aclockworkorange;4874961; said:
If they're not monomorphic at all, then please sex my argentea pictures in post 1? I would appreciate it.
"Monomorphic" refers to those that look the same as adults. Through their entire life span. Species like S. jurupari or discus, perhaps. Even the most dimorphic species can be difficult to sex when young, but it doesn't mean that they are monomorphic. You mentioned you could see the difference in adult argentea, which I agree. It means they are not monomorphic. How does it make you feel about the sources?
aclockworkorange;4874940; said:
No, I would not feel "weird" or "half upset" and ask to see a source... If I thought differently I would just be helpful and say so and explain why.
This is where you and I differ. Telling people
what I think is not helpful. It's useless. Telling people
why I think so is important. It can only come from two sources - personal experience, or a credible reference. For example, if somebody shows me a video of two identical argentea spawning and producing fry, I'd believe argentea is monomorphic.
The question of whether MFK is a credible source of information is an interesting one. How does one even judge? It's not uncommon to see comments like "black belts are not aggressive". This is exactly why it's important to examine raw data - experience from yourself or somebody else. Unfortunately most "information" websites only copy from other websites with no actual experience provided. In this day and age, consensus is not the same as truth. Popularity is not the same as truth. I've seen too many examples in my professional life.