and are essentially meaningless, especially given the frequency with which they are mis-used (eg referring to two different species as "texas cichlids"). I see what you're getting at and agree to a point, but what is more important for people to realise is that common names AREN'T accurate and that is the very reason why Binomial nomenclature exists with all the strict rules governing its usage. If more people in the hobby [the industry as well as hobbyists] embraced it then perhaps we wouldn't have so much confusion?

You're probably right, I'm just not quite sure why he said it, other than just to say the opposite of what I had said...

So whats your point? Are you trying to disagree with me when I say people should bother to learn them or just posting obvious statements for the heck of it? I know that a lot of people don't use or understand Latin/binomial nomenclature, but when supposedly a 'sage of the hobby' come out and say things like that is it any surprise? People think they're "gobbledegook" because they see a word with more than 5 letters and don't take more than a couple of seconds to try to pronounce it. The reality is they aren't "gobbledegook" and there are many reasons why even "average hobbyists" should make the effort to use them. Case and point with the texas cichlid example here. If you do a google images search for "texas cichlid" you get a mixture of pics of both H. carpintis and H. cyanoguttatus, the seller on TM obviously did this and decided since some of the pictures looked like his fish they were H. cyanoguttatus. But if you google Hericthys cyanoguttatus you get almost no pics of H. carpintis and if the seller had taken the time to do so he would have realised the fish he has is not H. cyanoguttatus. And for the pronunciation thing, its actually really simple in most cases despite how it looks, most of the time its pronounced as it looks; Hericthys cyanoguttatus = her-ick-thiss sy-ano-gut-tay-tus. One exception is when a fish is named after a person, the name is pronounced as it usually would be but with the "eye" sound on the end, eg Pseudotropheus demasoni, named after Laif DeMason, should be pronounced de-mason-i and not dem-a-sone-i. Sorry for the massive off topic rant but its something I feel strongly about, and while we're discussing the 'future of the hobby' I have to wonder where its heading if we have experienced people telling newbies that Latin names are just "gobbledegook"....

great attitude... :roll:

Well its about time you started learning them then!!! If you don't know the Latin names of your fish then you really don't know what they are as common names can be made up by anyone and often cover several species. Can we forget the whole "breeding register" thing for now and steer the discussion back onto getting new and overlooked species onto the list...

They would have bought it as a "texas cichlid" and googled "texas cichlid" and come up with the name Herichthys cyanoguttatus and left it at that.

If that were the case we'd never get anything as names are constantly being reviewed, the genus it is eventually lumped/split into doesn't change the risk it poses...

This is the exact reason why I hate common names and think people should go to the trouble of using Latin names... The fish in the auction is Herichthys carpintis, the fish that is actually on the list and is sometimes referred to the "true Texas cichlid" is H. cyanoguttatus. With common names there is no convention governing how they are used, so if you want to start calling kribensis "texas cichlids" then there is nothing stopping you.

Thats the big problem really, finding the material with the right information needed. Hopefully if the changes you talk about happen we should be able to get a lot more added without too much trouble, but I won't hold my breath...

Now this is something promising, about the next best thing to a generic dispensation for low-risk genera. There are many genera on the list that that only have 1-2 species allowed, this would make it easy to get many more added even if they are not 100% accurate. Eg; if we didn't update the genus "Cichlasoma" we could import nearly any cichlid from Central America, unfortunately they have all been split now, and there are still many in the "ex-Cichlasoma" basket waiting for a definite classification.

Rob and Ryan; valid points, but not everyone is going to be secret-squirrel about what they have, and the scenario you mentioned Rob where we are down to the last two of something and neither participant wants to lend theirs to the other is an unfortunate but extreme example. I have a pair of Amphilophus festae from the group of 8 juvis I bought. I don't know anyone else with more than one, although Hollywood arranged for me to get a couple of extra females from another person who bought a group, so there may be more than one out there. Maybe. I'd like to see this species distributed and become more commonly available here, and thats what I intend to do with the fry when the parents finally get up to breeding size. Its not just the rare things like L046 that are in danger of dropping off the list, midas cichlids for example seem to be very scarce at the moment, despite being easy to breed. Same story with jags, although there are a couple of pairs floating around. Yes some people won't participate, and others won't list everything they have, but I'm sure many people would take part and it could be a worth while thing given time.....

