cleaner wrasses.....yes or no

[Ninong]

Originally posted by Steve
I think it depends on what you get - a good or bad cleaner wrasse. I had one that would attack and did kill a clown that was bigger than he was. I no longer will keep them because of this bad experience. I ended up having to take out all my live rock to take it back to the pet store.

Steve,

It is very probable that they sold you a Bluestriped Fangblenny (Plagiotremus rhinorhynchos) as a cleaner wrasse. This fish mimics Labroides dimidiatus in order to be able to approach client fish close enough to take a bite out of their faces with its razor sharp fangs. That's what it does for a living.

Check it out: http://www.fishbase.org/Summary/Spec...=rhinorhynchos

Ninong

[organicreefer]

ok you got me ,its a cheasy book i had already pointed this out(that it was a cheasey book)
to ravenmore in the thread fish died from ich ,the origination of this topic.
i was just trying to illustrate another persons opinion.so the post from stars ,what species was he talking about?it simply said cleaner wrasse
so before i read those posts,are there any actual l dimidiatus owners posting ??

[organicreefer]

omfg,ninong did YOU even read those posts lmoarotf i just started ,and theres already like 10 POSITIVE responses ,saying that the cleaner wrasse is doing GREAT

time for that book

[organicreefer]

ok i just read those threads
heres the tally:

13 DOING GREAT ,MANY FOR OVER A YEAR!
0 REFUSING TO EAT
2 CARPET SURFERS

sounds to me like, as ive been saying from the get, l.dimidiatus has been unjustly grouped with the rest of the genus as a difficult to keep fish
as for the "ECOLOGICAL " CONCERNS,UNLESS YOU BUY ONLY! CAPTIVE BRED STOCK AND AQUCULTURED LIVE ROCK,PLEASE GET DOWN OF YOURE HIGH HORSE;;

[srgtkoons]

I agree with those against, for the ecological concerns alone. The difficulty of keeping the critter alive in captivity is irrelevent. Its considered a key-stone species, which means that the population of this fish is very important, they should not be collected. And dont worry everything i have is aquacultured. It is one of those critters that should have been banned years ago. And has been in someplaces. People need to wake up....

[ravenmore]

wow - this thread really took off. I've been out of town the past couple of days....

First of all, I tried a cleaner wrasse in my early days. It appeared to waste away over a matter of weeks (maybe 4 to 6 weeks). I had 2 friends get the fish also, and they both died in a similar manner. Also, the lfs I frequented daily bought 3 to clean incoming fish shipments of parasites. Even in this "high parasite" environment, 2 of them appeared to starve to death and the 3rd was eaten by another fish. Again, perhaps I didn't know enough back then to identify the exact species but they appeared to be l. dimidiatus. That's a guess but they looked like all the pics of this species I've seen.

Now, my points against keeping this fish are three fold:

- My experience has been they DON'T eat well. There can be, and I do believe there are, individual exceptions to this rule. In any event, in addition to my experiences, many reputable experts back this up. Everytime anyone buys one of these fish, they're taking a chance it won't eat (a VERY big chance in my opinion), and there's nothing worse than watching a fish slowly starve to death and not being able to do anything about it.

-There are plenty of better substitutes that do well in home aquaria. Cleaner shrimps and neon gobies eat like pigs. Neon gobies are even captive bred. Even my pacific species fish "present" themselves to my atlantic species neons regularly for cleanings. They are also less expensive than cleaner wrasses. So lets see: neon gobies are hardier, breed in captivity, less expesive, and clean as well as the cleaner wrasse. hmmmmmmm, why take a chance on a fish (the cleaner wrasse) that has a history of being a difficult fish?

-Cleaner wrasses set up "cleaning stations" in the wild - a behavior that is somewhat unique, from my understanding of my readings, of cleaner fishes. Many fish literally line up to utilize the cleaning stations. Bigger fishes will actually defend the cleaner wrasse from would be predators. When the cleaner is collected, frequently all the fish from a cleaning station are removed, leaving all the fish in the area without this resource for cleaning parasites.

Here's an article from Bob Fenner on the subject:
http://www.wetwebmedia.com/labroide.htm

I would like to quote from it briefly:

all the Labroides rate a dismal (3) in survivability, even the ubiquitously offered common or Blue Cleaner Wrasse, Labroides dimidiatus.

Lastly, I invited Mr. Fenner to take part in the previous discussion. He did try but had problems with the board and somehow his post was directed towards me in a private message. I will cut and paste it below. I believe Mr. Fenner notified Scott (aka Reefland ) about his posting problems. I'll also send him a link to this thread.

