Talk:Little tunny

finest trash fish
It seems odd that "finest game fish" and "trash fish" are both used to describe this species. I note that "After lunch I hung around the kitchen a while, listening to Wolfe and Fritz Brenner, the chef and household jewel, arguing whether horse mackerel is as good as Mediterranean tunny fish for vitello tonnato-which, as prepared by Fritz, is the finest thing on earth to do with tender young veal." on Rex Stout's Nero Wolfe novel "And Be a Villain"  The horse mackerel article makes similarly libelous comments about that fish. I suppose there's been a lot of devolution since 1950? 12.193.238.99 (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Range Map?
If someone has tips on how to make range maps, or they know of a good tutorial for them, please let me know. This is fairly important to the article. Thanks --M rickabaugh (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Range maps are tough to create. If you have a reference that is accessible online, you could leave a new post either here or here.  Simply create a new section by copy and pasting the premade code at the top and filling out the appropriate information (usually just article name, source, and what you want done...in this case a range map).  If you have trouble doing this, let me know.  Hope this helps (btw, if you have photoshop and are good with it, you could likely make your own map...just make sure you site your work).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 00:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

question
"The little tunny commonly feeds in large schools because their primary food sources (small fish and developing crustaceans) are typically in schools as well."--Is "school" the group form of crustaceans?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Its the developing form, like a larval form, before the shells have grown thick. I probably should have phrased it better. --M rickabaugh (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. :-} NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

An early Thanksgiving present
Here are some sources that go into excrutiating detail but may prove to be helpful:
 * 1)
 * 2)
 * 3)
 * 4)
 * Some may be inaccessible to you, but I don't know. Hope they are useful in some way.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 05:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * This is great! I've been having trouble finding some things, but i think i was looking in the wrong places. I cant access links 1 or 3, but the pdf and #4 are going to be immensely helpful. I'm going to be updating a lot tomorrow, and hopefully every day this week.  Thank you so much for the assistance. --M rickabaugh (talk) 03:10, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. Sorry about numbers 1 and 3 (University server, I'll try to get it hashed out).  Here's another one I've stumbled across: .  If you need any more help just let me know.  Happy editing! NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anatomical Goldmine?
Ive found an article from the California Department of Fish and Game. It is somewhat old, but it contains more anatomical information than I could have imagined. If someone could look at this, see if it looks valid, that would be great. It looks like a good source, but I need to know if the age of the information is ok. Thanks!--M rickabaugh (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC) Also, how should cite info I got from one source, but its in 2 different places?--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That is indeed a good source. I wouldn't include too too much about organs and such, as you don't want to get too specific (but a lot of info from this article is usable).  If you're citing something from two different pages within the same article, you may want to include two separate citations.  Regards, --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasnt planning on going to deep into the anatomy, just hilighting some of the more interesting things, like differences between the little tunny and other species.--M rickabaugh (talk) 00:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * That's good. Use what you think is encyclopedic.  :-] NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Measurements
Concerning the inclusion of measurements, they should really be put in a template that converts them for you (rather than including a conversion in parenthesis). Not a huge or urgent problem or anything. Here's where you can find out how to do what I'm talking about: Template:Convert. Regards, NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Comments
There is no standard for whether a species name should be treated as a name, with capital inital, or not. But there is a standard convention that species names should be treated consistently within each article with regard to this. This article starts out with Little Tunny, but most of the occurrences are little tunny. Choose one convention and use it consistently.

Does "small species" mean that there are few individuals or that individuals are small in average?

What are the principles for sorting facts between "Physical description" and "Anatomy"?

"eu" is greek for good. I do not disagree with this. But I think it is only half the story. The article Eudicots says that "eu" means true. This is more understandable to me. In the case of dicots, first all plants with two cotyledons were classed together by this criterion. The botanists realized that some of the dicotyledons had branched away earlier from the main group (in numbers) than the monocotyledons. They then defined a new (true) group of dicotyledons, excluding the largest group of dicots that were all more closely related to each other than the monocots. This group was called the Eudicotyledons. They are not really more truly di-cotyledonic. But they are more truly a group. I suspect that eu-thynnus are those that not only look like tunas, but also truly belong to the monophyletict group.

release multiple batches of eggs; they can release as many as 1,750,000 Several batches in a day or several batches in a year or ...? 1,750,000 eggs per batch, in a day or in a year or ...?

