Monia are the smallest species of water flea and the easiest to keep. Daphnia are a large variety but have some real limits when trying to raise them. They are in the shrimp family closely related to fairy shrimp, artemia, and Triops. Algae fed monia are one of the best food sources for fish & shrimp that eat live food. Even my Amanos go after them, but these prawns want little else, although the spirulina flake is taken too.
Anyone got other suggestions for things they like to eat? The references I have suggest steamed eggs & milk, sort of like steamed scrambled eggs. They didn't seem to want that.
Animal classifications, relations between invertebrates etc
Moderator: Mustafa
Re: monia
Again, they are called "MOINA", not "monia." So, please, let's try to avoid confusion by using the correct names.badflash wrote:Monia are the smallest species of water flea and the easiest to keep. Daphnia are a large variety but have some real limits when trying to raise them. They are in the shrimp family closely related to fairy shrimp, artemia, and Triops.
Also, they are not related to fairy shrimp, artemia (which are also fairy shrimp) or triops at all. They just happen to be all invertebrates just like ants or bees are invertebrates they are just about as "closely" related to fairy shrimp or triops as moina are. Always try to verify your information before presenting it as fact to avoid confusing people and proliferating wrong information.
-
badflash
- Master Shrimp Nut
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:06 pm
- Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
- Contact:
Moina
I'll accept the spelling correction Mustafa, but I'll have to take exception to the biology lesson.
Fairy shrimp, Moina and triops are all branchiopods meaning "gill foot". If you stufy their life cycle you will see how similar they are.
from From Wikipedia:
Branchiopoda is a group of primarily fresh water crustaceans, mostly resembling shrimp. A few are well-known, including Artemia (brine shrimp, called Sea-Monkeys when marketed as novelties), and Daphnia, both of which are raised as aquarium food or as interesting pets in and of themselves.
Order Anostraca (fairy shrimps)
Order Notostraca (tadpole shrimps, often called shield shrimps or dinosaur shrimps)
Order Diplostraca, including the following two suborders:
Cladocera (water fleas)
Conchostraca (clam shrimps)
Fairy shrimp, Moina and triops are all branchiopods meaning "gill foot". If you stufy their life cycle you will see how similar they are.
from From Wikipedia:
Branchiopoda is a group of primarily fresh water crustaceans, mostly resembling shrimp. A few are well-known, including Artemia (brine shrimp, called Sea-Monkeys when marketed as novelties), and Daphnia, both of which are raised as aquarium food or as interesting pets in and of themselves.
Order Anostraca (fairy shrimps)
Order Notostraca (tadpole shrimps, often called shield shrimps or dinosaur shrimps)
Order Diplostraca, including the following two suborders:
Cladocera (water fleas)
Conchostraca (clam shrimps)
I was not trying to give you a lesson, so don't take offense to it. But even if I did give a lesson, what's wrong with it? Is there anything wrong with learning new information? I am just discussing things here. If you want to learn from it or not is up to you. You should see some of the heated debates going on in some scientific circles, but nobody will take offense to corrections, especially ones that can be backed up with established information.
Before I go into what you said, let me just say that Wikipedia, as well-meant of an idea as it is, is not a very good or reliable source. Anyone can go in there and change the information provided, even people that provide wrong or misleading information (although they mean it well). For example Wikipedia's entry "Branchiopoda is a group of primarily fresh water crustaceans, mostly resembling shrimp" is just plain nonsense as the discussion below will show. That's just reality. Academic institutions are a better, authoritative source for such information. After all scientists provide that information and not "Joe Shmoe" who happens to have found Wikipedia and decides to make an entry.
Although your information is correct that they are all Branchiopoda, that does not mean that they are "closely" related. Branchiopoda is the "class" level. Then, further below, you have the different "orders" within a class. Then you have the different "families" within an order. Within a family you have the different "genera" (singular: "genus"). Then, finally, within the genera you have various species. Additionally, you can have "subclasses", "superorders", "suborders", "superfamilies", "subfamilies" etc. to further classify different animals.
