Cichlid average size

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Ian21777 said:
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 VERIFIEF!!! Can I be any clearer than that?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Click to expand...

FWR lists the umbee in the photo as 24" but it's an IGFA record fish that, according to IGFA, measured 20.5"
FWR also has a photo of the IGFA record RTC that they list as 63" but according to IGFA, it's 55.5"
If someone in an official capacity was there to measure, why can't FWR nail down a year, a body of water, or even a country for some of its records that aren't questionable?
Since the two sites list different information on the same fish, which one should we believe?
 
Ian21777 said:
Does that mean absolutely nothing happened before the invention of the camera?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Click to expand...

And is there a photograph of the 26" dovii actually being measured? Pics or it didnt happen! Of course, im being ridiculous now. But we had just as well rubbish all recorded records, photographed or not unless there is proof that they were measured, and measured with a legit rule/ tape. I know that I feel like bashing my brains against a wall. How can anyone with half a brain use a website as the foundation of their argument and then in the next sentance call said same website a liar when something else they say doesn't suit them?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
houie925 said:
FWR lists the umbee in the photo as 24" but it's an IGFA record fish that, according to IGFA, measured 20.5"
FWR also has a photo of the IGFA record RTC that they list as 63" but according to IGFA, it's 55.5"
If someone in an official capacity was there to measure, why can't FWR nail down a year, a body of water, or even a country for some of its records that aren't questionable?
Since the two sites list different information on the same fish, which one should we believe?
Click to expand...

I didn't mention the umbee, nor have I.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
What's with the arguments, it seems tacky to begin with, the thread is getting derailed... what's more is it capslock wars again? lol.
 
Ian21777 said:
I didn't mention the umbee, nor have I.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
Click to expand...

You were referring to the website that lists the umbee and RTC as being significantly longer than IGFA and I mentioned the umbee as an example of the inconsistency. Can't compare dovii between the two sources because they don't show the same specimens.

The additional point was to show the poor verification process considering the lack of information regarding year and location of catches that aren't being listed as questionable

Sent from my Huawei-U8665 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App
 
The IGFA introduced the length category at the beginning of 2011 which is why all records before then are measured in weight and estimated length. The eligible species list for length doesnt even include dovii or umbee (or any other cichlids for that matter) so the IGFA shouldn't really be used as a reference for their maximum length, much less as the basis for arguing a properly documented catch was the largest wild caught specimen "ever" (if that's even what the OP was asking).

As for average size in captivity, it all depends on health and water conditions but I still think Mel's is the best example of a properly cared for 11yr old dovii's potential (which I seriously doubt he is exaggerating about being 24-28''). The real "average" is probably closer to a foot with the number of people keeping them in 12-18" wide tanks until they die, but near max size should be attainable for dovii and most other large cichlids in a 8x4 or bigger footprint. Which brings us back to whether the max size is really 26" or 32" lol... considering FWR actually lists two dovii with an estimated length of 32" based on weight (not pictured, but documented and published) I think that's probably closer the biggest catch "ever" with 24" being the average for a full-grown adult male, but 20-22" is a more realistic average max in captivity
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom