Corydoras-keeping doesn't end with the "keep thousands to make them "happy" ". There are many also who will go nuts because they're not on sand substrate.
I don't think I have ever seen your nano. Lucky and Luci seem happy.. make sense..small fish do feel safe in a larger tank and chances of breeding is higher You won't get any hate comments like me. Great info and job Colin especially about cloudy water
I think Lucky and Lucy must be happy because they are out and about, not hiding away waiting for night time to feed. I disagree with your fish self awareness (or lack there of). I have a tank with 10 ember tetras and 10 hengeli rasboras. They stick to their own schools , so must be able to distinguish between species. In my big tank, the Severums only argue with other Severums, and Geos only argue with other Geos. I do agree that having greater numbers of less species in a tank looks way cooler.
Hey Gil, I didn't do a good job in explaining myself properly (situation normal!!) I meant in natural rivers and streams where the water is zero visibility and they absolutely cannot see each-other most of the time. Our crystal clear aquariums are more of an exception than the norm. Cichlids may be a tad smarter than catfish in general, but they all respond to innate behavioral triggers for territory and breeding.
I watch a few channels like Below Water and Project Piaba that show South American fish in the wild. There too I have seen Tetras and Corys in large species specific groups in murky water. Not sure if it is 100% fact, but I was told years ago that the reason Cardinal tetras are so bright is to enable them to find each other in blackwater. As always you have not only educated and entertained Colin, you have also produced a thought provoking video as well.
I definitely think they are self-aware mate. Not sure how that is the case, perhaps pheromones or something scientific like that but I'll give you a couple of examples. First when you think of male Betta, they can be aggressive to any tankmate of course but (in a great majority of cases) when they see another male they noticeably flare and posture right? The if you keep African Cichlids you tend to over stock to spread out aggression right? But also it is noticeable that they tend to pick on other fish that are the same or very similar more than others. My other example is schooling/shoalung fish and I'm thinking more about in rivers and seas really more than in aquariums. Many thousands of some fish of the same kind group together for safety rather than just swimming off with any fish that comes close. With the Cory thing some can get pretty big. I've seen some almost three inches. Not sure if you can get them over there but Dwarf Cories are available. Might be worth seeing if you could find a group of those mate. 👍
"Consciousness" is a SUPER interesting topic, as it relates to invertebrates as they get smaller and smaller in size. No doubt that they display a range of complex behaviors' triggered by specific visual, physical or chemical cues. Tiny insects are capable of incredible intricate behaviors'. Are these behaviors' examples of innate genetic programming without conscious thought? or are they "thinking"? There are many examples of young animals imprinting on "parents" of different species, and animals joining and being accepted into other herds, flocks, swarms or schools. Interbreeding between species creates hybrids, which themselves may or may not be fertile. Is interbreeding by mistake or by choice? Genetic programming or thinking? Super interesting topic.
I would disagree with the fish not knowing the difference in species that are significantly different, though acknowledge you could make that argument with extremely similar species that can naturally hybridize in the wild. There's plenty of videos showing them in the wild in heavily silted water still sticking with their own species and even just when you go fishing you see this too. You do often see different species combined their shoals but when you look at them it's not 1 individual next to another individual of another species and having them widely mixed in the group. It's groups of the same species staying together that swim closely alongside other groups of other species that creates the mixed species shoal. Only exceptions I've seen in nature at least is when a single concentration of food is found then yes it can turn into a mixed bag of different species but that's just because each individual is trying to get to the food. But they quickly reorganise once the food is gone. It's also well documented that fish heavily make use of pheromones and various sounds (which we often can't hear for most species, I'm not just referring to the obvious ones like Croaking Gouramis) to communicate things like finding food, spotting a potential threat, hierarchy disputes etc. Add the fact that fish also see a different range in the light spectrum then humans including into the UV spectrum. Combined with their behaviours even in heavily silted water I'd say it would be unreasonable to try and say they can't tell the difference (again acception possibly being extremely similar species that naturally interbreed). Even if we look at species that are bred for different colours and patterns in the hobby even colours that aren't found naturally, like goldfish which naturally are a bronze/olive/brown. Haven't people questioned how dispite looking drastically different from their natural forms and from eachother they still seem to be aware of the fact that they're still the same species? It would surly be useful of senses/cues that us humans can't detect. Like pheromones, sounds and possible light reflection off scales. In regards to the light aspect I will say I haven't researched if/how fish specifically make use of this. But what I will say is with other animal groups (invertebrates, Amphibians, reptiles, birds) that can see into the UV spectrum there is always a purpose. And it's usually to find food (nectar feeding insect's like bees spotted the UV reflection from flowers) or to communicate and/or spot members of their own species some