Looking for the communities opinion

[Joshua Agostoni]

Hi guys just wanted to get some thoughts from everyone. Bin in the hobby for about a year now and loving it i have a 55 gallon tank with a 25 gallon sump.

Where i want all of your thoughts are, I have always wanted a volatile lion fish and a porcupine puffer Im wondering what you guys think about fish to tank size if i only get those two fish and if they care compatible together if they are not i was thinking of a niger trigger and porcupine puffer. let me know what you guys think if they will be ok in a 55 gallon just the two of them. thanks.

 

[tdileo]

I would say at least a 125 gallon tank. Both of those fish get very large and messy, but the latter is not a big deal in a fish only system meant for just the two of them. One day that puffer will reach a foot in size, and that specific lionfish will get even bigger.
Have you considered doing smaller ones, like a fuzzy dwarf lionfish and a puffer from the Canthigaster genus? They would be okay in a 55 gallon.

 

[norfolkgarden]

Trigger gets a foot long. Volitans 18"?
Neither will fit in our 75 gallon for more than a year and that would be pushing it.

You could do a fu man chu lionfish and a dwarf puffer, but even that would be stretching a lot.

Love all those fish. I just need a 300 gallon tank.
[emoji4]

 

[redfishbluefish]

Compatible, yes....but tank size, NO. Both these guys grow to over a foot long. Not going to fit in a 55.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

I'm pretty sure that tank size greatly influences fish size - that a foot long wild fish will not grow a foot long in a 46gal aquarium, for example
.

At least that's my experience, & my Vlamingi Tang will back me up.

 

[Flippers4pups]

I'm pretty sure that tank size greatly influences fish size - that a foot long wild fish will not grow a foot long in a 46gal aquarium, for example
.

At least that's my experience, & my Vlamingi Tang will back me up.

That may be true to some extent, but I guarantee at some point it wouldn't end well. Just not a good direction to go. Really need a MUCH larger tank for those to work successfully long term.

 

[norfolkgarden]

I'm pretty sure that tank size greatly influences fish size - that a foot long wild fish will not grow a foot long in a 46gal aquarium, for example
.

At least that's my experience, & my Vlamingi Tang will back me up.

Please tell me you're trolling.


For argument sake, 10% smaller then the biggest specimen ever recorded. Effortless.

40% smaller? No, You're just Dwarfing it and that is similar to solitary without the weekly One hour Yard privilege's.

I saw a foot long black trigger. Absolutely beautiful fish.
But it was a return.
They only had a 75 to keep it in.
Really sad.

 

[Scrubber_steve]

That may be true to some extent, but I guarantee at some point it wouldn't end well. Just not a good direction to go. Really need a MUCH larger tank for those to work successfully long term.

I believe its wrong to put a sand sifting fish into a bare bottom tank, for obvious reasons.
I also believe it wrong to, for example, put a powder blue tang into a smaller tank because they easily suffer from white spot as a result (this is well know & established).

Now, I see this article says that a Vlamingi "grows to an adult length of two feet", &, "they will rapidly outgrow the largest of home aquariums."
Well I know this is simply incorrect. I bought my Vlamingi nearly 5 years ago for my 3' x 1.5' x 1.5' 46gal tank. It quickly grew to the size it is now (approx 9") & hasn't grown any for years.
I didn't know how big they get in the wild, but on my experience I have no regrets buying him because he's happy & healthy. As long as a larger fish has somewhere to hide at night, & your filter system is efficient & not dictating how much you can fed it, rather than feeding it what it needs to be healthy, there's no problem.

Of course this isn't a blanket statement about the suitability of just any fish, more a statement on the eventual size of a pet fish as dictated by aquarium size.