Talk:Alligator gar/Archive 1

bowfishing
Does the sport fishing section seem to have some bias against bowfishing? Natewest 03:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

bow fishing
It says that they are near the surface of the water makeing them easy targets for bowfishers, but what happens after that does not even come close to an absolute kill you have to keep hitting and hitting until they are dead so easy target yes easy kill NO —Preceding unsigned comment added by Theace22 (talk • contribs) 23:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing references
Reference 5 goes to a missing article. Just thought I'd point that out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hllama (talk • contribs) 16:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Reference 11 (on Moon Lake) says nothing about gar. It's an irrelevant reference. I'm removing it and then adding a citation needed tag since the details of the photo are uncited. Fenevad (talk) 02:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

327 Lbs gar caught in Vicksburg
You say that the longest alligator gar fish ever caught was around eight feet long. I have an e-mail from a son showing one caught in 1910 that was over ten feet long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.43.180 (talk) 13:16, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * link
 * Well what we deal with here are official records, otherwise they are just hearsay. I have fished the oxbow lakes and Mississippi river around and south of Vicksburg since I was a small child, and based on what I've seen I have no doubt that this fish can exceed 8ft.  But unfortunately that is the largest on record.  It irks me a bit that you didn't properly sign your article, because I would be willing to look into this and possibly be willing to add it to this entry in some way if appropriate (but not as an official record), but because your comment is unsigned we cannot contact you to see the image.  If you do perchance see this, please respond.Levontaun (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Use of word primitive
This is misleading since it seems to indicate that this fish is somehow ancient. It isn't, it has evolved for as many years as we have and is as modern as we are. This is a common mistake that a lot of people make while referring to species that "look" like something ancient, or have been around for very long. They are only about as primitive as we are :)
 * Consider it to be a living taxon with many primitive characteristics - a living fossil with relatively few morphological changes from the way it appears in the fossil record. Avoid misinterpreting "primitive".  There are variances in its application.  AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  02:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * As discussed already elsewhere, "primitive" is a nonsense concept when dealing with taxa. The editor above is right. -- cyclopia speak! 22:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't be misled by hardcore scientific terminology that is only decipherable by scientists, and does not follow WP:NOTEVERYTHING which basically advises editors to keep it understandable for the average Wiki reader. Following is an excerpt with a link to a reliable source with regards to application of the term "primitive fishes" when dealing with documentation to be accessed by the general public:
 * Fish Physiology: Primitive Fishes: Primitive Fishes
 * "Primitive fishes" is a loose denomination that is typically used to describe species from taxonomic groups which appeared in vertebrate evolution earlier than the modern elasmobranchs and the teleosts. In this context, the term "primitive" is synonymous with the more scientifically correct "plesiomorphic", which indicates the possession of primitive morphological characters, hence characters that occured earlier in the fossil record than those by which dominant modern groups are defined. In most cases, primitive fishes are the extant remnants of taxa that dominated periods of the fossil record but comprise a limited number of species today.  This has led them also to be described as "living fossils", "evolutionary relics", or "anciety fishes".  Therefore, by selecting primitive fishes, we elected for a simpler descriptor, rejecting the more scientifically robust or more emotive terms.  AtsmeWills  &#9775;  talk  22:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Alligator Gar as missing link?
Tiktaalik refers to Alligator Gar as resembling a Tiktaalik. This deserves a mention on the Alligator Gar page, and reference to fish evolution. Is the Alligator Gar a still-at-it Tiktaalik with its lung and its paddly fins and its spawning during floods (which must leave it stranded and needing to truck through the mud a piece) or not? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A601:46C:4101:CABC:C8FF:FEA5:82F4 (talk) 01:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Final Assessment reply
(b) There are instances where the article strays off-topic. Examples are the record fish and the excessively detailed description of the Lacey Act infringement. I reworded "record fish" under Anatomy section to read "largest alligator gar on record". I left the Lacey Act as is because (1) it is in the lead, and (2) I feel it is both important and notable to include the poaching issue, the seriousness of the crime, and the penalties involved. I also believe readers will benefit from this information. I hope you will agree.

(b) Images are mostly relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions but they are unnecessarily crowded together, squashing the text, leaving other areas of text unillustrated. I thought the jug fishing video clip was not worth including. I resized, and redistributed pictures and video, and removed jug fishing clip. On my screen, the article appears balanced. Atsme &#9775;  Consult  13:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Gallery format in plain pictures?
I find the current plain picture formatting of the gallery under the "Human utilization" paragraph quite unpleasant. It is inconsistent (all other images in the article are, as expected, standard MediaWiki framed thumbnails: why the gallery images are not?), and the lack of frames, along with the caption font size (which is equal to that of the article, instead of being slightly smaller and distinct), makes it look quite ugly, confusing and it looks amateurish. Notice also that in WP:IMAGESYNTAX, the recommended syntax is a thumbnail one. While there is no absolute MOS preference for one or the other style, I see no benefit in the current format. -- cyclopia speak! 19:12, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I changed over to the table syntax. Row is centered on page, placeholders have border, images are all the same height, text is smaller and centered in a caption box, and all is consistent with style of other images in article.  Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  21:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks much better, thanks!-- cyclopia speak! 08:51, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Three charges...specifically
Three separate provisions of which two were the same:
 * "The charges included violations of three separate provisions of the Lacey Act, specifically conspiracy to submit a false label for fish transported in interstate commerce; conspiracy to transport fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law or regulation; and conspiracy to transport and sell fish in interstate commerce in violation of state law or regulation."

