PlanetCatfish.com

Hello! I need help!
I just now stumbled upon this website, so forgive me if I make a few errors, but...
I have been searching for a long time to find an albino Iridescent Shark. I have BEGGED my local fish supplier to find one. It's been 4 months now, and I still don't have one. Does anyone know where I can purchase one?
I have a 50 gal tank with 3 juvies (about 4"). All black. When they get big enough, they will go into my 100 gal tank. All my fish get pampered & spoiled, so he/she will be going to a good home.

Do you mean one of these?


Beware that they need salt-water.

--
Mats

My thought was she was talking about .

Hi,

I think you mean an albino . These really are not a good choice if you care for your fish. They should be kept in large shoals and, despite the fact they are commonly available for sale, they will outgrow a 100gal tank fairly quickly.

I'd recommend you try and find some of these - - they're more active than iridescent sharks, stay small and are less skittish. A truly great community tank catfish.

Jools

Sorry all! I can't spell OR pronounce Pangasius Hypowhatever, so I'll stick with Iridescent Shark (Common Name).
They get about 12-16" in tanks. In wild, much bigger. They are freshwater. I have heard all the horror stories, etc., but, I had one before & he did fine. I have a friend who has three & none of them grew bigger than 12" in over 3 years. I appreciate your suggestion, Jools, but I just don't want small fish for this tank.
So, my question still stands: Does anyone know where I can get an Albino?

Carri wrote:
So, my question still stands: Does anyone know where I can get an Albino?

No one knows where you live

Please add your location (forum rules)to your profile.

[Pronunciation___Pang ah see uss - hi poff thal muss]

Edit: Nevermind...removed my question since my water is too hard for the glass cat. Oh well...

BTW..why Wal-Mart?

They get about 12-16" in tanks. In wild, much bigger. They are freshwater. I have heard all the horror stories, etc., but, I had one before & he did fine. I have a friend who has three & none of them grew bigger than 12" in over 3 years.

Theres quite a few available cats that actually stay around 12"-16" and don't just stunt down to that size.

Shaun

Let's get two things clear:
1. Fish don't grow smaller in aquariums than in the wild, unless they are "stunted". Stunting means that they are not growing to their full potential, and it can be caused by several things, such as poor water conditions, lack of stimulation, stress. The determinating factor of the maximal size of a fish is genetics - and the genetics of your tank-kept fish isn't any different from the ones in the wild (or in the case of Pangasius species, the pond-bred ones, as they are almost certainly not wild-caught, but rather originally aimed for the "dinner-table" in SE Asia, and sold to the aquatic trade as a side-business of the farming of these fish - and they are farmed for the reason that they grow rapidly and to a decent size).

2. I'm not quite sure what size your 100g tank would be, the web-sites I could find list either 90 or 120/125g sizes. But going by the size of 90, 120 and 150g tanks, the largest fish I would recommend in that size tank is around 10-12". This is based on having a 4L x 2L x 2L tank-size, where L is the length of the fish. [Although for this particular species, I would say they should really have a LARGER tank - and using the L at 1300mm/50", you'll get a size of 5.2 x 2.6 x 2.5m/17 x 8.5 x 8.5 ft - that's around 9000 gallon if I didn't mess up the math...]

--
Mats

In fact, I even think Mats estimation is conservative - because the Pangasius I've seen were very actively swimming, and than a tank 4 times one's bodylength does not provide much room to swim, does it?

Let's get two things clear? I have to disagree with you. I had an Iridescent shark that never grew larger than about 12" or so in a 125. It ate well on both pellets and live food (black worms) I have to admit it was calmer than most iridescent sharks but well with in the norm of this species. Now having said that I have to admit it might have already been stunted when I got it. I "rescued" it from a pet store that had taken it in as a trade. The original owner had kept it in a 55 for a couple of years so it might well have ben stunted when I got it but it lived for another five years before the tank failed and everything died due to no water. It was kept with a large elephant nosed fish, a school of inland silversides, a rope fish, some blue spotted sunfish and three large freshwater flounders I raised from fry. This tank had a reservoir in the system that held 100 gallons of water so all told it held about 200 or a little more gallons of water. I guess my point is the fish didn't get any larger than 12" and it was living a healthy life. I have seen several other iridescent sharks that were pretty much the same way after several years in captivity. Would you say these fish are stunted? How would you define stunted? If they are indeed stunted and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt here and assume they are stunted in some way. Although I have been told the breeders of these fish have been breeding them for small size for use as aquarium fish, I really don't put much stock in this possibility. Any way, if this fish was stunted why would this be a bad thing? It was healthy, it swam freely all the time without hitting the sides or the ends, it ate well and it seemed to recognize me much like the other fish did when it was feeding time. So it was alert and not just swimming in one place like it had been in the pet shop. So again, why was this a bad thing?

