Flagfin in a reef tank?

[Bam327]

Anyone have luck?
I stopped in at Petco today because I was bored. I wanted to see if they had anything interesting. The fish that caught my eye was still there from my last visit 3 months ago, a really healthy ~4” Flagfin Angel. Has anyone had success with these in a reef tank? My gut tells me not to do it but it’s such a pretty fish and is eating well that I figured I would ask the group.

 

[Webslinger]

If Petco can keep it alive....anyone can!

Not reef compatible.

 

[pcon]

Lots of people keep apolemichthys in a reef. bandits are commonly seen in reefs, as are the flagfin's close cousins the goldflake angel. All angels are a risk but I would not go so far as to say are not reef compatible, they would be solidly in the with caution category. If you have a large acan/scholy/trachy/favia collection then I would not risk it but if you have mostly sps then it can be a fine fit.

Great video that talks in depth on the topic at general and specifically on keeping the somewhat closely related bandit angels in a reef tank.

 

[Webslinger]

Lots of people keep apolemichthys in a reef. bandits are commonly seen in reefs, as are the flagfin's close cousins the goldflake angel. All angels are a risk but I would not go so far as to say are not reef compatible, they would be solidly in the with caution category. If you have a large acan/scholy/trachy/favia collection then I would not risk it but if you have mostly sps then it can be a fine fit.

Great video that talks in depth on the topic at general and specifically on keeping the somewhat closely related bandit angels in a reef tank.

So they will pick at corals! ummm not reef safe....thanks. I would only put this type of angle in a FOLR system.

 

[Angel_Anthias lover]

I mean every fish is different, and I've heard of tangs and clownfish eating corals on occasion and by that, they would deserve to be in FOLR tanks. If the owner has a sps reef tank i imagine it would be fine, but as by looking through the OPs build thread they have clams, so i dont imagine it will be a good fit sadly. It just depends on how much nipping the owner can deal with, and if the fish means more than the corals, otherwise i dont think its fair on the fish if it were to be removed again and put through stress.

 

[Webslinger]

again, not reef compatible. Doesn't mean you can't put them in your reef but you'll regret it.

 

[pcon]

So they will pick at corals! ummm not reef safe....thanks. I would only put this type of angle in a FOLR system.

again, not reef compatible.

So this is an important terminology distinction. While you are entitled to your opinion not to house such fish with corals when giving advice it is important to make clear the difference, otherwise reef tanks would be relegated to a tiny set of boring fish that are “completely reef safe”. In reefkeeping “not reef compatible“ and “not reef safe” are terms of art, meaning a high likelihood to eat all or most types of corals, and sessile inverts. This term is generally used on facultative and obligate corallivores where a variety of corals make a substantial portion of their diet. Where as with “Reef safe with caution” Often shortened to just “with caution,” indicates a lower propensity for consumption of corals. This is typically assigned to fish that may or may not pick at corals, or only certain groups of corals may be at particular risk. Informed aquarists can mitigate the risk of “with caution” fish Through a variety of techniques, some outlined in the above Macna talk. You personally may be too risk averse with your corals for this course of action however you should not prescribe that onto others without caveat, as many aquarists find this risk tolerable.

again, not reef compatible. Doesn't mean you can't put them in your reef but you'll regret it.

Telling other aquarists what they will regret is pretty arrogant. I quite happily keep similarly, if not more, coral dangerous fish in my reef without regret. Just one click on my build thread would have shown that. There are plenty of highly experienced aquarists who keep these kinds of fish without regret. So please next time try to be informative instead of reductionist. You are entitled not to put this sort of fish in your reef, but not to saying anyone who does put these fish in a reef will regret it.

 

[Bam327]

Thanks for the replies all. I may have went for this fish prior to buying a clam and not gone with a clam all together. But I don’t want to risk the health of my growing Crocea for the fish. I’ll (begrudgingly) let him go. I just hope someone gets him out of that 20 gal tank soon. He’s been in there long enough

 

[Webslinger]

Smart decision. That clam would be toast too.

