Mine has the large lips, longer snout and a more slender sporty profile body. It was from Jeff Rapps.
A. Labiatus male in heat.
- Thread starter Captain F Bomb
- Start date
Post a pic. I'd love to see the fish. Sounds like the real deal.
When I got into the hobby in the 1970's, I saw all kinds of monster fish kept in "giant" 40-55 gallon tanks. I paid about $50 for a stocked, 35 gallon, Brillo pad-scrubbed plexiglass tank that had two large oscars, a 12" black shark and some other big fish in there. People would keep silver arowanas in a 55 even at 24+" long. The fish would get a permanent bend in them because of navigating that 12" dimension, which was disturbing. 30 years ago I kept a big pair of "red devils" (8" and 11") in a 50 gallon and they got along and bred regularly. I never thought of it as inhumane, but nowadays I'd use a larger tank.
The availability of much larger tanks has been a great thing for the hobby as we have made a better attempt to house large and very large fish. Personally, I would be comfortable keeping the fish in the 75 at his current size and for a while. Eventually to move him to a larger tank is worth considering. When it comes to what size tank is humane to keep a fish in, that is subjective unless the fish can't turn or get enough oxygen. What is a natural territory for a large Amphilophus? I'd guess 1000 gallons plus. I wonder if many cichlids would rather be kept in what some consider a smaller tank with a mate than by themselves in a monster tank? Who knows? Some people would say that we are being inhumane by keeping fish in aquariums at all. Not me.
When I got into the hobby in the 1970's, I saw all kinds of monster fish kept in "giant" 40-55 gallon tanks. I paid about $50 for a stocked, 35 gallon, Brillo pad-scrubbed plexiglass tank that had two large oscars, a 12" black shark and some other big fish in there. People would keep silver arowanas in a 55 even at 24+" long. The fish would get a permanent bend in them because of navigating that 12" dimension, which was disturbing. 30 years ago I kept a big pair of "red devils" (8" and 11") in a 50 gallon and they got along and bred regularly. I never thought of it as inhumane, but nowadays I'd use a larger tank.
The availability of much larger tanks has been a great thing for the hobby as we have made a better attempt to house large and very large fish. Personally, I would be comfortable keeping the fish in the 75 at his current size and for a while. Eventually to move him to a larger tank is worth considering. When it comes to what size tank is humane to keep a fish in, that is subjective unless the fish can't turn or get enough oxygen. What is a natural territory for a large Amphilophus? I'd guess 1000 gallons plus. I wonder if many cichlids would rather be kept in what some consider a smaller tank with a mate than by themselves in a monster tank? Who knows? Some people would say that we are being inhumane by keeping fish in aquariums at all. Not me.
Man do I remember those days and I was guilty of poor fishkeeping. Everything you stated was true.
Thanks! It's a mix of natural color sand and a mix of black sand. About 60 percent natural 40 percent black. In my other tank I mixed like 90 percent black and 10 percent natural, it looks 50x better.
Old thread, I know, but isn’t every tank or aquarium too small? I use tank to refer to a barebones system with no decor, just a filter and maybe a light. To me an aquarium is a snapshot of an ecosystem (even if just in the aquarist’s mind) that has actual substrate and decor. Another question, is it also cruel to live feed (especially when it’s not needed) or keeping a fish solo when it hasn’t yet demonstrated the need? Pardon my rant, I’m pretty bored at work being away from my aquariums.
