1 more tang...too many fish? - Page 2

Bob I · #11 01-30-2003, 02:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troy F

This isn't a flame but I'd think two tangs in a 48" tank would be plenty. If considering the lemon peel, keep in mind that it's probably the most notorious of them all for nipping. Numerous text examples are available. I don't know this because of experience, I took Tullock, Michael etc. for their word. Bob's success isn't long term yet (and believe me I wish you [Bob] the best luck) and is the exception rather than the rule.

Just curious. by nipping do you mean other fish? Interestingly the Lemonpeel only has two ocellaris for company, and two YT Damsels. One Damsel sometimes likes to assert its territoriality. That behaviour is not tolerated, and the Angel will chase him until the Damsel is out of sight. The rest of the time he does not even look at the damsel.

Troy F · #12 01-30-2003, 02:47 AM

No, I meant coral tissue and clam mantles. I thought that would've been fairly self-evident considering their infamy.

zulu_principle · #13 01-30-2003, 03:12 AM

Just a query for those of use who use the fish resources ?

Scott Michael, who is whom I read for suitable fish, size, etc. says

Minimum Aquarium Size "this is the min. suitable aquarium volume for an adult individual of the species. Of course, juveniles and adolescents can be housed in smaller tanks......."

So if he says

Zebrasoma flavescens
Yellow Tang

Max. Length 7.9"
Min. Aquarium Size: 75 Gallon

How does everyone interpret this data ?

Lets say I buy a 2" yellow tang, I have no idea of his age, does anyone ?

Since its 25% of max length, does an aquarium that is 50% of the minimum work ?

Would like to hear what others think......

Wendell

Aquattro · #14 01-30-2003, 03:28 AM

Wendell, when I read something like that, I do adjust for the individual fish. My first tang, a yellow, went in my 45g tank. Which, BTW, had a lot more swimming room than my 75g. So is the bigger tank better? Not this time. The tang is now in my 155g, and still as happy as when it was in the 45. It isn't now nor will it ever be 7.9 inches long!
I think the book is a good baseline with which you form your own opinion.

Troy F · #15 01-30-2003, 03:41 AM

I don't think so. I have a really small 1.5" yellow tang in my 155gal reef and I would not put this fish in anything less. I've had a yellow tang in my 72gal and I thought that too small as well. My personal view is that Scott Michael's book is a good guideline for minimum tank sizes but if anything I'd go bigger. A Naso doesn't belong in a 135 in my opinion. There are lots of fish that he lists with a certain size tank that I'd disagree and say they need a bigger tank. Centropyge spp. is a good example in my opinion.

Bob I · #16 01-30-2003, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Troy F

No, I meant coral tissue and clam mantles. I thought that would've been fairly self-evident considering their infamy.

Not self evident to me, as I have not heard of their infamy. I looked in Tullock,s "Natural Reef Aquariums", there is no mention of the Lemonpeel at all. Fenner gives it only passing mention. I therefore hope I can be forgiven for not knowing. If you can give me more references who condemn the fish I would appreciate it. :? :?

chicki · #17 01-30-2003, 05:17 AM

A while ago, I came upon a post that was written by a guy who talked to Scott M. in person. He said he questioned him on "tank sizes" listed in his pocket book. He said that what Scott meant about min. size was meant for *that amount of gallons for that fish* meaning if you have a 135 gallon and have a Naso...then thats it for fish. He would take up the 135 gallon, not him and six other fish. e.g. if you have a 75 gallon and one yellow tang...then you would need a 150 gallon in order to keep two tangs.

zulu_principle · #18 01-30-2003, 05:18 AM

What's a "good" reference for what fish "fit into" what size aquarium ?

If its how the fish look, pretty subjective.......

Wendell

Troy F · #19 01-30-2003, 05:18 AM

Sorry Bob, I was being a little sarcastic because I thought you were too. Seriously though, are you trying to tell me you had no idea pygmy angels were a theat to certain sessile invertebrates? If you need actual reference you can try Marine Fishes by Michael, The Reef Aquarium Vol 1 by Delbeek and Sprung and I'm guessing here but I'm pretty sure it's in Eric's book, that Burgess Marine Atlas, the Baensch books as well Fossa and Nilsen make some reference to it but I may be reaching a bit there. If you were to do a search on any of the bbs you'd find hundreds of hobbyists that have had to remove their pygmies and most site lemonpeel as one of the worst. I've come across this information in various hobby magazines. Oh yeah, it is also mentioned in that Butterfly and Angel fishes book.

Troy F · #20 01-30-2003, 05:36 AM

Wendel, personal experience in my opinion. And yes, it's subjective. You asked for personal opinions. I get claustrophobic easily and watching even small fish in my tank sometimes gets to me.

If you haven't, check out Richard Harker's latest article in the new annual. I'm assuming you have an opinion yourself and are just curious?

My opinion on tangs and surgeons is that the bigger tank you can provide the better. The less competition for the same food source you give them the better. These fish generally defend fairly large territories and when you throw them in a small glass box with competition it adds stress. You may not see it but it'll be there. They can't change their instincts.

I don't really think any fish that'll hit 18" and is built to swim needs to be in a box. I'm inclined to take Ron Shimek's opinion that the only fish that should be kept are those that keep small territories like clowns, certain gobies, dottybacks etc. However, as a good friend once said, "this is a selfish hobby no matter how you look at it so do what you want to the best of your ability". Or something like that.