FishProfiles.com Message Forums

I saw a longevity record for a captive Periophthalmus barbarus being 2 years two months, which frankly is pathetic for an animal of that size : ref Altman, P.L. and D.S. Dittmer, eds. Growth, Including Reproduction and Morphological Development. Biological Handbooks. Washington, D. C.: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

However field studies have shown through studies of dentition that wild specimens commonly reach 4 years up to a potential of 7 years maximum . True maturity isnt even reached until after 2 years although they can breed at one year.

ref - "Age and Growth of the Mudskipper Boleophthalmus pectinirostris Distributed

in the Mud Flat of the Midori River, Kumamoto Prefecture."

By Masato Washio, Minoru Tsutsui and Toru Takita

But then it depends on the species I guess



Last edited by longhairedgit at 11-Nov-2005 23:37

OK theres a serious question or two. (btw cupof lifenoodles i think we actually had a meeting of minds there- and yes the angel died of long term bladder failure,on autopsy this proved to be a birth defect that got steadily worse as the animal aged, its two sisters are still very much alive. And I meant motheaten , surly and maltreated LOOKING , not actually maltreated. There is often a difference between the human perception of what is healthy and what actually indicates health. To remain plump is generally not good for any species long term, nearly all species throughout the world experience lean times, and not to get them generally means accumulative fatty deposits in the liver and other organs and usually associated sicknesses. )



On the vitamin front - the fishvitamins have the same problems as you get with reptile vitamins.

1) The dosages for all species would not be the same, there would be variations in the neccesary doses according to age, species , gender,size, weight , activity and condition. Since none of these factors can as yet be linked to any ideal level of supplementation in mudskipper species specifically ( and probably not in most other fish species either)I think if I used them I would do so only extremely sparingly and see how things got on. Vitamin supplementation is a massive part of what makes reptile keeping really challenging, and as many people overdo it as dont do it , there are fatalities either way. We are fortunate that fish largely do not need quite so much vitamin support as reptiles do, so we can afford to do it occasionally and not religiously.If the food you give your fish is well gut loaded, there may actually be no need for vitamin supplementation whatsoever, especially when you consider a component part of their diet (the commercial stuff) will already have vitamins added. I have seen some breakdowns of the gut contents of mudskippers, and a lot of them do seem to have mangrove snails in the gut contents, which is interesting, because Ive never seen a keepers guide that recommends snails.Im also wondering to what degree the provision of live insect food is as important as say diatomic algae and trace elements and other microorganisms from estuarine muds and mangrove sands- depends on the species I guess.I might spend a few hours seeing if I can find any reports of breakdowns of organic compounds and minerals in muds now..

2) You have to consider the total dosage especially if you use commercial foods that already contain vitamin supplements and additives.

On the fruitflies - they certainly have been used with amphibians successfully, and these fish certainly do have some slighly amphibian characteristics to them, but being brackish and estuarine fish mudskippers will mostly be feeding on things like sandflies, various small tubeworms and possibly even salt loving butterflies and moths. From that point of view im almost certain that mudskippers would accept them if they can catch them, but I dont know to what degree they would actually find them nutritious. The fructose contained in the stomach of a well fed fruitfly may not suit a fish more used to eating scavenging and nectar feeding species. Hard to know that one.On thing I do know is that it would take a hell of a lot of fruitflies to feed an adult skipper,
Feeding them live brineshrimp would seem to be logical to me.Crickets in particular can be fed on almost anything, so using them as a primary source of insect fare would seem logical.Given that small prawns and shrimp usually contain good loads of vitamins, perhaps tiny live shrimp could make a good part of the diet. Skippers certainly have the jaw power to cope with them, and what else would you use for a scavenger in a brackish tank? Handy

On the live fish feeds- well since so little is known about medicine and parasitation in mudskippers I would be tempted to find feeder fish that come from the same locales as the mudskippers themselves. While their skin membranes and mucous layers will be tough from their terrestrial escapades there may also be some serious potential for that mucous layer to be severely damaged by infection and since the skipper depends on it so much , any infection in that regard could be life threatening. On a nutrition issue though, im sure any small non-toxic fish would be fine, I doubt the skippers are that choosy.


