I want to know if any of you keep freshwater rays! IF you do post som pics! I do not have any right now but would like to have a few types in the future.

I have kept a few retrics I love them. I might get more!!

I've wanted to, but never have had a tank large enough. IIRC, even the smallest have a 12"-14" disc diameter when fully grown, plus another 12-15" of tail. With rays volume is less of a concern than footprint, too small of a tank and the edges of the wings will start to curl up permenantly. IMO, anything less than a 6' x 3' footprint is inadequate for the smallest, proportionately larger for larger species.

WYite

Oh yea large tanks are a MUST when keeping rays!

Wyomingite wrote:

I've wanted to, but never have had a tank large enough. IIRC, even the smallest have a 12"-14" disc diameter when fully grown, plus another 12-15" of tail. With rays volume is less of a concern than footprint, too small of a tank and the edges of the wings will start to curl up permenantly. IMO, anything less than a 6' x 3' footprint is inadequate for the smallest, proportionately larger for larger species.

WYite

Good info there. A BIG TANK IS A MUST

A Monster tank would be better...think BIG!

Swimming pool

My friend is the manager of pet shop. One time they accidentally ordered 3 of the teacup/reticulated rays. They were one line item off of whatever it was he actually meant to order. He called me about giving him a hand setting something up for them, since he had *no* clue. His favorites are crazy fancy guppies that he specially breeds.

Inside the store they had two 300g livestock tubs for koi and pond stuff. We moved everything out of the one, into the other, and we got two heaters going for the water on either end. (The tub was 6'x2.5'x2'ish)

They like meaty things and will take sinking freeze dried things. Their favorites were earthworms and black worms. The tub was bare bottom, and they didn't seem to mind. The only mistake we made was the heater. It has to be in something or somehow protected. We originally tossed two stealths in down both ends and one of the rays got a nasty burn on the top of the disc. While there, one of them died for no apparent reason. Since most are wild caught, we were guessing some sort of internal parasites, but the other two ate just fine and managed just fine. (No, it wasn't the one that got burnt that died either)

6 months or so after they ended up at the store someone bought them, who from what my friend said seemed like he knew a great deal about them.

I won't keep them, or consider taking them in due to the sting part of their name. I don't take in anything venomous or that can cause serious damage.

saint_felony wrote:

I won't keep them, or consider taking them in due to the sting part of their name. I don't take in anything venomous or that can cause serious damage.

Really? That doesn't bother me. I kept a scorpionfish when I had a saltwater tank, and Neovespicula depressifrons (butterfly goby, butterfly waspfish, and dusky panther goby are some of the common names this fish is sold as) are great fish. Not to mention, the way the list of venomous catfish is growing with research today, I'd be keeping none of my favorites. FYI, I recently read an article in a fish magazine that RTCs are suspected of being venomous. I'll find the magazine and let ya know which and what month. The well-known venomous species, the Plotosidae and a few members of the Clariidae, are very well-documented in journals. Off the top of my head, several pimelodids, bagrids, ictalurids (esp. the genus Noturus), and ariids have been confirmed as venomous, and quite a few others of each family are suspected. Can't remember what species right off. Research was being conducted on Corydoras as well. Most of them aren't normally dangerous to humans, but I suppose that it could be deadly to the wrong person with the wrong allergy, kinda like bee stings. Many of these don't actually inject the venom, IIRC, it is secreted from glands at the base of the pectoral or dorsal spine and then flows to the wound created by the spine. It's diluted by water, but on a non-aquatic predator such as a heron, when combined with locking spines, can be very effective at causing the catfish to be released.

I pretty much consider any catfish potentially venomous and act accordingly these days.

WYite

The venomous/excessively dangerous rule is per my wife. She wants nothing like that with the kids around. That's her *only* rule for animals that come in here, which came about after the weekend of Komodo Dragon.

Please do find that article. I'm definitely interested about the RTCs being venomous, more from a where and how, then a pressing need to get rid of it or anything. I had know that some of the cats were venomous but I was under the impression they weren't very commonly sold. Also that of the ones that were it was more of chemical that causes discomfort/sores sort of thing.

I wish I had the time to do research like you do. Perhaps when the kids get older or something.

As far as salt water. Every now and again I'm tempted by salt water again, but I don't think I'll be doing it any time soon. A place I used to work at doing children's tv shows, had a 500g salt water reef tank, that I helped take care of. It was far more work then I thought it was worth, and mantis shrimp. I hate mantis shrimp with the heat of a thousand suns. Something like 7 years now, and I still have a scar from one of them.

saint_felony wrote:

The venomous/excessively dangerous rule is per my wife. She wants nothing like that with the kids around. That's her *only* rule for animals that come in here, which came about after the weekend of Komodo Dragon.

