Talk:Oarfish

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 August 2020 and 10 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Sekigucr. Peer reviewers: Alhost7, Cosettepatterson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Canadian researcher William Sommers
He is not mentioned in the link provided. I've seen him mentioned in a few other animal articles, usually without citation. Does anyone know who this is? Sxoa (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment
Should it be noted that Oarfish is often misunderstood as Naga? I have seen a picture of an almost-ten-metre-long-or-more-oarfish claimed to be captured by US navy. Many people think that it's a real Naga. Especially people in Thailand and Lao since the belief in Naga is very strong there.

K, —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.144.160.247 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 29 September 2006.

Hello,

I took out "Their modern discovery trace to 1808, when a 56-foot serpent-like creature washed ashore in Scotland." - this presumably refers to the Stronsay carcass, which has been pretty well established as a basking shark. (Heuvelmans' sea-serpent book quibbles with this identification, but all agree it wasn't an oarfish.)

69.236.167.164 08:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Carligula

Agreed, the Stronsay Beast cannot be proven to be an Oarfish. But by the same axiom neither can it be proven to be a decomposing basking shark. "Pretty well established" is NOT the same thing as fact. The Stronsay Beast is still unidentified unless you of course have irrefutable proof otherwise. The Stronsay beast was missing a portion of its tail and yet was measured and well documented at 56 feet this greatly exceeds the most optimistic estimate for a basking shark. Basking sharks do not reach anywhere near this length. You cannot talk in absolutes without evidence.

How about an actual photograph of this animal? It would be a lot nicer than just a pair of drawings. I know someone caught one on film once, at the very least there must be stills from that somewhere. 71.217.114.221 22:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Question about wording
"It is probable that this little-known species can regularly reach a maximum length of at least 15.2 m (50 ft)"

Does "this little known species" mean (Regalecus glesne)?

Isn't it also known as the Ribbonfish, which has a different entry in Wikipedia?

Oar fish can grow up to 60 feet feet long (18 m).

Oar fish don't get 60 feet long they only measure 30-36 feet long and weigh 400-600 pounds.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.78.179 (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

This sentence is terribly confusing: "The streamer fish is known to reach 3 metres total length whilst the largest recorded specimen of Regalecus russelii measured just 540 centimetres standard length." 540cm = 5.4m. Is this measurement of 540cm accurate? If so, why is the sentence worded to make it seem like Regalecus russelii is smaller than the streamer fish? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.8.105.250 (talk) 15:51, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

baby oarfish
Some baby oarfish are geneticly born light green. And have had there mothers feed them till 10 if you ever come across a stranded oarfish go to your parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.171.73.189 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the advice, lol. Do you have any reference material to back up your claim? Bob the Wikipedian (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed
Sorry, I just noticed this had the Biomech template, along with something in the history about help. What was the specific question, because I'm not sure there's much I can do, since they're so rarely observed? Mokele (talk) 02:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

First Video-tape
I wanted to note that the first video taping of an oarfish was in 1998 from the Japanese ship the Shinkai-6500, according to Richard Ellis who is a respected marine biologist. ParadisoSkyline (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Can he cite a source for this? Mokele (talk) 15:39, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm citing the book he wrote 'Big Fish', and while he does cite a good amount of information I can't find any for this particular claim. But it's still a source, just like noaa is a source for the 2001 sighting without directly citing the divers that filmed the oarfish.


 * I've been looking online for a confirmation of the Shinkai sighting of the oarfish without much luck, but I think there's credibility in the claim since Richard Ellis is pretty thorough in his research for his books. Anyway, let me know what you think.  --ParadisoSkyline (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)


 * His book is a reliable source; you can add in what he says with citations of the book itself. I just wanted to be sure this was in a published book or article, rather than just something he mentioned offhand on an internet forum or something. Mokele (talk) 13:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cabo San Lucas Mexico
Some footage from ? 2012 ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_8nT4zLAQk

Jan Burse (talk) 20:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Mispelling
There are some words that are mispelled in this article. I recommend a revise. ( e.g "Fishes" "Fishes" is not a word. The word fish is already plural.


 * Not necessarily so. "Fishes" is used frequently in certain circumstances. In reference to different species for example, but it does depend on the placement and use of the term. For example, if you saw six trout you would say "I saw six fish." But if you saw six fish of four different species you could say "I saw six fish," if you were only referring the fact that you saw six individual fish, but if you wanted to specify that you saw four different KINDS of fish, you would say, "I saw four fishes. Two Carp, Two Trout, one Sunfish, and One Catfish." SentientParadox (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Incorrect Sentence About Longest Fish Claims
It says that basking sharks, and whale sharks get longer, but they don't. And, you can see that by simply looking at the top sections of each of the three wikipedia pages. Oarfish reach up to 11, but the shark adults are not usually beyond 6, so surely don't get longer than 9, let alone 11. And, without any proof of the sharks surpassing 11, why is there a claim in this article that the sharks are longer to debunk oarfish as the longest fish? Clearly, that sentence needs to be deleted, or proven. I think it's obvious that a giant oarfish (the bigger ones), which are longer than 11, is the longest fish.--174.19.181.117 (talk) 02:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
 * From the wikipedia pages: Whale shark: "The largest confirmed individual had a length of 12.65 m". Basking shark: "The largest accurately measured specimen … Its total length was 12.27 m". Sminthopsis84 (talk) 11:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Nessie is an oarfish? Doubtful
I removed an uncited statement that "scientists claim" that Loch Ness Monster sightings are of oarfish because oarfish float when dead. Loch Ness is freshwater, so live oarfish would not be able to enter it, and a dead oarfish would not float miles up the River Ness to the Loch. I can't imagine any scientist "claiming" this speculation, and a quick Google search did not find a source.


 * Not to mention if Nessie sightings are of dead oarfish they'd be seen on the shores. Ridiculous. SentientParadox (talk) 02:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Deep Sea Biology
A reminder that this is conjecture. The giant oarfish has never been proven. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.110.18.171 (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Otolith?
There's a reference to an otholith that seems to have been described in the original context, but the current article contains no information about otholiths. 178.24.230.134 (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)