Ammonia in my tap water and a couple beginner questions

[Carl D. Cravens]

Hi there.

I'm a new fish keeper (is "aquariest" a snobbish term, too hard to say,
or confused with an astrological sign, or do we actually call ourselves
that?) and have a few problems and questions.

I've read all the FAQ's. I understand the nitrogen cycle, the various
sources of ammonia, etc. Here's my situation.

Three weeks ago, having not read the FAQ yet, I purchased four
swordtails (quantity on the advice of the fish store employee) to put in
my new 10 gallon aquarium that had been set up for two weeks, with live
plants in it about a week at that point. I have so far lost three of
the four. I've been doing 20% water changes at least weekly, twice
weekly the past week and a half. (Water treated with Aqua+.)

Initially, my temperature varied greatly (72-82 degrees) for about a
week and a half because of the incandescent lights the store owner let
me purchase. I have since replaced it with a florescent fixture. I'm
afraid that the excessive fluctuation of temperature may have been the
greater cause of death, as the ammonia levels were under 1 PPM most of
the time.

At the same time my third fish was dying, the remaining female had the
gall to give birth (I counted as many as 12 fry) and nobody saw fit to
eat all of them. (My plants are very bushy and the adults can't get
into them.) Although I don't expect that they'll survive, I hate to
just kill them deliberately. But the tank is certainly not large enough
to hold all of them when they mature. And the darn snails that rode in
on my plants aren't helping the matter. (I don't mind the snails other
than that... I've seen about six to eight 1/4" long.)

So here's the problem. My ammonia level is rising. Somewhere around 3
PPM, if I'm doing a good job of comparing the color in the tube to the
colors on the paper. (I'm using Aquarium Pharm. liquid test kits.)
Nitrites are high as well, indicating that the cycle has begun, but it's
certainly not keeping up. I don't have a test kit for nitrates.

In addition, I tested my tap water for ammonia today... a "just in case"
test, and discovered that my tap water has about .5 PPM or so. Now, it
does seem reasonable that doing water changes with this water is still
helpful at this point... diluting 3 PPM with .5 PPM is still going to
reduce the total ammonia level. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the
filter should adapt to a regular input of this ammonia in the long run,
but it will probably reduce the number of fish I can keep (artificial
bioload, if you will).

Is there anything I can do about the ammonia in my tap water? I don't
want to pay for water just for my fish, although I would consider buying
a device to help filter it. (I suppose a reverse-osmosis
thingamawhatzit is pretty expensive, and I'd have to add back trace
chemicals and all on top of that?)

Should I get rid of the snails? I don't know how much bioload they
represent, but I can either transfer them to my wife's betta tank (1.5
gal, undergravel filter, one fish) or kill them.

How about the fry? I guess I should have considered that death is a
common thing to deal with in this hobby, but I really dislike
deliberately killing anything that isn't absolutely necessary. Other
fish eating them for lunch is nature; me killing them because I can't
properly care for them doesn't sit well with me. (Oh, I'm feeding them
frozen brine shrimp right now and they seem to be doing just fine...
they grow darn fast, I think they've doubled in size in just a couple
days.) But if having that many fry in the tank is going to mean death
for everybody, it's better to cull a few to save the rest. (Had I known
then what I know now, I certainly wouldn't have introduced that many
fish into the tank at once. I didn't start out totally uninformed... I
did my research. Unfortunately, some of that research was questioning
store employees, and the answers I got didn't match what I later learned
from other sources.)

(I found another store I like better... the owner wouldn't sell me a
*light fixture* until he was certain that it would fit my lid properly.)

And if you read this far, would you mind giving your opinion on 20 gal.
tall tanks? I just bought this setup, and then realized that I really
should have gotten a bigger tank... but I don't want to buy all new
accessories. With a 20 gal tall, I can keep my UGF (get a second pump
and uplift tube), lid, light, etc. I know it won't really increase the
number of fish I could keep, but it would give more vertical room for my
plants and more water would help minimize quality fluctuations.

Thanks much! (Oh, and HI! Glad to meet y'all.)

--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
Everyone is gifted... Some open the package sooner.

