is that an egg still attached under that baby silver aro!!
yeah u right wish that easy when they r juvies LOL
yeah u right wish that easy when they r juvies LOL
hellow arowana lovers, noob checking in!!
- Thread starter dayak
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, the yolk stays attached for a while after birth. I've read that they are very fragile at that stage and should not be bought of the yolk is still attached.dayak;4752964; said:
drgnfrc13;4752963; said:
African aro is more closely related to the Arapaimas than to Osteoglossum or Scleropages.
Besides, from a semantics point of view, Arapaimas are arowanas, since all members of the family Osteoglossidae are considered arowanas in scientific literature.
dayak;4752964; said:
Yes, they don't really hatch like a chicken, they sort of develop on the yolk and swim around with it attached to them for a while, until the absorb it completely.
Personally, I really only consider members of the Osteoglossinae subfamily to be true aros, but generally, most people also accept afros as aros. I've never heard anyone call an arapaima an aro before, though.Juxtaroberto;4752975; said:
I know.Bderick67;4752978; said:
The family contains two subfamilies, Heterotidinae and Osteoglossinae, with all but two of the ten extant species being members of the latter. Species are given with one or more prominent common names.
Family Osteoglossidae
Subfamily Heterotidinae
Genus Arapaima
Arapaima or pirarucu, Arapaima gigas (Cuvier, 1829)
Genus Heterotis
African arowana, Heterotis niloticus (Cuvier, 1829)
Subfamily Osteoglossinae
Genus Osteoglossum (Cuvier, 1829)
Silver arowana, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (Cuvier, 1829)
Black arowana, Osteoglossum ferreirai Kanazawa, 1966
Genus Scleropages
Red-tailed golden arowana Scleropages aureus (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
Green arowana or gold crossback arowana, Scleropages formosus (Schlegel & M�ller, 1844)
Gulf saratoga, red saratoga or northern spotted barramundi, Scleropages jardinii � (Saville-Kent, 1892)
Red arowana, super red arowana, or chili red arowana, Scleropages legendrei (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
Saratoga, silver saratoga or spotted barramundi, Scleropages leichardti � G�nther, 1864
Silver Asian arowana, Scleropages macrocephalus (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
�This species is one of two sometimes called the Australian arowana or Australian bonytongue.
Family Osteoglossidae
Subfamily Heterotidinae
Genus Arapaima
Arapaima or pirarucu, Arapaima gigas (Cuvier, 1829)
Genus Heterotis
African arowana, Heterotis niloticus (Cuvier, 1829)
Subfamily Osteoglossinae
Genus Osteoglossum (Cuvier, 1829)
Silver arowana, Osteoglossum bicirrhosum (Cuvier, 1829)
Black arowana, Osteoglossum ferreirai Kanazawa, 1966
Genus Scleropages
Red-tailed golden arowana Scleropages aureus (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
Green arowana or gold crossback arowana, Scleropages formosus (Schlegel & M�ller, 1844)
Gulf saratoga, red saratoga or northern spotted barramundi, Scleropages jardinii � (Saville-Kent, 1892)
Red arowana, super red arowana, or chili red arowana, Scleropages legendrei (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
Saratoga, silver saratoga or spotted barramundi, Scleropages leichardti � G�nther, 1864
Silver Asian arowana, Scleropages macrocephalus (Pouyad, Sudarto & Teugels, 2003)
�This species is one of two sometimes called the Australian arowana or Australian bonytongue.
i really learn alot forum this forum, thank you guys keep me updated..
now what is the fair price in california, sacramento to be exact for black/blue arowana?
i know silver is, in here for like 5-6 inches $39 is the cheapest
now what is the fair price in california, sacramento to be exact for black/blue arowana?
i know silver is, in here for like 5-6 inches $39 is the cheapest
Good to see this.
