S
steve-s
Guest
Teleost = boney fish, so I am not saying that all fish are susceptible. I am saying that all teleost fish are susceptible. What fish you where warned against I have no idea but to stay clear of them for that reason seems a bit rash IMO. If QT'd for an appropriate amount of time and properly treated if necessary with an effective proven remedy and proper methodology, there is no foundation for that line of thinking. The only one exception possibley being Synchiropus sp. and the like.midiman said:Please do not confuse "infest" with "infect". In regards to parasitic infestations, it's either there or it's not, no amount of stress or other influences outside of another fish addition will change that. So the species of teleost is irrelevent. Infections on the otherhand are a completely different matter altogether
I'm not clear what YOU are trying to say. :? Are you saying that ALL teleosts (i.e. "fish") are equally susceptible to infection by ich? If that is your point, why am I reading so many warnings against acquiring certain fish because they are more prone to ich?
First and foremost it's a parasite, not a pathogen. All fish will become infested sooner or later if left in an infested tank without treatment. If you plan on leaving a fish in an infested environment simpley because they are suggested as being highly resistant, you will most likely end up disapointed. Aquired immunity in teleosts means they will have had to come in contact with a rather high theront count and survived. Usually more than once. The risk in assuming that a particular species is safer than another is far from the truth.My point (and I think datto's as well) is that the mere PRESENCE of pathogens in the system is not sufficient to guarantee that ALL fish will become infected. Some fish are more resistant than others. Are you saying that this is not the case?
It must infest a fish to complete it's lifecycle, yes.Of course it is obvious that the life cycle of the pathogen ITSELF is independent of the fish species it infects, but the life cycle cannot be completed WITHOUT infection.
Agreed in terms of a parasite yes, not a pathogen.It's equally obvious that the pathogen has to be PRESENT to cause infection,
As I said, an infested fish is just that, infested. If adding a healthy uninfested fish to a QT it will remain uninfested, period. If a parasite presents itself, then that fish transported it in and was therfore already infested so again the species makes no difference. To suggest that a fish that has a higher or lower natural immunity for fending of the parasitic infestation doesn't matter one way or the other.but if certain fish can resist better than others, why is it inaccurate to characterize infection as "species specific" in this more narrow sense? Certainly "species related" isn't far off the mark, is it?
Cheers
Steve