[Michael Love]

In article <m+SL0wIe...@southwind.net>, rave...@southwind.net (Carl
D. Cravens) wrote:

>I'm a new fish keeper (is "aquariest" a snobbish term, too hard to say,
>or confused with an astrological sign, or do we actually call ourselves
>that?) and have a few problems and questions.
>
>I've read all the FAQ's. I understand the nitrogen cycle, the various
>sources of ammonia, etc. Here's my situation.
>
>Three weeks ago, having not read the FAQ yet, I purchased four
>swordtails (quantity on the advice of the fish store employee) to put in
>my new 10 gallon aquarium that had been set up for two weeks, with live
>plants in it about a week at that point. I have so far lost three of
>the four. I've been doing 20% water changes at least weekly, twice
>weekly the past week and a half. (Water treated with Aqua+.)
>
>Initially, my temperature varied greatly (72-82 degrees) for about a
>week and a half because of the incandescent lights the store owner let
>me purchase. I have since replaced it with a florescent fixture. I'm
>afraid that the excessive fluctuation of temperature may have been the
>greater cause of death, as the ammonia levels were under 1 PPM most of
>the time.

Temperature certainly can cause problems; temperature fluctuations can
increase fish stress greatly. My first and most important suggestion to
you would be to get another fish store if there are any others around. No
responsible pet store would sell you incandescent lights without strictly
cautioning you about their dangers first. And also as for water treatment;
I'm not an expert on the chemicals behind this but I've had better luck
with AmQuel than Aqua+ and its variations. AmQuel does throw off ammonia
tests (I'd reccomend the SeaChem one if you do choose to use AmQuel) A lot
of areas use Chloramine, which contains ammonia and is fairly toxic to
fish, for water treatment, and yours might very well do so (which I don't
think Aqua+ does a very good job with). You might try contacting your
local water authority; they're required by law to furnish on request a
copy of their periodical EPA water quality report, which is a very
thorough list of water conditions and chemicals added to it.

>At the same time my third fish was dying, the remaining female had the
>gall to give birth (I counted as many as 12 fry) and nobody saw fit to
>eat all of them. (My plants are very bushy and the adults can't get
>into them.) Although I don't expect that they'll survive, I hate to
>just kill them deliberately. But the tank is certainly not large enough
>to hold all of them when they mature. And the darn snails that rode in
>on my plants aren't helping the matter. (I don't mind the snails other
>than that... I've seen about six to eight 1/4" long.)

For snail problems the best method is often to add fish that enjoy eating
snails, such as Clown Loaches, but since you're in the Midwest (or at
least your ISP is so that's what I'd assume) pH/Hardness levels are fairly
high for most water supplies and therefore Loaches may not do that well.
Still, they're pretty hardy so if the water quality report gives a pH
around 7.5 or lower they should do fine. And as for your fry, often the
best solution to ridding yourself of excess fish is to give them away;
find a local aquarium club (there's a good list in the FAQ, I think) and
contact them to find someone interested.

>So here's the problem. My ammonia level is rising. Somewhere around 3
>PPM, if I'm doing a good job of comparing the color in the tube to the
>colors on the paper. (I'm using Aquarium Pharm. liquid test kits.)
>Nitrites are high as well, indicating that the cycle has begun, but it's
>certainly not keeping up. I don't have a test kit for nitrates.

Have you used any sort of biological "starter culture"? Cycle, Nitromax,
StartRight, any of those? They contain high populations of the nitrogen
cycle bacteria in dormant form; you add a generous dose to your tank every
once in a while and it helps the cycle along. You also might want to watch
your feeding amounts; if there's too much uneaten food at the bottom (good
reason to get some sort of bottom-feeder fish; Corydoras catfish are very
hardy and would do well in your type of tank) then it can lower your
tank's biological carrying capacity and hinder the cycling process. Going
back to the pet store's reccomendations, in a 10 gallon tank 4 fish may be
a little too much to start with; this depends mostly on your biological
filter space. What kind of filter do you have? Is your tank running an
undergravel filter as well? If you don't have a UGF you should at the very
least make sure your filter has some kind of biological media; Hagen
AquaClear ones generally have the right type of space on their foam
blocks, Whisper filters can be cheaply converted using readily available
kits to the newer biological kind, and Marineland Penguin filters have the
notorious Bio-Wheel.

Just read below that you do have a UGF; your bio space should be fine in
that case.

