Talk:Mudskipper

Air Gulping
Just a few more words on air gulping.

Indeed, it is easy to understand "why" mudskippers would have adapted the ability to carry air into gill chambers and NOT water. It is true that mudskippers are "surrounded by air" when out of water. Nonetheless, gills (the principal and plesiomorphic respiratory organ) and the derived, highly capillarized respiratory mucosa, are INSIDE the gill chambers...

When out of water, the gills of an aquatic teleost collapse, coalesce and rapidy loose their respiratory function. Moreover, the water inside the opercular chambers is limited, and the oxygen supply would be rapidly depleted without a constant flux of water.

In mudskippers, the stiffened gill rods and shortened filaments, together with a highly capillarized mucosa in the oro-bucco-pharyngeal cavity, act as a highly efficient respiratory organ during air gulping. These tissues are "immersed" in humid air, protected from dehydration by the sealing mechanism, and in contact with a much more concentrated reservoir of oxygen than in water. Furthermore, this reservoir can be easily restored while out of water, by simply gulping another bubble of air.

The respiratory tissues inside the opercular chambers reasonably offer much higher surface to volume ratios than the skin. This is why air-gulping is probably the principal air-breathing mechanism in these species. This is NOT to say that mudskippers do not use cutaneous respiration... they simply use both.

On the other hand, why carry water inside opercular chambers? It seems highly improbable that it would work as an "anti-dehydration device". The "rolling" behaviour is clearly associated to skin dehydration (Ip, Y.K.; Chew, S.F. & Tang, P.C., 1991 - Evaporation and the turning behavior of the mudskipper, Boleophthalmus boddaerti - Zoological Science, 8:621-623). Nonetheless, it is completely unrelated to the "would-be" presence of useful amounts of water inside opercular chambers.

For the evolution of air gulping from aquatic surface respiration (ASR), a very widespread behavioural adaptation to aquatic hypoxia in teleosts, see: Gee J.H. & Gee P.A., 1995 – Aquatic surface respiration, buoyancy control and the evolution of air breathing in gobies (Gobiidae: Pisces) – Journal of Experimental Biology, 198: 79–89.

Gianluca - www.themudskipper.org

Once more, I had to make the SAME correction about mudskippers would "retain water" in their gill chambers. This time, whoever wrote this false statement, even cited Graham (1997), who clearly described this behaviour as "air gulping" (AG). Mudskippers gill chambers, when out of water, do obviously contain "some" water, since the mucosa is covered by a film of capillary water. Nonetheless, when out of water their function is only to contain a bubble of air, which is constantly kept moist by the sealing mechanism (Air Gulping). This can be VERY easily observed when the mudskipper opens its mouth, gulps air, expands the opercular chambers, seals them, and closes its mouth.

Up to this point, I really would like to know WHO is this person who insists writing incorrect statements on this page. I earned a PhD in evolutionary ecology on mudskippers and studied this group both in the field and in laboratory for more than one decade. As I already wrote, please do not give information on wikipedia which are NOT based on scientific sources.

Gianluca Polgar - www.themudskipper.org.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.90.51 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, are these fish also called mudhoppers? I was looking all over the place for these fish under the name mudhopper. If that name actually refers to this fish it should be made so that mudhopper would redirect to this page.


 * I took the merge notice off both pages (Goby and Mudskippers) and redirected Mudskipper to Mudskippers. bikeable (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

mudskipper can withstand levels of low oxygen

"On land, they retain water in enlarged gill chambers". ...it is FALSE: they retain AIR in the opercular chambers


 * No, the preceding is false and the article is CORRECT. They retain WATER in their gill chambers. What would be the point of filling them with air, since they're sitting on a mud flat surrounded by air? They lose their water supply when feeding, by the way (since the gill chambers are connected to the mouth) and immediately run back to the water to refill. This is readily noticeable when hand-feeding a mudskipper, as you wind up with wet fingers from the water being forced out as the food item is seized. Just to make sure, I just squeezed a small one, obtaining a few drops of water and a highly disgruntled mudskipper.


