Talk:Koi/Archive 1

Inconsistencies
Just thought I should point out there are some inconsistencies with the names/characters used in this article and the Japanese one. For example kawarimono in the Japanese article is written 変わり物, and asagi is indeed written 浅黄 in it as well. Which one is correct I don't know, I also know that other wikipedia entries can't be used as sources so I think it needs further looking into as I'm not knowledgeable about koi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.110.156.244 (talk • contribs) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Section Name Change?
Any objections to changing the title of the "Keeping" section to "Care"? I think it sounds a little more professional. -gibsepisg  —Preceding comment was added at 18:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Human Faces?
I came across a youtube video with "human-faced" koi. It was pretty creepy. Can someone who knows about these kinds of fish look into whether this is for real, and if so, incorporate it appropriately into the article. I think others would want to learn about this too! -thanks
 * That fish is a jinmengyo and it's mentioned in the article. I don't think it looks human, though it does have an interesting face.  Some Japanese stories talk of jinmengyo with human faces, but I think it's mostly psychological.  If you are told it has a human face before you see it, you'll think it looks like a human face. - 24.23.37.62 (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The things that look like eyes facing forward are actually nostrils. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.3.46 (talk) 22:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Origins of Koi vs. Origins of Goldfish
Should information related to the origins of goldfish go into the section that states Origins of Koi? Or should it go into the section that describes the differences between koi and goldfish. Also of note, there is a seperate Goldfish article on Wiki that describes the origins of Goldfish. Nowhere in that article is any kind of description related to the origin of koi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jediknight95758 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

If wikipedia is intended to mirror an encyclopedia, that information related to the origins of goldfish should not go into a section related to the origins of koi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexa415 (talk • contribs) 23:11, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is intended to mirror an excyclopedia. Not only should information be verifiable, but it should also be relevant and pertinent to the article in question. The origins of goldfish or general statements about the carp family should not be in the origins of koi. That information should be in their respective articles or in the section related to the differences between the two species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.26.179.0 (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For goodness sakes Aquafanatic, you were nearly banned for socking last year, and the first thing you do on resurfacing is to reintroduce the disputed edits (clearly contradicted by the sources), and start socking again? Stop agreeing with yourself and be a man. Carry out your arguments honestly. LK (talk) 06:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 21:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * ,, and all appear to be sockpuppets, making nearly identical edits here, and also removing warning notices about them on their own Talk, and other Talk pages. They apparently have something to do with Sacramento area, and the prison system there.


 * They are all sockpuppets of user:Jediknight95758, who has a long history of socking (see ). The IPs are from the same geographic area, have the same behavior, and keep on reintroducing the same material contradicted by sources. Would you mind reporting this case to WP:SPI? I have previously involvement with this page, and would prefer not to be the one that reports it. Thanks, --LK (talk) 12:50, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Subspecies
Are ornamental koi a subspecies of carpio "common carp" or are they a different species? Also, it mentions that butterfly koi are a hybrid with asian carp, and yet the asian carp article says that asian carp is a name applied to several species of carp including the common carp (which would presumably include koi)Suppafly 22:50, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * They're just a variety, not even a subspecies - the colors apparently don't breed true, without careful culling a population of koi would soon be back to the original dull colors. Butterfly koi origins need more research, my source was kind of vague on the details (of course, breeder secretiveness doesn't help :-) ). Stan 01:09, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. Suppafly

Butterfly koi are the result of crossing Japanese Koi with Indonisian. They wanted to improve the immune system due to years of inbreeding, so thought that it would make them more hardy, it worked but the butterfly fins were an unexpected result. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 193.111.25.197 (talk • contribs) 13:52, 8 Sep 2006 (UTC)