--Ettrig (talk) 10:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer/questions. Ive taken care of the differences in the names, so they all read "little tunny", as well as clarifying what I meant by small.  I am not sure exactly how to separate into anatomy or physical description, and i may make anatomy a subheading under the physical description.  As for the more in depth root of the name, I see what you mean.  I will research this some more, and update the article based on what I find.--M rickabaugh (talk) 23:10, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, it is nice to get feed-back on the comments. --Ettrig (talk) 08:06, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

A Note to Future Editing
Over this past weekend as I was working on the article, I noticed some things that need to be addressed in regards to edits. I have noticed information already present in the article being duplicated or re-worded into non-scientific terms. It would be helpful to the article if, before you update, you read the section you wish to update, and double check that the information you wish to add is not already present. As for the re-wording, I think that using the proper scientific terms is important, as well as making text to the point. I have also noted a relative lack of citations on some sections that have been added. These may have simply been an oversight, but it is still important to cite any and all of the information you gather and put in the article from outside sources. I've fixed some of these things, but I'm not sure if I have found them all. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Photographs
Photos are needed - time to seek outside contributions and beg for copyrights.--JimmyButler (talk) 03:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have some that are from a family friend, but I am not sure if they are totally suitable because none of them are of just the fish, they have other people in them as well.--M rickabaugh (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe they can be cropped[?]. Or, a class member could snap a photo of one at an aquarium or something.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I can crop some of them. I'll check with the Pine Knoll Shore's Aquarium, but as far as I know the little tunny isn't kept in captivity because of its tendency to school.--M rickabaugh (talk) 19:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Makes sense.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 22:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Some comments

 * The lead says that the little tunny is not a migratory species. However the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea in Annex 1 lists the little tunny as a highly migratory species.Text


 * Fishbase is an acceptable and useful source, and can be marked up using this template:




 * which renders as:



--Epipelagic (talk) 06:15, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing out the issue with the tuna being a migratory species, that was part of the original stub, and I think it was just overlooked. However, it is migratory reference is saying that the little tunny tends to be less migratory than other tuna species, so I will do some research before I make any significant changes.


 * As for the Fishbase Reference, this seems like it will be really helpful to us for future updates. --M rickabaugh (talk) 13:41, 25 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://www.fao.org/fishery/topic/12251/en   From the tuna and tuna-like species, the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea classifies the principal market tunas, billfishes, blackfin, bullet and frigate tuna, little tunny and kawakawa as highly migratory regardless that particularly the last two species are mostly neritic. Perhaps this is significant.--JimmyButler (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Good find. Best to get all kinks like this worked out before PR.  The article is well on it's way!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 04:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The comment I posted earlier today is now totally wrong, so I've removed it. I didn't think to click on the links to the sources, because thats where all the information lies, if I can locate the original journals or pdf files. --M rickabaugh (talk) 00:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Distribution
Is the distribution shown here correct? Are there other sources that say differently? If not, the current map may have to be changed.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The map I created is drawn with information I have compiled from written sources. The map in that link is inaccurate because the little tunny is only found in the Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, Black Sea, and on rare occasions in the Red Sea. The latitude boundaries I set are the farthest points they have been recorded north and south of the equator.--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If that map is so wrong, it makes one wonder what other things in that source are wrong. Are we sure it's reliable?NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:46, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll check it out, and compare it to the ICCAT source we have, most of the things that were in it went in line with the ICCAT source, but I'll go back and double check. --M rickabaugh (talk) 02:59, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. :-) NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:42, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

My concerns
Although the following list may seem long, fear not, for it is only a grammar sweep.


 * Lead
 * "in the western Atlantic, it ranges from Brazil to Bermuda and New England states"--I don't know that this bit is entirely necessary, can leave it in if you want, but if you do you may want to rewrite the sentence...it's a bit confusing.
 * Taken care of, the thing with Bermuda was unnecessary, New England is much farther north.


 * "Occurring in large schools, and weighing up to 35 pounds"--unnecessary comma
 * "smallest member of the tuna Scombridae family"--I would link Scombridae here even though you have it linked in the taxobox
 * "one of the finest small game-fish obtainable"--bit confused, by obtainable, do you mean legally?
 * Changed to "in the Atlantic, because I don't know what was meant by obtainable, it was there before we picked up the article.


 * Recommend a new paragraph start before this sentence: "Commonly called 'false albacore'"--ultimately your call
 * Started a new paragraph, seemed like it flowed better because it totally changes topics.