>In addition, I tested my tap water for ammonia today... a "just in case"
>test, and discovered that my tap water has about .5 PPM or so. Now, it
>does seem reasonable that doing water changes with this water is still
>helpful at this point... diluting 3 PPM with .5 PPM is still going to
>reduce the total ammonia level. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the
>filter should adapt to a regular input of this ammonia in the long run,
>but it will probably reduce the number of fish I can keep (artificial
>bioload, if you will).

.5 ppm is still stressful for fish; your levels should really end up a 0
ppm. If you're reading ammonia in your tapwater it's very likely that it
is treated with Chloramine, in which case you should most certainly go out
and buy some AmQuel (or any other water conditioner which also handles
ammonia) and switch to that for tapwater treatment.

>Is there anything I can do about the ammonia in my tap water? I don't
>want to pay for water just for my fish, although I would consider buying
>a device to help filter it. (I suppose a reverse-osmosis
>thingamawhatzit is pretty expensive, and I'd have to add back trace
>chemicals and all on top of that?)

Like I said, AmQuel can handle a lot of the tap water problems; some
people have also had success with ammonia-removing carbons (AmRid,
Ammo-Carb, etc) though I haven't had much luck with them myself.

>Should I get rid of the snails? I don't know how much bioload they
>represent, but I can either transfer them to my wife's betta tank (1.5
>gal, undergravel filter, one fish) or kill them.

Generally the bio-load from snails isn't that big since a large part of
their mass/volume is just their shells (which don't give off ammonia, of
course); if you're worried about this then either get a fish that eats
them (preferable method since that controls their babies too) or attempt
to remove them; removal often has problems since they breed like rabbits
and there always seem to be new ones popping up. In a 10-gallon tank,
though, you may be able to remove them all. Don't put them in the beta
tank, though, or the beta will just die too; a 1.5 gallon tank really
isn't a very good idea anyway and it certainly can't take more than one
fish.

>How about the fry? I guess I should have considered that death is a
>common thing to deal with in this hobby, but I really dislike
>deliberately killing anything that isn't absolutely necessary. Other
>fish eating them for lunch is nature; me killing them because I can't
>properly care for them doesn't sit well with me. (Oh, I'm feeding them
>frozen brine shrimp right now and they seem to be doing just fine...
>they grow darn fast, I think they've doubled in size in just a couple
>days.) But if having that many fry in the tank is going to mean death
>for everybody, it's better to cull a few to save the rest. (Had I known
>then what I know now, I certainly wouldn't have introduced that many
>fish into the tank at once. I didn't start out totally uninformed... I
>did my research. Unfortunately, some of that research was questioning
>store employees, and the answers I got didn't match what I later learned
>from other sources.)

Giving away the fry is the best solution; worst-case scenario is that
they'll end up as feeder fish, which at least is a little more natural
(though not necessarily more humane, depending on the way you would
euthanize them otherwise), and more likely they'll end up parts of someone
else's community tank.

>(I found another store I like better... the owner wouldn't sell me a
>*light fixture* until he was certain that it would fit my lid properly.)

Good, go there; avoid places that are only out for money like the plague.
A good test is if they give you advice which actually in the end saves you
money (such as NOT buying that expensive fish which would eat everyone
else in your tank, or in your case not buying that incandescent hood);
when they do that you know they're interested in the hobby, and the health
of the fish, but not just the money.

>And if you read this far, would you mind giving your opinion on 20 gal.
>tall tanks? I just bought this setup, and then realized that I really
>should have gotten a bigger tank... but I don't want to buy all new
>accessories. With a 20 gal tall, I can keep my UGF (get a second pump
>and uplift tube), lid, light, etc. I know it won't really increase the
>number of fish I could keep, but it would give more vertical room for my
>plants and more water would help minimize quality fluctuations.

I'd really reccomend spending the extra $ for a 20 gallon long tank. While
you do need new accessories, these will easily be worthwhile, and
generally aren't all that expensive. Buying a 20 gallon high is just a
waste of money since you're not really changing anything besides the
volume. Water fluctuations will be less dramatic, since it takes a lot
longer for them to spread, but other than that you just don't gain much.
And with a 20 gallon tank you can really make more of a full community; if
you're starting with live-bearers you can get such beauties as sailfin
mollies and corydoras (or synodontis) catfish. It really is a noticeable
difference; when I switched from a rather depressing 10 to a nice big 20
the hobby took on a whole new interest for me. Big tanks are always more
interesting; I recently switched up (after moving what remained of my old
fish out with me to Chicago) to a 55-gallon tank (which often cost as much
as a new computer so I wouldn't suggest buying one to anyone who doesn't
really love the hobby) and it's even more impressive than my 20 was.

Anyway, hope you find this useful and good luck with fishkeeping; I think
you'll find it can be quite rewarding once you get the few initial quirks
worked out.

--
When replying to this message by e-mail, please remove everything between the { }'s and replace it with the @ symbol. Sorry for the inconvenience but I hate junk mail.

Michael Love; Programmer, Network Guru, and general Genius of All Sorts (I also keep fish)
pl...@technologist.com
pl...@ameritech.net
pl...@kagi.com

[Adam Carheden]

I have to agree that a 20 long would be a much better purpose, and,
unless you're worried about how the outside of the tank looks, you can
probably save the same lighting fixtures and just buy a new versa top
glass hood. It won't fit nice and neat, but it'll do the trick without
costing a lot. Everything else you should be able to keep. The UGF
doesn't have to cover the entire bottom of the tank. Giving the babies
away is also a great solution!
If you buy a side filter, stay away from the bio-wheels. Anything with
lots of moving parts is more likely to break. Go with something with a
bio-sponge, like a Millennium 1000/2000, Aquamaster or a Whisper TRIAD.
Snails are hard to get rid of, and if you buy something like a clown
loach, it will likely outgrow your tank. They're about 6" as adults.
You would also probably not want to add any more fish to you tank until
you get the ammonia problem figured out anyway, especially clown
loaches, since even small ones cost about $5.00 last time I checked. I
read recently that a good way to get rid of snails is to put a saucer on
the bottom of the tank and put some algae disks or zucchini on it. In
the morning, many of the snails will be there and easy to remove. The
few left will still probably breed and you will have the problem again,
but it's not a bad way to control the population. I don't trust the
snail chemicals, especially if you fish are already under stress from
the ammonia. Sometimes those types of things won't kill healthy fish,
but are still mildly poisonous to them. Better safe than sorry.
1 ppm ammonia is a lot, and I would guess it was that, more than the
temperature that killed you fish, though both probably effected them
negatively. Do you have a heater? It should at least keep the tank
from dropping as low as 72. Also, a little bit of salt is good for live
bearers, like a teaspoon per gallon. You don't need the expensive
aquarium salt unless you have extra cash, but make sure you get
something WITHOUT iodine, such as kosher salt or canning and pickling
salt.
To rid yourself of the ammonia, keep doing water changes. Do Aqua+ or
Amquel detoxify chlorine. I know Amquel is supposed to be used with
NovAqus, and I can remember if the NovAqus is to detoxify chlorine or
just add a slime coat. I've never read the Aqua+ bottle. Either way, a
good water conditioner should break the chloramine bond AND detoxify
chlorine. Some claim to detoxify ammonia too. (Not that I doubt it,
I've just never tried it, and had other people complain about it not
working, but I'm not sure if they would fool the test kits.) If it adds
a slime coat, Bonus. Some good complete one bottle does it all water
conditioners are Prime (clear or grey/brown bottle with a maroon label)
and Advantage (blue bottle).
Aquariest is an okay term, but I prefer Jaques Crustoe Wanna'be.
Glad to meet you too.

Carl D. Cravens wrote:
>
> Hi there.

>
> I'm a new fish keeper (is "aquariest" a snobbish term, too hard to say,
> or confused with an astrological sign, or do we actually call ourselves
> that?) and have a few problems and questions.
>
> I've read all the FAQ's. I understand the nitrogen cycle, the various
> sources of ammonia, etc. Here's my situation.
>
> Three weeks ago, having not read the FAQ yet, I purchased four
> swordtails (quantity on the advice of the fish store employee) to put in
> my new 10 gallon aquarium that had been set up for two weeks, with live
> plants in it about a week at that point. I have so far lost three of
> the four. I've been doing 20% water changes at least weekly, twice
> weekly the past week and a half. (Water treated with Aqua+.)
>
> Initially, my temperature varied greatly (72-82 degrees) for about a
> week and a half because of the incandescent lights the store owner let
> me purchase. I have since replaced it with a florescent fixture. I'm
> afraid that the excessive fluctuation of temperature may have been the
> greater cause of death, as the ammonia levels were under 1 PPM most of
> the time.
>