Moon

MatsP wrote:Let's get two things clear:
1. Fish don't grow smaller in aquariums than in the wild, unless they are "stunted". Stunting means that they are not growing to their full potential, and it can be caused by several things, such as poor water conditions, lack of stimulation, stress. The determinating factor of the maximal size of a fish is genetics - and the genetics of your tank-kept fish isn't any different from the ones in the wild (or in the case of Pangasius species, the pond-bred ones, as they are almost certainly not wild-caught, but rather originally aimed for the "dinner-table" in SE Asia, and sold to the aquatic trade as a side-business of the farming of these fish - and they are farmed for the reason that they grow rapidly and to a decent size).

2. I'm not quite sure what size your 100g tank would be, the web-sites I could find list either 90 or 120/125g sizes. But going by the size of 90, 120 and 150g tanks, the largest fish I would recommend in that size tank is around 10-12". This is based on having a 4L x 2L x 2L tank-size, where L is the length of the fish. [Although for this particular species, I would say they should really have a LARGER tank - and using the L at 1300mm/50", you'll get a size of 5.2 x 2.6 x 2.5m/17 x 8.5 x 8.5 ft - that's around 9000 gallon if I didn't mess up the math...]

--
Mats

Where I live doesn't really matter, as I am needing to find one on the internet. Not trying to hide anything, didn't know there were rules to this thing. I have checked with ALL the local pet stores & most of them don't know what I am talking about. The only one that did is the one that really can't/won't order for me. Will that help you sleep tonight, MatsP and Bets Pals?

Again, while I appreciate imput and suggestions, I know these fish will be quite happy in a 100 gallon tank. Moon is right. Even if being held prisoner reduces the body size,so what? I'm only 5' tall & I don't see grocery stores rushing to put items within my reach! They are in a controlled environment, complete with buddies, food, snacks, & any perks I can get my hands on. Don't have to wonder where next meal is coming from, or even being someone's meal.Sounds like a pretty good life to me.

Carri wrote:Where I live doesn't really matter, as I am needing to find one on the internet. Not trying to hide anything, didn't know there were rules to this thing. I have checked with ALL the local pet stores & most of them don't know what I am talking about. The only one that did is the one that really can't/won't order for me. Will that help you sleep tonight, MatsP and Bets Pals?

It's not my problem, it's yours. If I don't sleep, it will over other problems, not this one

But what if I knew a) you life 100 km away from me and b) the fish you are lookingfor is available in a shop which does not have an internet site, and does not ship?

I know you life far away, because you stick to gallons, nobody in the European continent would, thus you are either Brittish, or US based. `

Perhaps you do not realise, this forum is frequented by people from all over the world.

ps Im referred to as Bas, and I do not bet

Where I live doesn't really matter

true, but filling in a location (a state, country or recognizable part of a continent will do) is sort of a courtesy here on the planetcatfishforum.

you don't have to take my word on this, I'm sure any mod will be happy to point it out as well.
SG

Carri, since you are from North America I can say with confidence that if you keep looking you will find an albino iridescent shark at wal-mart eventually. I live in NC and I see them all the time around here. I'm not sure I would buy one from wal-mart but that is up to you. I still want to get a dialogue going here about why we see undersized iridescent sharks here that don't appear to be under any more stress than any other aquarium fish. If we give this some thought maybe we can get a handle on what is going on here. I actually don't believe that fish will only grow to the size of the aquarium they are in. This has been a very bad myth for many years and has caused a lot of fish deaths and unhealthy fish. I have seen stunted fish with deformed bodies swimming in one place, eyes dull and their only response is to swim quickly in one direction slamming into the aquarium walls and doing themselves damage. For some reason I cannot fathom a good cause for I have seen several iridescent sharks that seem to have escaped this fate by staying small (less than 12") and show none of the signs of a stunted deformed fish. I would really like to know why this is. Can you tell if an individual iridescent shark will be the one that does well in captivity or is there some environmental reason these fish are like this and can any iridescent shark can be raised this way? When you find one like this they are usually a really pretty fish with none of the missing eyes and trauma normally associated with these nervous fish when they out grow their aquarium.