On the lid issue- I think in a tank that is primarily water anyway there will be no worries about humidity, indeed dryer areas seem to required anyway, so either a mesh or usual tanklid will probably be fine, the major prerequisite is that it cannot easily be dislodged. This is a fish that likes to go walkies . My personal preference on a substrate for skippers would be a sandy one that has water running through it, but if you had a truly terrestrial area that had the potential to become positively arid a mister might be a good idea , just in case a skipper got confused or trapped in the dry area, preventing it from dehydrating and giving you time to rescue it. If you wanted to go cheapo on the subject, i'm sure lots of bogwood projecting above the water surface would probably be the easiest and safest way.



If you fancy some very dry reading indeed here some stuff on mangrove soils etc..



Last edited by longhairedgit at 14-Nov-2005 20:23http://wwwscience.murdoch.edu.au/centres/others/mangrove/sea_level.html


random mudskipper stuff.


Last edited by longhairedgit at 14-Nov-2005 20:34http://jme.endocrinology-journals.org/cgi/content/abstract/34/3/825

http://jeb.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/207/23/4037

http://www.aquariacentral.com/faqs/brackish/FAQ5.shtml#5c

Hers a nice lil site with species and keeping info on it I just found.
Last edited by longhairedgit at 14-Nov-2005 20:41http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/mud.htm





Last edited by longhairedgit at 14-Nov-2005 21:27

You now are required to define "adequately housed" I have a feeling our definitions would vary greatly, with yours being far more luxurious and closer to a natural habitat.

There was a query about longer lifespan. IME, the key to a long life is controlled starvation and decent nutrition. It sounds harsh, but its the most natural thing you can do. Tell most people this and they'd have you reported to the RSPCA. Most fishkeepers muck up the fishy metabolism by too regular feeding and high protien feeds. It throws the fish into overdrive and they simply cannot keep that up for decades.

I think what needs to be realised is that there is nothing at all natural about fishkeeping or the keeping of any animal in captivity.

Certainly basic biological requirements being met are an absolute must, but that is about as far as we can realistically go while still being the sole provider of food and enclosing things in glass boxes.


And on that note, in order to get the best out of the mudskippers that a lot of people are going to keep with or without assisitance or approval, what is the optimum feeding regime for these creatures in captivity?

There is something called Fishtamins, would this be better than the reptile vitamins?

Are wingless fruit flies a good option? microfoods perhaps? Microworms? daphnia? waterbugs?

What sort of lighting arrangement? heated water or heated beach or neither?

Are small fish a good meal? molly fry?

would mesh lids provide a better condition than glass lids? Do they require high humidity? A mistmaker overkill?



Last edited by Callatya at 13-Nov-2005 22:12

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

I dunno, last I checked, most neons do not live far past five or so years in the home aquaria while large wild fish are often aged at 8ish years of age. I have also heard that the oldest recorded aquarium raised p. innesi reached 11 years of age, but that is debatable. Likewise, wild angels have been recorded at 15 years of age (according to Gan’s, and they've been chugging out angels for god knows how long) and it’s not uncommon for them to reach over 12 in the aquahobby. Many species of ornamental fish, especially those of riverine Asia and South America are highly migratory, and necessitate the area by which to travel into deeper waters, wherein other issues such as water chemistry, change in diet (not necessarily variety, but a complete change in levels of say, protein), and thermoclinic temperatures play a pivotal role in their respective longevities. At least in regards to loricariids, studies have shown morphological changes in said family with the oncoming wet season rains. Specifically, panaque species of the “dentex” group have been observed to alter their digestive capabilities in order to take advantage of booming larvae populations during certain seasons of the year. Likewise, other heavily migratory catfishes including but not limited to pangasiids, sisorids, and several bagrids have been noted to actually REQUIRE these seasonal changes to (among them is the infamous gagata) induce longevity. I suppose the general argument in my POV is not to steer clear of fish that cannot adequately be housed, but rather, most fish CANNOT be adequately housed.

A surly and maltreated animal, I guarantee you, is not better off. Given a good aquarist with proper care, any and all fish will fatten up and look their best. Of course, overfeeding is without a doubt detrimental, but a well conditioned fish is one that will live a long and fruitful life. Case in point: I have two hypancistrus “king tiger” that are aged at about a good 11 months under my care and 5 years with the previous owner (or so he states), of course, being wild caught, I would think to add on another one year at the very least. They have been on a relatively steady breeding regime for quite some time and the males are full of odontodes and all have noticeable girth. However, recently I added another wild caught male fresh caught from the RX. Comparing it to my older stock, it even more plump and ripe with interopercular spines—a beautiful fish if I had ever seen one. Even with the pampering of my fish, its wild caught brethren were in just as excellent of a condition as it. Thus, I assume it’s safe to say that a pampered and well kept fish is by no means at an existential disadvantage.

