[AGA Contest] Re: more biotopes

[Roger Miller <roger@spinn.net>]

Steve, and all.  I'll divert this thread back to the contest list if I can.  

> Roger said:
> >  It appears to me that they need to be judged on a
> > basis that is substantially technical ("Is this a biotope?") and not
> > aesthetic, as is the case in other categories.

> True.  I would like to have a definition of what a biotope is for the AGA
> contest. I agree that if it is aesthetic and has plants, it should go into
> one of the other planted categories.  If it is aesthetic and has no plants
> then that _could_ be a category that could be defined as the "biotope"
> category.  But in that case why don't we just have an "unplanted" category.
> The name would make more sense, and there would be no confusion over judging
> them with the aesthetic judges.

Rainer Stawikowski in "The Biotope Aquarium" has an entire chapter titled 
"What's a Biotope Aquarium" in which he substantially fails to define what a 
biotope aquarium is.  Presumably it is an aquarium that is set up and 
populated to represent a specific biotope.

A biotope is defined in an online dictionary thus:

"A biotope is a region environmentally uniform in conditions and in the flora 
and fauna which live there."

You can find similar and more involved definitions elsewhere.

Stawikowski clearly believes that a biotope aquarium can be generalized 
beyond a true biotope.  The very difficult question to answer is just how far 
conditions can be generalized while still calling the aquarium a biotope 
aquarium.
  
> > Answering the technical question is not necessarily something that an
> > aquascaping judge is qualified to do.

> True but we have had some aesthetic judges that knew a lot about plants
> also, and did a good job as technical judges in the biotope category.

Some technical decisions are fairly easy.  I submit that a tank that includes 
fish from two different continents is automatically *not* a biotope aquarium. 
On the other hand, I don't know how many judges you can find (certainly I 
would not be one of them) who could look at a photographed collection of 
Malawi cichlids and tell you whether they live naturally under the same 
conditions, or at a photographed collection of plants and tell you whether 
they might be found growing in similar settings along the bank of some 
southeast Asian stream.

> > If they are to be judged on some other basis then they need an entirely
> > different set of judging  guidelines.  Setting up a different set of
> > guidelines effectively creates a separate contest for biotopes.

> True.  It would be a separate sub-contest with less participation. But there
> are a lot of planted aquaria enthusiasts that are either not yet ready to go
> full tilt into aquascaping, or they like the plants themselves more than the
> aesthetic part of the hobby.  It would give them an opportunity to
> participate in the contest.

But isn't it an "aquascaping" contest; something that is won by the best 
aquascape?  I'm not sure what role casual aquascapers have in an aquascaping 
competition. 

When James Purchase was originally building the foundation for the AGA 
contest he did have an interest in making it as inclusive as he could.  Hence 
we have had categories for artificial aquascapes, for ponds and even for 
illustrations.   We even allowed people to submit their entries in a 
non-competitive showcase.  I think we got one entry.  Apparently even those 
who are not full-tilt aquascapers still want their entries judged against 
those who are.

I am less enthusiastic than James about making a contest that offers 
something for everyone.

> > I suppose that we could define our way around that little controversy by
> > insisting that the biotope entries must be planted.  That would eliminate
> > tanks that represent most of the worlds aquatic biotopes.

> This I don't understand.  I thought most biotopes (even the African rift
> lakes) have planty of aquatic plants.  Its just people often don't want to
> use the plants.  If its a technical (and not aesthetic) biotope and a really
> true plantless biotope then at least the other items like rocks and wood
> should attempt to mimic the original biotope being modeled.  If its
> aesthetic then the realism doesn't matter.

A lake is not a biotope, and that is one of the problems -- it doesn't come 
anywhere near the requirement of uniform conditions or uniformity in the 
organisms that live there.  A lake (Tanganyika for instance) contains a 
multitude of biotopes, as does a single river -- even a small river.  Only a 
minority of the biotopes include plants as a prominent part of the 
association, though a larger number may include a few plants.

I'm not sure what an aesthetic biotope is.  If the realism is unimportant, 
then isn't it just an aquascape?

> I agree that the AGA contest right now is an "aquascaping" contest and
> plants are optional.  But since the AGA is a "planted aquaria" club, maybe a
> technical biotope definition would bring in some participation from the
> plant lovers that aren't into hardcore aquascaping.

> And yes there would need to be some guidlines for a technical biotope
> category.

> Steve Pituch

How would you qualify judges for the technical aspects of a biotope contest?


Roger Miller
  ------------------
  To unsubscribe from this list, e-mail majordomo@thekrib.com
  with "unsubscribe aga-contest" in the body of the message.
  To subscribe to the digest version, add "subscribe aga-contest-digest"
  in the same message.
  Old messages are available at http://lists.thekrib.com/aga-contest
  When asked, log in as username is "aga-contest", and password "second".