 * "line stripping 40 miles per hour"--a bit dramatic, suggest rewording (again, up to you though)
 * I'm not to sure how to re-word, and so I'm going to leave it for now.


 * " Commercially, the fish is used as bait for sharks and marlin due to its high oil content and hook retention."--I would put this with the other commerce sentence you have in the lead (preferably both at the end of the lead)
 * Advice taken, I think it that it all sounds much better put together at the end.


 * There are few thins said here (notably on human interactions) that are not repeated in the article (need to be included in the text of the article as well as the lead).
 * I'm going to be working on finishing some of these connections tonight and tomorrow.


 * Taxonomy
 * The first sentence, it was given its contemporary name in 1810? I don't doubt this, but you may want to clear it up by saying something like "Constantine Samuel Rafinesque in 1810 when he gave it its current name: Euthynnus alletteratus"
 * Taken care of, I think, did some rewording to make it more streamlined.


 * Physical description
 * The little tunny has some anatomical variations when compared to other species of Euthynnus. E. alletteratus lacks a swim bladder, like most other tuna, so it must constantly keep moving to stay afloat. The first sentence states anatomically variations with other tuna followed by an example of what they share in common with other tuna?--JimmyButler (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * "The little tunny is small in body size, compared to other tuna species"--unnecessary comma
 * "It has a compact and stream-lined body built to swim"--suggest rewording, all fish are "built" to swim, perhaps "to facilitate energy-efficient swimming" (depending on what sources say of course).
 * Nice change, I just added "while swimming" to the end of what you had. Will strike.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:39, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Changed, but I'm not sure if the wording is as good as it could be, so I'm going to leave un-crossed


 * "It has a large mouth, with a slightly protruding lower jaw. It has a single row of small, inwardly curved teeth with similar teeth on the palatines."--may want to either combine or reword the beginning of the second sentence (repetitive).
 * What's a vomer?
 * The vomer is a bone that makes up the roof of your mouth, from what I have gathered. Its what causes that little ridge that you can feel towards the front of the roof of you mouth.  In fish it is in almost the same place.  I'd have it linked, but the link leads to the human anatomy, not that of fish.
 * Maybe you could include a parenthetical phrase after the word: perhaps something like (bone at roof of mouth).--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "as well as much smaller second dorsal fin followed by 8 finlets"--missing the word "a" between "as" and "much"?
 * "The pectoral fins are short and do not reach the end of the first dorsal fin.[6] The pectoral fin and the pelvic fins are joined at the base by the interpelvic processes."--another two I would combine on grounds of repetitiveness
 * "on the corselet, which is a thick band of scales circling the body."-->"on the corselet: a thick band of scales circling the body."
 * "little tunny is typically a metallic blue or blue-green with dark wavy stripes"--the word "a" makes this read a tad awkwardly
 * I agree, sounds much better without.


 * "bright white with 3-7, dark, fingerprint-like"--unnecessary comma after "3-7"
 * "The little tunny is commonly confused with the Atlantic bonito because of the coloration, but the two fish differ in their color patterns and overall body size."--little confused, they are confused because of similar coloration but have different coloration patterns? (if that was correct than you don't have to change anything...accept maybe taking out the "the" between "of" and "coloration").
 * Yes, they look similar in the colors of their bodies, but they have different patterns of these colors.


 * "Maximum size for the fish in its Mediterranean is about 12 kilograms in weight"-->"Little tunny reach a maximum of 12 kilograms in the meditteranean." Also, what is a "fork-length?"
 * Fork length is the length of the fish from the nose to the fork of its tail, opposed to total lenght, which is the length of the fish from nose to the tip of its tail. Fork Length is more commonly used.


 * The whole second paragraph is a bit hard to follow, it's just kind of all over the place. Recommend arranging by measurement rather than by location (i.e. fork length for a, b, and c, populations are (fill in the blank) while maximum lengths are (fill in the blank) and weights are (you get the idea).).
 * Taken care of, still debating removing the sentence after the first citation, but it is otherwise reorganized. Finally got to use that sandbox!


 * "The little tunny has some anatomical variations when compared to other species of fish."--I probably wouldn't even include this sentence...kind of a "well duh." Unless you change "fish" to "Euthynnus."
 * "sac that stretches the almost entire length of its body"--"the almost"-->"almost the"
 * "The different sections are differentiated by their diameter and color"--repetition of "different"
 * Also recommend an image in this section...a lot of morphology discussed with no picture except the one in the lead to refer to.
 * I'm working on it, I think I have one, just need to crop it some.


