Hi here you can see barbel from Europe (barbus barbus).It can grow to 1 m length...But only in rivers,not in aquarium.Mine reached 30 cm.They were with sturgeon and chub.But only for coldwater tanks...
Chinese hi fin banded loaches at Fish Story
- Thread starter thebiggerthebetter
- Start date
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_barbel Common barbel is an interesting fish indeed and we caught them in our childhood. Thank you for sharing, albeit I am not quite following what they have to do with the Chinese Hi Fin sharks, the topic of this thread.
Both i HAVE HAD IN THE POND. But Chinese Hi Fin sharks were very sensitive and fragile fishes...Very sensitive fish to pollution and often oucompetted by feeding...
IN Europe where are not strong winters you can have Chinese Hi Fin sharks whole year in a pond. Mine started life in aquarium than he went to the pond.
IN Europe where are not strong winters you can have Chinese Hi Fin sharks whole year in a pond. Mine started life in aquarium than he went to the pond.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is helpful and appreciated. I'd say our wretched, pitiful experience so far is more or less agreeable with this.
Viktor, my understanding from speaking to many keepers of this species (they are somewhat common, yet still an oddball here) is that they start out feeding almost exclusively on biofilm (they are often sold as hair algae killers, but it is suspected they eat the microorganisms living on and in the algae). Some people have success raising them on very small pellets or vegetable matter, but IMO your best bet would be putting them in an enclosure that has a ton of biofilm and algae growth, if you currently have one.
Just my $0.02
Just my $0.02
It is true,they eat small microrganisms living on algae...Mine eat frozen bloodworms.
A fourth shark was separated behind a divider and fed frozen blood worms and baby brine shrimp. I saw it take the feed and spit out. It wasn't getting plum and continued wasting away, until it too died like it's prior 3 kin. Only one remains strong, looking plum, growing in size, feeding well on NLS pellets and minced silversides.
...
jjohnwm
I appreciate your input as always. But I, on the contrary, have no problem with SeriouslyFish and the datasheet in question in particular.
I am not grasping your size argument. It is well known these fish can reach (on average?) about 3 feet = 0.9 m = 90 cm = 900 mm. SF shows no adult fish but two pics of small juvies. I don't understand where you see a larger than 3ft = 900 mm fish on the datasheet and where you know many sources that indicate larger and much larger sizes.
Moreover, the records of max length and max weight can and often do come from varying, unrelated sources, e.g., length from contemporary anglers and weight from commercial fishermen from distant past, etc. These numbers need not be from the same specimen. Referencing these numbers correctly would be highly desirable, I agree, but I also know how much work this is in its own, a very good chunk of man-hours.
I agree completely that 40 kg and 90 cm cannot be from the same specimen and that 40 kg implies something like a 5ft, thick-bodied fish.
My modest research shows that:
-- FishBase cites 2ft = 60 cm as the max, 22 cm as the common size.
-- Fishing World Records site cites 4.5ft = 135 cm max, 35 kg, 25+ years.
SF is a wonderful resource IMHumbO and I'd object belittling their effort.
Also, no one is perfect. Use me as an example. I make plenty of errors but if someone judged me the same way, that is, that based on my errors all the data I've reported over the past decade, all my body of work becomes a suspect and not trustworthy, that would seem unfair, too harsh, and hurt me deeply. I trust learning is a journey and we are all in the same boat, all who aim to learn and help each other as best we could.
...
jjohnwm
I appreciate your input as always. But I, on the contrary, have no problem with SeriouslyFish and the datasheet in question in particular. I am not grasping your size argument. It is well known these fish can reach (on average?) about 3 feet = 0.9 m = 90 cm = 900 mm. SF shows no adult fish but two pics of small juvies. I don't understand where you see a larger than 3ft = 900 mm fish on the datasheet and where you know many sources that indicate larger and much larger sizes.
Moreover, the records of max length and max weight can and often do come from varying, unrelated sources, e.g., length from contemporary anglers and weight from commercial fishermen from distant past, etc. These numbers need not be from the same specimen. Referencing these numbers correctly would be highly desirable, I agree, but I also know how much work this is in its own, a very good chunk of man-hours.
I agree completely that 40 kg and 90 cm cannot be from the same specimen and that 40 kg implies something like a 5ft, thick-bodied fish.
My modest research shows that:
-- FishBase cites 2ft = 60 cm as the max, 22 cm as the common size.
-- Fishing World Records site cites 4.5ft = 135 cm max, 35 kg, 25+ years.
SF is a wonderful resource IMHumbO and I'd object belittling their effort.