> At the same time my third fish was dying, the remaining female had the
> gall to give birth (I counted as many as 12 fry) and nobody saw fit to
> eat all of them. (My plants are very bushy and the adults can't get
> into them.) Although I don't expect that they'll survive, I hate to
> just kill them deliberately. But the tank is certainly not large enough
> to hold all of them when they mature. And the darn snails that rode in
> on my plants aren't helping the matter. (I don't mind the snails other
> than that... I've seen about six to eight 1/4" long.)
>

> So here's the problem. My ammonia level is rising. Somewhere around 3
> PPM, if I'm doing a good job of comparing the color in the tube to the
> colors on the paper. (I'm using Aquarium Pharm. liquid test kits.)
> Nitrites are high as well, indicating that the cycle has begun, but it's
> certainly not keeping up. I don't have a test kit for nitrates.
>

> In addition, I tested my tap water for ammonia today... a "just in case"
> test, and discovered that my tap water has about .5 PPM or so. Now, it
> does seem reasonable that doing water changes with this water is still
> helpful at this point... diluting 3 PPM with .5 PPM is still going to
> reduce the total ammonia level. And, correct me if I'm wrong, the
> filter should adapt to a regular input of this ammonia in the long run,
> but it will probably reduce the number of fish I can keep (artificial
> bioload, if you will).
>

> Is there anything I can do about the ammonia in my tap water? I don't
> want to pay for water just for my fish, although I would consider buying
> a device to help filter it. (I suppose a reverse-osmosis
> thingamawhatzit is pretty expensive, and I'd have to add back trace
> chemicals and all on top of that?)
>

> Should I get rid of the snails? I don't know how much bioload they
> represent, but I can either transfer them to my wife's betta tank (1.5
> gal, undergravel filter, one fish) or kill them.
>

> How about the fry? I guess I should have considered that death is a
> common thing to deal with in this hobby, but I really dislike
> deliberately killing anything that isn't absolutely necessary. Other
> fish eating them for lunch is nature; me killing them because I can't
> properly care for them doesn't sit well with me. (Oh, I'm feeding them
> frozen brine shrimp right now and they seem to be doing just fine...
> they grow darn fast, I think they've doubled in size in just a couple
> days.) But if having that many fry in the tank is going to mean death
> for everybody, it's better to cull a few to save the rest. (Had I known
> then what I know now, I certainly wouldn't have introduced that many
> fish into the tank at once. I didn't start out totally uninformed... I
> did my research. Unfortunately, some of that research was questioning
> store employees, and the answers I got didn't match what I later learned
> from other sources.)
>

> (I found another store I like better... the owner wouldn't sell me a
> *light fixture* until he was certain that it would fit my lid properly.)
>

> And if you read this far, would you mind giving your opinion on 20 gal.
> tall tanks? I just bought this setup, and then realized that I really
> should have gotten a bigger tank... but I don't want to buy all new
> accessories. With a 20 gal tall, I can keep my UGF (get a second pump
> and uplift tube), lid, light, etc. I know it won't really increase the
> number of fish I could keep, but it would give more vertical room for my
> plants and more water would help minimize quality fluctuations.
>

> Thanks much! (Oh, and HI! Glad to meet y'all.)
>
> --
> Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)
> Everyone is gifted... Some open the package sooner.

--
Adam
carh...@holly.colostate.edu

[fishhead]

Dear Carl... glad you are here with us. I hope you don't buy anymore
livebearers. It's sad to have to KILL innocent lives just to make "room"
for others. Perhaps egglayers next time?
--
Carol.... the frugal ponder. fish...@hotcc.com