Capitalization
Is there a reason why koi is capitalized throughout the article? --Galaxiaad 04:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The capitalization of the names of plants and animals has been a long running debate on Wikipedia. For a recent flurry of discussion, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life. -- Solipsist 07:20, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * There is absolutely no reason to capitalize koi here - the debate on common names is for species names, but "koi" is not the name of a species, but a collective term for a variety of breeds, sort of like sheep dog (note how specific breeds are capitalized there, but not the generic term). Stan 13:31, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure which way the wind is blowing on that debate, but my impression is it is often applied to common names of species. But you are right, I don't think anyone has tried to extend it to class groups like sheep dog. I suspect they would like to capitalize Common Carp here, but if you go into the Asian carp article, all the species mentioned are lower case. -- Solipsist 14:07, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * This is partly because the professional ichthyological community is having an ongoing debate on the subject, and so our source references are all inconsistent. Stan 17:39, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Category
Someone changed the Category:Fish to Category:Carp which probably makes sense, but shouldn't it still be in Category:Fish? Suppafly 15:51, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Category:Carp is itself in Category:Fish so it doesn't seem necessary to me. Do you think it's important to be in both? Fg2 20:33, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The general rule is that articles in a category should not also be in any of its supercategories, with the exception of the article that defines the category (Alaska is in both its own category and supercategory of US states, for instance.) Stan 21:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Sounds good, I wasn't aware of the rule. Suppafly 16:46, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Lifespan
Someone added "If kept properly, kio can live about 30-35 years. Some have been known to live 200 years." is this a fact? Suppafly 17:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
 * The Japanese Wikipedia article ja:コイ says that in unusual cases they can live to over 70 years. Judging by the scales, the record-holder appears to be 220 years, but that is viewed with skepticism. 魚にしては長寿の部類で、平均20年以上、まれに70年を超す. 鱗の年輪から推定された最長寿命記録は220年だが、これは信憑性が疑問視されている. So this does not support the statement "known to live 200 years" but it would support a statement like "estimated to have lived over 200 years," with a caveat that the estimates are not known to be reliable. Fg2 21:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

But wouldn't the people alive who can verify that technically be dead? But, then, the same argument can be made for turtles and parrots.--BCS —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.98.225.118 (talk) 09:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

These extraordinary longevity claims have never earned proper scientific recognition, mostly because fishes' age cannot be reliably determined from scales. More importantly, they're beyond absurd. According to AnAge maximum longevity for Cyprinus carpio is 47 years, which ADW calls "astounding". FishBase provides a more conservative figure of 38 years. --Anshelm &#39;77 (talk) 01:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Dealers
Should we really be listing external links to dealers? I don't really see how this adds value. Suppafly 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Depends on the dealer. If the dealer had a gallery of 1,000 awesome images not available elsewhere, or informative articles on specialized topics, those are worth linking to (preferably directly to those pages), otherwise no. Stan 14:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed some of the dealer urls that didn't have any information, just sales. I left some of the others that had good pictures and some care or historical information.  I removed the dealer heading so future people don't think its a good place to list every dealer. Suppafly 17:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Brutal trim
I've slashed lightly trimmed the external links section per the guideline. - brenneman  {L}  13:33, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Varieties image
I thought the image was very good but I notice that it's copyrighted and has an external link on it. We should come up with a replacement as soon as possible. - brenneman  {L} 09:26, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles
I have found some articles on koi carp and how to breed them. also a good article on ghost carp koi carp

Nishikigoi
Why aren't Butterfly and Ghost Koi considered Nishikigoi? Hybrid heritage alone can't possibly be the reason as Doitsugoi also originated as a hybrid (and I use that term loosely). - 16:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Growth Speed/Identification
How fast do koi grow?