Weekend of Komodo Dragon? Sounds like a good story...

saint_felony wrote:

Please do find that article. I'm definitely interested about the RTCs being venomous, more from a where and how, then a pressing need to get rid of it or anything. I had know that some of the cats were venomous but I was under the impression they weren't very commonly sold. Also that of the ones that were it was more of chemical that causes discomfort/sores sort of thing.

Most are mildly venomous and more irritating than deadly, but like a bee sting, the wrong fish and the wrong person could be a lot worse. That is my main concern with the catfish, especially with kids in the house, though they are older now. The only fatalities I've read of were due to marine members of the Plotosidae, but I've seen numerous reports of hospitalization due to envenomation by freshwater species and by Clariid cats of the genus Heteropneustes.

Stumbled across this today at work on my lunch hour, gonna have to look up the source next chance I get:

Toxicity of stings of ariid and ictalurid catfishes.
Birkhead, WS
Copeia [Copeia]. no. 4, pp. 790-807. 1972.

Extracts prepared from the pooled pectoral and dorsal stings and the caudal fins of 12 ictalurid and one ariid catfish were injected into Gambusia affinis. Although it has been generally assumed that medtoms (e.g. Noturus) possessed the most virulent stings as judged by their effects on humans, the more toxic species catfishes were not necessarily taxonomically related. Extracts from the stings of Ictalurus melas and Noturus exilis were usually lethal to Gambusia, and those from Galeichthys felis I.natalis, N.gyrinus, N.nocturnus, N.flavus, and N. placidus were quite virulent. Stings of I. punctatus, I. nebulosus, and N. albater were relatively innocuous, and the stings of N. leptacanthus, and Phlodictis olivaris were not considered toxic. An apparent interspecific variation in the virulence of extracts from the caudal fins of these catfishes was best explained in terms of the immune response of the Gambusia. The belief that pectoral stings of catfishes were supplied with venom from the axillary gland is doubted. Although results obtained with I.punctatus and I. melas indicated that this gland was toxic it was hard to envision how a secretion form it could have been effectively transferred to the sting without becoming greatly diluted. The defensive function attributed to these stings seems apparent from their design. The toxic integumentary sheath is associated with a spine which can inflict a wound into which venom can be extruded. Although the integumentary sheath is damaged in the process and it appears to regenerate slowly, most of the experimental evidence presented suggests that the toxicity of these stings had developed in response to predation pressure.

Ictalurus punctatus ring a bell? Channel catfish. "Relatively innocuous".

I've a stack of magazines upstairs by the bed (my portable library as the wife calls it, drives her nuts!) and the magazine with the RTC reference is one of 'em. I'll try to find it tonight.

saint_felony wrote:

I wish I had the time to do research like you do. Perhaps when the kids get older or something.

I make time, "me" time. And its really nowhere near as much as it used to be. Have ya ever looked into joining Jstor or ScienceDirect or another on-line journal like that? I'm seriously thinkin' about it, depending on what affiliation requirements are.

saint_felony wrote:

As far as salt water. Every now and again I'm tempted by salt water again, but I don't think I'll be doing it any time soon. A place I used to work at doing children's tv shows, had a 500g salt water reef tank, that I helped take care of. It was far more work then I thought it was worth, and mantis shrimp. I hate mantis shrimp with the heat of a thousand suns. Something like 7 years now, and I still have a scar from one of them.

I went through a phase for a couple of years, and then decided that the salties were taking up valuable cichlid space. Tempted every now and again, but brackish is as close as I get.

WYite

Indeed it was. I should start a new topic for that though.

I started reading with great interest, once I saw i. punctatus was in on the mix.

Seems that the only way for the venom to be effective at all is for there to also be a wound. Not that I seriously examined ours, but I had never noticed anything firm enough (especially the caudal fins) that would be able to break the skin. They were saying "the toxicity of these stings had developed in response to predation pressure." So I'm assuming that this also must be some sort of stress trigger as well.

Every now and again I'd have to go into the pond to fix something or other, and beastly would come over to check me out and had even swam up into me but unless they can force themselves rigid some way, that quite impressive.

As far as journals go, I had, but hardly ever got a chance to use one of the Elsevier ones thanks to one of the Veterinary Profs at Penn. Now that I look they're the parent company of Sciencedirect. The information was fantastic, but the layout at the time was a bit odd. Also while the research is interesting. I'm a fan of the practical instead of the theoretical. I'm much more the unlicensed, back door, ask no questions hack vet, than the guys that get chances to do cool testing like this.

That being said with your old library access, you may be able to get on Jstor for free. I know a history nut friend of mine gets on still though his old school library info.

It was FAMA June 2008, "Venomous Catfish" by David Sands PhD. After rereading it, I read a bit more into it than what was there on RTCs. He discussed his experiences with venomous cats, including several pimelodids. RTCs are included in a sidebar of potentially venomous cats and in the text he discusses taking care with RTCs when handling them because of his suspicions. RTCs were not one of the pimelodids he was researching.

WYite