There is still a lot of work to be done on the genus Schleropages, for example the green and crossback are two distinct fishes, but sadly are classed together as Formosus. I've read the paper on the re-classification of the genus Schleropages, in my view it opens up a Pandora's box.
it is pandoras box! because there were not enough names done to indicate different river/area types ( the study did not take enough strains in but where do you stop?) and it also becomes pandoras box BECAUSE there are so many names and everyone would need to follow suit and know what happened.
i guess it depends where you sit. for example i would take issue with S.formosus being the greens under future naming after considering that greens arent all that rare. this could also be a reason to bring in the new name system so to determine where the real issues lay, but scientists grouped the less extinct variety as S.formosus.
anyone that wouldnt know the new names would cause confusion especially considering all the older literature with S.formosus for everything. we seem to get a lot of confusion already.. but for scientists that are at the top of the game and trying hard to be specific, and cant just claim they didnt know better would probably prefer the new labels in the future.
farmers would have a harder time labelling seeing as they have done crosses and will continue to do so just as what happens with other animals. its domestic breeding vs scientific desire with CITES as the body that tried to protect the fish.
then some scientists would like it to be s.formosus for ease, while others would like all types of new names so they can be specific. who likes common names?
the same debate goes on between scientists about how a species got to where it is today and how long ago etc. you need to go through a process whereby its peer reviewed. do they have sufficient proof that they can reclassify? yes.
are all fish still in these areas? no.
where are they now? and are they still pure?
while it might be easy for farms to keep with the S.formosus tag cause they do crosses of what the scientists have now labelled new species, i think it sucks that CITES has not recognised the new naming system atleast in the way that scientists can use it to differentiate and in a way that can break down the problems the old naming system causes..and while at it they could probably have said to farmers, well if you have crosses..call them so and they already do with common names if you know what they maybe mean.. so in a way for farms and buyers it is just fine as is.
the thing is, taggs are there, the farmer should know the parents but that will get harder as time goes by.. the people that really take pride and keep records in their breeding could bother detailing how they got there though and that might give them an edge in the market over some random pairing place. i think in the future, some places will take this tact and proudly claim pure blood lines while others can proudly claim what they did to reach a newer morph. is DNA testing going to be part of that future? probably.
i think this might even help marketing in the future as some like to know what genes they are getting BUT then you have that S.formosus stamp causing confusion. imagine paying for a VFR and then seeing the S>formosus when the scientific world is now calling reds something else..and someone on a forum is saying the red is not s.formosus anymore.. and then there would be farms with green cross red as an f2 and then one of those crosses becomes back crossed with a red again, down at f5 it gets some gold thrown in...
now we know why the farms voted it down for labelling certs.
its asking a bit too much.
greens, still known as formosus by those scientists are not highly endangered.
so when you want to protect a certain variety, you also have greens in there being tagged etc. i spose in one way, it may mean that greens are less likely to die out though but where is the specific association with the ones that are just about extinct when CITES is considering greens in the same boat?
take the US for example. greens did not need to be classified as near extinct. yet there they are as S.formosus.
take australia, because australia has very strict rules, i could take the red scientific name and probably run that via the proper process to have them allowed for import and have that allowed in the country because it 1, poses a lot less chance of breeding here in that it needs the equatorial climate and 2, that its price would stop human release into the wild more so than greens. seriously, the greens would be THE new species with a high enough risk in australia to go close to warranting them being illegal here and greens should probably not be banned in the US.
the reds, gold, rtgs would pass the tests in oz fairly easily but how do you get an agreement on such a thing.
if and when australia asked CITES about importing, we would have to say, but we dont want the greens here..and cites might say but we dont recognise what the scientists on fishbase have to say..and you have allowed the reds on your import list..i dont know if we can all come to the party.."
so then hypothetically we get a shipment, we look on the certificates and it says they are S.formosus and australia would not have allowed them, and so our customs agents and fisheries officers would need to be trained not to be confused and to rely on farmer common names and morphological evidence to prove the fish was lets say a red.
and then what do you do about a red batik?
as i pose these things as possible issues. it is something that has come up in oz just now.
our government does not know whether to adress the fish as one species or four seperate species. when some species pose low risk, you wonder if they should be assessing the four seperate ones.
the newer naming system is recognized on fishbase website though so that speaks for something.
i guess it depends where you sit. for example i would take issue with S.formosus being the greens under future naming after considering that greens arent all that rare. this could also be a reason to bring in the new name system so to determine where the real issues lay, but scientists grouped the less extinct variety as S.formosus.
anyone that wouldnt know the new names would cause confusion especially considering all the older literature with S.formosus for everything. we seem to get a lot of confusion already.. but for scientists that are at the top of the game and trying hard to be specific, and cant just claim they didnt know better would probably prefer the new labels in the future.
farmers would have a harder time labelling seeing as they have done crosses and will continue to do so just as what happens with other animals. its domestic breeding vs scientific desire with CITES as the body that tried to protect the fish.
then some scientists would like it to be s.formosus for ease, while others would like all types of new names so they can be specific. who likes common names?