There is a fountain/pond on public property near my apartment. People let their fish go in it when they get too big— which, actually, was what I was doing there today. The pond I picked out for my goldfish has some 2-inch fish in it. a few are normal goldfish coloured, but one is the olive-brown 'original' colour, and two are reddish-orange on the bottom and blackish-red on the top. Are these just mutant goldfish, or might they be young koi? Is there a way to tell? Cantras 22:00, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Edit- my googling has told me these are almost certainly not koi... but they're still beautiful and free for the taking. :) Cantras 06:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Edible?
I know I asked about the gar, but are koi bred for food, too? they probably are, due to being a species of carp, but still...
 * Koi can be eaten and it is grown commercially for food in Japan, China, and other Asian countries. However, cooking a koi requires lengthy preparation to get rid of mud it picks up from feeding and it's far simpler to go to a restaurant that offers koi dish. Also, it's possible for the fish to carry parasites and so it should be cooked well to avoid getting sick. Usually, only dull colored ones are eaten, but this doesn't mean colorful ones are not edible.--Revth 07:53, 27 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A distinction should be made that the common carp is bred in mass numbers on fish farms as a food source in many countries. However, koi breeding operations typically do not raise koi for foor purposes.  Just the opposite, most koi farms cull fry that they do not consider worth rearing.  Additionally, many koi are subject to treatments for diseases with chemicals like formalin, furazone green, or other known carcinogens.  These chemcials come with warnings that fish treated with these compounds should not be consumed by humans.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.240.1.2 (talk) 18:39, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the difference...
Between a koi and a goldfish? My grandma and I were wondering about that. --Noftomo 00:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aside from the size, they are two completely different species. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.75.181 (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

size
How big do they get? I'm surprised the article doesn't answer this very basic question... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.137.111 (talk) 01:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I, too, was wondering that. That's the reason I came to this article in the first place. Are koi like other fish that will grow only to the size of the tank/pond? Or do they just keep growing until they overcrowd and die? Shinku Hisaki (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think because reports vary regarding the average maximum growth, that its difficult for someone to make a verifiable statement. There have been instances where koi have been measured in at around 4 feet. That seems to be the very rare exception rather than an expected outcome though. Typical adult koi seem to range between two to three feet from my own observation. But then again, I'm sure that would be subject to dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.240.1.2 (talk) 21:58, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction into Japan a gift from Persia?
About two years ago I was in Singapore and there were these colorful educational fixtures in some public areas, such as the metro. One was a beautiful, lighted display on Koi. The information was flawless, a very high quality piece. In it said something that caught my attention, but haven't seen here, which was that the first Koi into Japan was a gift from the Emperor of Persia to the Emperor of Japan. I thought it strange because the (ancient) timing it presented seemed anachronistic, but it seemed reasonable. Has anyone heard anything about this? Thank you very much.JSteinbeck2 (talk) 13:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I haven't heard of it, and it seems unlikely, since carp like hanging out in flooded rice fields and would have been found there naturally since before there were emperors anywhere, while the area of ancient Persia is mostly desert, not so many fishes. Also doesn't seem like the genetics would be right, because there are a number of colors and patterns, a single fish couldn't have all of them at the same time. Stan (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for replying. Iran/Persia is only partially desert now and as I understand, in ancient times, the whole of that general region was far more fertile (and less arid; for instance, Babylon and Judea are supposed to be far more wet during that period.) Also, what you write seems to suggest that carp couldn't be native to the Near East. But, all the literature, including this Wiki page, state that the carp originates in the Middle or Near East. Looking forward to more information or rebuttal. Thanks. JSteinbeck2 (talk) 11:50, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly inappropriate! Removed. --Gak (talk) 16:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Relationship with the goldfish carp
What is the exact relationship of the koi carp compared to the goldfish carp? Both are cultivated in East Asia, the former in Japan and latter in China. Are the two species similar or one a subspecies of each other? Intranetusa (talk) 19:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Why Is en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi_fish Not Up For Deletion?
This page, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koi_fish, needs to go through deletion process. Everything is verbatim and was redirected. If pages like this passes quality and original content check, soon we'll have japanese_koi, live_koi, ghost_koi, etc as different pages but the same duplicate contents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skysharks (talk • contribs) 23:32, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: Should Family information and  different species infomration be in the Origins Section of a seperate species
Should information related to the origins at the Family level (Carp) and information related to the origins of a specific, different species (goldfish) be placed in the origin section of Cyprinus Carpio, Koi? Note that the Carp Family and the Goldfish have seperate existing articles. There is also a seperate section within this article to note the differences between Goldfish and Koi 169.2.124.130 --(talk) 18:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC) Also see above sections on talk page related to Origin and Koi vs. Goldfish sections. --169.2.124.130 (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note that this question has been raised before by a sock puppeteer, Jediknight95758. For instance, the above referred to section that apparently has 3 different editors agreeing, is actually the sock puppeteer agreeing with himself/herself. LK (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Carp species are very difficult to tell apart. This is especially since many carp species interbreed to form viable hybrids. In Japan the word 'koi' refers to all carp, not just the common carp. The same is true for the word for carp in chinese, and the word 'carp' in English. Most people just don't differentiate between different carp species. It is relevant to note when and where carp were first domesticated. The amount of material about goldfish can be cut down, but to remove it altogether would not be useful, since (as evidenced by comments on this talk page), many come here wondering if there is a difference between goldfish and koi. LK (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - Species being very difficult to tell apart, does not in itself negate the fact that there are different species within the same family of animal. The ability, in some situations, for species to crossbreed again does not in itself negate the fact that there are different species within the same family of animal.  A common term that generically applies to several animals within the family, also does not negate the fact that there are several species within the same family of animal.  Under that logic, the article Fish could be inundated with specific details about every species of fish ranging from eels to salmon, etc.  What most people do isn't always consistent with the guidelines of wikipedia.  When and where the first carp species was domesticated is relevant to the Carp Family and the goldfish, which may have been the first carp species to be domesticated, but the domestication of a different species of fish (albeit within the same family of fish) is not specifically relevant to the Origins section of a completely seperate species.  The amount of material about goldfish may not necessarily be cut down, but it should be located under the appropriate header.  No information about goldfish was deleted from the article, it was simply moved under the header relating to the differences between goldfish and koi, which in turn addresses the users that come here wondering if there is a difference between goldfish and koi. Aquafanatic (talk) 08:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Common Carp (Cyprinus carpio) is the fish species that was selectively bred to result in koi, Family: Cyprinidae; Genus: Cyprinus; Species Carpio. The group of carp fish are a larger collection from the Cyprinidae family of fish. There is a seperate article about the Carp or Cyprinidae family. The goldfish (Carassius auratus) is the fish species that was selectively bred from the Prussian Carp (Carassius gibelio). Goldfish Family: Cyprinidae; Genus: Carassius; Species Auratus. Prussian Carp Family: Cyprinidae; Genus: Carassius; Species Gibelio. While the information related to the carp family and goldfish species may be true and verifiable, I would also question the relevance to the origin of Koi specifically. From an NPOV perspective, I would also question whether some sense of 'nationalism' is influencing individuals into placing questionably relevant information that heavily suggests a Chinese influence.