So, let's analyze exactly what you said:
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/ ... ertebrata/
In the above link you see the Phylum Chordata and within it more specifically the subphylum Vertebrata. There you finally see the different "classes." So, as you can see, what you said would be the equivalent of saying that a frog (class Amphibia) would be "closely" related to an Elephant (class Mammalia). I hope this clarifies the first point.
Now to your second point, your claim that daphnia, fairy shrimp and triops are "closely" related. They are all in the same class, Branchiopoda, but in totally different orders! To use the example of more familiar animals again, look at the following link that shows you the different orders within the class mammalia:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... l#Mammalia
So, saying that Daphnia, fairy shrimp and triops are closely related is like saying that a horse (order Perissodactyla), a baboon (order Primates) and a sea cow or manatee (order Sirenia) are closely related.
To show you that even within the *same* order animals would not necessarily be considered "closely related" I'll give you another example:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... #Carnivora
The above link leads you to the order "Carnivora". Within that order is the family Felidae and the family Odobenidae. So, to say that a Lion and a Walrus are "closely related" would, again, seem nonsensical.
So, although I used a hyperbole to make this point clear earlier (by using bees and ants as an example) you see that the hyperbole was not far off. Considering animals in different orders or even different classes "closely related" is anything else but correct. It's just that most people are not familiar with these tiny animals and more easily accept the claim that they are closely related than a claim that a frog and and elephant are closely related, which would seem outragously wrong to most.
I hope this clarifies things once and for all. I tried avoiding going into such detail as this information can be looked up by anyone, but apparently an explanation this detailed was required to set things straight. And that's what it's all about, presenting the correct information backed up by as much scientific evidence as possible.
Before I go into what you said, let me just say that Wikipedia, as well-meant of an idea as it is, is not a very good or reliable source. Anyone can go in there and change the information provided, even people that provide wrong or misleading information (although they mean it well). For example Wikipedia's entry "Branchiopoda is a group of primarily fresh water crustaceans, mostly resembling shrimp" is just plain nonsense as the discussion below will show. That's just reality. Academic institutions are a better, authoritative source for such information. After all scientists provide that information and not "Joe Shmoe" who happens to have found Wikipedia and decides to make an entry.
Although your information is correct that they are all Branchiopoda, that does not mean that they are "closely" related. Branchiopoda is the "class" level. Then, further below, you have the different "orders" within a class. Then you have the different "families" within an order. Within a family you have the different "genera" (singular: "genus"). Then, finally, within the genera you have various species. Additionally, you can have "subclasses", "superorders", "suborders", "superfamilies", "subfamilies" etc. to further classify different animals.
So, let's analyze exactly what you said:
You are saying that they are in the "shrimp" family. There is no such thing as a "shrimp" family. They are Branchiopoda, which is a "class." The "shrimp" we are talking about on this website and keeping in our tanks are in the class "Malacostraca". So, they are in a totally different class! To make clear to you how "closely" related let's say a Red Cherry Shrimp (class malacostraca) to a water flea (class branchiopoda) is I will show you classes of more familiar animals. Maybe then it will become clear that these animals cannot be considered "closely related" at all:badflash wrote:Monia are the smallest species of water flea and the easiest to keep. Daphnia are a large variety but have some real limits when trying to raise them. They are in the shrimp family closely related to fairy shrimp, artemia, and Triops.
http://www.sidwell.edu/us/science/vlb5/ ... ertebrata/
In the above link you see the Phylum Chordata and within it more specifically the subphylum Vertebrata. There you finally see the different "classes." So, as you can see, what you said would be the equivalent of saying that a frog (class Amphibia) would be "closely" related to an Elephant (class Mammalia). I hope this clarifies the first point.
Now to your second point, your claim that daphnia, fairy shrimp and triops are "closely" related. They are all in the same class, Branchiopoda, but in totally different orders! To use the example of more familiar animals again, look at the following link that shows you the different orders within the class mammalia:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... l#Mammalia
So, saying that Daphnia, fairy shrimp and triops are closely related is like saying that a horse (order Perissodactyla), a baboon (order Primates) and a sea cow or manatee (order Sirenia) are closely related.
