cmpenney
(Chad Penney)
9/26/10 01:10 PM
This one also appears to be a duplicate of another one submitted earlier.
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/26/10 01:13 PM
same reason, sorry for doing it, feel free to delete any duplicates, there are going to be even more cause now im going thru the things i didnt get the full success with, things that wont qualify for dps, but will qualify for things like settling or just hatching.
cmpenney
(Chad Penney)
9/26/10 01:38 PM
I've added open requests to the end of the Species list which should help some in this regard.
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/26/10 05:26 PM
Why is this one only a "B" in your mind Rich? What supporting evidence do you have that would suggest this being on-par with a "Dottyback" vs. a "Clown Goby" or "Firefish"?
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/26/10 08:31 PM
no idea i dont remember lifting any fish skirts to see what there rated 
however there very easy to pair, and spawn for tons of people. the eggs are in a mass but they take ss rotifers.
whatcha think?
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/26/10 09:36 PM
Rich, can you point to any further documentation on them actually being reared on SS Rotifers? I.e. being easy to pair and spawn is arguably not very important if no one can rear them to salable size. It sounds like they might be very on-par with Clown Gobies, given that they too are easy to pair, but require special care in rearing (i.e. ss rotifers)
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 09:41 AM
there not #1 on my list of fish to finish a report on, but i did them on wild plakton at first, then ss when i got them.... so when i get to digging up those pics and writing up those fish .....
I think there was some posts on RC but i cant find them quickly
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 09:42 AM
these guys were a LONG time ago
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/27/10 09:43 AM
Really sounds more like a C species at this point....
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 09:45 AM
ok, make them a C, ill take the extra points....
you dont take away points if you change the rating after i get credits ???
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/27/10 09:48 AM
No, I don't believe we retroactively change points earned 
cmpenney
(Chad Penney)
9/27/10 09:49 AM
Matt is right once points are earned they are yours to keep no matter what happens with classifications down the road.
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 10:08 AM
classify it as a Z and ill take a zillion points
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 10:08 AM
out of real curiosity why a c?
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/27/10 10:20 AM
Rich, are you familiar with the 4 ranks and what they basically mean? Maybe revisit http://www.mbisite.org/Points.aspx
In a nutshell, what you've described is something that is beyond the typical class B species (i.e. a harder clownfish like Latezonatus or most all Dottybacks). Any experiences with wild plankton I'm personally inclined to disregard for the simple fact that they cannot be replicated by most hobbyist breeders unless they too can get the same wild plankton. Thus, you're suggesting they required SS rotfiers. This gets me to thinking that the larvae are very small, probably no different than other "difficult" or "undone" gobies like Clown Gobies or Firefish. THUS, they sit well in the Class C range. Remember, these are broad buckets. At the absolutely top of the spectrum for Class C is the Harlequin Filefish, which honestly I personally might think of as a D, although as a group we felt it was one step shy, probably mostly due to the fact it's a demersal spawner. In every other regard, it might be a class D fish. Thus, these classes are all judgement calls based on the facts at hand. Since other than your personal suggestions that you've reared this species we have ZERO documentation that it's been done, and since everything we already knew about it, combined with your personal descriptions, suggests it is a C, we will likely place it in C once we vote. And thus, that's why it's a "C" in our book.
Personally, I would rather err on the high side..if your documentation really proves to us that it's a "B" and not a "C", we can always downgrade. So far, nothing I know suggests this should be lower than C at this time. Thus, even if you say "well, I did it and I think it's a B", I'd rather hold out the extra points of a "C" to encourage you to provide documentation on the species, although at this point based on what we know I don't think we'd revise it downwards in the future. More likely, new rearing techniques of feeds might be what makes this species "easier" to rear than it currently is presently.
rsman
(Richard Reynolds)
9/27/10 10:41 AM
NO, ive read it over and over.
here is why .... I think.
when I did them no one had info, i was on my own, now there is a "general practice" when I did them you could NOT buy ss rotifers at an online vendor, I had to settle on willd plankton that had ss rotifers in it ( an amazing feat on its own, Ill have to see if i have pictures of one of those trips! ) . now you can go to www.your favorite culture vendor.com and buy ss rotifers. otohime was not around golden perls was the best we had. additionally there margional on SS vs L they definately need SS but dont need it for an extended time so there quicly onto L. additionally there fast growers and not agressive larva so you dont need to keep them in seperate tubs or have lots of hiding places to allow them to thirve.
however, again more points .... i really wont complain, just trying to figure out how you are grading something you havent done. though ill encourage you to do them there kinda fun.
mpedersen
(Matt Pedersen)
9/27/10 06:43 PM
Rich, you cite a "general practice" with these species, but I have not seen it anywhere. For the moment, I'm going to put them through as C since they really fall in with other similar gobies from the sounds of it.