taking it to more extreme levels in regards to physical adaptations and behaviours. A quick example being a genus of lizards I kept/bred a few species of called Flat Rock Lizards (Platysaurus). The males have pretty large and smooth belly scuts/scales which for most look blue (to us). When displaying to females or asserting dominance over other males they further flatten their bodies and walk sideways exposing their bellies (it looks weird if you Google it you'll understand what I'm saying better). Turns out their bellies are highly reflective of UV light even compared to other scales on their bodies and to keep it short how much UV light that is reflected determines a males fitness/dominance. Given the fact that fish can see into the UV spectrum and are typically covered in highly reflective scales it's reasonable to suspect that these scales reflect UV light and how fish see eachother Vs how we see them is drastically different. The structure of scales & feathers in other species determines how the UV light is reflected/channelled. You see it in birds & reptiles where to us they look pretty uniform in colour but when you account for the wavelengths they're seeing there's distinct different colours and patterns. Fish from murky or low light habitats are also well known to develop their eyes further to make use of every possible light wave that reaches them. I'd suspect even in silted waters even without audio or pheromonal cues they can still easily spot eachother as light reflects off their scales (though I would need to read into this to confirm this so I'm just speculating on this specific use of UV in fish). The body shaking/shimmering we see in a lot of fish like when two males spar. If the fish are using UV reflecting off the scales then what they'll be seeing in that process is a dramatic and rapid change in the other fish's colours/appearance probably with a rippling affect, like when we see light rippling through water but more dramatic. It's also likely in these "dance offs" they're funnelling pheromone enriched water into the others face too, similar to what we see in newt courtship, while probably screaming at eachother with clicks and croaks 😅 All in all I would completely disagree with the argument that fish are not aware of the difference in species and just see them all as another generic fish. On a side note I would still disagree with keeping just 2 or three cory's. Sure they might be healthy but I can't keep two feral pigeons/rock doves that I allow to fly together never meeting others and they'd be healthy. But they wouldn't express the same range of behaviours as they would if part of a flock. I'm not saying this be default would mean the pigeons are "unhappy" like how two single corys are for sure "unhappy". But if there's a chance it's possible for them to be "unhappy" due to lack of a group then as we're the ones choosing to shove them in a tank thousand's of miles away from home because we want to watch them we should at least make sure we give them companionship so either way they're content (as someone who shoves a lot of animals in tanks/cages for my amusement as when you strip away the fluff that is what pet keeping is end of the day). As having a group is known that it doesn't hurt them/is a negative thing. So why go with the approach of "I just want to keep two because it hasn't been proven if it negatively impacts their quality of life so it's fine unless it's been proven". I always go with the approach of if something hasn't been proven either way BUT if I make one choice at worse it doesn't make a difference and at best it's positive. And if I make the other choice at worse it's negative or at best it doesn't make a difference. I'm picking the former as it's a choice that's impossible to loose on where the later is a distinct win or loose choice. Just because something is alive and healthy doesn't mean it's quality of life is the best it can be. Obviously confining an animal to a limited space thats significantly smaller then what it experiences in the wild like all of us keepers do can be argued to be negative but at least there's a list of pros to go with the list of cons to potentially balance it out. But keeping a species known to live in groups in the wild alone or as just a few individuals doesn't have any potential pros only potential cons at best being neutral. Where giving them a decent sized group (especially something that's unlikely to kill or seriously injure eachother like small shoaling fish) only has potential pros with no potential cons and at worst is neutral. It seems very hard to justify to me at least. Will add though when I used to keep a lot more fish tanks, I only keep one for the past couple of years, whenever i had different species of corys, tetra and other small shoaling fish the smallest sized group I'd keep is 15 as I personally the usual rule of 6 is still too small if a group. The only times I kept them in smaller groups then 15 is due to not being able to get the number's though my first priority after quarantine/conditioning was to breed and successfully raise fry at least once to boost the size of the group. But I'm not going to think someone is a horrible person for only having 6 Tetra's it's just a personal view/way of doing things.
I reckon what works for you is right, too many know it all's in this hobby. I trust your experience i reckon you've been keeping fish for a really long time. Some of the fish in your main tank people would say shouldnt go together but they work for you so who is right? You have shrimp in there with clowns and a red tail, snails with a loach looks like its thriving to me though.
Corydoras-keeping doesn't end with the "keep thousands to make them "happy" ". There are many also who will go nuts because they're not on sand substrate.
I could stare at this tank for hours. Those bronze cories are absolutely adorable!
that is how I spend my hours too, they are sooooo adorable :)
@@AussieAquatic I think some pygmy corydoras would complement you set up. They are one of my favorite fish...tiny but feisty and active.
I don't think I have ever seen your nano.
