Cichlid average size

[Ian21777]

Im going to ask you again. Did you read the page? 26" is the largest PHOTOGRAPHED! It says in black and white. Largest RECORDED is 32". Fish dont have to be photographed to he verified. Read the page. Swallow your pride and accept that you are wrong . its no biggie. Nobody will think any less of you. But when its in black and white and you are still arguing night is day there is something seriously wrong. Read the page. Read where it says largest photographed and then where it says largest recorded. Read the 'key' at the bottom where it explains that if it was a 'fishermans tale' it would say 'questionable' next to it. How can you use something as a source of info yet only take into account the parts of it that suit you?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[Ian21777]

You are simply posting a Characteristic web page with estimations, no references, etc. That is meaningless.
Look at the end of the day, the PROOF is there. Everything else is a claim, with no PROOF to back it.
If we just took peoples words, then everybody knows that aliens exist, bigfoot, the yetti, lochness monster etc... they all exist as well. Hope you guys get the point here, that is, PROOF is the only way to CONCLUSIVELY say what a MAX size or weight for these fish really is.


More proof is this,
For the alleged Umbee of 32'' it has a weight of 27lbs but how is that possible if a
24'' umbee weighed 10 lbs, you are telling me it more than DOUBLED its WEIGHT with just 8 inches. Come on, that is ridiculous and more than enough to question it.
That is why you only use VERIFIED accounts.

The web page you quoted is a VERIFIED account.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[Drstrangelove]

More proof is this,
For the alleged Umbee of 32'' it has a weight of 27lbs but how is that possible if a
24'' umbee weighed 10 lbs, you are telling me it almost TRIPLED its WEIGHT with just 8 inches. Come on, that is ridiculous and more than enough to question it.

Yes, in fact, that is how it works. A 24" fish that weighs 10.5 lbs that grows to 32" will indeed weigh 24.9 lbs if it's girth remains relatively constant. If the smaller fish was slightly underfed or the large slightly overfed, the difference would be reasonable.


http://www.csgnetwork.com/fishfreshwtcalc.html

Here's a standard length to girth tool for type of fish with variables for small/average/large for class.


http://www.myoan.net/fishing/weight_calc.html

Another simpler one.

 

[Ian21777]

Yes, in fact, that is how it works. A 24" fish that weighs 10.5 lbs that grows to 32" will indeed weigh 24.9 lbs if it's girth remains relatively constant. If the smaller fish was slightly underfed or the large slightly overfed, the difference would be reasonable.

+1 Jeremy Wade has said similar on river monsters

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[Brazzen1]

I always thought that with pollution, habitat destruction & etc that a lot of the fish being caught are smaller than they once were. I agree that without draining every single body of water that these fish inhabit, both naturally and planted, we may never know the max size obtained and even then there is no way of knowing what could have been. I am glad that everyone is so passionate about this and thank you all for your input, I was mainly wanting to know the averages/max that you guys have personally seen.

 

[Ryan144]

Yes, in fact, that is how it works. A 24" fish that weighs 10.5 lbs that grows to 32" will indeed weigh 24.9 lbs if it's girth remains relatively constant. If the smaller fish was slightly underfed or the large slightly overfed, the difference would be reasonable.

Not only that but an umbee or dovii that size isn't going to be growing very much length wise. They're going to be getting much thicker and often fatter than a younger smaller individual would

Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using MonsterAquariaNetwork App

 

[cichlidfish]

Per Cichlid-Forums, another site on sizes. See the attached definition from that forum.

Maximum Size: This is in regards to total length (including the tail) of typical aquarium specimens.
Wild specimens may not attain this size, or may in fact grow larger than aquarium raised individuals
due to various factors. Also consider that this is the typical maximum size and there are exceptional
individuals that will exceed it.

