Thats one small fish

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2006-01-25 06:06am

Researchers have found the smallest known fish on record in the peat swamps of the Indonesian island of Sumatra.

Individuals of the Paedocypris genus can be just 7.9mm long at maturity, scientists write in a journal published by the UK's Royal Society.

But they warn long-term prospects for the fish are poor, because of rapid destruction of Indonesian peat swamps.

The fish have to survive in extreme habitats - pools of acid water in a tropical forest swamp.

Food is scarce but the Paedocypris - smaller than other fish by a few tenths of a millimetre - can sustain their small bodies grazing on plankton near the bottom of the water.

Human threat

To keep their size down, the fish have abandoned many of the attributes of adulthood - a characteristic hinted at in their name.

Their brain, for example, lacks bony protection and the females have room to carry just a few eggs.

The males have a little clasp underneath that might help them fertilize eggs individually.

Being so small, the fish can live through even extreme drought, by seeking refuge in the last puddles of the swamp; but they are now threatened by humans.

Widespread forest destruction, drainage of the peat swamps for palm oil plantations and persistent fires are destroying their habitat.

Science may have discovered Paedocypris just in time - but many of their miniature relatives may already have been wiped out.

Post by **weemadando** » 2006-01-25 06:25am

Wow. That is small. In fact, remarkably fucking tiny.

Magnetic · Post by **Magnetic** » 2006-01-25 02:15pm

It seems clear.

Send in a team and gather as many specimins as possible for as many aquariums as possible. Unless you think that man will ultimately stop any money making process to protect "some stupid tiny fish".

Which would be how they would act. Profit, for them, I'm quite sure greatly outweighs fish.

FOG3 · Post by **FOG3** » 2006-01-27 01:24pm

Why stop making profit to save a fish when you can turn a profit by saving the fish? Breed them and sell them as a novelty item given they can claim they're the smallest known fish. Buy off a decent plot of land where the things are at, and use that as a base. Not exactly a million dollar industry, but what do you expect?

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-27 02:13pm

You could probably keep them in a tiny vial with algae in it. At night, you can leave the top open to let oxygen in, and on the go, let algae supply the fish with both food and water. It's a portable pet, in a cage no bigger than a wallet.

Pick · Post by **Pick** » 2006-01-27 09:09pm

wolveraptor wrote:You could probably keep them in a tiny vial with algae in it. At night, you can leave the top open to let oxygen in, and on the go, let algae supply the fish with both food and water. It's a portable pet, in a cage no bigger than a wallet.

Kind of like Gulliver objected to being being jostled around in a tiny cage in Brobidnag, fish don't like being tossed about much either. That's why you don't shake a new goldfish. They have a tendency to die. Just FYI.

I would like these fish protected in the wild, by the way. Fuck making everything cool into a "pet", damnit. It's part of the ecosystem. You don't just save species because "they're cool": you do it because it's a critical part of a sorely neglected balance.

Ryoga · Post by **Ryoga** » 2006-01-27 09:17pm

wolveraptor wrote:You could probably keep them in a tiny vial with algae in it. At night, you can leave the top open to let oxygen in, and on the go, let algae supply the fish with both food and water. It's a portable pet, in a cage no bigger than a wallet.

Hey, that's actually a cool idea. I wonder how much money could be made selling these Nano-Aquariums(Tm).

Post by **Surlethe** » 2006-01-27 09:59pm

Pick wrote:I would like these fish protected in the wild, by the way. Fuck making everything cool into a "pet", damnit. It's part of the ecosystem. You don't just save species because "they're cool": you do it because it's a critical part of a sorely neglected balance.

No, you do it because either a) the species has entertainment value for humans; or b) because without the species, humanity will be hurt worse after utilizing its habitat for humanity's good. Like it or not, humanity is the dominant biological force on the planet, and, in general, our whims (and, to a lesser extent, our needs) dictate the rise and fall of other species.

Mark S · Post by **Mark S** » 2006-01-28 12:58pm

For some reason I see people completely destroying this fishies ecosystem and yet, years later, them still turning up in gutters and drainage ditches and catch-basins. Hell, they survive in the last shrinking puddles already. They'll probably turn into a nuisance fish, coming out of peoples taps.

wolveraptor · Post by **wolveraptor** » 2006-01-29 02:28am

Kind of like Gulliver objected to being being jostled around in a tiny cage in Brobidnag, fish don't like being tossed about much either. That's why you don't shake a new goldfish. They have a tendency to die. Just FYI.

I figured that the fish would be so small, and it's container so comparatively large, it wouldn't of incessant battering. The water could act like a shock absorber, and even a small amount should be enough to shield a fish. As you know, large creatures are more susceptible to death from battery. A mouse can survive falls that would kill larger animals (excepting specially adapted ones such as cats) because it's mass is low, and it's speed is the same as all other animals. F=ma and all that.

If all else fails, don't keep it in your pocket. Leave it on your bedstand to look at as you fall asleep. It's still portable, just a little fragile.