Thats the problem, its a great indication of who had what, not who has what. If people want to make this a competitive hobby and breed fish for the sake of getting another star by their name then good for them, but having every newbie racing to breed common/easy species isn't going to make sure we have breeding populations of the rare and difficult things being maintained here (just look at L046, for example). As hovmoller suggested, we need some sort of register that keeps track of who is currently breeding [or trying to breed] what, not what they have bred in the past. The "Individuals Pleco Collection" thread is a good start. Yes obviously not every fishkeeper in the country is going to register what they are keeping and breeding or trying to breed, but it would be good if at least people here kept track of who has what.

FNZAS have a "breeding scheme" which makes breeding a competitive sport and you get a gold star for every species you breed. Its good in the sense that it provides us with a record of what has been bred here [although there are many gaps because of unregistered breedings], but it falls a long way short of being a useful register like the one you mention. Perhaps its time to give it an overhaul?

Yeah well thats the next thing, and the big problem here. I'd love some crenicichla and true H. severus, but I doubt there would be enough people here willing to pay for them to make it worth while....

H. efasciatus, or hybrids between that and H. severus among other things. They've been captive bred for so long now its hard to tell. Here's a good article with a few pics of the true H. severus; http://www.apistogramma.co.uk/index.php ... &Itemid=57 More pics: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forum ... p?t=232095

I knew there was one I'd seen that I forgot! Crenicichla lacustris - I have seen a pic of a pike here, a guy was selling it as part of a big old set up, and he had two of them. I've never actually seen them for sale in a shop though. Shame only one species is on the list, but at least thats something. Can we stick to Latin names too, since thats what the list and MAF deal in. So Xenentodon cancila - Silver needlenose gar. Has anyone seen them here? Any knives in particular Fruju? I thought most of the ones on the list were available sporadically, are there some that haven't come in, or not often available?

Here's my contribution after a quick scan of the list, I'm sure there's many more. Acarichthys heckelii - was imported a few years ago, not sure if any pairs established, not seen since Amphilophus citrinellus - has been imported, still some around, not sure if anyone is breeding them Anostomus anostomus - haven't seen them in the shops for a while now Dicrossus filamentosus - I know they were supposed to come in from Germany but never made it Geophagus steindachneri - as above Gymnogeophagus balzanii - as above Herichthys cyanoguttatus - the true Texas cichlid, all ours are H. carpinte AFAIK Heros severus - unsure if the true H. severus has ever been imported Hypselecara coryphaenoides - supposedly very rare in the hobby, possibly never been imported? Monocirrhus polyacanthus - last lot turned out to be something else, unsure if the true SA leaf fish has been imported? Nandopsis tetracanthus - I've only ever seen one here Pimelodus ornatus - last available when? I also notice there are things like "Danio sp. "pantheri"" and "Hemiancistrus L128" with no valid species name, which seems strange to me. If anything it shows the incompetence of the people who created the list and the system. Does that mean its possible to get more undescribed species added?

I was expecting a "instead of asking what everyone else is doing why don't you do something yourself" type reply... The point of this thread is not to have a dig at the Federation or piss and moan about the lack of action. I want to see some new fish here and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I am willing to join and work with the Federation if they already have some work in progress, and that is exactly what I'm trying to find out. Perhaps you could explain the what the "FNZAS Fish Committee" is and what they are doing? And for the record, Henward and I started going through the motions of making a submission to get the entire Polypterus genus added to the list (and were going to fund it ourselves too), but unfortunately our best source of Polypterus information [Anne/Beblonde on MFK] disappeared off the face of the earth. I'll start a new thread shortly where we can compile a list of names that are on the list but not regularly available here, including species that are infrequently available or incorrectly named. I'll need contributions from the African cichlid and Catfish geeks as I'm not up with the play in those areas...

I'm still waiting for someone from FNZAS to tell us what they are doing on this front. As I said, I have little interest in belonging to a club, but if joining it is the best way for me to help get more species available here then thats what I'll do. Is the Federation currently involved in compiling information for an application? Or even making a list of possible candidates?