Myths in Fishkeeping

Myths in Fishkeeping

Written by Marina Parha and George J. Reclos Tuesday, 16 September 2008 17:18

PDF | Print | E-mail

myth (plural myths) Noun (...) A person or thing existing only in imagination, or whose actual existence is not verifiable.(1)

Introduction

By way of introduction it is worth clarifying the meaning of a myth. A myth is not necessarily something totally untrue. In fact, most myths contain fragments of truth. Typically a myth would offer an eschatological explanation of a naturally occurring phenomenon.(2) It is the totality (i.e. phenomenon and explanation) that would be classified as a myth, not just the explanation, though it is clear that it in most cases it would be only the explanation that would be untrue.

We can’t always trace the beginning of myths. This is true generally as well as in the hobby. Some of the myths in the hobby have their origins in its not so distant past while others are contemporary.

a. Old views

The information composing the basis of the “knowledge” accumulated in the hobby is largely due to observations made by hobbyists. Its accuracy greatly depends on whether hobbyists observed a phenomenon fully, interpreted this phenomenon correctly and had the means, knowledge and criteria to present the data comprehensively and accurately. This, more often than not, includes linking the phenomenon observed with other phenomena i.e. presenting it as part of a series. This is particularly important when the observation relates to fish behaviour.

In the past, when information was scarce and the general knowledge on issues related with the hobby far more limited, people didn’t always have choices regarding the possible interpretation of a particular phenomenon. Take for example the issue of the influence of pH on the sex ratio of fry.(3) Suppose this phenomenon was observed in the 1920s by a hobbyist who was not a scientist. If this person chose to disclose the observation together with an explanation the immediate corresponding myth would be – and very naturally so - that in captivity x species delivers only females. Captivity could then be analysed to a number of possible contributing factors, ranging from the size of tank to the chemicals used and one can easily see how we would all be sent on a wild goose chase trying to avoid the birth of females by using totally unrelated and therefore ineffective strategies. Things could get worse if the information was eventually transmitted using an evaluative rather than a descriptive statement (i.e. avoid the use of such-n-such as it is not good for your fish).   In other words, though acting in good faith and starting with sound observation it is easy, when one has got limited information only, to generate myths.

The second stage in the accumulation of knowledge is keeping records of what was observed along with the data which resulted or followed the observation, something rarely done even nowadays but more so in the past. This results in incomplete information while also allowing for causal linkages of observed phenomena with totally accidental occurrences.

b. Contemporary views

As the hobby moved on things changed a lot; many ideas and beliefs which were axiomatically accepted in the past are questioned or even rejected now. There is a number of reasons for that. The hobby has expanded and, partly because of the availability of more advanced equipment (more powerful, sophisticated filtration systems, ozonizers, UV lamps, denitrificators, refugia etc.) more people can now run a successful tank. More people means more observers therefore more data. Internet has made communication between fish hobbyists as well as access to scientific information much easier. As a result information and observation travels much faster. This, in return, means that it can be judged by, or combined with the observations of, other hobbyists and thus it can be validated, qualified or discarded easier.

Observation usually relies on watching, collecting and analysing data and the latter has progressed dramatically. Not only do we have new and far more accurate methods of collecting data (electronics, probes, controllers) but we also screen for a far larger number of parameters, something unthinkable (and impossible) in the past. Speculation is highly reduced in this sense so, even if a suggested interpretation of a phenomenon is wrong, the correctly accumulated data may allow other hobbyists to analyse this in a more appropriate way and reach different conclusions, one of which is more likely than not to be correct. Finally, it is true that after many years of trial and error and thanks to the work of many pioneers who invested both money and labour, we have a better understanding of things.

Yet not all is good. The existence of so much information as well as the easily accessed internet has some drawbacks, too. It becomes increasingly difficult to locate appropriate or required information; at the same time non-credible information finds its way to publication thus obscuring things a lot. Original pieces of information are still few and far between, updates of the “oldies and goodies” (at the time) scarce - either due to lack of time or lack of interest, while an ever increasing number of authors simply copy what others have written before them, thus often recycling and “confirming” myths.(4)

Myths are also generated accidentally. The use of commercial names when describing fish species is more often than not confusing, especially since the same name stands for different species depending, for example, on which side of the Atlantic you live. We have come across too many “terrors” (green, red or yellow) or “talking catfish”; a practice referred to in conjunction with one of these species is often confused as pertaining to another species, thus starting yet another myth.

There are exceptions of course and many of them. However, the novice has no way of telling these exceptions from the norm. Most websites and books lack words like “I think”, “probably”, “possibly” and the like. In contrast, information is reported as rock solid even if data exists which contradict it. In short, we are swimming in a sea of information however reliable sources are rare.

With this in mind we will try to discuss below some of these “myths” with a view to contributing in the adoption of a new approach to information.  It is our view that the hobbyist should approach the information available in a critical way. Once an argument is deemed to be “reasonable” it should be considered as a possibility for further investigation and confirmation. Thus, information will not constrain the hobbyist by only allowing him/her to do as others did but will continue to be tried and tested.(5) Here is where myths end and reality starts.