And as for the mysterious loricariid death, considering the overall health of the tank, the fact that the animal in question died bearing a well fed belly, non-sunken eyes, and spent its days in a UV “filtered” tank to boot, I would assume that the cause of death was not anything horribly macabre. Aged at around ten years old (give or take-it was around 6” when we received it, or about the size of my forearm), it lived a decent life. Given that the discus in the tank were fine, I see no reason to assume that it was anything more than an old, hackneyed organ failing to function. It is true that said fish would have been forestalled this early death had I kept it in a 300 gallon tank in flowing, cooler water with sufficient awfuchs to graze off of, but it isn’t feasible on my budget, thus I can accept that I killed the fish by not providing the best of conditions, and yes, I feel rather guilty on that note, but I can rest somewhat happier knowing that I did all that was within my ability to provide it with a good abode.
Likewise, your angelfish did not pass away as the result of “old age”, but of some malady that is indirectly linked to you, for, in perfectly ideal conditions, said fish could sustain longer than 11 years. On another note, I really have no access to laboratory facilities at this current time in my life, thus, I find it quite impractical to get a full scientific briefing on a fish corpse when all empirical evidence states that there was no bacterial infestation or highly lacking fishkeeping capabilities involved, and I’ll keep it that way. Of course, I would not believe that every fish that had passed away under your supervision was transferred to the lab. I do however agree that fish perish due to inadequacies of fishkeepers (I suppose, retracting my previous statement), but these insufficiencies cannot be helped for they live shorter lives in captivity simply BECAUSE we cannot provide adequate care for these animals in the confines of glass panes.

Back to mudskippers though, I should imagine after some time (years decades etc) that they would become more accustomed to captivity and captive diets, as well as the keepers becoming more knowledgeable about dietary needs and suitable captive enviroments.

If fishkeepers had left well enough alone, we'd have nowhere near the amount of (comparitively) easy-to-keep species available to us today.

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

Well theres neon tetras for one, the average wild age is usually no more than four or 5 (thats if you ignore the 98% death of fry due to predation, then there are those aquarists that have kept them alive 15 years or so, an age that is almost impossible to reach in the wild for such a small and vulnerable fish. For my part I have 3 boesmans rainbows that are 9 years old, the average in the wild being 5-7 years and an angel that died only recently aged 11. The size of tanks pretty much makes no biological difference to longevity as long as the species has the space it needs, and the water conditions are correct, and youve gone to great lengths to maintain decent diet variety.That a fish is bored stupid in the confines of a tank doesnt neccesarily mean its either subject to stress or will live less long. It is possible that a fish unable to "stretch its legs" will become unfit and that of course would affect its longevity. The solution is really to get some large tanks for small fish, which is something I have always done.You can be bored and still live a hell of a long time. Often seasonal fluxes in water quality and temperature can be simulated, and sometimes omitting them can actually increase longevity. Males in particular that are denied environmental stimulation to breed will often survive longer because they avoid the stresses of male combat etc. The vast majority of aquarium fish sold are small, and thusly have a much greater chance (given proper care)of exceeding wild longevities, what we should be avoiding is the less adaptive species (such as mudskippers), for whom captive life cannot provide everything they need.There should be no confusion between the species that are sold and have been kept successfully for good ages and those fish likely to suffer from imperfect housing like many cichlids, sharks etc. The problem therein lies with the choosing of species for whom adequete housing cannot easily be provided. I think wiser and more humane keepers steer away from such fish.

That fish are killed prematurely in their millions by keepers who underestimate the task at hand and therefore suck, is no indication of fish longevity. Some fish species CANNOT be adequetely maintained in aquaria, but I dont think this tallies up with the majority of fish that are sold. Most can be kept for a hell of a long time without problems, and if those problems are handled correctly and quickly enough theres no reason the fish shouldnt live to a thoroughly decrepit old age.

I will concede the point that diet variety is a huge issue in fishkeeping, but you can manage with plenty of thought, and resourcefulness to provide a good varied diet with all the primary vitamins , minerals , amino acids, fibre and protiens required. If someone keeps a fish they cannot provide a decent long term diet for , its obviously the height of irresponsibilty.The reason any fish die in captivity is not the factor of captivity itself , but the people who manage that captivity being irresponsible , ignorant , and unresponsive. If a fish needs a 1000 gallon instead of a 10 or course its gonna die. But then thats not what i'd call responsible keeping.