To show you that even within the *same* order animals would not necessarily be considered "closely related" I'll give you another example:
http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/s ... #Carnivora
The above link leads you to the order "Carnivora". Within that order is the family Felidae and the family Odobenidae. So, to say that a Lion and a Walrus are "closely related" would, again, seem nonsensical.
So, although I used a hyperbole to make this point clear earlier (by using bees and ants as an example) you see that the hyperbole was not far off. Considering animals in different orders or even different classes "closely related" is anything else but correct. It's just that most people are not familiar with these tiny animals and more easily accept the claim that they are closely related than a claim that a frog and and elephant are closely related, which would seem outragously wrong to most.
I hope this clarifies things once and for all. I tried avoiding going into such detail as this information can be looked up by anyone, but apparently an explanation this detailed was required to set things straight. And that's what it's all about, presenting the correct information backed up by as much scientific evidence as possible.
-
badflash
- Master Shrimp Nut
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:06 pm
- Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
- Contact:
shrimp shmimp
I didn't take offence.
From the effort you put into this post I think you may have taken offence. If so it was not intended.
I do not take exception with your discussion. The use of Wikipedia was just for a quick copy & paste of info. That information is accurate and I have verified it.
What the heck is a shrimp anyway and who defines it? Shrimp covers a huge classification of animals. After all, they are called brine shrimp, tadpole shrimp, fairy shrimp. Why is saying something called a shrimp "resembles a shrimp" is just plain non-sense?
As to the closeness of the relationship, yes, I do see your point. It is just that these animals share so much commonality. I would say most mamals as being closely related, but of course they do not have the same genus, which is what you seem to be using as closely related. These animals (the Branchiopods) all share a very similar life cycle and are worth learning about. The eggs of fresh water fairy shrimp, triops, moina, daphnia and brine shrimp are all very similar in that they all have eggs that enter diapause, so they can hatch quickly after the pond dries up & gets wet again. The hatchlings look very much the same.
So OK, I run up the white flag. My science is bad here.
From the effort you put into this post I think you may have taken offence. If so it was not intended.
I do not take exception with your discussion. The use of Wikipedia was just for a quick copy & paste of info. That information is accurate and I have verified it.
What the heck is a shrimp anyway and who defines it? Shrimp covers a huge classification of animals. After all, they are called brine shrimp, tadpole shrimp, fairy shrimp. Why is saying something called a shrimp "resembles a shrimp" is just plain non-sense?
As to the closeness of the relationship, yes, I do see your point. It is just that these animals share so much commonality. I would say most mamals as being closely related, but of course they do not have the same genus, which is what you seem to be using as closely related. These animals (the Branchiopods) all share a very similar life cycle and are worth learning about. The eggs of fresh water fairy shrimp, triops, moina, daphnia and brine shrimp are all very similar in that they all have eggs that enter diapause, so they can hatch quickly after the pond dries up & gets wet again. The hatchlings look very much the same.
So OK, I run up the white flag. My science is bad here.
I don't get why Badflash is getting taxonomy beat into him when this is obviously a hobbyist discussion board. This groups' discussions are riddled with strange acronyms, lay-terms, common names and un-italicized and misspelled Genus/species names anyway, if you want to be technically and scientifically accurate. But, they convey information adequately, so I don't think it matters.
BTW, I hold several degrees in marine biology, have published scientific literature and have taught college level biology. I can certainly appreciate being scientifically accurate, but being pedantic about it on a hobbyist discussion board seems a bit much.
BTW, I hold several degrees in marine biology, have published scientific literature and have taught college level biology. I can certainly appreciate being scientifically accurate, but being pedantic about it on a hobbyist discussion board seems a bit much.