Umbi
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=524 Max=24"
http://www.fishing-worldrecords.com/scientificname/Caquetaia umbrifera/show Wild caught record of 32"

Dovii
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=6 Max=24"
http://www.fishing-worldrecords.com/scientificname/Parachromis dovii/show Wild caught record of 32"

Temensis
http://www.cichlid-forum.com/profiles/species.php?id=529 Max 30"
http://www.fishing-worldrecords.com/scientificname/Cichla%20temensis/show http://wrec.igfa.org/WRecDetail.aspx?uid=36425&cn=Peacock, speckled#.UhVPhT_oBGE Wild caught record of 37" or 43"



So, per that site, typical maximum size in aquarium is 24" for Umbis and Dovii, with Temensis at 30", while exceptional fish may be larger in an aquarium, and in the wild, larger still.

Cichlid-forums profiles are outdated. They are not a good source.

 

[pckts]

Cichlid-forums profiles are outdated. They are not a good source.

EXACTLY

I'm sorry guys, but your fanaticism is juvenile.
First off, You guys cant even find a SINGLE Dovii or Umbee in the ENTIRE WEB that is longer than 24" and even mels dovii is a estimate at that, so most likely smaller.
2ndly A Umbee or dovii that hits that size (20'' plus) stops growing quickly, it slows down a ton, so for a fish to hit 32'' would take 75 years.

What are you guys not getting, these fish are VERIFIED, PICTURED, WEIGHED, you know WHEN THEY CAUGHT THEM, WHO CAUGHT THEM, etc.
These 32'' CLAIMS, offer nothing, No time of year, no verified picture, no verified name of who caught them, etc....
Most importantly..................
THEY ARE NOT PUBLISHED... because, drum roll please.....
they are NOT RELIABLE.

Btw, anybody who has ever fished in their life, knows a fish that is close to full grown if not full grown at 24'' is DEFINITELY not going to weigh triple its mass 32" when it was already at its RECORD length at 24''. You are being absurd if you believe that.

 

[Drstrangelove]

Cichlid-forums profiles are outdated. They are not a good source.

By out dated, do you mean that the information there was correct at one time, but there is newer information (for example, species names have changed?) Do you have a better forum you'd recommend as I am always trying to keep current on cichlids.

thanks for the tip and any info you have

cheers


Although on this particular issue, MFK seems to coincide with cichlid-forums on Dovii.

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?160496-CA-SA-Profile-thread/page2 Dovii @ 30"

http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?552316-Who-has-the-BIGGEST-Sa-Ca-cichlid Some people on MFK seem to agree that Dovii's in tanks can get to 26"

 

[Ian21777]

EXACTLY

I'm sorry guys, but your fanaticism is juvenile.
First off, You guys cant even find a SINGLE Dovii or Umbee in the ENTIRE WEB that is longer than 24" and even mels dovii is a estimate at that, so most likely smaller.
2ndly A Umbee or dovii that hits that size (20'' plus) stops growing quickly, it slows down a ton, so for a fish to hit 32'' would take 75 years.

What are you guys not getting, these fish are VERIFIED, PICTURED, WEIGHED, you know WHEN THEY CAUGHT THEM, WHO CAUGHT THEM, etc.
These 32'' CLAIMS, offer nothing, No time of year, no verified picture, no verified name of who caught them, etc....
Most importantly..................
THEY ARE NOT PUBLISHED... because, drum roll please.....
they are NOT RELIABLE.

Btw, anybody who has ever fished in their life, knows a fish that is close to full grown if not full grown at 24'' is DEFINITELY not going to weigh triple its mass 32" when it was already at its RECORD length at 24''. You are being absurd if you believe that.

One last try... The site you linked with the picture of the 26" dovii... It is an official site as much as the organisation it represents is official... It states the largest photographed (known photo) dovii is 26"... It then, to the left of that, states 32" as the highest verified length. It does not need to be photographed. If there is somebody in an official capacity present that measures and records it in front of credible witnesses it is verified. One more time I will tell you about the 'key' below the records that states in cases where a size is not verified, it will be designated as such. The 32" dovii is NOT designated as questionable and therefore suspicious. It is marked as a verified fact. The very same people that stated the 26" record PHOTOGRAPHED also state 32" record VERIFIED. Non photographed does NOT mean non verified. Please, if nothing else, read the site you quoted and, if you are going to use it as the basis for your argument, dont discount the evidence printed by the very same people that printed your own argument. One last time... NON PHOTOGRAPHED DOES NOT MEAN NON VERIFIED!!! Can I be any clearer than that?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App