This has parallels in other fields of animal keeping too. Oldest big cats, primates, and notably the longest lived reptile ever ( a tortoise of course) were all kept in captivity.

Choose your species well,( obviously this does not include huge species, violently territorial species , or specialist feeders, or species from water qualities impossible to replicate) house them and feed them properly , indulge their habits and behaviours, manage your disease protocols well and theres no reason they shouldnt live well past wild averages.

That most fish dont live past them currently is a damning statement of your average fishkeeper, nothing more.
Half the people on this site fail to have pathology done in the event of a disease outbreak, most have no in-depth knowledge of medications, mix species from all over the world in the same tankwater, and have only a few sources of food to feed their fish with. A lot have small , hard to manage for water quality tanks, and filtration that isnt up to the job,most buy there animals from stockists and importers who will at some stage have exposed their fish to inappropriate conditions. Breeders cannot and do not imitate natural selection in the breeding process.That pretty much covers about 99.99% of the reasons fish die prematurely in aquariums. That is why they and millions of others like them fail. This however, is not a basis for saying that all fish die prematurly in aquaria. A few of us are the exception to the rule. Everytime Ive had a fish die prematurely I try to find the explanation, and that is why in perhaps all but two fish deaths ive experienced I knew I was directly at fault. There is always a risk that needs minimising, a practise that needs to be changed or something I missed that would have contributed something useful to the situation. We kill our fish, not captivity itself.Its usually because we vastly underestimate what captivity needs to be, how the bar on the ideal of captive care needs to be raised that causes the problem.

When ive got it right, they live on and on, when Ive messed up they dont. And thats universal.

Thats kind of why a lot of experienced scientists and zookeepers the world over listen to idealistic youngsters with their new views on animal care with only half an ear open, because they know about long term keeping protocols , which is something the fish business, self styled experts, and even the more gifted amateurs are not at their stage of life and experience yet privy to.

Ive seen it in all fields, from mammals, through reptiles and now fish. Theres those people with chubby shiny animals in show condition, who are convinced that their animal will live forever, who are gutted when the animal drops dead, and cant quite explain why, and then theres that experienced keeper who will have that lean looking , slightly moth-eaten animal that is still there 20 years later, breeding and looking surly and maltreated as ever. Just like they do in the wild.


These people know, as I do that its people that kill animals, not captivity. Captivity robs them of mental health, the freedom to express themselves , and that in itself is a morality thats worth exploring over and over, but does it mean that animals will always live shorter lives in captivity? I think not.Just sometimes and with some species.Besides there are things you can do to minimise that suffering.Again , that is our failure, but that does not mean it cant be done, and often is done.


On your fish's count. Do you know what it died of? Did you have a liver kidney and heart biopsy done, did you have a complete mineral spectography and blood spectography done?
Point is, old age never kills,only organ failure and disease, or violent or accident related deaths. Until you know the cause you cannot know its old age except in very few short lived seasonal species. By most aquarists standards 8 years or so isnt a bad time, but you cant assume its old age.Unless the particular loach you had belonged to a family group with a particular history of regionally short longevities to be honest you dont know why the hell it died.

Im not saying its your failure, as I said its not a bad amount of time by most aquarists standards, but thats the point. Its our standards collectively that are lacking. Factors like monetary profiteering in medicine, current availability of products etc and the limits of technology mean that there are illnesses and dietary deficiencies that are not being met and countered.As an individual you didnt suck, but as a collective society that keeps animals , we sucked bigtime. But this is not the destiny of all fish, some just keep on going and going. Sometimes its luck, but its not always because of captivity. Some wild fish have some pretty damn bad luck too, and they get no medical assistance.

Im not having a go at you personally but I do have a problem with the statement that ALL fish have shorter longevities in captivity for two reasons. Not only do I know it blatently not to be true, having known people who have beaten the current odds including myself, but I also think it can be used as a conveinient excuse for people who are less diligent with their fish than ourselves. How many people will just think " its just age there was nothing I could have done" when in actual fact there may have been many things they could have done to prevent a premature death.Given the status of the hobby worldwide I would consider it essential that as many captive deaths are looked into as possible."All fish living shorter lifespans in captivity" is just too damn conveinient, too damn easy, and it doesnt take us anywhere that will improve things.