I would agree with the note that there is a seperate header for Differences between Koi and Goldfish, where much of the information in the first paragraph would fit logically as opposed to convoluting the Origin section. I would also agree that the Origin section should focus specifically on Cyprinus Carpio, and the selective breeding which resulted in koi. Information on the origins of the Cyprinidae family as a whole should go in that respective article. Aquafanatic (talk) 04:17, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Aquafanatic, your obsession with the middle eastern origins of Koi, your interests (aquarium fish & sports) and the time of your arrival (just after Jediknight95758 was banned for sockpuppeting), reveal you to be a sockpuppet of Jediknight95758. I don't mind people making a clean break and coming back and obeying community rules. But your behaviour shows that you are socking again, proposing this RfC as an IP, and then voting in it as if you are another person, without revealing that you are the one that proposed this RfC. Come clean and stop edit warring, or you will be banned. LK (talk) 07:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not at all obsessed with the middle eastern origins of koi. Any simple search on the origin of Cyprinus Carpio which points to sites with scientific merit point to the middle east or modern day Iran specifically.  You accusations and threats are unmerited and unwarranted.  This user Jediknight95758 or 169.2.124.130, assuming they are one in the same made several posts here on Talk to open discussion up regarding the topic, apparently geared towards you specifically.  To which you simply chose not to respond in the Talk pages, but continually reverted back edits.  Yet, it is everyone else that is edit warring, but you exempt yourself.  You would make the accusation that I am the same individual.  But under your logic, there would be a great deal of men and women that would also be presumed to be sockpuppets of this person, given anyone with an interest in fishkeeping and sports and anyone that makes a statement that supports or agrees with that person's position.   An admin can verify that I'm not that same person that requested comments.  I highly suggest you go back and take a look at the talk page guidelines which describes against making personal attacks or accusations, commenting on content and not contributor, and not making threats with 'admins you know' or having people banned for disagreeing with you.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquafanatic (talk • contribs) 09:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a big difference between refusing to engage in talk page discussions and ignoring obvious sockpuppets. What we are dealing with here is the latter. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