Also, no one is perfect. Use me as an example. I make plenty of errors but if someone judged me the same way, that is, that based on my errors all the data I've reported over the past decade, all my body of work becomes a suspect and not trustworthy, that would seem unfair, too harsh, and hurt me deeply. I trust learning is a journey and we are all in the same boat, all who aim to learn and help each other as best we could.
thebiggerthebetter
They seem to do well in koi ponds around San Diego. I do believe the need of algae for them to grow. They would grow 6" in one summer. I have several threads on MFK showing this. However, there is one member on MFK that have grown her's to a large size in an aquarium. She also lives in San Diego.
I do believe they stress with other fishes. Strangely, if I put 3-5 hifin in any one pond, only one would survive. I would end up with only one 24" hifin every time.
I agree that my post sounds like it is indeed "belittling" SeriouslyFish perhaps a bit more than I actually intended. They, like any internet source...or, really, any source...are not completely reliable, and the cynic in me bubbled over a bit because they are quoted on such a constant basis that it might sound to some as though they are the final word, truth inviolate. I just re-visited the site and looked up Myxocyprinus again. They now show two pics of very small young fish, which was all that appeared on the main page when I looked in the past; but they also still show what they always did, i.e. a notation that clicking on those pics will bring up the entire gallery, in this case 6 pics, for that species. Quite often the website works that way...the other pictures are immediately available to scroll through...while on other occasion, as now, clicking on those pics simply gives you full-screen enlargements of the individual pics shown on the main page but no further pics to view.A fourth shark was separated behind a divider and fed frozen blood worms and baby brine shrimp. I saw it take the feed and spit out. It wasn't getting plum and continued wasting away, until it too died like it's prior 3 kin. Only one remains strong, looking plum, growing in size, feeding well on NLS pellets and minced silversides.
...
I am not grasping your size argument. It is well known these fish can reach (on average?) about 3 feet = 0.9 m = 90 cm = 900 mm. SF shows no adult fish but two pics of small juvies. I don't understand where you see a larger than 3ft = 900 mm fish on the datasheet and where you know many sources that indicate larger and much larger sizes.
Moreover, the records of max length and max weight can and often do come from varying, unrelated sources, e.g., length from contemporary anglers and weight from commercial fishermen from distant past, etc. These numbers need not be from the same specimen. Referencing these numbers correctly would be highly desirable, I agree, but I also know how much work this is in its own, a very good chunk of man-hours.
I agree completely that 40 kg and 90 cm cannot be from the same specimen and that 40 kg implies something like a 5ft, thick-bodied fish.
My modest research shows that:
-- FishBase cites 2ft = 60 cm as the max, 22 cm as the common size.
-- Fishing World Records site cites 4.5ft = 135 cm max, 35 kg, 25+ years.
SF is a wonderful resource IMHumbO and I'd object belittling their effort.
Also, no one is perfect. Use me as an example. I make plenty of errors but if someone judged me the same way, that is, that based on my errors all the data I've reported over the past decade, all my body of work becomes a suspect and not trustworthy, that would seem unfair, too harsh, and hurt me deeply. I trust learning is a journey and we are all in the same boat, all who aim to learn and help each other as best we could.
The pics that they have shown in the past, and which I assume will again become available at some point, show some much larger fish, perhaps approaching 90cm but nowhere near the weight listed. In other casual web surfing I have stumbled across pics of Myxocyprinus far longer that might indeed weigh 40kg. At those larger sizes they lose even more of their graceful and dramatic shape; here's a link to a Wikipedia entry (no, I am certainly not suggesting that Wiki is any more reliable than SF or anyone else...):
Chinese high-fin banded shark - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
That entry shows a maximum length of 1.35m and max weight of 40kg, a pair of numbers which seem reasonable when used to describe the same fish. SF lists the same max weight, but at the much shorter max length of 90cm, and that was the discrepancy to which I was referring.
Errors and mistakes? They're a specialty of mine; I make more than my share! But I don't publish the data as though it is gospel; I may repeat it as part of an opinion, or as supporting evidence for my opinion, just as you or most any other private individual does when discussing ideas here on MFK. That's a little different than laying it out and stating "This is fact!"...but many people do utilize that flawed data as fact, so I do think that it is important to keep in mind that it is very much subject to inaccuracy errors introduced by repetition and other problems.
Learning is indeed a journey; you make your way along the trail as best you can, using your own intellect to determine the correct path, not necessarily placing complete trust in any individual map or source of info, and hoping that the inevitable mistakes and missteps are minimized.
It is fish for the pond not for aquarium...They should be kept with his own kind in groups.If they are alone they are in big stress.
They seem to do well in koi ponds around San Diego. I do believe the need of algae for them to grow. They would grow 6" in one summer. I have several threads on MFK showing this. However, there is one member on MFK that have grown her's to a large size in an aquarium. She also lives in San Diego.
I do believe they stress with other fishes. Strangely, if I put 3-5 hifin in any one pond, only one would survive. I would end up with only one 24" hifin every time.