the same debate goes on between scientists about how a species got to where it is today and how long ago etc. you need to go through a process whereby its peer reviewed. do they have sufficient proof that they can reclassify? yes.
are all fish still in these areas? no.
where are they now? and are they still pure?
while it might be easy for farms to keep with the S.formosus tag cause they do crosses of what the scientists have now labelled new species, i think it sucks that CITES has not recognised the new naming system atleast in the way that scientists can use it to differentiate and in a way that can break down the problems the old naming system causes..and while at it they could probably have said to farmers, well if you have crosses..call them so and they already do with common names if you know what they maybe mean.. so in a way for farms and buyers it is just fine as is.
the thing is, taggs are there, the farmer should know the parents but that will get harder as time goes by.. the people that really take pride and keep records in their breeding could bother detailing how they got there though and that might give them an edge in the market over some random pairing place. i think in the future, some places will take this tact and proudly claim pure blood lines while others can proudly claim what they did to reach a newer morph. is DNA testing going to be part of that future? probably.
i think this might even help marketing in the future as some like to know what genes they are getting BUT then you have that S.formosus stamp causing confusion. imagine paying for a VFR and then seeing the S>formosus when the scientific world is now calling reds something else..and someone on a forum is saying the red is not s.formosus anymore.. and then there would be farms with green cross red as an f2 and then one of those crosses becomes back crossed with a red again, down at f5 it gets some gold thrown in...
now we know why the farms voted it down for labelling certs.
its asking a bit too much.
greens, still known as formosus by those scientists are not highly endangered.
so when you want to protect a certain variety, you also have greens in there being tagged etc. i spose in one way, it may mean that greens are less likely to die out though but where is the specific association with the ones that are just about extinct when CITES is considering greens in the same boat?
take the US for example. greens did not need to be classified as near extinct. yet there they are as S.formosus.
take australia, because australia has very strict rules, i could take the red scientific name and probably run that via the proper process to have them allowed for import and have that allowed in the country because it 1, poses a lot less chance of breeding here in that it needs the equatorial climate and 2, that its price would stop human release into the wild more so than greens. seriously, the greens would be THE new species with a high enough risk in australia to go close to warranting them being illegal here and greens should probably not be banned in the US.
the reds, gold, rtgs would pass the tests in oz fairly easily but how do you get an agreement on such a thing.
if and when australia asked CITES about importing, we would have to say, but we dont want the greens here..and cites might say but we dont recognise what the scientists on fishbase have to say..and you have allowed the reds on your import list..i dont know if we can all come to the party.."
so then hypothetically we get a shipment, we look on the certificates and it says they are S.formosus and australia would not have allowed them, and so our customs agents and fisheries officers would need to be trained not to be confused and to rely on farmer common names and morphological evidence to prove the fish was lets say a red.
and then what do you do about a red batik?
as i pose these things as possible issues. it is something that has come up in oz just now.
our government does not know whether to adress the fish as one species or four seperate species. when some species pose low risk, you wonder if they should be assessing the four seperate ones.
the newer naming system is recognized on fishbase website though so that speaks for something.
finally got the arowana for 29 bucks, from LFS, he seems to be happy right now, its been 2 days.
the lfs has black arowana, african and jardini as well, pretty much all kind of arowana except the asian.
i was suprised they wanted 289 freaking bucks for that approx 12" black aro so i settled with juvie silver
he is about 5-6" right now and already ate my jumbo neons (2 of them), the neons are the test tank fish (sacrificial fish)
i know im going to need bigger tank within 2-4 months..
he lives in 20 gallon long style tank for now with greyish and also white senegal bichirs, which are 3".
i bought him pellet food but he spitted it out infront of my face!!
now im worries if i have to feed him the jumbo neon as his juvie stage..that thing is expensive LOL
the lfs has black arowana, african and jardini as well, pretty much all kind of arowana except the asian.
i was suprised they wanted 289 freaking bucks for that approx 12" black aro so i settled with juvie silver
he is about 5-6" right now and already ate my jumbo neons (2 of them), the neons are the test tank fish (sacrificial fish)
i know im going to need bigger tank within 2-4 months..
he lives in 20 gallon long style tank for now with greyish and also white senegal bichirs, which are 3".
i bought him pellet food but he spitted it out infront of my face!!
now im worries if i have to feed him the jumbo neon as his juvie stage..that thing is expensive LOL
- Status