[ravenmore]

quote from Bob Fenner, directed to the previous post "my fish died from ich" posted by Royal Gramma:

Do want to chime in here.... reinforce the reality/factuality that these wrasses don't live very long in captivity historically.... a few folks have had success with keeping a very few individuals... but the vast majority are dead within a few days to weeks of capture. On the subject of the impacts of removing purposeful cleaning organisms from the wild: there are some recent opinions that vary from early work (see the biblio./further reading after articles on the subject posted on the Wetwebmedia.com site). One researcher in Australia for instance, wrote me offering evidence refuting that their removal had adverse effects (in her experiments in the field). Better to seek out Elacitinus/Gobiosoma, Hippolytid and Palaemonid shrimps IMO and E by far.

I'd like to add that elacitinus and gobiosoma are latin genera names refering to fish called by the common name "neon goby".

-Mike

[Ninong]

Ravenmore,

He is obviously referring to Dr. Alexandra Grutter and her study performed in 1996. Just for the record, there are other studies performed by others that reach the exact opposite conclusion. She undertook her experiment in an attempt to discredit the earlier studies.

She claimed to have removed all cleaner wrasses from eight small reefs (no, I don't know how she did it) and then tested populations of 191 fish species three months and six months later. Her claim is that the population census at three months and six months showed no remarkable differences when compared with population readings on control reefs that had not had their cleaner wrasse populations disturbed. Earlier studies had measured immediate changes that were observed in the first few days and weeks following removal of the cleaner wrasses. These studies reported massive evacuation of the area by most of the fish population, with the exception of territorial species (those living in nests or holes). I guess her point was that the populations recovered within three months after the event. Here's the abstract: http://link.springer-ny.com/link/ser...1/71110137.htm

I have not read her entire abstract, but I have read comments about it from other marine scientists in Australia. Not everyone agrees with her conclusions.

Ninong

[organicreefer]

On the subject of the impacts of removing purposeful cleaning organisms from the wild: there are some recent opinions that vary from early work (see the biblio./further reading after articles on the subject posted on the Wetwebmedia.com site). One researcher in Australia for instance, wrote me offering evidence refuting that their removal had adverse effects (in her experiments in the field).
-------------------------------------------------------------------

E-MAIL FROM ROBERT FENNER ,I GUESS THIS IS ABOUT AS "CURRENT" A PEICE OF INFO YOU CAN FIND


SO THE EXPERTS DO DISAGREE

AND ONCE AGAIN I ASK WHERE ARE THE DEAD WRASSES??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

[ravenmore]

quote from organicreefer:

AND ONCE AGAIN I ASK WHERE ARE THE DEAD WRASSES??????????????????????????????????????????? ????????????????????????????????????

Well, I did mention 6 instances in my post of dead wrasses. Also Mr. Fenner did mention that they don't do well "historically" so I would assume this means he knows of several instances as well. That would be good enough for me. Also, I'd be very interested to know what percentage of fish collected actually survive all the way to the hobbiest aquarium.

And I think Ninong raised some questions about the study done saying removing the wrasses didn't affect the environment. My question wouldn't be the findings of that one study but rather that the study was done (apparently) one time in one place. That would seem to me the greater argument against it. If more studies are done in more places and (hopefully) by other biologist and their findings are the same, that'll lend more credibility to it. It sounds like right now that more scientist are concuring that the opposite is true.

DON'T USE WRASSES!!! USE NEON CLEANER GOBIES INSTEAD!!!

-Mike

[bobfenner]

Ninong, thank you for your input. You are correct re the sources of information, field experimentation in "the land down under" refuting early speculation on the rold of Oxyjulis californica (the Senorita Wrasse, a for-sure non-obligate cleaner off of the Californias)... and the intergradation of L. dimidiatus betwixt obligate-faculatitive cleaner is one I would argue.
Also, thanks to Ravenmore/Mike for his ongoing help (along with Scott Zachow at Reefland) for bringing me up to speed and making known this discussion.
As much as I like "artful forms of persuasive argument", i.e. rhetorical strings, this matter of issues, particularly the incidental mortality of the genus Labroides, is approachable as "science"... Contact folks in the marine import, wholesale business, or an honest retailer... and ask them how many of these fish/es they lose. Some few folks have been "lucky", and indeed, survivability may well have improved over the years... Much more likely, the isolated incidences of success with this species (specimens persisting more than three months let's say), are due to a limited source to shipping phenomenon (a "good" collector, fortuitous shipping arrangements, decent wholesaler/distributor getting not-too traumatized specimens that aren't too-starved to the end-user in initially good health)...
I stand by my impression, cataloging of the overall suitability of these species in captivity. The vast majority die quite soon, mostly from starvation.
Do concur that there is enormous difference of opinion on the "importance" of cleaners as ectoparasite, and necrotic tissue removers on the world's reefs... but have seen even HUGE pelagics come in to shallows, obviously for a "cleaning".
Are there "other" cleaners? Certainly? Are there local epidemics )e.g. crypt, amylloodinium) that result in significant fish population losses in the wild? Again, of a certainty, yes.
If Labroides are/were collected extensively in these areas does this have a significant impact on the outcome of such infestations? I don't know, but suspect there is some (perhaps not biostatistically "significant") negative impact.
Again, there is no "reason" to arguing numbers here. Labroides dimidiatus "pay" to divers is about a nickel over its range, 30-50 cents a "piece" (term used in the industry) FOB to mainland whlse/distr.s and what retail? Ask your suppliers why the big mark-ups... If they will, have them supply you with their suppliers contact info. Or look for the same on our Links Page (www.WetWebMedia.com). The members of this genus don't live at all well in captivity HISTORICALLY.
Their importance in the wild? Where's the endemic Hawaiian L. phthirophagus? ("the disease eater") in the trade? Think about this and investigate my friends.
Bob Fenner