 * I do question the conventional wisdom that the water so carried is used for an oxygen supply, however; it would seem that it would become depleted of oxygen very quickly. I suspect it may be used for moistening the skin to enhance cutaneous respiration, possibly when the fish flips or rolls to re-moisten. I have observed a captive specimen carrying more water when the humidity in its cage (kind of hard to call it an aquarium, really) is lower than normal, and less in the near-100% humidity that I usually keep it at. --Worldwalker 22:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I confirm the fact that mudskippers DO NOT retain water into the bucco-pharingeal cavity to breathe, but air (see Sponder D.L. & Lauder G.V., 1981 – Terrestrial Feeding in the Mudskipper Periophthalmus (Pisces: Teleostei). A Cineradiographic Analysis – Journal of Zoology, Lond., 193 (4): 517–530). The proces is called "air gulping" ("AG": Graham J.B., 1997 (ed) – Air–breathing Fishes. Evolution, Diversity and Adaptation – Academic Press, San Diego California).

Mudskippers of the genus Periophthalmus may gulp water when they feed, to help ingestion of dry food items. Species of the genus Boleophthalmus wash the collected mixture of mud into water, to sieve diatoms and other food material before ingestion. These behaviours are completely UNRELATED to breathing behaviour.

Of course, if you squeeze a mudskipper's opercula after feeding, he may puke some water...

By the way, if you put a mudskipper such as Periophthalmus sp. into a plastic bag with few cm of water, you will see that after AG he will float at the water surface, often with its belly towards the water surface, as a result of the hydrostatic pull.

PLEASE STOP GIVING INFORMATION NOT BASED ON SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTATION ON THIS PAGE

Gianluca Polgar -

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.90.51 (talk) 16:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Are those journal articles available anywhere to non-subscribers? Worldwalker (talk) 02:38, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

"it grows to ... 6 in (15 cm)" ... FALSE again: I never measured a P. argentilineatus larger than about 10 cm; this is probably due to frequent misidentification with the sympatric species P. kalolo.

"Gobiidae, Oxudercinae, Periophthalmini" are NOT generic or specific names and must NOT be written in italic.

Please DO correct this page: I have problems with my password.

Gianluca Polgar, www.themudskipper.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.103.90.51 (talk) 07:50, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

editprotected Yudiweb 04:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Mind explaining what you want changed so the admins will deal with it? Unless you say exactly what you want added/removed/changed, they'll ignore it (read the template). - Jéské  ( v^_^v  Kacheek! ) 04:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Just minor edit: +id Ikan Belacak but you can add it by your self, thx :)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yudiweb (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not admin, but I'll get in touch with one. - Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 16:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ✅ - thanks, both of you! - A l is o n  ☺ 16:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Article fully protected
... for a period of time due to silly meme. Time to give it a break. Please use editprotected here if you wish to have any changes made - A l is o n  ☺ 08:48, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * As a clarification, the offending meme is "So I herd you liek mudkipz", and that refers to a fictional Pokemon character that isn't notable enough to have its own page. 204.52.215.13 23:15, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Um... The full-prot ended a long time ago, and Alison is aware of what the meme is called - she's been issuing most of the protections. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 00:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on the "Mud_kip" crap the article has been getting
There is a discussion going on here about what to do about these editors. For backstory, see Talk:Mudkip/Archive02. - Jéské  ( v^_^v Kacheek! ) 19:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you implying you dont leik mudkips? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bob15grt (talk • contribs) 18:36, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm implying that those adding it to the article don't. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 08:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

But I luuuuuuuuuuuuve mudkipz! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.214.8.151 (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you love spamming. You'd sooner hop onto a new meme. -  Jéské   ( v^_^v  E pluribus unum ) 04:01, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello
Hello! Can someone add Slamkrypare (fisk) to the end of the article, please? 213.67.50.57 (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks! Iain99Balderdash and piffle 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

someone may want to fix the postings of "so i herd u leik mudkipz" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.216.199 (talk) 05:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We need more eyes on this page as it gets hit constantly. 'Till then, Pictogram voting support.svg Semi-protected indefinitely.  I've removed all the vandalism I could find. -  Jeremy  ( v^_^v  Cardmaker ) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Changed sentence contradicts original
Someone changed the original sentence into: "Uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats, unlike most fish in such habitats, they survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools"

The sentence was something like: "Mudskippers are uniquely adapted to intertidal habitats and exhibit complex amphibious behaviours during low tide, unlike most fish in such habitats, that survive the retreat of the tide by hiding under wet seaweed or in tidal pools"

The meaning is exactly the opposite...

