# Favorite Cichlid for a Beginner's General Community Tank



## Rejuvi (Sep 16, 2008)

*Fav centepiece cichlid?*​
Laetacara curviceps15.26%Laetacara dorsiger210.53%Anomalochromis thomasi00.00%Papiliochromis ramirezi315.79%Dicrossus filamentosus15.26%Cleithracara maronii315.79%Cichlasoma festivus315.79%Pterophyllum scalare315.79%Satanoperca leucosticta00.00%Pelvicachromis pulcher315.79%


----------



## Rejuvi (Sep 16, 2008)

If you have a 55 gallon planted tank with an assortment of schooling fish (e.g., Tetras, Rasboras, Rainbowfish, Danios, Corry Cats) and are looking for a cichlid as a centerpiece fish what would be your vote for favorite cichlid?


----------



## Rejuvi (Sep 16, 2008)

Yes, I realize all of the choices aren't from S America, but I couldn't figure out where else to place the topic.


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

LOL...mate everyone going to say something different.

You also missed out Bolivian rams and they are the most popular dwarf SA on the forum. Another dwarf cichlid you missed out are all the apistogramma

Satanoperca leucosticta are not a beginners cichlid. Niether should German Blue rams or checkerboard cichlids be considered beginners cichlids, though both would be great in a planted tank.

There are so many great setups possible from that list for a 55g tank. Three good ones would be; two pairs of Bolivian rams and one pair of Dorsigera, or two pairs of Blue rams and a trio of dicrossus, or one pair of Scalare angelfish and two trios of an apistogramma species.


----------



## Dizzcat (Aug 26, 2008)

I vote for Bolivian Rams! :thumb:

I set up my first tank since my kids were little, and the very first cichlids I ever dealt with are my Bolivians. They are so awesome! My male swims around all day strutting his stuff and the female will follow him or do her own thing. They are bigger than the Blue Rams and not near as sensitive. I have had ick out breaks and everyone in the community tank died BUT the Rams, they never showed a single spot! They have spawned for me to, which was very cool!  They are aggressive, but, its all bark and no bite! They have never bitten any fins or caused any ruckus, even when they spawn.

Even tho I have a tank of the African Mbuna, my Rams are still my favorite!

So, I vote for the Bolivian Ram! 
Here's my girl


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

What about Rotkeil sevs, they're not that hard to care for and it's my 55's centerpiece.

55 gallon:

1 Rotkeil Sev
5 Bolivian Rams - 1m 4f preferable
2 Laetacara dorsigera

I really also wanted to add some Crenicichla wallacii or regani.

As for not listing Bolivian Rams :lol: about the easiest beginner SA cichlid you could have....


----------



## hollyfish2000 (Aug 23, 2007)

For a centerpiece fish, IMHO, nothing beats a lovely angel . . .


----------



## Rejuvi (Sep 16, 2008)

FYI, I agree everyone is going to say something different. That's part of the reason why I put this up here, to get people's opionions and to give people a chance to support their centerpiece fish.

I also agree there are some great centerpiece fish missing from the list and yes the ones you've mentioned above were on my original list. I had to take down a few choices I had put up originally due to the limit the post had on number of choices. But please, feel free to speak up for your fav centerpiece cichlid even if it's not listed.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

:wink: Don't worry we're just kiddin' around with you.


----------



## dwarfpike (Jan 22, 2008)

The only reason I picked the _Laetacara_ over the _Anomalochromis thomasi_ is becuase of the jewels aggression. They are hardier but also fiesty little things ... that didn't like my rummy nose tetras very well *grumbles* But they would be second on the list due to hardiness, color, and fiestiness.


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn (Dec 26, 2005)

really should have read the title first, before voting.... (D. filamentosus probably being my favourite SA dwarf cichlid)

for a beginner tank the Pelvicachromis pulcher are probably the easiest to start with. that said I dont like cribs, so not what I'd be going with.

have to disagree with Blairo though. dont think a 55g is big enough for a severum. even if it only grows to 8", the tank isn't wide enough IMO. and given their supposed maximum size is 12" (not that I've personally (or over the internet) seen one that size)


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

8" for Rotters bro, I wouldn't keep a potential 12" fish in that size tank, the whole reason I went for Rotkeil is due to their smaller size. I don't think you'd disagree if you saw him in person in there, he's got oodles of space. FYI it's 20" wide.... Maybe that's not standard for a 55 though?!?