[Ninong]

Symbiotic behaviors are genetically fixed ecological adaptations that help both partners survive. The cleaners could be considered a key species in reef-fish communities. Without them their very existence would be endangered. This is according to Dr. Yuri Sorokin of the University of Queensland, who goes on to say: "An important role of cleaning symbiosis was proved experimentally. On a small reef all cleaners had been cleared out. Several days later the fish started to leave the reef. Within two weeks most of the fish, except the strictly territorial ones (living in nests or holes) abandoned this reef. Among the fish that remained the percentage of ill specimens drastically increased."

Just for the record, the most common cleaner on Caribbean reefs is the neon goby, Elacantinus oceanops, along with the wrasses Bodjanus rufus and Microspathadon chrysurus. On Indo-Pacific reefs, the most common cleaners are Labroides dimidiatus, L. phthirophascus and L. bicolor. They live in small groups of three to ten specimens at the stations, situated most often at the outer reef slope near some remarkable element of the landscape. The cleaners have a well detectable specific placard pattern which informs their clients of their profession. This is usually comprised of white and blue stripes along the greenish or dark violet body. The cleaners swim near the station doing special moves--gestures--inviting the clients. If their client is a pelagic fish, it will float with its curled body in the water column, spread its fins, and open wide its mouth. If it is a bottom fish, it stands on a stone, and also opens its mouth and spreads its fins. The cleaners approach the client and start to work. One of them cleans the skin scales and fins, sometimes attaching them to its body with the aid of a special sucker (neon goby). Others swim into the mouth and clean the gills, taking off parasites and gnawing swollen tissues. When the client feels satisfied, or when it is endangered, it signals the cleaners to leave by clapping with its mouth a couple of times. The clients, though mostly predatory, never swallow the cleaners; they have never been found in their stomachs (Randall 1967).

Ninong

P.S. - I think we should avoid collecting Labroides dimidiatus because of the possible negative impact on the entire reef ecosystem. For the same reasons, I am against the over-harvesting of clownfish-hosting sea anemones, the over collection of Banggai Cardinalfish from the wild, the taking of any fish whose diet is exclusively coral polyps, the taking of any fish whose chances of survival in captivity are nil, the killing of bears for their gall bladders, the killing of elephants for their ivory, the killing of tigers for any reason, the killing of sharks for their fins, the killing of whales for "research," and the list goes on. The mass extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs 65 million years ago took place over a period of tens of thousands of years--a mere blink of the eye in cosmic terms, but not a matter of months as some seem to think. The current mass extinction, the very first caused by the predominant predatory species (Homo sapiens), will be complete within the next thousand years.

[Ninong]

Hi Bob, welcome to Reefland!

Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion.

Ninong

[Reefland]

Just an FYI. I have asked MaryHM (a wholesaler) for her expert opinion regarding the survival rate. I'm sure she will chime in or send me an e-mail soon.

Scott

P.S. Glad to see you made it, Bob. ;)

[VP]

Unfortunately, here's some dead ones: I don't like to admit this but I purchased four before I was made aware of the problem with these fish. One died during acclimation, the other 3 didn't eat offered foods and died within 2-5 days of purchase. Two days ago I was at the LFS and there was a dead one in their tank. That's five more dead ones.