I would request an emendation.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Polgy1 (talk • contribs) 20:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Done Sorry for the delay; I had to look up 'emendation.' Thanks for helping to maintain the accuracy of this article. I've corrected the inaccuracy, but please feel free to suggest a better wording. Celestra (talk) 04:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, It is about Mudkips
now look, I know that the people with edit control over this article think that the whole mudkips meme is annoying and stupid, but if wikipedia is supposed to be a source of information on things, wouldn't it be right to include a note about how the mudskipper is the base for a pokemon that has become a widespread internet phenomenon. If the meme is that offensive to you why not at least mention that it is the source for the pokemon, all it would be is one or two lines at the bottom of the article, serving to help inform people about mudskippers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.232.208 (talk) 22:00, 22 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I completely agree ... if we can find a source that passes WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I've found nothin'. Closest I can find: the Pokedex in the anime calls it "the mud fish pokemon" and a fan site asserting that the Japanese name for "mudkip" is also derived from the Japanese word for "mudskipper". And the mudkip looks like a mudskipper. But claims of links between the two are endemic in fan land - can we find a decent source that the mudkip is at least considered to be derived from the mudskipper? - David Gerard (talk) 16:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

bisected eyes?
Don't at least some of them have bisected eyes, with the lower part adapted for seeing underwater, and the upper part for seeing on land. Often you can see them swimming with their eyes half above and half below the water surface... --megA (talk) 08:28, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 December 2012
I would like to add information about how mudskippers move about on land. Dr. Alice Gibb

Alicegibb (talk) 19:53, 27 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please make your request in a "change X to Y" format. Alternatively, you can wait for your account to become autoconfirmed, then edit the article yourself. (Four days and a mere 10 edits is the threshold for autoconfirmed status.) Rivertorch (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

2nd Source lead to nothing
The source ^ Swanson BO, Gibb AC (2004). "Kinematics of aquatic and terrestrial escape responses in mudskippers". is broken and leads to nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:2820:2201:555B:6760:CD7C:3FE6 (talk) 18:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

A new wave of unsubstantiated statements on mudskippers
Dear all,

I do not understand what is wrong with this page. People keep on adding non-scientific statements on mudskippers. I have been studying this group for 23 years now. I am a professional scientist and I published several scientific publications on mudskippers. This does not mean I cannot make mistakes. This only means that I do not write "personal opinions", but scientific published information.

Why do you insist adding unscientific, confusing statements to this page?

I once more corrected the text, adding some recent papers, and eliminating dozens of mistakes. The page is clearly not a piece of science, but it should at least not contain unscientific, unsubstantiated information.

Thanks again, Gianluca Polgar

http://www.themudskipper.org/ https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Gianluca_Polgar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polgy1 (talk • contribs) 15:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Not linked properly to corresponding Japanese articles
Not sure how to unravel or fix this, but here's what I can say so far about this Mudskipper article. There is no corresponding article in Japanese, but the Japanese article on ハゼ is clearly　not talking about the same kind of fish. The Japanese article links to an English article on Gobioidei. That same article is linked from this article, but only from the scientific classification table on the right side. The Gobiodei article does link back to the Japanese ハゼ article, but that clearly appears to be an incorrect link and Gobiodei is a much larger category of fish. In the Japanese ハゼ article, there is a scientific classification table, but it stops short at the Gobiodei level, where there is another link to the English article. I think the correct link for this article might be the Japanese article on トビハゼ, but coming back from that article only links to something called "Shuttles Hoppfish". Actually, right now I think the ハゼ article is in the correct place and there is just a missing Japanese article at the level corresponding to Mudskipper. Shanen (talk) 11:09, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible incorrect wording in Adaptions
"Mudskippers do not have the ability to breathe" may be wrong. That appears to contridict "this is only possible when the mudskippers are wet". Will (Talk - contribs) 08:27, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Add section on how detritivorous species filter mud?
I had thought they'd use their gills, but they close those off. Will (Talk - contribs) 08:31, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

Swedish meaning
I propose removing the entire section about the secondary meaning of the Swedish word for mudskipper. This article is about the actual fish, not the word itself. It might possibly have a place on Swedish Wikipedia (though it is not included in the Swedish language article) but it has no place at English Wikipedia.


 * I removed it. It was, at best, tangential to the subject.--Quisqualis (talk) 21:45, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Mudskipper
Idc 129.126.36.80 (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

"Neo-amphibia" listed at Redirects for discussion
The redirect [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-amphibia&redirect=no Neo-amphibia] has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at until a consensus is reached. Plantdrew (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

Does anybody eat them?
For a fish that can grow up to 12 inches long, I would expect this article to include a few sentences about consumption by humans or other predators. Is this fish even edible? ~Anachronist (talk) 01:42, 6 December 2023 (UTC)