Anyone Have Experience On Maculiceps Tang?
- Thread starter NC122606
- Start date
- Tagged users None
vetteguy53081
Well known Member and monster tank lover
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Reef Tank 365
RGB
Article Contributor
Tampa Bay Reef Keepers
West Palm Beach Reefer
Hospitality Award
Ocala Reef Club Member
305 Reef Club
Wisco Reefers
Midwest Reefer
Fish Medic
MAC of SW Florida
Rock Pool Reef Keepers
R2R Secret Santa 2023
My Tank Thread
My Aquarium Showcase
I had one for 7 months. Pretty fish and nice freckles. Just kept stealing all the food and I sold it to someone who makes their own foods.
Peaceful and hardy no doubt
Peaceful and hardy no doubt
Tft12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 461
- What state or country do you live in
- Missouri
I had one for about 4 months. Super active and very big eater. I traded him back to the LFS because he was a bit of a terror attacking my anthias and most other fish. Now that I have more room, I wish I had him back.
After I traded him back to the LFS, they put him in a store display with a pretty big and pretty mean Purple Tang. In that tank, the Maculiceps was peaceful. I just had it in the wrong display at my house.
After I traded him back to the LFS, they put him in a store display with a pretty big and pretty mean Purple Tang. In that tank, the Maculiceps was peaceful. I just had it in the wrong display at my house.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 2,353
- What state or country do you live in
- Colorado
Citation needed on any species of wild tang which has a life expectancy of 40 years, let alone only reaching full size after that time. That’s Big dubious claim, Needs a pretty sold piece of support.
Not worrying about the max adult size is frankly reprehensible and unethical. It may take time to reach that size, but no ethical fish keeper plans on killing or stunting their pets before they reach adulthood. Rehousing has its own ethical issues which I won’t get into but you need to at least have a plan of how big before it needs re-homed and how am I going to re-home it. Before anyone buys a fish they need to at least have a plan to address its needs through it’s expected life. That plan can change but to not at least think about it is unethical.
Specifically with this fish, It’s not a commonly highly desirable fish at large size, so not a lot of places/people want one. Far easier to re-home almost any other surgeon. Naso, blue, sohal, ect because they are both smaller and in higher demand(ie. not brown)
This is the type of fish you absolutely have to think of what am I going to do with this monster sized tang, or Be liable to end up like the other that has been on the front page, stumped finding and adequate home in the future.
I’m not saying don’t bend the rules on a small one, but follow it up with an adequate lifetime care plan. Am I willing to build a big enough tank or saltwater pond? Or do I have a place actually arranged, not hypothetical places, which will take them when they exceed your ability to house them? These are the questions we have to ask ourselves before we take on the responsibility of an ocean animal under our care, for our enjoyment.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Check Wikipedia: In 2015, researchers successfully bred them in captivity. They can grow up to 8 inches (20 cm) in the wild, but are introduced to aquariums in the 2" to 4" range. Some specimens as large as 6" are occasionally available. Life expectancy in the wild can exceed 30 years.
Here's another link: https://www.quora.com/What-factors-can-affect-the-life-span-of-yellow-tangs. (the oldest recorded specimen based on otolith analysis is 45 years).
I disagree about your moral issue - a large % of fish sold to reef aquarists 'outgrow' their tanks in the wild. Contrary to popular 'myth' lots of fish swim further than tangs.
PS EDIT - I wish I had the original reference quoting the issue of the growth rate of tangs - most of it occurring over years - I will try to find it - but certainly - there is no doubt that tangs can live in excess of 40 years in the wild.
Tft12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 461
- What state or country do you live in
- Missouri
I probably wouldn’t word it this strongly myself, but I definitely see your point and I think you have the most responsible view. I bought a number of fish that I really knew would outgrow my 180. When they did I ended up setting up a 300 gallon “pond” next to my main display but my fish are beginning to look a bit short on space in there as well. Recently I saw a thread here where someone was trying to find a home for his jumbo fish and he couldn’t find a public aquarium that would take it. I agree, we should consider 3, 5, 10 years down the road when we buy fish.
MnFish1
10K Club member
PPS _ here is the reference: https://www.int-res.com/articles/meps2009/389/m389p245.pdf
Tft12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 461
- What state or country do you live in
- Missouri
Yeah. In the time my Orange Shoulder went from very small to at least a foot, his yellow tang tank mate went from about 1.5” to maybe 4-5.” Zebrasoma in general seem to be like this, in my experience.