Nothing is getting beaten into anyone. Things are explained. Hobbyist or not, we want to discuss correct information here and proceed as scientifically as possible. I realize that hobbyists are not scientist, but everyone can use the scientific method. Part of the method is that you use reliable sources for your claims. Another part of the method is that you need to present claims that can be replicated by others ("peer review"). So, for example, if you claim you are breeding Amano shrimp in freshwater, you need to present all the details of how you are doing it so others can try to replicate it. If nobody can replicate what you are doing, then your claim is thrown out of the window. Same with claims about relations between animals. You need to provide authoritative sources if you try to present something as fact. Otherwise, you can always add that you "think" or you "believe" that something "might be" the case but you are "unsure." That is fine and you have just put up your own hypothesis, which would still need to be proven or disproven.
By the way, being a hobbyist does not mean that you have to be sloppy about scientific names, the scientific method or just logical thinking when it comes to keeping and breeding these animals. You do not need a PhD to be able to think logically and do some research in the right sources.
The reason I am so adament about presenting correct information is because I am trying to keep the level of this website and the forum high. I don't want this forum to degenerate into a place where people just throw around with unverified claims, use wrong information and just work with hearsay data. There are enough discussion forums that are like that already. Nobody is forcing people to be on this forum, so if anyone does not like the fact that I am trying to keep things as accurate and scientific as possible in a hobby, then they can always decide not to participate.
By the way, being a hobbyist does not mean that you have to be sloppy about scientific names, the scientific method or just logical thinking when it comes to keeping and breeding these animals. You do not need a PhD to be able to think logically and do some research in the right sources.
The reason I am so adament about presenting correct information is because I am trying to keep the level of this website and the forum high. I don't want this forum to degenerate into a place where people just throw around with unverified claims, use wrong information and just work with hearsay data. There are enough discussion forums that are like that already. Nobody is forcing people to be on this forum, so if anyone does not like the fact that I am trying to keep things as accurate and scientific as possible in a hobby, then they can always decide not to participate.
Last edited by Mustafa on Mon Dec 12, 2005 9:49 am, edited 3 times in total.
Re: shrimp shmimp
Good, because none was intended.badflash wrote:I didn't take offence.
Nope. I don't easily take offense to anything. I'm just doing my job as the forum administrator and website owner making sure that the information presented in this forum and website is as accurate as possible.From the effort you put into this post I think you may have taken offence. If so it was not intended.
The general public defines words in any language. When you say "shrimp" to someone you meet on the street, that person will think of a decapod crustacean that we eat at home or in restaurants. In other words, the stereotypical shrimp body and shape that all of the shrimp we are keeping have. Here is a link to a definition of shrimp:What the heck is a shrimp anyway and who defines it?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/shrimp
The most commonly used meaning always comes first and that's exactly what I said it would be above, a decapod crustacean like the Red Cherry shrimp for example.
It's nonsense because the person who made that entry in Wikipedia very obviously meant to compare a certain group (Branchiopods) unrelated to what we commonly call "shrimp" (=decapod crustaceans) to a group of animals that most everyone in the general public knows (i.e. decapod crustaceans). That's very obvious.Shrimp covers a huge classification of animals. After all, they are called brine shrimp, tadpole shrimp, fairy shrimp. Why is saying something called a shrimp "resembles a shrimp" is just plain non-sense?
In any case, I am glad that we clarified things here and this should really end further discussion about this topic as it is becoming quite off-topic.
On the contrary...I hope to see more discussions here related to shrimp taxonomy. It has become a dynamic area of study with the advent of DNA sequencing.
I happen to very much appreciate the vision of this group to remain more accurate scientifically. I just hate to see anyone feel like they are getting a "biology lesson"...might drive them away?
