I have always been one to treasure the beautiful, but the rarity of the treasure for a long time mattered as much as the beauty. There has always been one exception to this rule: the common goldfish. I first started keeping these fish in third grade, when I got a tub pond in exchange for a birthday party. My first set of fish all died, because I had no idea that chlorine killed fish-or, for that matter, that chlorine was added to our water. Suffice it to say, this was the start of me painstakingly researching every one of my pets before getting them, besides the ones acquired unexpectedly.
The past aside: I have never read this anywhere else, but my goldfish appear to school. Perhaps it is due to the size differences that have always been present; Big Fat(got him, who was most likely a her, when I was in third grade) always led the pack, at 8 inches and a particularly big belly. When whatever horrible, dirty, rotten animal ate my baby, one fish rapidly got bigger than the others and took over as leader. Now the others feel lost and skittish when he(she) isn't in their tank. The leader has alot of control, as I used to watch big fat herd the other fishes around, sometimes bullying the bigger ones after they got a certain amount to eat. Really, I am curious here.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The First Post is Always Special
When thinking about what I should post on this blog, this was the first thing that came to mind.
In reptiles and amphibians, when setting up a pet's habitat, the rule of thumb has always been to make it has naturalistic as possible. When setting up a wild-caught animal, this is especially true, as for most species of amphibian. And then there was Socrates.
White's tree frogs have been exclusively captive bred since before 1998(I am not sure when they banned the exportation of animals for the pet trade), which is a significant number of tree frog generations. Due to the ease of breeding them, the captive bred population before australia's ban must have been significant, though I don't have any statistics to verify that. This is a significant population which has never felt sunlight on its backs, has eaten exclusively, for the most part, crickets and mealworms with vitamin supplements, and all in all had nothing to do with the wild while their population was cut off. They have been evolving for more than nine years to fit their pseudo environments. Now, keep in mind, nature is not the best place for almost all modern(in 1st world countries) humans, though most people's minds tend to respond to naturalistic settings. Humans, of course, have traveled across all the continents and are a highly adaptable species. Most reptiles stayed in one habitat range, sometimes for longer than the human species existed. However, White's tree Frogs are migratory and are also a very hardy, adaptable species. We have no idea as to what their balance of nature and nurture is. Could it be that an artificial habitat would suit them(the captive bred population) better than a natural one? An artificial habitat which have yet to discover?
In reptiles and amphibians, when setting up a pet's habitat, the rule of thumb has always been to make it has naturalistic as possible. When setting up a wild-caught animal, this is especially true, as for most species of amphibian. And then there was Socrates.
White's tree frogs have been exclusively captive bred since before 1998(I am not sure when they banned the exportation of animals for the pet trade), which is a significant number of tree frog generations. Due to the ease of breeding them, the captive bred population before australia's ban must have been significant, though I don't have any statistics to verify that. This is a significant population which has never felt sunlight on its backs, has eaten exclusively, for the most part, crickets and mealworms with vitamin supplements, and all in all had nothing to do with the wild while their population was cut off. They have been evolving for more than nine years to fit their pseudo environments. Now, keep in mind, nature is not the best place for almost all modern(in 1st world countries) humans, though most people's minds tend to respond to naturalistic settings. Humans, of course, have traveled across all the continents and are a highly adaptable species. Most reptiles stayed in one habitat range, sometimes for longer than the human species existed. However, White's tree Frogs are migratory and are also a very hardy, adaptable species. We have no idea as to what their balance of nature and nurture is. Could it be that an artificial habitat would suit them(the captive bred population) better than a natural one? An artificial habitat which have yet to discover?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
