Poll: do YOU consider angelfish to be a "large cichlid?"

[bud29]

I just want to hear the opinions of you guys about this. Do you consider angels to be a "large cichlid?" And not compared to say, dwarf cichlids, basically compared to all cichlids, do angels fall in the "small" category or the "large?" I was surprised to hear a person say they were "large cichlids," so I just want to hear your opinion.

 

[HUKIT]

Hmmm....no.

 

[Nathanpopp]

nooooooo

 

[cmbtengnr43]

Def not a large cichlid!

 

[cbourg746]

I say no. Not a large cichlid at all.

 

[TheGrza]

Hmmm....no.

What are those?

 

[emerald76]

What are those?

Dinosaurs? They certainly can't be fish lol

 

[Aski247]

What are those?

Umbee's. Arguably the largest new world cichlid.

 

[Shay]

keep angels they are definitely a mid size cichlid compared to the lunkers though must admit I do love the lunkers LOL

 

[HUKIT]

Umbee's. Arguably the largest new world cichlid.

Yes Caquetaia umbriferus the "blue freckled monster" but the largest is still the Parachromis dovii, look at those chompers!

 

[Aski247]

Yes Caquetaia umbriferus the "blue freckled monster" but the largest is still the Parachromis dovii, look at those chompers!

What a beast... thats why im doing dovii again.

 

[cmbtengnr43]

Good lord that's a pretty fish though!

 

[mohican]

Those fish are HUGE! Angels won't grow that big, probably not even in the wild, but they do require lots of space within a tank. I guess it depends in how you look at it.

 

[butterfly_koi]

I believe that the largest Angels are the Pterophyllum altum which from tip of dorsal to tip of anal fin can be up to if not slightly more than 19 inches. Which is not a bad size if you ask me.

 

[skywhitney]

there are a couple ways to answer this question. Are we speaking of cichlids in terms of the wild or in your typical home aquarium?

I would guess that the vast majority of people are not equipped to keep Parachromis dovii or a "blue freckled monster" in their home aquarium (of course there are those that can, but they are few in relation). With that said my answers are below.

In the wild - no
typical home aquaria - yes

 

[HUKIT]

It simply boils down to the individual aquarist knowledge of cichlids, the vast majority of fishkeepers seems to be devoted to smaller tropical fish. There are many factors for this such as tank space and LFS stocking but to anyone who's remotely familiar with "cichlids" would laugh at the thought of someone referring to a angelfish as large.

 

[skywhitney]

You must be getting a good laugh then, cause as of right now according to this super academic poll more people consider them large than not.

To clarify I am going off the assumption that we are speaking of the everyday aquaria trade. With that said, a fish that can reach 6-8" in length and 8-10" in height is considered on the larger side for a lot of people.

 

[HUKIT]

You must be getting a good laugh then, cause as of right now according to this super academic poll more people consider them large than not.

Yes I am. This forum seems to devoted to smaller tropicals and beginner aquarists, it's plainly evident from the amount of threads, the freshwater has 40,000 plus where the cichlid forum only has 9,000 threads. Other such sites like MonsterFishKeepers for instance is the complete opposite, so again it's all based on individual experience and perception levels.

 

[mfdrookie516]

If you compare to nature, nobody in this site has a single fish that could be considered "large". I see both sides. I think the point if this thread is that a lot of people think angels are only a 2-3" fish, when they can actually grow significantly larger than that (as is the case with a lot of the cichlids kept in aquariums).

 

[jetajockey]

I voted no. They are more of a medium cichlid, there are LOTS of new world cichlids that are much larger.