If an organism changes genetically in order to better suit its environment surely that is exactly what evolution is? But evolution, adaption or simply change - its just a name for a process and it doesn't really matter what it is called.

Suey, I don't think it is a case of hard water fish being less adaptable I think it is more likely to be that most fish are raised in water which tends towards a pH above 7 and so that is what they are adapted to, lots of modern discus for example are bred, raised and kept in water around pH7.5 and don't really thrive if you try to keep them like wild discus where the pH might be 5.5 and where the tds is also very low. This is the very point I was originally trying to make with my initial post on this thread.

Cathie, great minds think alike eh? I suggested ehfisubstrat as an alternative to the bio media in my first post. It will perform far better than the biorbs original media and with little chance of blocking.

Mine are relatively easy to breed, misting their viv more and providing more food is all that's required to trigger breeding.

CurmudgeonlyOldMan, I've kept those too and D. auratus.
I had two blue like yours and an odd grey blue one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNRdA7xK_VQ

Violet please give it a rest, you have done nothing but argue, tried to stiffle debate, post comments like gung ho, odd advice, and now this.

Does being the sole acknowledged tropical advisor really mean so much to you?

None of my posts indicate that I am a troll. But if you wish me to leave just say the word and you can get back to dispensing your old rules of fish keeping as you see them.

Suey,

I provided a link somewhere on this thread to a study which showed that hatchery salmon changed genetically from the wild fish in a single generation. I also recall reading about an argument between Paul V. Loiselle and H Axelrod because one of them had used aquarium specimens to name a species and it was demonstrated that Mbuna (African lake cichlids) changed their dentition to suit captive conditions over those found in the wild also in a single generation and since this is an important feature of mbuna with them being so closely related it developed in to quite a spat between the two.

As a side note there is a snail (Partula gibba) which only exists in captivity and hopefully one day it is going to be released across its old range. The people breeding these snails are deliberately inbreeding them in order to minimise any evolution towards captive conditions.

Then there is unintentional selective breeding.
When wild fish are brought in to unsuitable conditions a lot will die fairly quickly but some will survive. If these survivors are used for breeding then some of their fry will also survive and with each generation an increasing number of the brood will survive.
If this happens over hundreds of generations the fish produced will be more suited to captive conditions than those of their distant wild relatives.

Many modern varieties of discus are being bred and raised in water where the pH is 7.5 or higher. Those individuals wouldn't last very long if they were placed in some parts of a wild discus range where the pH at certain times of the year can fall below pH4.

Goldfish placed in a completely wild environment would quickly revert to their normal bronze colour because there are a few in most broods which are throw backs and don't turn orange. In the wild where there are lots of predators the bright orange fish would stand out and go first, leaving the wild bronze types to breed. Within 5 - 10 generations almost all the surviving goldfish would be bronze wild types.

There are many other examples but I've made the point.

Wild fish need to live in wild conditions or as near to that as we can provide. Domesticated fish which have been captive bred for decades need captive conditions in most cases and would be stressed by more extreme wild conditions.

This thread is getting funnier by the post. So now only mods can provide correct information and anyone who disagrees is automatically wrong despite any evidence.

Keep those blinkers on and stop learning, it doesn't matter a jot to me.

Rather than pick out selective information to back up your argument it would be better to provide all the information and get the whole picture and then base your learning on that.

Neons are found in:
Brazil - native
Columbia - native
Fiji - introduced
Philippines - introduced
Singapore - introduced.

Guppies are found in:
Brazil - introduced
Columbia - introduced
Fiji - introduced
Philippines - introduced
Singapore - introduced

A total of 69 countries in fact

Check my links on this thread for a COMPLETE list of places where they are found in all types of habitat too

My information was also taken from fishbase.org

As a footnote this thread has become an example of everything that is bad about forums and how selective or simply dated and wrong information is used to back up an argument rather than learn something new.

A little creative thinking would not go amiss I think. Look at all the facts before deciding what is right and wrong, fish keeping is evolving all the time and there is no use for having a set of unbending rules based on old or incomplete information.
The fact that guppies are known to live (and sometimes reach pest proportions) in 69 known countries shows that these fish are well able to adapt to a massive range of conditions and thrive. Sure the old text books say hard alkaline water but that has been shown to be wrong - keep up.

I agree with everything Waterbug has mentioned, but as a starting place all the symptoms listed fit a fairly common type of infection caused by columnaris bacteria.

Do some research on columnaris and see if it fits what is happening in your pond. If it is then there are plenty of remedies to treat the condition but an established infection like this doesn't always respond very quickly to treatment and stronger medication may be called for.

They are very undemanding to keep except when it comes to feeding. They will only accept tiny live food such as aphids, springtails newly hatched crickets and fruitflies all f which have to be cultured in fairly large quantities.

I've seen that too Fishlady. Having to use 5x the normal dose seems to back up what I suspected. But depending on how badly someone has stocked an uncycled tank even that dose may not be enough.
I really think the salt method is better when dealing with nitrite alone and when dealing with ammonia/nitrite and possibly some meds too I think the answer is a polyfilter.

Although unconfirmed the general consensus is that primes main ingredient is pentahydrate sodium thiosulphate which is a mild reducing agent (removes oxygen) that would mean that the oxygen in NO3 is replaced with sulpher (I think). But sodium thiosulphate is a known irritant particularly on mucus membranes (i.e gills) if used at to high a dose.
I find it hard to believe that SeaChem don't know what is going on, they know the exact ingredients and how they react, I have my cynical head on here and suspect that they are happy with improved sales rather than coming clean about all this.

In short I really think there are better ways of dealing with nitrite than using prime.

I'm far from convinced about primes ability to detoxify nitrite. I think the packaging claims may be a little misleading.
I am currently looking in to this to see exactly how the process works but very little verifiable info so far.
I suspect that it will deal with the trace amounts of nitrite occasionally found in some tap water but not the levels found in an uncycled aquarium.