><(((ô> ~~~~ }<(((Ô> ~~~~ ><(((ö>~~~~ }<((Ò>

ICQ # 2982961
~~~~~~~~~~~~~snip~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Carl D. Cravens <rave...@southwind.net> wrote in article
<m+SL0wIe...@southwind.net>...

>
>
> At the same time my third fish was dying, the remaining female had the
> gall to give birth (I counted as many as 12 fry) and nobody saw fit to
> eat all of them. (My plants are very bushy and the adults can't get
> into them.) Although I don't expect that they'll survive, I hate to

> just kill them deliberately. > days.) But if having that many fry in

[Eva Wong]

Hi Carol,

I think buying livebearers is nothing wrong. Yes, they reproduce fast,
but there are ways to deal with this "problem". I sold my mollies and
guppies to a local fish store, where they are not sold as feeders. It is
always nice to see baby fish, especially to beginners (like me) it is
very encouraging.

eva

[Carl D. Cravens]

I'd like to thank everybody for the advice they've given, even if some
of it's been a little contradictory. But it wouldn't be Usenet if that
weren't the case. :)

--
Carl D. Cravens (rave...@southwind.net)

A man about to speak the truth should keep one foot in the stirrup.

[Dmitry Yakunin]

Oh, yes, Eva, it is very interesting to breed fish. You had a chance to see
how it is going, but it is just time to stop it. If you leave it
uncontrolled here is what will happen with, for instance, your guppies in
one year time:

- good looking males (big tails) will loose when competing with bad looking
males (short tales) for females;
- the breed, therefore, will be of the lowest quality possible (from the
shortest tail mail)
- when growing the breed will rise the competition for food and females up
to the level when good-looking males may simply have not enough to eat and
certainly forget what sex is.
- in three generations your males will look like females.

Here is my advises:
- you don't need females, which had had fry at all;
- separate virgin females from males. You don't have to have more than one
female per ten males
- for the spawn, put the selected male with the healthy female (preferable
from different spawn) to a separate tank and let them enjoy life foe a few
days. Than take make back to its mates
- have a good-looking and controlled fish population.

Regards, Dmitry.

Eva Wong <e...@vandevoorde.com> wrote in article
<34301D...@vandevoorde.com>...

[Eva Wong]

Hi Dmitry,

I never said that I bred fish uncontrolledly; after my baby guppies grew
up, I sold all the females because I don't want the males breed with
their sisters. I don't intend to buy more females to breed with the
males because I don't want a tank full of guppies (only). My original
post was intended to point out that keeping livebearers is not a bad
thing which should be discouraged.

Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to
males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
your point, I just want to know.)

eva
-----

Dmitry Yakunin wrote:
>
> Oh, yes, Eva, it is very interesting to breed fish. You had a chance to see
> how it is going, but it is just time to stop it. If you leave it
> uncontrolled here is what will happen with, for instance, your guppies in
> one year time:
>
> - good looking males (big tails) will loose when competing with bad looking
> males (short tales) for females;
> - the breed, therefore, will be of the lowest quality possible (from the
> shortest tail mail)
> - when growing the breed will rise the competition for food and females up
> to the level when good-looking males may simply have not enough to eat and
> certainly forget what sex is.
> - in three generations your males will look like females.
>
> Here is my advises:
> - you don't need females, which had had fry at all;
> - separate virgin females from males. You don't have to have more than one
> female per ten males
> - for the spawn, put the selected male with the healthy female (preferable
> from different spawn) to a separate tank and let them enjoy life foe a few
> days. Than take make back to its mates
> - have a good-looking and controlled fish population.
>
> Regards, Dmitry.

--
o

blob...blob...blob...
O
O ___
O /O \ /
\___/ \

Visit my aquarium at
http://www.vandevoorde.com/myaquarium.htm

[Timothy Chu]

Eva Wong <e...@vandevoorde.com> wrote in article

<343E95...@vandevoorde.com>...

> I never said that I bred fish uncontrolledly; after my baby guppies grew
> up, I sold all the females because I don't want the males breed with
> their sisters. I don't intend to buy more females to breed with the
> males because I don't want a tank full of guppies (only). My original
> post was intended to point out that keeping livebearers is not a bad
> thing which should be discouraged.
>
> Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to
> males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
> your point, I just want to know.)

Probably in the wild, the flashy colours and long tails are not
evolutionarily advantageous. These traits would make the guppy an easy
target for any larger fish looking for a snack.

--
,,*,,,,,______/|___,i__/~~, ,. ,.' To reply remove the 's' in
o \` / ` my email address ti...@unixg.ubc.csa
o / ))) --_\ Vancouver, British Columbia
<tim>< ~~~\|----~~\ \ http://www.ugrad.cs.ubc.ca/spider/v8k1

[George Barwood]

On 10 Oct 1997 22:32:33 GMT, "Timothy Chu" <ti...@unixg.ubc.csa>