 

[Jase4224]

So this is an important terminology distinction. While you are entitled to your opinion not to house such fish with corals when giving advice it is important to make clear the difference, otherwise reef tanks would be relegated to a tiny set of boring fish that are “completely reef safe”. In reefkeeping “not reef compatible“ and “not reef safe” are terms of art, meaning a high likelihood to eat all or most types of corals, and sessile inverts. This term is generally used on facultative and obligate corallivores where a variety of corals make a substantial portion of their diet. Where as with “Reef safe with caution” Often shortened to just “with caution,” indicates a lower propensity for consumption of corals. This is typically assigned to fish that may or may not pick at corals, or only certain groups of corals may be at particular risk. Informed aquarists can mitigate the risk of “with caution” fish Through a variety of techniques, some outlined in the above Macna talk. You personally may be too risk averse with your corals for this course of action however you should not prescribe that onto others without caveat, as many aquarists find this risk tolerable.




Telling other aquarists what they will regret is pretty arrogant. I quite happily keep similarly, if not more, coral dangerous fish in my reef without regret. Just one click on my build thread would have shown that. There are plenty of highly experienced aquarists who keep these kinds of fish without regret. So please next time try to be informative instead of reductionist. You are entitled not to put this sort of fish in your reef, but not to saying anyone who does put these fish in a reef will regret it.

I agree based on my experience with a Majestic, Emperor and Regal angels in a previous reef tank and not a single nip..

 

[Bam327]

I agree based on my experience with a Majestic, Emperor and Regal angels in a previous reef tank and not a single nip..

Did you have clams?

 

[vetteguy53081]

SPS ONLY . Everything else will be nipped at or eaten.

 

[Webslinger]

I agree based on my experience with a Majestic, Emperor and Regal angels in a previous reef tank and not a single nip..

Those aren't dwarf angels whose diet is corals.

 

[pcon]

Those aren't dwarf angels whose diet is corals.

Nor is a flagfin... it’s Apolemichthys trimaculatus. None of the dwarf angels have a “diet of corals” no angelfish is an obligate coralivore, none even have corals compose a majority of their diets. They primarily eat algae and sponges.

 

[Bam327]

Nor is a flagfin... it’s Apolemichthys trimaculatus. None of the dwarf angels have a “diet of corals” no angelfish is an obligate coralivore, none even have corals compose a majority of their diets. They primarily eat algae and sponges.

Is there any more of a risk with a flagfin vs a dwarf?

 

[Webslinger]

Flagfin diet is sponges and LPS's.

 

[pcon]

Is there any more of a risk with a flagfin vs a dwarf?

I would suspect that the Apolemichthys are higher risk than the low risk dwarf angels, but I am not sure how it would compare to the dwarf angels considered higher risk, like a bicolor or lemon peel. I would’t be surprised if they were worse, looking at the powerful jaws and their larger size. But I haven’t kept them in my own tank so I am not totally sure.

It totally comes down to the individual and circumstance. The aforementioned Macna talk talks about a pair of bandits in a gorgeous Reef with SPS, LPS and certain softies, and there were some corals that they took issue with, however even among those they would sometimes only take issue with corals in specific locations leaving identical corals alone in other locations of the tank.

Like I said I haven’t kept one in my tank, it’s currently too small but I plan on keeping one when I upgrade. Probably my favorite genus of angels after paracentropyge. But I’m not perticularly risk adverse with my corals, the corals will conform to my fish stocking. There are currently 2 butterflies in my tank and a 3rd in QT. But I also wouldn’t risk a clam or most of the fleshy LPS.

 

[Angel_Anthias lover]

Flagfin diet is sponges and LPS's.

Food Items - Apolemichthys trimaculatus

Not lps

 

[Webslinger]

Again, like you just said Not reef safe. They will eat some corals not all. If they eat 1 coral they aren't reef safe. A reef safe fish does not eat/pick/nip corals. He'll tear apart a reef tank. C'mon

 

[pcon]

Again, like you just said Not reef safe. They will eat some corals not all. If they eat 1 coral they aren't reef safe. A reef safe fish does not eat/pick/nip corals.

you are entitled to this opinion, but this is not how the terms are commonly used by members of the community. As I previously explained reef safe is a term of art, it comes in varying degrees, not an absolute binary. By your definition here tangs, blennies, and other common reef fish would not be reef safe. Using such a narrow and reductionist definition of the term fails to provide valuable information, and erases important nuance.