I collapsed the above discussion on sockpuppetry. I'm going to pull out the one point (made by Aquafanatic that was relevant to the request for comments about the article dispute): "Any simple search on the origin of Cyprinus Carpio which points to sites with scientific merit point to the middle east or modern day Iran specifically." So far, this request for comment has not had much input. Has anyone tried finding (other?) fish or taxonomy experts who might be able to present the information in the article in a way that would resolve this dispute? Personally, I think the best approach is to document the history of uncertainty or controversy as far as any controversy exists, and to try and find a way to agree on how to balance the need to present an accurate article with the need to correct common misunderstandings. But first, more input from subject matter experts is needed - is there any way to find one. I suggest looking for a WikiProject that deal with fish. WikiProject Fishes? And I've actually posted this there, to try and get some outside opinions here. Carcharoth (talk) 21:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * To clarify who is saying what, can we have all the comments written by Jediknight signed as such? A new contributor might not realize that 169.2.124.130, Jediknight, and Aquafanatic are actually the same person. LK (talk) 16:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe it is best to scrub the whole discussion and start again? There are times when it matters who said what. There are other times when discussing who said what distracts from the content discussion. I look at the edits made by these different accounts/IPs/socks/meatpuppets, and I wonder to myself "what is the answer to the questions being asked here?" not "who is saying what?". The number of people saying something doesn't matter. It is whether what is being said is a valid question that needs answering? Even if only one single person makes a key argument, that arguments should matter more than who the person is that says it. My position all along has been - please, discuss the content. On the other hand, if the uncertainty over who is saying what leaves you unable to discuss the content, then maybe scrubbing the discussion and starting again is best. By the way, my post to WikiProject Fishes got little response - it doesn't look very active. Do you know of an active WikiProject that could help here? I would be willing to start this discussion again with a summary of what was said without any names attached? Would that help? Carcharoth (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I propose we delete this whole section and all others that have experienced socking (like the section referred to in the first paragraph). This is so as to not prejudice anyone for or against any viewpoints. Let's reboot this conversation and restart the discussion - starting from a clean slate. We should also incorporate the question below. That is, are Koi the same species as European Common Carp, or Asian Common Carp? LK (talk) 04:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Rather than delete them entirely, could they be archived (maybe collapsed with a note that what is said in the discussions was distorted by disputed claims of socking and meatpuppetry) and then the discussion restarted? I'm away for the rest of the weekend, so if you could do that, it would be great. Please try and include all questions and points raised, regardless of who said what. The aim here is to get the questions answered, not throw some questions out because of where they came from. If the identifying bits are stripped off, and the questions rearranged by topic, then it should be possible to restart the discussion without prejudice either way. And may be try some other animal project that is more active? WikiProject Tree of life? They may be able to answer taxonomy questions or help find more sources on this. Carcharoth (talk) 10:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming in from the request for a neutral voice at the mediation cabal. Reading the current revision, I don't think that the information in the origins section is particularly excessive. Given that it's an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary, I think that some background is perfectly acceptable, even if the content is duplicated elsewhere. On the other hand, having a 'differences from goldfish' section seems a bit excessive--I wouldn't have thought people mix them up, although maybe I'm wrong there. I hope this helps. (Declaration: I have not been involved with editing this topic at all, and to the best of my knoweledge, I do not know anyone involved in the dispute) Thomas K (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Wrong scientific name?
I think Koi should be referred to as Cyprinus rubrofuscus., according to recent taxonomic insights. It is just the Doitsu variations that are hybrids of C. carpio wiht C. rubrofuscus. http://fishbase.mnhn.fr/Summary/SpeciesSummary.php?id=59920. http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/jzs/2004/00000042/00000004/art00002 (here C. rubrofuscus is referred as a subspecies) http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTEAPREGTOPENVIRONMENT/Resources/fishes_of_mongolia.pdf (no C. carpio in Mongolia) This makes the previous discussion interesting also, because the Persian carp are probably C. carpio. I think at least the name rubrofuscus as subspecies should be named, but probably it is a valid species.Viridiflavus (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * This recently introduced into the article apparently confirms this.