Last edited by longhairedgit at 13-Nov-2005 17:50

All right; I’ll present to you a challenge—give me one species, just ONE that has been known by aquarists to regularly exceed their projected wild life expectancies in the home aquarium, that is, of course, under the care of well seasoned veterans of the trade, and I will desist (this includes your quoted fish—do list your respective species, their ages, scientific reports regarding average age upon death, source included; of course, assuming many of your fish are wild caught I doubt that aging them will be an exact science). It is not possible to replicate the natural biotypical atmospheres found in said natural environments. Sure, certain animals may live unusually long “in tank”, but it is unusual to say the least, that the vast majority of captive fish would outlive their wild analogues. Natural nutrient cycling, varied nutrition, seasonal triggers (especially with regard to barometrics), photoperiod induced issues, temperature gradients, and most importantly sheer area are impossible to replicate in a glass box, regardless of size. Even in fish not e to heavy predation, such as the run-of-the-mill public aquarium sharks just don’t cut it in human environments. If even publicly run facilities utilizing literally million dollar equipment can’t handle these animals, I no longer think aquarist adequacy is a valid argument. Many species just don't take well to captivity. It cannot be helped.


EDIT: Just a personal example, my family has kept a large, maybe 16" p. punctatus that lived to be 8 years with us, though, according to HHN, to live over 14 ITW, and I assure you, I am a far cry from a "sucky" aquarist.


Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 12-Nov-2005 03:06

Now that I cant buy, simply taking the fish out of the cycle of predation increases longevity because the fish will linger on longer in a partially debilitated condition than it would were it wild.

Generally I think youll find the reason that SOME fish live shorter lives is basically down to keepers that suck and dont replicate conditions of the biotope well enough. That and some accidents, and possibly even limited genepools from which to breed fish multigenerationally.

That keeping fish captive shortens their longevity per se as a general rule is something I will not accept, all it proves to me is that we are not meeting the captive requirements well enough and should strive to do better.

That is precisely why I have elected not to keep mudskippers until more research is done , especially as regards their dietary needs. I would not willingly keep any animal that I thought would not enjoy a reasonable longevity, and in most cases I would expect to exceed natural averages. I certainly have fish that are already older than natural averages , and have been exceeding such standards with reptiles for many more years.

That your average fishkeeper borders on complete incompetance, and that some breeders selectively breed their fish into genetic oblivion does not mean all fish dont live as long in captivity.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 12-Nov-2005 01:37

How old exactly was the fish in question prior to capture? I ighly doubt said scientists would have harvested 'skipper eggs.

Note also that being kept in home aquaria will shorten the lifespans of ALL fish.

I posted this originally in general brackish but it doesn't seem like a whole lot goes on there. I have decided to get a couple/few mudskippers. I've done quite a bit of research and I think that I'm ready to set up a tank. I have two options - a 30G long or a 55G. I was kind of hoping to use the 30 - but it will really depend on what types of mudskippers are available in my area. Anyways I was hoping that there were some people here that have kept mudskippers and could give me some advice or show me some pics of their tank set up. Also - from experience, what are the most common mudskippers found at the LFS?

THANKS!!

Not all 'skippers are sifters, IIRC. Furthermore, just a heads up--all gobies are relatively short lived, most species not exceeding 5-6 years of life. I have no personal experience with mudskippers, but I would expect them to stay around this general vicinity of longievity.

1) Reptile vitamin dust (like reptavite for example) for fish supplementation- ok having 50 reptiles myself , I have used it, and combined with decent uv it can often correct bone deformities in fish much as it does in reptiles, but long term it wouldnt be suitable, since some have d3 levels that are excessive for fish, and too much calcium supplementation would mean mineralisation of some of the internal organs, and most likely a slight case of death might be the result. Fish dont need to produce anything like the amount of keratin for scales or bone growth that reptiles do.

What id probably do is feed the insects on a good diet 24-48 hours prior to feeding them to the fish rather than dusting them. Feed the crickets and mealworms with purpose bought diets or with oranges and squashes, cabbages and so on. You should really be doing this for your reptiles health anyway. For fish no other supplementation should be required. Dusting will probably just pollute the water anyway, at the very least causing ph changes. A nice trick is too feed crickets on fish flake a few hours before a feeding, that way you know the fish will be ingesting vitamin balanced fish food. Generally fish food will expand in the gut of crickets and kill them in a day or two , so make sure you give it to them only immediately prior to feeding the fish.