 * Feeding habits
 * "North American eastern seaboard"--wlink East Coast of the United States
 * "are common in the diet, along with squid, stomatopods,"--unnecessary comma after "diet"
 * What's clupeiform?
 * "larger fish mostly eat maurolicus muelleri."--wlink Mueller's Pearlside
 * "fish are of a similar size, and live in the same area of the water column"--unnecessary comma
 * "It mostly feeds on pelagic fishes"--two things: wlink Pelagic fish and this should be mentioned sooner in the section
 * Beyond what I've said here, you may want to rearrange a few of the sentences, it's a confusing paragraph as is
 * Distribution and habitat
 * "of the Iberian Peninsula or farther south than Brazil On the Atlantic coast of the United States"--I think a period was meant to be put after "Brazil"
 * "as far north as Cape Cod, Massachusetts, and as far south as the tip of Florida, as well as throughout the waters of the Gulf of Mexico."--"as far north as Cape Cod, Massachusetts, as far south as the tip of Florida, and throughout the waters of the Gulf of Mexico."
 * "The little tunny habitat tends to be near-shore waters, much closer to shore than for most other tunas"--two things: "little tunny's" and don't need the word "for" in the second half of the sentence.
 * "which are very helpful to the little tunny's feeding style"--"allowing the prey to be caught in high numbers?" (don't word it exactly like that, probably doesn't jive with the rest of the sentence).
 * "primarily on fish size, rather than species"--unnecessary comma after "size"
 * "Little tunny that have not yet reached adulthood, form tight schools offshore"--unnecessary comma
 * Reproduction
 * "can release 1,750,000 eggs"--I think this should read "1.75 million eggs"
 * "A droplet of oil within the egg adds to its buoyancy"--this sentence makes it seem like there are other things that create buoyancy in the egg...are there? If not you can just say "A droplet of oil in the egg creates buoyancy."
 * "The spawning season of the little tunny in the Mediterranean is generally between May and September, but the most intensive spawning occurs between July and August"--what happened to April through November?
 * "gonads (ovaries and testes) were always immature, but in their third year, they reached maturity"--what reached maturity...the fish?
 * Predators and parasites
 * Scientific names throughout this section (and article for that matter) should be in italics.
 * "Fishes such as dolphin fish (Coryphaena hippurus)"--is "fishes" a word...isn't it just "fish?"
 * Generic comment:Any chance of attributing specific page numbers to the Bester reference? I'll answer myself - nope - I see it is a web site not a text.--JimmyButler (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Feel free to fight me on any of these, I make mistakes too. :-)  If you've addressed a concern, please strike it ( like this ).  Monitoring all the small changes and checking back with my list will create a headache I don't have the time or the medication for.  Thank you!  :-) --NYMFan69-86 (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * is it necessary to link everything that is linkable?--Artemis Gray (talk) 22:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Not everything no. Only more advanced or unclear things. Typically 2% to 5% or words have a link. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Citations?
I'm currently trying to work on peer review edits, and it seems like whenever I'm on a new anchor citation is up, but it isn't linked to any particular section in the text of the article, like its there for no reason? It would be great if they could be linked to where they are supposed to go, they are practically useless if I do not know where they belong. Thanks.--M rickabaugh (talk) 02:04, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Right, oftentimes anchored texts are linked down to by the items in your 'footnotes' list. It's really all for the reader, but if papers are anchored without being used in the article, it will become confusing for all.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:20, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Glad to see content being added, but concerning this edit, it's a bit how-toish. See this page for further information. Don't let this deter you, keep adding material!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:36, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Continuous improper citations
Recently there have been a lot of citations added with the anchors embedded in the article. The anchors belong in the cited text section, only, because they are "anchors" so multiple references can be based on them. The citations in the text should be in the Harnvb Format. If you do not know what it is, look at the other citations in the article. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by M rickabaugh (talk • contribs) 03:08, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Just anchoring citations at the bottom of the article may be worse...I repeat...worse than not citing your work at all! Anchor only the references that have pages (books, pdfs, journals) and generate the Harnvb citations based on that anchor. It's hard to do at first, but if you're struggling, leave a note here, there are multiple people watching this page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
 * A note to all students: