A very rare fish... Who knows what it is?

[evercl92]

@ evercl92, Do you even have any idea or information on this fish to throw out an accusation like this? I KNOW you don't to say something like that if you did have any idea. Oh, and I was not going to say this ,but I feel it may be beneficial for you, but don't you think someone who is going to spend over $30,000 US dollars on a fish they would research before they buy?

I'm sure you did your research, I should certainly hope so. Otherwise, you would be foolish. Whether or not I have any information on this fish is irrelevant. I don't need to have any information on this particular fish for me to question whether it is indeed the only one of its kind in the world. To say something like that is absurd.

Maybe the OP should take more care in the way he posts as we can only respond to what was written.

As for the fish, I think if it is CITES protected then I dont care how much money you have, you shouldnt have the fish.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm not trying to argue about the situation. I simply don't agree that it's the only specimen of its kind in the world.

 

[WaterPond]

Well, im dragging myself into this.

Although i do agree that this fish does not belong in a private collection, but rather somewhere where it can be bred, i dont think anyone should be scolded for spending their money in a manner which they desire. What might be wrong for you might be right for some.

Black Hills, it is called show off/photgraphy for a reason. Maybe ashdavid has money to spend, and he should be able to spend it on whatever he wants. Although i still agree that his fish does belong in breeding and re-introdiction program, and not in a private collection.

Just my thoughts. No sides were taken in this comment.

 

[Jchillin]

Well, im dragging myself into this.

You really didn't need to as everything that can be said has been. Since this thread is obviously going off-topic in more ways than one, I will ask that it remain on topic, which seems to have been satisfied already since the fish has been identified.

 

[ashdavid]

Calm down ashdavid. Your post suggested that there is only one fish in the world and you have it. That is what evercl was making a reference to.

I will say it again, "it is the only specimen of its kind" and here is the definition of specimen.

spec·i·men (sps-mn)
n.
1. An individual, item, or part representative of a class, genus, or whole. See Synonyms at example.
2. A sample, as of tissue, blood, or urine, used for analysis and diagnosis.
3. Informal An individual; a person: a disagreeable specimen.

So yes, in regards to there being only one fish with this color in the world, I believe I worded it correctly, as it says above in the quote for the word "specimen" I got from the "Free dictionary , by farlax".

Hara, I did say it was the only specimen of its kind and it is, as there is only one leucistic Australian lungfish in the world, so no I don't need to rephrase what I wrote, b/c what I wrote is fact and entirly true. If had of said "it was one of a kind" I would be right there too, b/c of the fact that there is no other like it.

evercl92, do the research, there is no other of its kind in the world today. Thats all I have to say to you.

And as for you who think these fish shoulkd not be sold. Well here is a little bit of info for you.

These fish were put on the endangered list a long while back due to enviroment destruction. The C.I.T.E.S. program ensures that a certain percentage of fish are returned to the wild to try to lift numbers. Now solely to the efforts and money put in by the sole breeder in the world( I should also mention that no one but this man has been able to breed them in captivity), the fish are now plentyful in wild. There are now thousands of fish thriving in the wild and just to make things clearer for you, almost all the wild fish are accounted for in the small area that they live in. This fish and all the other Australian lungfish sold throughout the world today number approximately 1600 fish, which of coarse are all captive bred fish, meaning no wild fish has been sold, I will repeat myself "NO WILD FISH HAVE BEEN SOLD". And in this process hundred have been returned to the wild, and to me that is a better situation for these fish than there ever was.

But, personaly I don't care what any of you think, b/c most of you are just making This portion of your post has been edited, it is in violation of the User Agreement. Further violations of the User Agreement could result in removal from our community. comment about something you obviously know nothing about.

 

[Jchillin]

But, personaly I don't care what any of you think, b/c most of you are just making This portion of your post has been edited, it is in violation of the User Agreement. Further violations of the User Agreement could result in removal from our community. comment about something you obviously know nothing about.

Nothing more needs to be said. This thread is now locked.

 

[reefrunner69]

This thread should probably stay locked, but I am going to re-open this hoping that a cooling off period will have helped. I will issue one warning, keep it on topic (the picture) and no antagonistic comments on anyones part.

I will address a couple of issues, simply to "put them to bed".

1) Neoceratodus forsteri is CITES Appendix II, and provided the proper permits are acquired (and that appears to be the burden of the exporter) it is perfectly legal to own. How CITES Works.

2) ashdavid was referring to the color morph only, it is easily disproved that he has the only AUL in captivity, I haven't done extensive research but what I have done, agrees, that his is the only one of that color variation. This may not be true forever, as more and more are bred in captivity, different color morphs may arise and/or more specimens of this particular morph.

I would be interested to know if this morph has ever occurred in the wild naturally or if this is a side effect of the captive breeding. It could be a common occurrence in the wild, but the particular morph may make it susceptible to predation at early development.

3) Whether you agree with spending your money in this manner or not, keep it to yourself, it's not our place to tell anyone how to spend their money.

 

[plecoperson]

Good post, reefrunner.

As to the money question, most of those on this list keep fish purely for pleasure, and whatever we spend on our tanks could be (and is by many) considered "a waste of money."

I have always felt that if you spend your money on something that doesn't hurt anyone (or anything) else, good for you. People spend thousands on all kindsa things I wouldn't, but if they love it and can afford it, why shouldn't they enjoy their good fortune?

 

[theotheragentm]

That's what a hobby is, right? It's a waste of money that brings you enjoyment. If you're earning money, it's a job you really like, not a hobby.

 

[ashdavid]

I would be interested to know if this morph has ever occurred in the wild naturally or if this is a side effect of the captive breeding. It could be a common occurrence in the wild, but the particular morph may make it susceptible to predation at early development.

What I understand is that this kind of color morph is limited to captive breeding so far. Of all the studies of wild fish, which is pretty extensive, that there have not been any found. There is another Australian lungfish in an Australian public Aquarium that has a few patches of yellow on its body(they are not very big, the patches that is) , however this was also a captive breed fish. I also believe that color morphs in any species tend to be susceptible to predation.

As for the money thing, what is the difference between a $100 fish and a $30,000+ fish? I believe the difference is what people are able and willing to spend on a fish, nothing more and nothing less. Spending $100 on a fish could seem ridiculus to someone ,but be could be poket lint to another.

 

[paul_219]

Looks gr8.