Also keep in mind, references use SL while forums tend towards TL ... will also affect the sizes you see listed by 2-3".
A very good point. I think water quality and diet can play huge parts in those size differences. Some people believe in power feeding while others take a more moderate approach.So it continues to be confusing...
I've known someone with metae that were definitely metae and they were 5-6 inches (male/female) and he said they were peaceful. He also had diadema, which he said were a little larger but also ok with other fish of reasonable size. I've seen other people have metae get 6,7 inches-- forums where I was a member, not just googling. On the other hand, I've seen posts where metae are the bigger fish... no, diadema are bigger-- metae are more peaceful... no, diadema are more peaceful. Chalked some of that up to people confusing them, but I'm wondering if ones collected from different spots grow different? if it's simple as different growth in different tank conditions? or is it simply a question of individual fish get different sizes and it just depends on your fish or their particular parents?
I've seen that personally with green terrors. I've had some gold saum males top out about 8" and be solid but not beasts, but also had other gold saum males get 10" and turn out to be real brutes. Similar with severums, have had some garden variety 8 inch severums and then had them be 12" and really thick. Also, I've seen a lot of people say their red heads geos get 6" and that's it. But I've had them over 7" and I think the guy I got my original fry from had one 8".
Wonder if that's what's going on here with metae/diadema/JH?
True, it can be an apples and oranges thing, but in my case I'm referring to hobbyist size reporting, not professional references, which I've seen also. Also doesn't account for contradictory reports of which is the bigger species.Also keep in mind, references use SL while forums tend towards TL ... will also affect the sizes you see listed by 2-3".
I know TL includes tail, so I assume SL doesn't? Is that a correct assumption?Also keep in mind, references use SL while forums tend towards TL ... will also affect the sizes you see listed by 2-3".
Yeah, sorry, I was thinking of that when I added to the thread - show up late and stir things up. But I'm sure you won't be disappointed if you make the call to Jeff. ......you know you want toIan, Really?? Did you really have to post those shots of the metae? I think Rapps is going to be getting a call from me by the end of the week..lol. 2 orders in 2 weeks.
Correct. This was the hobby standard before forums.I know TL includes tail, so I assume SL doesn't? Is that a correct assumption?
Given it was the hobby standard for so long, all my books and magazine articles use SL. Lots of old timers on here use it still too. So yes, it can account for some of the discrepancy.True, it can be an apples and oranges thing, but in my case I'm referring to hobbyist size reporting, not professional references, which I've seen also. Also doesn't account for contradictory reports of which is the bigger species.
Good point. Would definitely make sense.Correct. This was the hobby standard before forums.
Given it was the hobby standard for so long, all my books and magazine articles use SL. Lots of old timers on here use it still too. So yes, it can account for some of the discrepancy.
LOLYeah, sorry, I was thinking of that when I added to the thread - show up late and stir things up. But I'm sure you won't be disappointed if you make the call to Jeff. ......you know you want to