I happen to very much appreciate the vision of this group to remain more accurate scientifically. I just hate to see anyone feel like they are getting a "biology lesson"...might drive them away?
i'm new and in my first visit here i appreciate the fact that the forum is trying to present accurate information
if mustafa has the stamina and willingness to keep things as accurate as he can then this wil be a very useful resource for all those interested in shrimp(hope i used the word right
)
i have only been visitnig aquatic forum in the last 2 yr's and got so irate at some of the general misinfrmation on many large boards that i will support any attempt to keep things accurate
oh and i apologies in advance for my poor grammar and spelling
andrew
if mustafa has the stamina and willingness to keep things as accurate as he can then this wil be a very useful resource for all those interested in shrimp(hope i used the word right
)i have only been visitnig aquatic forum in the last 2 yr's and got so irate at some of the general misinfrmation on many large boards that i will support any attempt to keep things accurate
oh and i apologies in advance for my poor grammar and spelling
andrew
-
badflash
- Master Shrimp Nut
- Posts: 2542
- Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2005 1:06 pm
- Location: Wappingers Falls, NY
- Contact:
If you are going to post something, you need to be prepared for discussion. I have no problem with being corrected as long as I'm wrong. Mustafa has pointed out numerous places that I erred. We've all stayed at a pretty high level here and this did not degrade to a flame war. I've been involved in forums where the moderator did not moderate and that gets pretty ugly and people get their feeling hurt. Mustafa, you do a good job.
Lets also understand that animal classification is undergoing violent revolution due to being able to check the DNA and classification by how something looks is soon to be a thing of the past and animals once thought to be distantly related are found not to be.
In the case of the term "shrimp" I think your focus is too narrow, Mustafa. In the context of your forum, you have every right to determine what sort of shrimp you wish to discuss in this forum, but the argument that because the man on the street thinks that what he eats is shrimp doesn't hold water. Most of those people have never seen a live shrimp and would never eat another if they did. Heck, most don't even know where the ocean is.
Now why is your web based dictionary any more of an authority than Wikipedia? In my opinion, that is a incomplete set of definitions.
How about this one from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shrimp and pick the noun.
1 : any of numerous mostly small and marine decapod crustaceans (suborders Dendrobranchiata and Pleocyemata) having a slender elongated body, a compressed abdomen, and a long spiny rostrum; also : a small crustacean (as an amphipod or a branchiopod) resembling the true shrimps.
My point being that fair is fair. Shrimp is not a scientific word. You can argue about what "resembling" means, but these critters didn't get to be called something-shrimp by resembling cats or dogs.
If you want to limit the forum to decapod crustaceans I'm OK with that. I got to your shrimp via my shrimp. I started raising triops (Shield Shrimp) and started raising moina to feed them and was astonished to find they are both branchiopods as was the fairy shrimp and clam shrimp that hatch with them. To me they are all shrimp. I started raising your type of shrimp because my type wouldn't eat the algea. Now I'm hooked on both, and snails too.
Go figure.
Lets also understand that animal classification is undergoing violent revolution due to being able to check the DNA and classification by how something looks is soon to be a thing of the past and animals once thought to be distantly related are found not to be.
In the case of the term "shrimp" I think your focus is too narrow, Mustafa. In the context of your forum, you have every right to determine what sort of shrimp you wish to discuss in this forum, but the argument that because the man on the street thinks that what he eats is shrimp doesn't hold water. Most of those people have never seen a live shrimp and would never eat another if they did. Heck, most don't even know where the ocean is.
Now why is your web based dictionary any more of an authority than Wikipedia? In my opinion, that is a incomplete set of definitions.
How about this one from http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/shrimp and pick the noun.
1 : any of numerous mostly small and marine decapod crustaceans (suborders Dendrobranchiata and Pleocyemata) having a slender elongated body, a compressed abdomen, and a long spiny rostrum; also : a small crustacean (as an amphipod or a branchiopod) resembling the true shrimps.
My point being that fair is fair. Shrimp is not a scientific word. You can argue about what "resembling" means, but these critters didn't get to be called something-shrimp by resembling cats or dogs.
If you want to limit the forum to decapod crustaceans I'm OK with that. I got to your shrimp via my shrimp. I started raising triops (Shield Shrimp) and started raising moina to feed them and was astonished to find they are both branchiopods as was the fairy shrimp and clam shrimp that hatch with them. To me they are all shrimp. I started raising your type of shrimp because my type wouldn't eat the algea. Now I'm hooked on both, and snails too.
Go figure.