I agree with the study only had 3 fish and i am not 100% sure thats why i asked the question and yes all the things people have put could have other explanations other than playing, but on the other hand the example you gave about your Midas could be put down as play i think Midas are intelligent enough to know the difference between a inanimate object and a genuine threat to there territory.
Any body else seen there fish play
- Thread starter dan518
- Start date
Dan, in the case of my male midas it is typically a clear act of aggression, and not play. No one watching this (and knowing this fishes typical day to day behaviour) would mistake the act as playing, and it generally only happens when something sets him off. The same thing as when I don't feed him, while he watches the other fish in the room getting fed, and he swims to the surface and hits the glass lid in his tank, hard. Again, not playing. No doubt the fish is intelligent, buy he is not playing.
I'm leaning the same way towards the 3 male Tropheus in the study. Having owned Tropheus I cannot in my mind consider them as a "playful" species. Quite the opposite.
I'm leaning the same way towards the 3 male Tropheus in the study. Having owned Tropheus I cannot in my mind consider them as a "playful" species. Quite the opposite.
Idk about playing but my gars do a little dance as long as someone is paying attention. But then again maybe they think their gonna get food ;p
I can see in the case of my Oscar that it is probably aggression. He does not like his plant planted and will uproot it every time I stick it back in the sand. But what about my Harlequins. They seem to be playing in the current purely for the enjoyment of it.
yes they do, could be they can see some thing that we cannot, it could be them playing. but thinking about it most animals play especially while there young because its the best way to learn the skills they will need for the rest of there lives, so may be the question should be if fish dont play why not.
As the OP dan518 pointed out there where only 3 fish used in the study, that along with the very broad definition of "play" without the consideration, as R.D. pointed out; of possible other reasons for the reaction doesn't sound very scientific to me. IMO it would take a lot more observation and better parameters for the study and the resulting conclusion to be considered anywhere near feasible.
As far as I know those in the scientific community who believe in play, believe that play evolved to help ensure survival of certain animals. One reason for play being to sharpen skills in a safe environment before independence is reached by a young animal. Two to promote camaraderie in animals that depend on one another for their continued survival. If I'm correct then it's logical to assume not all animals play since evolution would have eliminated an unnecessary, useless action for the sake of efficiency. What use would a wholly independent from birth animal have for play like many fish?
Then again there are plenty of things that science has yet to explain. So here's a vid of my old Ray playing. lol Well at least I like to think her only reason for swimming into the out flow was because she thought it was fun.
As far as I know those in the scientific community who believe in play, believe that play evolved to help ensure survival of certain animals. One reason for play being to sharpen skills in a safe environment before independence is reached by a young animal. Two to promote camaraderie in animals that depend on one another for their continued survival. If I'm correct then it's logical to assume not all animals play since evolution would have eliminated an unnecessary, useless action for the sake of efficiency. What use would a wholly independent from birth animal have for play like many fish?
Then again there are plenty of things that science has yet to explain. So here's a vid of my old Ray playing. lol Well at least I like to think her only reason for swimming into the out flow was because she thought it was fun.
I'm the one that first noted that there were only (3) male fish used in this study, not that it matters. Two year old male Tropheus don't play.
In fact, here's a classic example of the behaviour of juvenile (under 1 inch) Tropheus 'playing', that I recall witnessing years ago in a local breeders grow out tank . A single (I assume male) Tropheus would hover over the top of a sponge filter, claiming the sponge as his own, and aggressively attacking any of his siblings that came too close. I suppose that someone could anthropomorphize that behaviour into a good ol playful game of King of the Hill, but I don't see that type of fish behaviour as a game, or playing.
These researchers get an epic fail from me.
In fact, here's a classic example of the behaviour of juvenile (under 1 inch) Tropheus 'playing', that I recall witnessing years ago in a local breeders grow out tank . A single (I assume male) Tropheus would hover over the top of a sponge filter, claiming the sponge as his own, and aggressively attacking any of his siblings that came too close. I suppose that someone could anthropomorphize that behaviour into a good ol playful game of King of the Hill, but I don't see that type of fish behaviour as a game, or playing.
These researchers get an epic fail from me.
Hey no worries, not a big deal either way. The ones that should be apologizing are the people who published this paper.
