# Foreground Crypt for 4ft tank



## Axelrodi202 (Jun 7, 2009)

Will be setting up a 4ft (most likely 120g) crypt tank soon. What is a good foreground crypt? Not interested in using C. parva.


----------



## aleph (Apr 27, 2006)

You just ruled out my answer...


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Parva is the smallest. If you can find Cryptocoryne beckettii 'petchii', this stays around 3 inch in my tank. Or C. x Willissii (most often sold as Nevelli), with a good amount of light you can keep it under 4 inch. Or C. pygmaea, which is most probably a smaller form of Cryptocoryne × willisii. 

But the size depends mostly on the amount of light. When the foreground fills in and they start shading eachother, they grow up and 4 inch can easily become 6 inch. In a low light tank they also grow a little larger. I think parva is still your best shot!


----------



## ddavila06 (Jan 31, 2009)

i have kept C. Nurii as foreground in my 75. did great too! C xWillisii is nice and short too. my crypt wendtii green gecko is fairly low but in my higher light tank it was about 9-10 inches tall.. 
varies depending on substrate, light, etc..


----------



## AaronT (Apr 26, 2004)

x willisii (also called nevelii). It's the only other very small one.


----------



## Axelrodi202 (Jun 7, 2009)

Only reason I'm hesitant to use c parva is because of the extremely slow rate of growth. I have never seen someone who actually managed to create a nice dense carpet with it. C x. willissi is what I'm leaning toward at the moment.


----------



## Tattooedfool83 (Jul 7, 2013)

Axelrodi202 said:


> Only reason I'm hesitant to use c parva is because of the extremely slow rate of growth. I have never seen someone who actually managed to create a nice dense carpet with it. C x. willissi is what I'm leaning toward at the moment.


Good choice man


----------



## aleph (Apr 27, 2006)

Axelrodi202 said:


> Only reason I'm hesitant to use c parva is because of the extremely slow rate of growth. I have never seen someone who actually managed to create a nice dense carpet with it. C x. willissi is what I'm leaning toward at the moment.


Can't argue with that. It took about a year for my all crypt tank to look "full" using a low tech setup.

I've got a C parva and dwarf hair grass tank now. After one month the paths has fully recovered from its initial melt and has new leaves, but the hair grass is taking over.


----------



## miremonster (Mar 26, 2006)

Yo-han said:


> Or C. pygmaea, which is most probably a smaller form of Cryptocoryne × willisii.


Surely you mean the Cryptocoryne "pigmea" from the company Anubias, Italy; it's not the true species _C. pygmaea_ from the Philippines that looks very different:
http://www.heimbiotop.de/cryptocoryne.html#pygm
http://crypts.home.xs4all.nl/Cryptocoryne/Gallery/pyg/pyg.html

According to an info text from Anubias in the blog "Fish fingers" their "pigmea" is indeed a x willisii. Quote: "Cryptocoryne "pigmea" is a mutation (cultivar) obtained from T/C labs of Cryptocoryne nevilli." (They mean x willisii, not the true _C. nevillii_)
http://cryptgarden.blogspot.de/2013/03/cryptocoryne-pigmea.html

The 2 most frequent Cryptocoryne x willisii forms in the hobby and trade are apparently C. x willisii "lucens" (the old C. lucens, see also plant finder) and the plant that was erroneously known in the hobby as C. nevillii for decades (in the flowgrow database as C. x willisii "nevillii"). 
The latter has shorter, more ovate leaf blades than the "lucens" and is the parent of the "pigmea" from Anubias. 
Both variants are shown in the drawings from the de Wit book here below: http://crypts.home.xs4all.nl/Cryptocoryne/Gallery/wil/wil.html

Allegedly the C. "pigmea" doesn't exceed a height of 5 cm under good light conditions, but I've heard from hobbyists that it grows to ca. 12 cm high with the time, so I wonder if it differs from the x willisii "nevillii" at all.
However, apparently both the Cryptocoryne x willisii "nevillii" and the C. "pigmea" remain shorter than the narrow-leaved x willisii "lucens", so they are the better choice for the foreground.


----------



## Yo-han (Oct 15, 2010)

Thanks for clarifying, that is the one I meant


----------