MnFish1
10K Club member
PPS - the quotation from the article is what I was talking about @pcon:
Good information on age-based demographics (e.g. growth rates, longevity) of coral reef fishes can increase the capacity for successful management and conservation of reef fisheries (Choat & Robertson 2002). This is particularly important for species such as surgeonfish, where the characteristic square growth curve (fast initial growth that reduces rapidly after the first few years) and high longevity effectively decouple size and age for most of the lifespan (Hilborn & Walters 1992, Choat & Axe 1996, Berumen 2005, Trip et al. 2008)
Good information on age-based demographics (e.g. growth rates, longevity) of coral reef fishes can increase the capacity for successful management and conservation of reef fisheries (Choat & Robertson 2002). This is particularly important for species such as surgeonfish, where the characteristic square growth curve (fast initial growth that reduces rapidly after the first few years) and high longevity effectively decouple size and age for most of the lifespan (Hilborn & Walters 1992, Choat & Axe 1996, Berumen 2005, Trip et al. 2008)
Tft12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 461
- What state or country do you live in
- Missouri
This is my citation. His name is Dump Truck because he will haul away anything you throw in the water. Everyday I feed oily, unrinsed PE mysis, so everyday after I add food, he spends a lot of time slurping the water surface to get all the shrimp grease.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 2,353
- What state or country do you live in
- Colorado
Thank you for citing your sources! so few people do. While I understand how you could get the impression you have, the article is in fact suggesting the opposite of your point. "The characteristic square growth curve (fast initial growth that reduces rapidly after the first few years) and high longevity effectively decouple size and age for most of the lifespan" Suggests that surgeons rapidly reach near max size and level off growth. Take the following graph you see size level off around 15 years.
While the hugest ones are around 30 years, similar sized ones begin around 10-15 years are within 1-2cm. You need to prepare for a fish which is a large portion of its max size quickly and while it might not make a 16" fish for 25 years, it will likely be a 14" fish in <15 years. Further, as others have suggested, this timeline may be sped up in other genera, which we do not have data for.
@Tft12 I agree that the phrasing is harsh, but I think it is a harsh point. If we are buying small ones and taking the fish out of the ocean, we need to be having homes for the adults. The only alternative is the expectation to kill the fish before then. However likely I am not comfortable this being publicly advised policy. By all means if you want this fish and are not willing to buy a huge tank down the road for it, talk to your local aquarium, or make friends with someone with a basement pond, or plywood tank, and talk to them about it, Before you buy the fish. We must make it reprehensible to at least publicly advise "would not worry about the 16 inch size." before they buy them as babies. We need to at least worry about it, and plan around it. I'm not saying treat one under a year like it's 16", but we have an ethical duty to worry about their care when they get that big, and to attempt to enable them to get that size. Which I think we are all generally in agreement about.
While the hugest ones are around 30 years, similar sized ones begin around 10-15 years are within 1-2cm. You need to prepare for a fish which is a large portion of its max size quickly and while it might not make a 16" fish for 25 years, it will likely be a 14" fish in <15 years. Further, as others have suggested, this timeline may be sped up in other genera, which we do not have data for.
@Tft12 I agree that the phrasing is harsh, but I think it is a harsh point. If we are buying small ones and taking the fish out of the ocean, we need to be having homes for the adults. The only alternative is the expectation to kill the fish before then. However likely I am not comfortable this being publicly advised policy. By all means if you want this fish and are not willing to buy a huge tank down the road for it, talk to your local aquarium, or make friends with someone with a basement pond, or plywood tank, and talk to them about it, Before you buy the fish. We must make it reprehensible to at least publicly advise "would not worry about the 16 inch size." before they buy them as babies. We need to at least worry about it, and plan around it. I'm not saying treat one under a year like it's 16", but we have an ethical duty to worry about their care when they get that big, and to attempt to enable them to get that size. Which I think we are all generally in agreement about.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Thank you for citing your sources! so few people do. While I understand how you could get the impression you have, the article is in fact suggesting the opposite of your point. "The characteristic square growth curve (fast initial growth that reduces rapidly after the first few years) and high longevity effectively decouple size and age for most of the lifespan" Suggests that surgeons rapidly reach near max size and level off growth. Take the following graph you see size level off around 15 years.