[organicreefer]

to quote srgtkoons:

TIME FOR POEPLE TO WAKE UP

i hope i havent personally offended anyone or as ravenmore put it ,i havent "hacked" anyone off.i do love kicking at reefland,and i consider you guys"freinds" .i value EVERYONES opinion on all matters related to aquaria.the "science" is in its infancy,and we still have ALOT to learn. all of us.

this is lively debate indeed!
and i must admit..I LOVE IT!
what better way to TEACH?
what better way to LEARN!



POINTS THAT EVEN FENNER CONCEDES:

".. and the intergradation of L. dimidiatus betwixt obligate-faculatitive cleaner is one I would argue. "
SO NINONG, HOW IS L DIMIDIATUS CLASSIFIED?



"Do concur that there is enormous difference of opinion on the "importance" of cleaners as ectoparasite, and necrotic tissue removers on the world's reefs... but have seen even HUGE pelagics come in to shallows, obviously for a "cleaning".
Are there "other" cleaners? Certainly? Are there local epidemics )e.g. crypt, amylloodinium) that result in significant fish population losses in the wild? Again, of a certainty, yes.
If Labroides are/were collected extensively in these areas does this have a significant impact on the outcome of such infestations? I don't know, but suspect there is some (perhaps not biostatistically "significant") negative impact.
Again, there is no "reason" to arguing numbers here. "

[organicreefer]

FOR SOME REASON MY POST SEEMS TO BE CUTTING ME SHORT ,SO TO CONTINUE:

fenner agrees thats this topic is open for debate ,even though he is personally against it.

i encourage everyone to read the first page of this thread ,as well as the 2 threads posted by ninong from reff central.

THEY CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE:that l. dimidiatus is not an "iffy" fish.i count over 20 aquarists reporting success.and just three (a couple cant be sure it was l dimidiatus ,just a "cleaner wrasse" )reporting failure.sorry RAVENMORE over 20 successes and three failures ,i blame the AQUARISTS/SUPPLIERS!STARS 360 KILLED HALF A DOZEN!VP KILLED THREE!
CAN YOU SAY CYCLE YOURE TANK?
who knows why these fish died?nobody.fish die,ALL FISH!
i wonder how many more successes we would have heard if ALL OF US WRASSE OWNERS;) werent "hacked off" by you guys that "know better" .

FEMINAZI TREE HUGGERS!

[organicreefer]

TO CONTINUE: j/k on the last state ment

my point is,ALL THE THREADS STARTED THE SAME WAY ,SUCCESS!,SUCCESS!,SUCCCESS!,SUCCESS!UNITLILWE ARE HACKED OF FOR "ECOLOGICAL" REASONS

NOW BEFORE I GO ANY FURHTER ,DO I NEED TO START A THREAD CALLED :"the ecological ethics of collecting cleaner wrasses,AND ALL OTHER FISH /INVERTEBRATES?

YOU KNOW WHAT MY FIRST LINE WOULD BE?

[ravenmore]

Well, seems to me that how many fish you keep alive is not entirely indicative of how hardy these fish are. A better measure would be to try and estimate how many are collected and then what percentage to those total are lost in a relatively short amount of time, and then compare that percentage to other species.

I have a feeling it's not a large survival percentage for the cleaner wrasses. From Fenner's comments he suggest (also) that it is not good. I think he has more experience with the process all the way from collection to retail than any of us. I'm greatly looking forward to Mary posting in regards to this.

Again, I think that there are better choices to perform this same function.

Also, I mentioned 6 dead wrasses that I know of (tanks were all cycled, fyi ). I think VP mentioned 4. That brings us up to 10 from apparent starvation.

[organicreefer]

OVER 20 AQUARISTS KEPT THEM ALIVE
AS FOR YOURE "FREINDS",I HAVE FREINDS TOO;) THEY WERENT COUNTED;; SO THREE POEPLE KILLED 10 FISH AND YOU BLAME THE FISH ,IVE MADE MY POINTS ALREADY L DIMIDIATUS IS A FACULTATIVE CLEANER IN MY AND SOME OTHERS OPINIONS, AND SOME"EXPERTS" ,INCLUDING MOE,WHO IN THE MARINE AQUARIUM HANDBOOK ,SAYS PARASITE PICKERS ,INCLUDING WRASSES ,DO GREAT ON A WIDE VARIETY OF FOODS IN THE AQUARIUM ,NOT TO MENTION MY BUDDIES,GORDON KAY AND NICK DAKIN ,(I DONT WANT TO HEAR IT HIS OPINION IS AS VALID AS YOURES OR MINE)

IM SATISFIED THAT IME L DIMIDIATUS DOES GREAT IN CAPTIVITY,THE ONLY OBJECTIONS AT THIS POINT ARE ECOLOGICAL, IMO,AND EVEN THE EXPERTS DONT AGREE ON THAT