Talk:Danio margaritatus

Celestichthys margaritatus now being farmed?
The June 2007 issue of the American magazine Aquarium Fish states that Celestichthys margaritatus are now being farmed, which conflicts with the current article's references to the February issue of Practical Fishkeeping:
 * "Galaxy Rasbora Update
 * The hot new 'galaxy rasbora,' which was only discovered in September 2006, has been scientifically described. More closely related to danios than the rasboras, this fish has been classified as a danion. This discovery has lead to a change in its common name, as well, as 'galaxy rasbora' doesn't fit a danio. The new common name is 'celestial pearl danio' — though they will likely still be known as galaxies for a while until the new name catches on. Their scientific name is Celestichthys margaritatus.
 * Proven easy to spawn, these fish are now commercially produced on fish farms, which is good news, as they seem to be relatively uncommon in the wild. Dozens of hobbyists have also reported success with them. It looks like these tiny jewels are in the hobby to stay."
 * —Mike Hellweg
 * Aquarium Fish Magazine, June 2007, Page 24

Artificial Silence 21:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

now in danio genus —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.192.172.94 (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * There's a paper in Zootaxa to that effect . Not having read it entirely I can only say: better wait a bit. It would require a thorough and as complete as öossible analysis of Danio, Microrasbora, Chela, Devario and Inlecypris; this is simply not being done: "[p]hylogenetic analysis of 1,494 bp of the RAG1 nuclear gene for 31 rasborine taxa, including 5 species of Danio".
 * That it is closest to Danio is certain. Do they form a clade? The new paper suggests so. But how well-supported is this group?
 * "Practical Fishkeeping", ever helpful, says: "The results also placed Celestichthys and Danio erythromicron as a sister group to Danio, where they all appear to be of monophyletic origin, suggesting that they evolved from a single common ancestor." - but if it is a sister group, then one or two genera may be accepted. And if the latter, Celestichthys would contain the aberrant "M." erythromicron too, and if that fish can be kept out of Danio it is probably for the better.
 * Remember that to belong into Danio with certainty, it needs to be closer to some Danio (in the modern sense) than to others, not just generally closest to Danio as a whole. If it is just the latter, the issue is unresolved and will eventually be decided by the scientific community as a whole as both treatments are feasible accoding to the current standards of systematics. Somebody ought to check out the paper. Does the molecular phylogeny place the CPD inside Danio with robust (ML: >90-95%, MP: >99%) bootstrap support? If not, the results need to be discussed in the relevant articles, but a certain decision cannot be done at the moment I think. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have checked out the fulltext (it's here) and now I concur with the authors. The placement within Danio in the strict sense is robust, and though few danionins were sampled in total, the relevant species were. Pending a wholesale revision of danionins that incorporates the CPD also (not likely anytime soon, since the 2003 revision is too recent), the only sensible move seems to use Danio margaritatus and Danio erythromicron henceforth. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 08:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The last comment was made 8 or 9 months ago. Seriously, why hasn't this been moved yet? 128.175.159.71 (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

IN THE AQUARIUM - grammar error. I believe a grammar error has been made in the last sentence of the in the aquarium section. It says some members of the species like acidic water, then refers to water needing to be maintained at a high PH. Acidic water of course has a low PH. I didn't know the author's intent, or which fact is actually correct in regards to the species, so I didn't know which way to fix it. I hope a more knowledgable editor can clear up that last sentence 68.3.42.116 (talk) 09:22, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

standard length
"1.5–2 cm standard length" - that's too short, I think. We breed Danio margaritatus successfully in huge aquariums, and all our adult fishes measure 3.5 cm or even 3.75 cm. 91.61.206.200 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on Danio margaritatus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217155444/http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1033 to http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1033
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217154131/http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1163 to http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1163
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217153119/http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1174 to http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1174
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150217155922/http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1230 to http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/content.php?sid=1230

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)