Lucky and Luci seem happy.. make sense..small fish do feel safe in a larger tank and chances of breeding is higher
You won't get any hate comments like me.
Great info and job Colin especially about cloudy water
This nano tank has given me lots of happiness over many years!!
and quite a few videos too. Paid for itself many times over :)
@@AussieAquatic probably not use to seeing it in that manner.. lol but who knows..
Another Nano tank video ruclips.net/video/LQ-QpDMAw1U/видео.html
@@AussieAquatic great video..
Amazing plants with no C02
I think Lucky and Lucy must be happy because they are out and about, not hiding away waiting for night time to feed. I disagree with your fish self awareness (or lack there of). I have a tank with 10 ember tetras and 10 hengeli rasboras. They stick to their own schools
, so must be able to distinguish between species. In my big tank, the Severums only argue with other Severums, and Geos only argue with other Geos. I do agree that having greater numbers of less species in a tank looks way cooler.
Hey Gil,
I didn't do a good job in explaining myself properly (situation normal!!)
I meant in natural rivers and streams where the water is zero visibility and they absolutely cannot see each-other most of the time.
Our crystal clear aquariums are more of an exception than the norm.
Cichlids may be a tad smarter than catfish in general, but they all respond to innate behavioral triggers for territory and breeding.
I watch a few channels like Below Water and
Project Piaba that show South American fish in the wild. There too I have seen Tetras and Corys in large species specific groups in murky water. Not sure if it is 100% fact, but I was told years ago that the reason Cardinal tetras are so bright is to enable them to find each other in blackwater. As always you have not only educated and entertained Colin, you have also produced a thought provoking video as well.
I definitely think they are self-aware mate. Not sure how that is the case, perhaps pheromones or something scientific like that but I'll give you a couple of examples. First when you think of male Betta, they can be aggressive to any tankmate of course but (in a great majority of cases) when they see another male they noticeably flare and posture right? The if you keep African Cichlids you tend to over stock to spread out aggression right? But also it is noticeable that they tend to pick on other fish that are the same or very similar more than others.
My other example is schooling/shoalung fish and I'm thinking more about in rivers and seas really more than in aquariums. Many thousands of some fish of the same kind group together for safety rather than just swimming off with any fish that comes close.
With the Cory thing some can get pretty big. I've seen some almost three inches. Not sure if you can get them over there but Dwarf Cories are available. Might be worth seeing if you could find a group of those mate. 👍
"Consciousness" is a SUPER interesting topic, as it relates to invertebrates as they get smaller and smaller in size.
No doubt that they display a range of complex behaviors' triggered by specific visual, physical or chemical cues.
Tiny insects are capable of incredible intricate behaviors'.
Are these behaviors' examples of innate genetic programming without conscious thought? or are they "thinking"?
There are many examples of young animals imprinting on "parents" of different species, and animals joining and being accepted into other herds, flocks, swarms or schools.
Interbreeding between species creates hybrids, which themselves may or may not be fertile. Is interbreeding by mistake or by choice?
Genetic programming or thinking?
Super interesting topic.
@AussieAquatic true mate. The closer you look the more interesting it gets mate hey.
I would disagree with the fish not knowing the difference in species that are significantly different, though acknowledge you could make that argument with extremely similar species that can naturally hybridize in the wild.
There's plenty of videos showing them in the wild in heavily silted water still sticking with their own species and even just when you go fishing you see this too.
You do often see different species combined their shoals but when you look at them it's not 1 individual next to another individual of another species and having them widely mixed in the group.
It's groups of the same species staying together that swim closely alongside other groups of other species that creates the mixed species shoal. Only exceptions I've seen in nature at least is when a single concentration of food is found then yes it can turn into a mixed bag of different species but that's just because each individual is trying to get to the food. But they quickly reorganise once the food is gone.
It's also well documented that fish heavily make use of pheromones and various sounds (which we often can't hear for most species, I'm not just referring to the obvious ones like Croaking Gouramis) to communicate things like finding food, spotting a potential threat, hierarchy disputes etc.
Add the fact that fish also see a different range in the light spectrum then humans including into the UV spectrum. Combined with their behaviours even in heavily silted water I'd say it would be unreasonable to try and say they can't tell the difference (again acception possibly being extremely similar species that naturally interbreed).
Even if we look at species that are bred for different colours and patterns in the hobby even colours that aren't found naturally, like goldfish which naturally are a bronze/olive/brown. Haven't people questioned how dispite looking drastically different from their natural forms and from eachother they still seem to be aware of the fact that they're still the same species? It would surly be useful of senses/cues that us humans can't detect.
Like pheromones, sounds and possible light reflection off scales.
In regards to the light aspect I will say I haven't researched if/how fish specifically make use of this.