On the sand sifters- they mostly feed on brown diatomic algae, which in a healthy tank is a rare thing. You could try to set up a spare tank, and put surfaces in it like small sheets of glass , perspex or rocks like slate and put it through constant cycling to produce the brown algae, then pop them into your mudskipper tank for them to skim, failing that you could provide some ballistic lighting over the sand area and hope to produce some, but youd probably need lousy water quality for it to happen.Might be worth a go, theres some pioneering to be done there

2) For substrates for mudskippers, fine coral sand is a common choice.

3) Making a paludaria for them- one nice trick is to build a perspex shelf section at one end, almost like a shallow box, all silicone sealed into place.Make sure it has an "up ramp" or bogwood leading very obviously onto it so the skippers can move freely between the areas. Fill this box or tray with appropriate sand or heavy mud, and have the filter pass water through it to keep it nice and fresh. If the watercomes out of it via the off ramp this is fine, a skipper will use wet adhesion to go up the ramp anyway and will not be impeded.


a link about growing mangrove-
http://www.advancedaquarist.com/issues/apr2002/feature.htm

heres a link to a rubbish diagram wot I did meself
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a245/longhairedgit/MUDSKIPPERPALUDARIUM.jpg

As for the brackish species of plants, some plants can tolerate salt in the water for extended periods of time, although you couldnt consider them truly brackish. Heres a few.
http://tinyurl.com/de29j



EDIT: shortened URL

Last edited by Callatya at 13-Nov-2005 22:09

Thank you Longhairedgit for your reply. I do have several years experience not only keeping fish (although none brackish) but also keeping several differnt kinds of reptiles and amphibians so I do have experience with providing a variety of live foods. I wonder if it would be ok to use a reptile vitamin dust to help ensure proper nutrition. Would this be too strong for the mudskippers?

As always when doing research on the internet I have found many conflicting opinions on this subject. Some say that they are very hard to care for while others say that they are not. I still think I would like to attempt keeping a pair or two.

I have read about the territory issues and from what I can gather there are most often problems when there is not enough space out of water for each to establish a territory of their own. For this reason I am leaning towards the 55G.

What I would really like are some ideas for the tank setup. It seems that it would be best to use sand, smooth rocks and driftwood as I have read that they can easily injure themselves on rough obejects. So, is there a secret to forming a stable mound of sand for the beach area? I'm envisioning having to constantly re-pile the mound. I have never used sand in an aquarium though, so I don't know - maybe it is pretty stable once it is packed. Also you mentioned that not much will grow in brackish water except for mangroves - are there any other options that anyone knows of?

What is their natural lifespan?

They are quite common around here and seem to readily take crickets and mealworms and all manner of bugs.

What essentials would they be missing out on with a diet of insects? Can supplements be bought?

I am considering a tank of them too Just a pair or two.
Wondering how to do it without resorting to real mangrove mud

For animals, the entire universe has been neatly divided into things to (a) mate with, (b) eat, (c) run away from, and (d) rocks. - Terry Pratchett

I'd go with the 55, mudskippers are greedy and messy feeders,they will often only take live food, including fare like crickets and mealworms, although some people have success with flakes ,tablets and bloodworm.Youll need a large water volume and a powerful filter to stop the water quality going downhill so fast.

In addition youll need bogwood or rocks to provide haul-out areas, and obviously this takes a bit of space, and youll need the water level in the tank to have at least 6 inches of air above it to prevent lid and light related incidents.Very little will grow in brackish water so unless you can get mangroves , you are in for a lot of water changes.

Mudskippers can be tricky to keep, especially as regards their dietary needs, the lack of the microfoods they sift out on river and estuarine banks can mean radically shortened lifespans and non-feeding issues, they can also be highly territorial to one another and sometimes even other fish. They can and will eat smaller fish too.

Unless you have several years experience behind you , i'd give them a miss.

On the species front , theres more than 40 types of mudskipper out there, since they dont readily breed in aquaria , nearly all of them are wild caught, so even knowing which genera you have can be difficult, certainly the shop you buy them from wont necessarily have them correcty identified.This of course presents its own problems with not knowing the water perameters or dietary needs.Some species will be far less likely to adapt to commercial foods than others, and some species may be impossible to feed correctly.

Id love some mudskippers too, but Ive decided to hold off on getting them until I see some personal evidence that someone has managed to keep them alive for a period anywhere near their natural lifespan.

Last edited by longhairedgit at 09-Nov-2005 20:29

Looks like we might be on our own. I found this site and thought that there was some pretty good info.

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~thebobo/goby.htm

someone here has a mudskipper as an avatar im sure they will reply soon, im also thinking of setting up a mudskipper tank too and info would be great.

OH TOLEEDY!