USL- Last Set of Animals from the List!!!

[tazdevil]

Mary, does that include all Pomacanthidae? (Ex.- Pomacanthus Imperator/emporer angel). I though these were in the moderate as far as difficulty to keep category. Your list has <blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote

Pomacanthidae angelfish

listed as such, does that include the entire family?? I don't believe they're all difficult to keep.

 

[MaryHM]

Since Naesco originally posted the list, maybe he has more insight. Either way, none of the Pomacanthidae are obligate feeders to my knowledge.

 

[MaryHM]

I have made the changes to the USL. I have also contacted John Tullock via email to see if he would like to comment.

 

[naesco]

Mary Tazdevel the five Angelfish that are on Tullocks list are the following
Centropyge boylei boyles angelfish
C. multifaciatus Multi-barred angelfish
Desmoholacanthus arcuatus bandit angel
Holacanthus tricolour rock beauty angelfish
Pygoplites diacanthus regal angelfish
There are many in the difficult category but these are the ones which must be prohibited.
These are sponge eaters that could survive provided we could afford to provide live sponge to them.
I have seen hundreds of rock beauty and regals sold here in Vancouver which is just sickening.
There beautiful colours and low price makes them fish candy to the unsuspecting masses when even the most accomplished cannot keep them.

 

[naesco]

Marini and SPC
Nobody says they all die. Nobody says that one day we may have the answer to keeping these filter feeding ribbon eels alive fairly easily.
But becuase accomplished aquarists may have success from time to time for a period of time do not mean that they should be off the list.
This species makes Mary's definition. It is not an advanced category. We are far from success in keeping them.

 

[MaryHM]

Naesco,

Can you get me some documentation to back up the feeding habits of those angels??

You said that blue ribbon eels are filter feeders...I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

 

[Bill2]

Hmm filter feeders. Maybe planktonivoirs (however it is spelled) but i doubt plantkonivoirs. I'm also wondering why centropyge boylei is on the list. Heck I would venture there isn't 1 in the United States outside maybe public aquariums. I would say almost all centropyge angels do well in aquariums as long as collection and shipping is done well.

 

[SPC]

Wayne, (you can call me Steve

), I never said the Ribbons should be on the list. Frank has thrown a "gray" area in by saying that he has seen an increase in those who profess the ability to keep these animals. IMO, we need to do more research on this eel, that does not mean one or the others opinion is right or wrong.
Steve

 

[JeremyR]

H. tricolors are more of a sponge eater than the rest of the holacanthus genus, and usually die even if eating in the aquarium.. I've never known anyone who kept one long term, and that's why it's on tullock's list. The regal is a collection/handling issue.. the red sea version is keepable by advanced type aquarists with good systems.

 

[MaryHM]

I went and did some research on the Angels from the list since there seems to be some confusion as to their inclusion/exclusion from the USL. Here's what I found:

Centropyge boylei boyle's- Can't find any diet information and I've never even heard of one of these, much less seen one.

C. multifasciatus multi-barred- Eats algae, coral, sponge and tunicates.

Apolemichthys arcuatus bandit- After I figured out that the genus was wrong on this one, information was much easier to find! Sponge and tunicates compose 91% of this fishes diets (according to Fish Base. Notice how I give a specific statistic and then back it up with a reference???

)

Holacanthus tricolor rock beauty- 98.2% of diet composed of sponges and tunicates. Again, from fish base.

Pygoplites diacanthus regal- Feeds on algae, tunicates, and sponges. I tend to agree here with Jeremy. The ones that come from countries where proper collection and handling techniques are utilized do quite well (like from Red Sea or Fiji). I have a Fiji regal here that I've had for almost 4 months. Fat as a pig.

Since many of these angels are sponge eaters, the question must be posed as to whether or not there are currently commercial sponge diets on the market. Anyone?

 

[Anonymous]

Ocean Nutrition lists marine sponges second to krill on their Angel Formula. That is what my Emperor eats.