While the hugest ones are around 30 years, similar sized ones begin around 10-15 years are within 1-2cm. You need to prepare for a fish which is a large portion of its max size quickly and while it might not make a 16" fish for 25 years, it will likely be a 14" fish in <15 years. Further, as others have suggested, this timeline may be sped up in other genera, which we do not have data for.
@Tft12 I agree that the phrasing is harsh, but I think it is a harsh point. If we are buying small ones and taking the fish out of the ocean, we need to be having homes for the adults. The only alternative is the expectation to kill the fish before then. However likely I am not comfortable this being publicly advised policy. By all means if you want this fish and are not willing to buy a huge tank down the road for it, talk to your local aquarium, or make friends with someone with a basement pond, or plywood tank, and talk to them about it, Before you buy the fish. We must make it reprehensible to at least publicly advise "would not worry about the 16 inch size." before they buy them as babies. We need to at least worry about it, and plan around it. I'm not saying treat one under a year like it's 16", but we have an ethical duty to worry about their care when they get that big, and to attempt to enable them to get that size. Which I think we are all generally in agreement about.
My point was - very few fish in our tanks will get to 1/2 of the maximum size in the wild for multiple reasons. Many more fish are eaten/fished for in Hawaii, etc at the larger size. I just think your level of 'moral outrage' was a bit much - but I respect your viewpoint. If we put the guidelines in place that you suggest for tangs - a majority of the fish sold in pet stores would be 'off limits' at this point
BY the way - the curve you posted did not dis-prove my point - very few people keep yellow tangs or any other fish for longer than 10years. let alone 30 - 40. It was exactly my point. Now - you could make the point that thats an immoral part of the hobby - i.e. - if we're not prepared to keep fish longer than 10-15 years - we should not buy them .
At least you agree with my 'dubious point' that tangs have long lives in the wild.
Tft12
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2017
- Messages
- 512
- Reaction score
- 461
- What state or country do you live in
- Missouri
@pcon, I really agree with what you're saying but I'm not sure it's fair to use language like "reprehensible" when we're all here taking free-swimming fish from the vast reefs and sticking them in boxes in our homes. I think it's probably pretty easy to call that reprehensible for most fish, except maybe gobies and clowns. My point is just that this is a rather subjective matter and it's hard to really have a place to accurately draw the line, the line from which you can start calling people or actions reprehensible.
nerses818
Active Member
I can see both sides of the debate but I just wanted to chime in that I just got one about a week ago and I love it. He’s a total algae eating workhorse non stop picking algae off the walls and rocks along with my tomini tang
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2018
- Messages
- 859
- Reaction score
- 2,353
- What state or country do you live in
- Colorado
While this has drifted a bit off topic, my apologies. I think this is an important issue at a contemporary turning point for the community. 5 years ago I may have simply dropped the point and I certainly would not have used as strong language.
@MnFish1 we certainly agree that very few tangs will live in the wild to full adult sizes. I also agree that very few tangs in captivity make it to full adulthood. I took issue with the blasé statement that the max size should not be considered, because we as hobbyists fail so often. While I appreciate there are nuances which can mitigate how large a factor into ones personal decision making the max size of a fish is. I myself have bent and broken the rules. I was concerned that your post would send the wrong message to the beginners, who frequent these forums, and may not understand the implied nuance.
Were this hobby not under scrutiny to clean up our act around wild fish and corals I probably wouldn't feel the need to say that it was reprehensible. We as a community have to do a good job policing our public record. While I am all for debating the nuances of ethical housing of monster fish, to start we need to get away from the 90s under-gravel mentality of "oh its small now and I don't need to worry about that until later"
@MnFish1 we certainly agree that very few tangs will live in the wild to full adult sizes. I also agree that very few tangs in captivity make it to full adulthood. I took issue with the blasé statement that the max size should not be considered, because we as hobbyists fail so often. While I appreciate there are nuances which can mitigate how large a factor into ones personal decision making the max size of a fish is. I myself have bent and broken the rules. I was concerned that your post would send the wrong message to the beginners, who frequent these forums, and may not understand the implied nuance.
Were this hobby not under scrutiny to clean up our act around wild fish and corals I probably wouldn't feel the need to say that it was reprehensible. We as a community have to do a good job policing our public record. While I am all for debating the nuances of ethical housing of monster fish, to start we need to get away from the 90s under-gravel mentality of "oh its small now and I don't need to worry about that until later"