wrote:

>Eva Wong <e...@vandevoorde.com> wrote

>> Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to
>> males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
>> your point, I just want to know.)
>
>Probably in the wild, the flashy colours and long tails are not
>evolutionarily advantageous. These traits would make the guppy an easy
>target for any larger fish looking for a snack.

I think the evolution of apparently "useless" features, such as flashy
tails, is a contentious subject for biologists. One theory is that
males are saying to the females "Look at me - I must be a wonderful
fish with great genes, since I can survive even with my silly tail" :)

Thus the question of whether a physical attribute is or is not
evolutionarily advantageous is not simple.

George

[Nathanael Henderson]

: I never said that I bred fish uncontrolledly; after my baby guppies grew

: up, I sold all the females because I don't want the males breed with
: their sisters.

Chances are your fish are already heavily inbred. (Brothers and
sisters for dozens, possibly hundreds of generations.)

: Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to

: males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
: your point, I just want to know.)

It's true--the veil-tailed males can't catch the females as easily as
the short-tailed (wild type) ones because the long fins slow them down.
(They aren't functional--they produce more drag than thrust.)

Nathan H.

[Eva Wong]

If the fancy tail slows a guppy down in swimming, I'd imagine in nature
all guppies should have short tails. Is it true that all fancy tail
guppies are selectively bred in cativity?

Is it the same case as in Bettas?

[M&L Garner]

>
>Hi Dmitry,

>
>I never said that I bred fish uncontrolledly; after my baby guppies grew
>up, I sold all the females because I don't want the males breed with

>their sisters. I don't intend to buy more females to breed with the
>males because I don't want a tank full of guppies (only). My original
>post was intended to point out that keeping livebearers is not a bad
>thing which should be discouraged.
>

>Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to
>males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
>your point, I just want to know.)
>
>

>eva
>-----
>

I think it is because the short tailed males can swim faster, and thus are able to catch the
females more often than the males with the huge tails.

Lisa G (remove z)

[Dmitry Yakunin]

Eva Wong <e...@vandevoorde.com> wrote in article
<343E95...@vandevoorde.com>...
>

> Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose to
> males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not challenging
> your point, I just want to know.)
>
> eva

They are faster, so they are more successful with females. Also, because
they are faster they get more / better food. As a result the misbalance
even increases.

Regards, Dmitry

[Nathanael Henderson]

: If the fancy tail slows a guppy down in swimming, I'd imagine in nature

: all guppies should have short tails. Is it true that all fancy tail
: guppies are selectively bred in cativity?
:
: Is it the same case as in Bettas?

Yes and yes (ditto for veil-tail angels, long-fin danios, etc.) If
you've ever seen a short-finned betta the behavioral difference is
fascinating--they're much more active and agile than their domestic
counterparts.

Nathan H.

[Timothy Chu]

George Barwood <george....@dial.pipex.com> wrote in article
<343f50e...@news.dial.pipex.com>...

> On 10 Oct 1997 22:32:33 GMT, "Timothy Chu" <ti...@unixg.ubc.csa>
> wrote:
>
> >Eva Wong <e...@vandevoorde.com> wrote

> >> Anyways, I am interested to know, why males with big tails will lose
to
> >> males with short tails when competing for females? (I am not
challenging
> >> your point, I just want to know.)
> >

> >Probably in the wild, the flashy colours and long tails are not
> >evolutionarily advantageous. These traits would make the guppy an easy
> >target for any larger fish looking for a snack.
>
> I think the evolution of apparently "useless" features, such as flashy
> tails, is a contentious subject for biologists. One theory is that
> males are saying to the females "Look at me - I must be a wonderful
> fish with great genes, since I can survive even with my silly tail" :)

My response was made to provide a reason why "males w/ big tails will lose
to males with short tails when competing for females", which Eva observed
above in the first quote. In this case, I think it was appropriate to
mention the swimming ability of the fish. If what you said were true, then
Eva wouldn't have observed what she observed :)

> Thus the question of whether a physical attribute is or is not
> evolutionarily advantageous is not simple.

Absolutely.

[Michael Bull]

In article <61tg37$mq6$3...@bell.pconline.com>, ju...@pconline.comn says...

> Yes and yes (ditto for veil-tail angels, long-fin danios, etc.) If
>you've ever seen a short-finned betta the behavioral difference is
>fascinating--they're much more active and agile than their domestic
>counterparts.

A friend of mine is trying to breed a pair of bettas at the moment, and it's
amazing how fast the female (much shorter fins, etc) is than the male. This is
a good thing, given how bettas treat each other... but it was (IMHO) quite a
big difference!