[Leopardess]

I'm reviving this old thread! 8)

I've noticed that many people will say that new things should be tried and that sometimes we should break away from some of the molds that seem to be forming....yet, when a person does this, the comments they get often reflect the attitude that "we don't do that" or "you can't do that." I wonder why this is?

I was thinking earlier about posting this but decided to wait until the AGA pics were up (great tanks, btw). Now, I use difformis as the foregroud/midground plant in my 55g. I use just the tops because I really like their frilly quality and they are light enough for cories to navigate in near the substrate. Everytime someone sees them, they say "those are midground plants, or background plants." Why is this? Why, if the plant is kept to short height, must it still be a mid/back/ground plant?

I mean, let's assume that the plant grows very fast and is a hassle to maintain, but *is* doable for those so inclined. It seems to me that it would be the aquarists' choice - provided that s/he can keep it maintained.

I am far too lazy for this however - and since I dont use fertilizers, that plant grows very, very slowly (prune it about 1X a month). So what/who says it must be a background plant? Why is the reaction always that it mustn't be used up front? Is there a plant stigma associated with it and other plants? :shock:

What was the response when someone first took a floating plant and forced it to "sink" using hair nets, wires, threads, tacks, etc and had to trim it regularly to keep it from dying?

 

[Leopardess]

Well I'm glad to see that you seem to agree. At least it's not just me! I was a little surprised to see Karen Randall's and Amano's comment son my tank that "fast growing" difformis shouldn't be in the foreground and wasn't "appropriate". I quite like it there 8) I think its one of those plants that is so common now that it gets a lot of flack for being boring...I actually think its one of the prettiest plants out there

 

[Leopardess]

I agree that they should be taken somewhat lightly in some cases, it just threw me off.

Since we're on the topic...there were other comments I feel I should just take lightly. One was the viability/long term possibility of some tanks (including my own). The tank was set up for months as it appears in the pic, but there was a comment about it looking set up just for the picture and being hard to maintain (I had to chuckle though, especially since a lot of tanks by pros seem to be set up for the picture and nothing more ).

Another category that could use reviewing is the fish one, as mentioned. I'm not sure if I lost points for it (not that it matters - I still wouldn't have won a single thing) but it was commented that I had hard water and soft water fish together and that it wasn't good. I don't have any wild caught fish and they're all raised in the same water, so I'm not sure if that category really applies the same to me as it would to someone with, say, wild caught discus and african cichlids in the same tank. I can see why they have that area of judging, but I feel it could be too hard to really know. The same goes for my "unnatural" natural-born white fish :lol:

That said, yes, phil's comments seemed to be very thought out, in my opinion, and were often rather long (a good thing!).

Did anyone else notice that there seems to be fewer Dutch Style aquariums? Maybe my eye just goes to the nature style, but for some reason it feels like there aren't as many really Dutch-ish ones this year.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the judge's work at trying to rank all those tanks - a daunting task, I'm sure. :shock:

 

[Leopardess]

I didn't mean to imply that the comments aren't worth anything Just that they can't know everything all the time and that they often make assumptions which are sometimes incorrect.