Unfortunately the source has the same problem. The appeal court judgment says the third charge was "knowingly engaging in conduct that involves the sale or purchase of, the offer of sale or purchase of, or the intent to sell or purchase, fish or wildlife or plants with a market value in excess of $350, knowing that the fish or wildlife or plants were taken, possessed, transported, or sold in violation of, or in a manner unlawful under, an underlying law, treaty or regulation", but that might be a little long for the article. Belle (talk) 09:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, the last two charges are not the same. The charge of "conspiracy to transport fish in interstate commerce", and the charge of "conspiracy to transport and sell fish " are two different charges.Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  02:38, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Nearly a half-century in the lead....
I added back the statement about alligator gars being considered a trash-fish for nearly a half-century because people's perception of them as such was a big part of the reason for their decline over the past 50 years, and why resource agencies were eradicating them. The Warm Springs article I cited further down in the Early history section also confirms, "...their numbers have also substantially decreased over the past 50 years which includes the following explanation ...but mostly they were considered a "trash fish" and were targeted for eradication or control. See the following if you need further confirmation:       Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  05:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The problem with the "past half century" was that also included the past decade when their role was re-evaluated. Dropping the "past" fixes it, you can remove the citation from the lead again if you like (I wasn't challenging the fact, just trying to make it make sense in the context of the subsequent sentence) Belle (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you,.

Size discrepancy
In the lead and elsewhere, it's said that they grow to be 10 ft (3 m) long, but the largest ever caught was apparently only eight and half feet. Obviously that could be the heaviest, rather than the longest, specimen caught, but I think we need to either get a ref that definitively states they can grow to 10', or cut back the maximum size. I did some preliminary searching, but couldn't find anything good. Matt Deres (talk) 12:01, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Fixed records, including anecdotal record in lead, Anatomy section, and Sport fishing section. Atsme  &#9775;  Consult  15:50, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Oxbow Link
In the article, one of the links that should link to an oxbow lake, instead links to an actual oxbow (like a plow oxen would wear). I will make the modification and link it to "oxbow lake". Levontaun (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

COI
Per box at the top of this page, an editor has WP:SELFCITEd with regard to "earthwave". Those contribs need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I married an alligator gar in 1995, and my family are all alligator gars. Do you realize how stupid this is?  Atsme 📞📧 23:03, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply once at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Good. See you at ARBCOM. Atsme 📞📧 03:35, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Following clean up by Dr Chrissie, the COIN decision and my own review, I'm removing COI tags. Please end the edit warring now Jimfbleak - talk to me?  16:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Photos
I was wondering whether something could be salvaged from the photos that were entered and deleted from the article recently. I found the photo taken from above the fish was rather eye-catching so I played with it for a few minutes. Please see below. I feel it is quite educational, although the quality is not the best (distracting background, low resolution.) Given the high quality of the images already in the article, this might outweigh its educational value, but I thought I would suggest it (by the way - are they nostrils?) DrChrissy (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * , I'm of the opinion that if we add more images they should be verifiably captioned with relevance to the prose. For example, an image depicting the nares on an alligator gar (believed to be used for chemoreception) would be an improvement if it was properly cited, captioned and supported in the prose under the section titled Anatomy and physiology.  There are sources that describe nares on air-breathing fishes, but there is no mention of alligator gar specifically.  If you find something, then that would be a good image, indeed.  We must also be careful to avoid WP:SYNTH and WP:OR when researching for relevant sources.  Perhaps you have access to some ichthyology books we can cite?  Atsme 📞📧 18:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought the image might be useful for it's pictorial education - I, for one, had not appreciated how broad their snout is. I have no other scientific information to add, so perhaps we leave it here until appropriate content is found. DrChrissy (talk) 18:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Anecdotal
Hi  No drama over this. I'm just wondering why you seem to want the word "anecdotal" in the article. To my mind, this devalues an article. DrChrissy (talk) 22:25, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I probably should have responded to you here, but I replied at your TP. I'll move it here. Atsme 📞📧 22:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Anecdotal reports
Hi, DrChrissy - the reason Alligator gar specifically stated "anecdotal reports" and anecdotal evidence in scientific reports is because that's exactly what they are - anecdotal, no scientific proof, word of mouth, supposition - in other words, there are no "official reports" and no scientific evidence to confirm or deny the claim; therefore, it's still considered "anecdotal". We cannot say anything in WP voice that is not official or verifiable, especially when the cited sources use the words claim, or "it has been reported", or refer to it as "anecdotal evidence". I know you were trying to be helpful but I don't think it's accurate to say in WP voice that they can grow to be 10 ft. The verifiable facts tell us that they get heavier not longer after they reach a certain size (under 10 ft.) - refer to the official records which verify the largest alligator gar ever caught and recorded was about 8-1/2 ft. long. Following are some official verifiable reports that support what I'm saying is accurate about how their weight increases rather than their length,, ,. I went ahead and put the information back the way it was when it passed the GA review. Thanks for giving me another opportunity to research and check for verifiable information that would justify the removal of anecdotal. I simply don't believe we're there, yet. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 22:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Are they nummy?
This might sound silly... but since it's an article on a sport fish, I was wondering if there should be a section on how they taste? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

Outside natural range
There seems to be a large Alligator gar currently residing in the moat of Nagoya Castle in Japan. It has been sighted several times and photographed. Attempts to catch the gar have not been successful. Source. GummyYeti (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not unusual to see transplants. They often start as aquarium novelties, then when they get too big to keep, they're dumped into ponds, etc.  Humans are the primary cause for exotic introductions. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em; color:#A2006D;">Atsme 📞📧 11:00, 12 May 2017 (UTC)