Michael Hissom
aurea mediocritas

Carri wrote:Where I live doesn't really matter, as I am needing to find one on the internet. Not trying to hide anything, didn't know there were rules to this thing. I have checked with ALL the local pet stores & most of them don't know what I am talking about. The only one that did is the one that really can't/won't order for me. Will that help you sleep tonight, MatsP and Bets Pals?

Again, while I appreciate imput and suggestions, I know these fish will be quite happy in a 100 gallon tank. Moon is right. Even if being held prisoner reduces the body size,so what? I'm only 5' tall & I don't see grocery stores rushing to put items within my reach! They are in a controlled environment, complete with buddies, food, snacks, & any perks I can get my hands on. Don't have to wonder where next meal is coming from, or even being someone's meal.Sounds like a pretty good life to me.

I see these fish all the time and always bug my LFS to quit ordering them!

I wish I had a local fish store to bug, have you seen any iridescent sharks that have stayed small with out the damage they normally get? I would really like to know why I see some of these fish that seem to have quit growing way before they get to maximum size without showing the normal signs of stunting.

Moon

Dave Rinaldo wrote:I see these fish all the time and always bug my LFS to quit ordering them!

...without showing the normal signs of stunting.

You mean apart from not growing to their maximum potential size?

Fish in captivity usually grow BIGGER then their wild counterparts, due to excessive amounts of food, good water quality and lack of predation or the stress that the threat of predation brings.
Shaun

Yes that is what I mean. Why is it important for a fish to attain their maximum potential size? But more importantly why do some iridescent sharks seem to do well by staying small while some kill themselves by beating themselves to death in a small tank. I have seen several and I had one that didn't get but 12" or so and he was a great fish. Not nervous, no deformaties, no injuries and he was healthy in a custom 125 with several other fish. He ate black worms and pellets with the other fish and he lived for five years until a disaster killed him. I even let him live in a yard pond in the summer. Why didn't he get big? Are there some of them that are natually small for some reason? I am puzzeled and I want to know.

You mean apart from not growing to their maximum potential size?

Fish in captivity usually grow BIGGER then their wild counterparts, due to excessive amounts of food, good water quality and lack of predation or the stress that the threat of predation brings.
Shaun[/quote]

Moontanman wrote: Why is it important for a fish to attain their maximum potential size?

for me, personally, it is not important.

I think, in nature, fish are either eaten, or they are starving most of the time. The potential size does thus - to me - not reflect what is possible in normal circumstances, one needs to look in nature for that.

Imagine a fish able to grow to 40 cm, but in nature it only grows to 20. Why did evolution accept this capability? Perhaps that due to its potential the fis is able to reach 20 cm, which might be needed.

Putting such a fish in a tank, and saying the fish can get 40 cm, so it must reach 40 cm, is wrong - again, in my eyes. Mind you, I'm mostly a cichli d keeper, and I got a few very big species and tanks. I have nating agains big fishes themselves.

Back to Pangasius. I reat they can get 130 cm, but as far as I'm aware, in nature they only get 60 -90 cm (correct me if I'm wrong). thus they ought to reacht this 60 cm in a tank or more.

My idea about the ones which only reach 30 cm is that perhaps womething went wrong more early.

Bas

Where I live doesn't really matter

You mean aside from the forum rules that you should obide by? [Admittedly, the link to those rules is broken, I'll post for Jools in the bugs forum to fix that].

As Bas pointed out, if someone happens to know (for example) a fish-shop near to you that has the fish you're looking for, they could point this out to you.