 

[JeremyR]

Angel formula is a very commonly fed food with people who have angels.. but I don't think people usually comment on having any success from feeding it to rock beauties.

I bought live "food sponge" a few times from sea critters when I used to buy from them, and I tried to feed it to my carib angels.. they never really did much but pick at it... I'm not enough of an expert to know what types/species of sponges they need, or if they aren't different with the different fish species.

 

[sedgro]

I agree with Jeremy that the regal is more of a collection/handling issue. Properly collected ones will live - mine is nearly two years old now and the only sponge it has seen is the one I use to clean my tank.

I think it is sort of laughable that C. boylei is on any list... how many have realistically imported in to the US? One? Two? "A Guide to Angelfishes and Butterflyfishes" states that the first two collected in the Cook Is. by Richard Pyle sold for $14,000 each in Japan! Until there is more experience out there with this fish it probably better to keep them in an "unknown" category.

C. multifasciatus (which seems to be in the same sub-group as C. boylei) is another story. Back when these fish first showed up in the market (at least to my recollection - which was in the mid 80's) they never seemed to eat or last very long. Now, from what I have seen, the do very well. I understand that the majority are collected in the Marshall Islands now. Maybe this is another fish that suffered from poor collection and handling techniques?

Sedgro

 

[MaryHM]

So what do you guys think? It seems to be that the only angels really falling into that obligate feeder category are the Bandit and Rock Beauty, although they may be arguable... I need some feedback- should we put them on the list or not??

 

[MaryHM]

My extremely limited experience with bandeds was seeing 3 of them over the course of 4 years or so come in from Hawaii to the big wholesalers. Not a very frequently imported fish.

 

[naesco]

Going to a hockey game but will feed you some info on the angels later.
Mary Do you accept fishbase over Tullock, Wilkens and Fenner?
Or were yoy merely putting some new info out for comment?

 

[naesco]

Mary
Peter Wilkens
"All regal angelfish are best left in their native habitat because they do so poorly in captivity invariably dying within a year"
"there are the odd almost miraculous exceptions"

He says further that these fish are sponge eaters (obligate) and will die even you get them to start eating aquarium food..

 

[naesco]

Mary
Jay Hemdel noted aquarist

Barred angelfish is prone to pygmy angel bloat syndrome. Fish does well for a few weeks and developes edema.

Rock beauty very difficult to keep alive despite efforts of experienced marine aquarists.

Regal rarely acccepts food in captivity

Bicolour angel less than one half live beyond 6 months some never eat while others pick on food and eventually starve.

This author after listing easy to keep and difficult species lists the above which he defines as the species infamous for they lack of adaptation to home aquaria. It is extremely rae that they survive more than a few months. They may eat well, appear fine, but succumb after less than a year.

I submit that Hemdal, Tullock, Wilkens and Fenner must be accepted. Like I said even some LFS and wholesalers recommend that they not be sold.
Thank you

 

[Anemone]

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by naesco:
<strong>I submit that Hemdal, Tullock, Wilkens and Fenner must be accepted. Like I said even some LFS and wholesalers recommend that they not be sold.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Naesco,

I submit that they be considered like the other sources that have considerable experience with certain fish species (including Mary and Jeremy, among others). No one elected any of these folks god (either singly or collectively), and unless you can show me numbers, they are just expressing their anecdotal experience - ie, not a specific or scientific study of individual species.

Kevin

 

[naesco]

What makes them believable though is their balanced view. In the case of tangs, butterflyfish and angels they present the good, bad (difficult to keep) and the ugly(impossible to keep).
They agree on the impossible to keep species.
Tullock commented that he knows there will be people who will not agree with his opinion but stresses that this opinion in based on 30 years in the industry where he sees and knows what happens.
We may give up on keeping say a regal angel because we were not successful and think it is us or our tanks.
These guys know its the species because everyone has a problem.