But what I will say is with other animal groups (invertebrates, Amphibians, reptiles, birds) that can see into the UV spectrum there is always a purpose. And it's usually to find food (nectar feeding insect's like bees spotted the UV reflection from flowers) or to communicate and/or spot members of their own species some taking it to more extreme levels in regards to physical adaptations and behaviours.
A quick example being a genus of lizards I kept/bred a few species of called Flat Rock Lizards (Platysaurus). The males have pretty large and smooth belly scuts/scales which for most look blue (to us). When displaying to females or asserting dominance over other males they further flatten their bodies and walk sideways exposing their bellies (it looks weird if you Google it you'll understand what I'm saying better). Turns out their bellies are highly reflective of UV light even compared to other scales on their bodies and to keep it short how much UV light that is reflected determines a males fitness/dominance.
Given the fact that fish can see into the UV spectrum and are typically covered in highly reflective scales it's reasonable to suspect that these scales reflect UV light and how fish see eachother Vs how we see them is drastically different.
The structure of scales & feathers in other species determines how the UV light is reflected/channelled. You see it in birds & reptiles where to us they look pretty uniform in colour but when you account for the wavelengths they're seeing there's distinct different colours and patterns.
Fish from murky or low light habitats are also well known to develop their eyes further to make use of every possible light wave that reaches them. I'd suspect even in silted waters even without audio or pheromonal cues they can still easily spot eachother as light reflects off their scales (though I would need to read into this to confirm this so I'm just speculating on this specific use of UV in fish).
The body shaking/shimmering we see in a lot of fish like when two males spar. If the fish are using UV reflecting off the scales then what they'll be seeing in that process is a dramatic and rapid change in the other fish's colours/appearance probably with a rippling affect, like when we see light rippling through water but more dramatic.
It's also likely in these "dance offs" they're funnelling pheromone enriched water into the others face too, similar to what we see in newt courtship, while probably screaming at eachother with clicks and croaks 😅
All in all I would completely disagree with the argument that fish are not aware of the difference in species and just see them all as another generic fish.
On a side note I would still disagree with keeping just 2 or three cory's. Sure they might be healthy but I can't keep two feral pigeons/rock doves that I allow to fly together never meeting others and they'd be healthy. But they wouldn't express the same range of behaviours as they would if part of a flock.
I'm not saying this be default would mean the pigeons are "unhappy" like how two single corys are for sure "unhappy".
But if there's a chance it's possible for them to be "unhappy" due to lack of a group then as we're the ones choosing to shove them in a tank thousand's of miles away from home because we want to watch them we should at least make sure we give them companionship so either way they're content (as someone who shoves a lot of animals in tanks/cages for my amusement as when you strip away the fluff that is what pet keeping is end of the day).
As having a group is known that it doesn't hurt them/is a negative thing.
So why go with the approach of "I just want to keep two because it hasn't been proven if it negatively impacts their quality of life so it's fine unless it's been proven".
I always go with the approach of if something hasn't been proven either way BUT if I make one choice at worse it doesn't make a difference and at best it's positive. And if I make the other choice at worse it's negative or at best it doesn't make a difference. I'm picking the former as it's a choice that's impossible to loose on where the later is a distinct win or loose choice.
Just because something is alive and healthy doesn't mean it's quality of life is the best it can be.
Obviously confining an animal to a limited space thats significantly smaller then what it experiences in the wild like all of us keepers do can be argued to be negative but at least there's a list of pros to go with the list of cons to potentially balance it out. But keeping a species known to live in groups in the wild alone or as just a few individuals doesn't have any potential pros only potential cons at best being neutral. Where giving them a decent sized group (especially something that's unlikely to kill or seriously injure eachother like small shoaling fish) only has potential pros with no potential cons and at worst is neutral.
It seems very hard to justify to me at least.
Will add though when I used to keep a lot more fish tanks, I only keep one for the past couple of years, whenever i had different species of corys, tetra and other small shoaling fish the smallest sized group I'd keep is 15 as I personally the usual rule of 6 is still too small if a group. The only times I kept them in smaller groups then 15 is due to not being able to get the number's though my first priority after quarantine/conditioning was to breed and successfully raise fry at least once to boost the size of the group.
But I'm not going to think someone is a horrible person for only having 6 Tetra's it's just a personal view/way of doing things.
Outstanding contribution to the discussion. Thankyou.
I reckon what works for you is right, too many know it all's in this hobby. I trust your experience i reckon you've been keeping fish for a really long time. Some of the fish in your main tank people would say shouldnt go together but they work for you so who is right? You have shrimp in there with clowns and a red tail, snails with a loach looks like its thriving to me though.
My Clown loaches are in a tank way too small for them too!!
Another video?
@@AussieAquatic 🤣 why not