I still don't think you should buy one, but that's not to say that you shouldn't give people the oppurtunity to help you the best way you can. In the case of someone from North America (which I guess is where you are), I would say adding the State/Province and "USA" or "Canada" will be sufficient. If you wish to give more details, that's fine too [It's particularly useful if you live in a big state like Texas or so, since driving from Lubbock to Houston may not be such a great idea to get one or three fish]

Bas: The size of fish listed in the Cat-eLog is generally from scientific records, which means "that's the size attained in nature". Of course, that's the LARGEST recorded size, not the average size or some such. I agree that fish have better potential to grow large in a well-kept aquarium - at least on average, since the chances for most fish to reach maturity in nature is probably one in a thousand or so, whilst fish in captivity have a much higher rate of survival.

--
Mats

None of this explains the fish i had and the ones I have seen that are much smaller than they are supposed to be and yet they are healthy, alert, and don't show any of the signs you would expect to see in a fish that had been stunted. Actually in my case the fish had been allowed to spend summers in a yard pond, i live in the south, and still it didn't grow past 12". it also displayed unusual calm and didn't show any signs of self inflicted wounds from beating against the sides of thje aquarium like amny of these fish do. it was however alert and responded to me like any other fish would.

Michael

MatsP wrote:

Where I live doesn't really matter

You mean aside from the forum rules that you should obide by? [Admittedly, the link to those rules is broken, I'll post for Jools in the bugs forum to fix that].

As Bas pointed out, if someone happens to know (for example) a fish-shop near to you that has the fish you're looking for, they could point this out to you.

I still don't think you should buy one, but that's not to say that you shouldn't give people the oppurtunity to help you the best way you can. In the case of someone from North America (which I guess is where you are), I would say adding the State/Province and "USA" or "Canada" will be sufficient. If you wish to give more details, that's fine too [It's particularly useful if you live in a big state like Texas or so, since driving from Lubbock to Houston may not be such a great idea to get one or three fish]

Bas: The size of fish listed in the Cat-eLog is generally from scientific records, which means "that's the size attained in nature". Of course, that's the LARGEST recorded size, not the average size or some such. I agree that fish have better potential to grow large in a well-kept aquarium - at least on average, since the chances for most fish to reach maturity in nature is probably one in a thousand or so, whilst fish in captivity have a much higher rate of survival.

--
Mats

Carrie made an offhand yet important statement earlier.
If alien vistors the maximum size of a human i.e the tallest man the world has ever known and took that to be the size of human beings, then on the planet human alien website dedicated to the keeping in captivity of human beings from the planet yearth then there would be a lot of humans not growing to teir full potential or being stunted by the deffinition stated above. Do not forget that we are animals too and humans come in all sizes.
Goulding conducted a survey of big catfish in the amazon and taking an example of the tiger shovelnose stated a maximum known size of 105cm yet the majority of those captured were around the 70cm mark.
Were these fish stunted?
I don't think so, they just didn't grow to the size of the biggest for whatever reason.
It is the potential size that is listed, big fish in captivity i.e aquariums are going to be stunted however you feed them because a fish tank is not the dynamic environment that a large river is.
When a fish in the wild is hungry, it eats food. when a fish is hungry in a fish tank it has to wait for that food.
The currents in the average fishtank are nowhere near the currents that these fish exercise in every day. Exercise build muscle and therefore size.
However many times you change water in you tank it is nowhere near the same as the dilution of waste in a large river. Waste in the water= stunted growth.
I think sometimes people forget that the environments that we keep our fish in are nothing like what they live in in the wild.

Interesting debate we have going here...


With regard to location, even if you are buying off the internet you will still only be able to do that within your own country.

I don't want to waste my time posting a list of UK stockists when you live in the USA.



With regard to stunting, here is one of my observations.......

My father has a pair of clown loach in a 36"x15"x15" tank, and they have been in there for getting on fifteen years. They stopped growing years ago at 6", and are very healthy.

Now lots of people will say that tank is far too small for a fish that can reach 12", but they haven't reached that size, and all the other fish in the tank have reached an appropriate size.

The nitrates vary between 25-40 mg/l (due to tapwater being used), but I see can't see why this would affect only the clown loach.

I do remember someone mentioning the possibility of a smaller stain of clown loach though.


But really this is more about the fact that the Pangasius is just a bad choice of fish for the aquarium.

