Where to find this eel?

[xenacanth9]

This is the Bombay swamp eel, Ophichthys indicus. According to Wikipedia, they only reach about 3.3". That doesn't sound right. Has anyone ever kept these? Can anyone attest to this size? I find this species very fascinating, simply because most swamp eels reach absolutely massive sizes, and these are pygmys by comparison. Would like to know any info you know.

 

[tlindsey]

View attachment 1477704
This is the Bombay swamp eel, Ophichthys indicus. According to Wikipedia, they only reach about 3.3". That doesn't sound right. Has anyone ever kept these? Can anyone attest to this size? I find this species very fascinating, simply because most swamp eels reach absolutely massive sizes, and these are pygmys by comparison. Would like to know any info you know.

I've never seen or heard of a Bombay Swamp Eel all the years of fishkeeping.

 

[kno4te]

I've never seen or heard of a Bombay Swamp Eel all the years of fishkeeping.

Same here. Seen it posted on fb a while ago but not collected for hobbyists.

 

[jjohnwm]

I'd bet folding money that this thing reaches a meter in length...and a meter converts to 3 feet 3 inches...and Wikipedia (not the most accurate source of information) just had a typo that turned that into 3.3 inches.

 

[xenacanth9]

Not sure though, because the article says this: "The marbled swamp eel, Synbranchus marmoratus, has been recorded at up to 150 cm (59 in) in length, while the Bombay swamp eel, Monopterus indicus, reaches no more than 8.5 cm (3.3 in)."

The way it's worded is a clear indicator that it's supposed to indicate a notable difference in length. Also, 8.5cm/3.3 inches are the same, so that was no mistake. So, I believe this was intentional, however, whether or not it actually does stay 3" in reality is still up in the air.

 

[xenacanth9]

Same here. Seen it posted on fb a while ago but not collected for hobbyists.

If the size listed is accurate, and if it wasn't listed as vulnerable by IUCN, then I certainly feel like these could catch on in the hobby. Sort of like a more voracious kuhli loach. Seems like it would hypothetically be a no-brainer.

 

[jjohnwm]

Not sure though, because the article says this: "The marbled swamp eel, Synbranchus marmoratus, has been recorded at up to 150 cm (59 in) in length, while the Bombay swamp eel, Monopterus indicus, reaches no more than 8.5 cm (3.3 in)."

The way it's worded is a clear indicator that it's supposed to indicate a notable difference in length. Also, 8.5cm/3.3 inches are the same, so that was no mistake. So, I believe this was intentional, however, whether or not it actually does stay 3" in reality is still up in the air.

That does sound like they actually mean it's that small, doesn't it? But if one source erroneously converts a meter to 3.3 inches...and then another takes that measurement and runs with it, and then decides to convert back...I dunno...

Both of the links in your post take me to Wiki pages but neither mentions a length for this species. The one page mentions that it feeds mostly on earthworms...at just over 3 inches I would think it's more likely to be eaten by most earthworms! They also mention that the species can "bare its fangs" when threatened; sounds scary...

And they also state that it frequently floats around on the surface, breathing atmospheric oxygen and then submerging to feed. Sounds kind of wonky, not the type of survival tactic one would expect from such a bite-size morsel of protein.

I an skeptical of Wikipedia much of the time...

 

[xenacanth9]

? You have a right to be skeptical...

Now, here is the original page:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swamp_eel
This is where the length comes from.

Now, to begin, these fish are also listed as 8.5cm on FishBase, so this seems consistent. Next, many earthworm species are smaller than American species. There are several species of earthworms, many of which small enough to be eaten by such a fish. Now, as for the fangs, yeah, swamp eels do not have fangs. That's just straight-up misinformation. As for the survival tactic, floating on the surface is not uncommon for air-breathing fish like swamp eels. I have observed young specimens of larger species exhibiting similar behavior numerous times. It's possible that there are a lot of floating plants in its range, which it could easily blend in with.

Now, to support your argument, I totally think it's possible that someone made a typo, and another person, followed by FishBase, ran with it. However, I am remaining somewhat skeptical due to the fact that that is pretty much impossible to prove, and FishBase is generally reliable. Moving on, even though some are small, many earthworms are in fact very large in comparison to these fish. I'm not sure exactly what earthworms are native to that range. Moving on once more, swamp eels, once more, do not possess fangs. You are still right on that one. I also agree that, unless there is a large amount of vegetation and other forms of cover on the surface, then the survival tactic they allegedly use is admittedly sort of wonky.

So, all in all, not sure. Seems to be some conflicting info here.

 

[jjohnwm]

My comments about earthworms were fairly tongue-in-cheek, but if you stop to think about it, earthworms are terrestrial organisms that are not regularly available to fish as a food source. Earthworms are pretty much irresistible to most carnivorous fish, but it's not something they can expect to regularly be able to find. When you read that a particular species of fish eats earthworms...it typically means that earthworms are accepted eagerly when offered by aquarists trying to get a new fish to eat. Why and how would this be contorted to mean that earthworms are a natural diet? Easy answer: Wikipedia.

The article has some interesting stuff in it. Comparing it with the other article, one wonders how a fish lacking a swimbladder is able to float on the surface, but then submerge and dive at will. How does it achieve this? Wikipedia.

I'm not saying that everything Wikipedia claims is inaccurate; even a blind squirrel finds an occasional acorn. But, in general, enough of what they state as fact simply isn't true...either completely made-up or so distorted as to be useless...that I think it's worthwhile not to rely upon them as completely reliable about anything. So, when asking where one can find something that was seen on Wikipedia, quite often the answer is "nowhere on earth".

 

[xenacanth9]

Honestly I'm not sure. I'm just gonna give up on this one, never gonna find one anyway