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn (Dec 26, 2005)

blairo1 said:


> 8" for Rotters bro, I wouldn't keep a potential 12" fish in that size tank, the whole reason I went for Rotkeil is due to their smaller size. I don't think you'd disagree if you saw him in person in there, he's got oodles of space. FYI it's 20" wide.... Maybe that's not standard for a 55 though?!?


that makes the difference,

I got a generic formula for the minimum tank size for a fish, obviously doesn't work for very active swimming fish, but for most its a good enough rule of thumb.

and that is 6times the length and 2 times the width of the eventual adult size.

in which case 48by20 is big enough. I was thinking the 55g was 48by13by20high. (according to the standard sizes in the library) in which case I didn't think it was wide enough..

yours is a very healthy looking rotkeil,


----------



## heylady (Oct 14, 2004)

Another vote for angels!! :thumb:


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

I voted for Laetacara dorsigerus.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

A standard 55gal is not big enough for severums at all.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Yes, my tank isn't a standard 55 as we've determined, which was my mistake. I had no idea standard 55's were only 13" wide!! Serves me right for conservative assumptions. Sinister, is yours not a standard 75? What are the dimensions of that? I only ask because you say you wouldn't put an 8" fish in a 13" wide tank but you keep your Amphilophus in a 75? Really NOT trying to be funny, just curious how it's different to an 8" Rotty in a standard 55 vs a <16" fish in a 75 - I've always read they are the same dimensions just with an extra inch or two in height/width!? Like I say, not being awkward I'm just curious as it seems recommended by several sources that the A. citrinellus can be kept in 75's. Surely though even if the tank is 18" width with a fish that reaches 14+" it's no different to an 8" fish with 13" width, if anything more confined. :? I don't follow that logic (not yours, just generally). Does a 75 have extra length too!?

I certainly wouldn't have knowingly advised putting an 8" fish into a 13" wide tank. Here in the UK we seem to have a lot of odd aquaria dimensions vs those in the USA. I actually _measured_ it last night and it's not what I'd remembered it as at all . 48x18x20. My 45s dimensions are 40x16x18, which I'm sure is also odd for that size tank!? What I find really strange is why a standard 55 would have only 1 extra inch width over my 20 gallon!!? I'd never buy a standard 55, seems pointless with that sort of limiting width :-?. So what size exactly is my tank then?


----------



## Chris2500DK (Feb 15, 2006)

That's just around 75 gallons.


----------



## blairo1 (May 7, 2006)

Cool, I was told it was a 55 when I bought it so no complaints here, I feel a little better about how darn expensive the thing was now! I just explored the aquarium dimensions in the library for the first time and it looks like my 45 is more like a 50 too!.... Don't know why I never thought to check that out before, useful little list! I see that it's the 75 - 90 where there is no increase in footprint, only in height, I'd got it in my head that it was the 55-75 , quite a difference there eh!

Sorry for the diversion OP it was quite important though as it obviously changes my recommendations somewhat. Scrap the Rotkeil idea if it's a standard 55! Laetacara all the way! :thumb:


----------



## PsYcHoTiC_MaDmAn (Dec 26, 2005)

40*16=640
640*18=11520
11520*16.387064(an inch cubed)=188778.7008
188778.7008/1000=188.7787008 or 189l gross capacity

188778.7008/3.78541178(American Gallon)=49.870056884537935262620226748489 (or 50g)

sorry for the maths, but thought I'd correct it. I also to the calculations myself, as for some reason I get differing results depending which converter I use. (not tested them to see which is the most reliable however...)


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

G'day Blair,



> So what size exactly is my tank then?


To wade in on the discussion. Using this sites converaion Aquarium calculator, your 48"x18"20" is 74.5 US gallons or 63 Imperial gallons, & your 40"x16"x18" is 49.75 US gallons or 42 Imperial gallons.


----------