There are always exceptions to rules, as Moontanman has experienced, but generally they grow far too large and are far too nervous to be considered a good choice, especially considering the thousands of other species available.

I would be very very surprised if even 0.1% of all the Pangasius exported into the pet trade lived to a reasonable age (i.e. over ten years old).


Have you read the big cats sticky ?

None of this explains the fish i had and the ones I have seen that are much smaller than they are supposed to be and yet they are healthy, alert, and don't show any of the signs you would expect to see in a fish that had been stunted.

And how do you know it was not already mistreated in some way before you got it (perhaps they were in a pond with it's relatives, and "choosen" for the aquarium trade because it was only 3" when it's "friends" were at 6").

I can't explain why your particular fish is smaller than the genetic ability of these fish, nor why it's being more mild-tempered than the average fish of this genus.

--
Mats

I guess we have to admit the possibility that at least some fish might adjust their size to their environment with out causing health problems? Is this a reasonable conclusion? I would have to say that there has to be limits. I wouldn't expect a flathead catfish to stay at 3" because I was keeping it in a 5 gallon tank. If I thought that was true I would be looking for a Wels Catfish! (I always wanted one!)Here is the opinion of a large fish seller called LA Fish:

A: My verdict, based upon the wisdom of Solomon, is that some do and some don't. We've all seen goldfish that kids win in contests and keep (or their mom's keep) in 2.5 Anchor-Hocking flat fishbowls. I get reports that these comets have survived in these quarters for 5 to 8 years. (Maybe it just seemed that many years?) At the local golf course and park ponds (in the absence of blue herons, channel cats, and raccoons), they'd grow to a foot or more and live beau coup years.
In the 600 gallon pond we used to have in the middle of the room (1,400 gallons per hour waterfall, 50% daily water change, and coin-operated food machines for the kids), we never had an iridescent shark grow over 18 inches. Of course they were competing with koi and tinfoil barbs.
Cindee McDonald reports a 13-year-old at 27 inches in 900 gallons
Lori Clarke reports a 15-year-old at 23 inches in 195 gallons
Lucas Jiang reports that they grow to 7 kilos in 50 x 50 ponds
If you put plastic plants at the ends of their tank, they won't ram the ends.
Anyway, most fish will stunt with minimal problems. You know those sunfishes just get dinkier and dinkier in most ponds and out compete the bass (in the absence of channel cats and rotenone). Those dinky sunfish are not handicapped in any way except size. They just adapt to their environment.
Several of my customers have said the chain pet stores tell them pacús will only grow to 6 inches. It could be to sell more pacús, but more likely it's because they don't know any better. Maybe both. LA
PS You'll still get various opinions, because people believe what they want to believe.

MatsP wrote:

None of this explains the fish i had and the ones I have seen that are much smaller than they are supposed to be and yet they are healthy, alert, and don't show any of the signs you would expect to see in a fish that had been stunted.

And how do you know it was not already mistreated in some way before you got it (perhaps they were in a pond with it's relatives, and "choosen" for the aquarium trade because it was only 3" when it's "friends" were at 6").

I can't explain why your particular fish is smaller than the genetic ability of these fish, nor why it's being more mild-tempered than the average fish of this genus.

--
Mats

Ok, Ok, I have updated my profile. So's you won't have to look it up: I live in Asheville, NC. Yup, I'm a Southerner in the good ol' US of A! Land of the Free, Home of the Brave! I own a construction company. We build houses. I have over 100 men working for me. Yes, scroll back up, I'm a 5', blond headed gal that can get men to say "Yes,Mam!" ('Cause I sign the checks!) Now, no stupid jokes on the USA, the South, or us females, ok? I Will check back later to see if anyone has anything intelligent to say.....

DELETED

Moontanman wrote:I guess we have to admit the possibility that at least some fish might adjust their size to their environment with out causing health problems?

Yes, and that "not growing to full potential" is technically called "stunted growth" (which has nothing to do with what Evil Kneivel did for a living ). It may well be that some species are more adapt at living in "tight places". That doesn't make it right to keep them in such small spaces - as your quote explains, these fish grow to well above a foot if they are given the right conditions.

--
Mats