"In western Europe, Japanese ornamental varieties (kois) possibly derived from C. rubrofuscus or of hybrid origin occasionally escape from ponds. Wild C. rubrofuscus are distinguished from wild C. carpio by having 29-33 + 2-3 lateral line scales (vs. 33-37 + 2-3), 18-22½ branched dorsal rays (vs. 17-20½), body silvery with red pelvic, anal and lower caudal lobe (vs. grey to bronze)."


 * Apparently, as can be guessed by the geographical proximity, the wild strain of koi (C. rubrofuscus) are from East Asia. Here are various links to other scientific papers that confirms that C. rubrofuscus are endemic to East Asia:
 * LK (talk) 08:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cyprinus Carpio Rubrofuscus are actually a subspecies of Cyprinus Carpio. The article that you reference also states that the Japanese ornamental varieties POSSIBLY derived from C. Rubrofuscus.  Even if true, this subspecies is still derived from the species Cyprinus Carpio.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aquafanatic (talk • contribs) 09:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This page implies that it's a separate species. The word "possibly" in the quote above refers to the possibility of being from "C. rubrofuscus or of hybrid origin". LK (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * This article confirms the East Asian origination of Japanese koi. However, it refers to the East Asian group as C. c. haematopterus. LK (talk) 16:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I understand this paper correctly, but I think it states that wild common carp in Japan are of East Asian origin. LK (talk) 16:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've looked over the scientific literature linked here and here's what I have: Hope that helps. -- Yzx (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Extensive hybridization between different populations has muddled the historical zoogeography of the common carp. However, scientific consensus is that there are at least two (some authors recognize more) Eurasian subspecies of the common carp (Cyprinus carpio), one from the western part (C. c. carpio) and the other from the eastern Asian part (C. c. haematopterus).
 * The East Asian form is referred to as Cyprinus carpio haematopterus by most literature. This source asserts that the name C. c. haematopterus is a junior synonym and changes it to Cyprinus rubrofuscus. However, this should not be considered a consensus view since as far as I could find this is the only primary source that does so.
 * This paper finds that, based on mtDNA, koi are descended from multiple lineages of Eurasian carp (both eastern and western). This could be the result of (1) koi being bred from a mix of western and eastern carp varieties or (2) koi being bred from an East Asian variety and subsequently being hybridized with western varieties (the butterfly koi is one known product of such a cross, so it could've happened). Which is true has not been resolved.
 * Barring the one source mentioned above, there is basically no dispute that koi are derived from Cyprinus carpio. There is now ambiguity, based on mtDNA, whether it came exclusively from the East Asian subspecies or it came from both.


 * Thanks, Yzx. So to reiterate, there is consensus that Koi are derived from Cyprinus carpio haematopterus, either exclusively, or from hybrids of C. c. haematopterus, with C. c. carpio. Is that correct? LK (talk) 04:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's right. -- Yzx (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * for as far as i know koi are largely C. rubrofuscus. There have been crossings with german mirror carp C. carpio to obtain new scale patterns which makes the koi a hybrid species, but the hybridization will vary with the type of koi, so fully scaled could be pure C. rubrofuscus still.

Removing image gallery
Wikipedia policy discourages galleries of random images of the article subject. If there are no objections, I will be removing the images in a few days. LK (talk) 18:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Since no one has objected, I'm moving the image gallery here. Please add back images selectively, only if they are useful for illustration purposes. LK (talk) 18:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gallery