Talk:Peters's elephantnose fish

Needs Taxobox
This article needs a taxo box and a bit of work on it. Anyone better at taxoboxes than me up to it? Billlion 11:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like nobody is watchin, and I am fairly confident. I'll stick it in the article.Billlion 22:25, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a first stab

Change to less correct name
It seems User:KingofHearts has switched Peter's Elephantnose Fish, a page with a more correct name to make it a redirect here. Please justify the change here and explain what you did, as I am rather confused. If no reply for a while I will assume it is just a misunderstanding and try to switch it back. Billlion 19:45, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually its a mess. A bot has been around deleting the Peter's in links. That annoys me so I am going to try to fix the redirect. Here goes.Billlion 19:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok it is done, but with a small "e". That made it easier as no circular redirect.Billlion 19:59, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * So in case there is any more discussion needed on the name here is my justification. All the academic articles I have found when using the common name use Peter's elephantnose fish. The London Aquarium has one and calls it Peter's. While websites directed at aquariasts (like Fishbase) drop the Peter's I feel the ichthyologists are the more authoritative  source. Finally the Latin name has the Peter's in in it. Billlion 20:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Names
The specific epithet petersii means "of Peters" and most likely refers to Wilhelm Peters, a zoologist and contemporary of Albert Günther. So "Peter's" is just a mistake, and it seems reasonable to correct it (also, "Peters'" beats "Peter's" on Google, though not by any significant margin). The epithet petersii is based on the practice of imagining that a name has been Latinized with the ending -ius (thus the hypothetical Petersius) and then treating it as a second declension noun. (The more usual modern practice is not to bother with the Latinization step and just add -i; this results in petersi which is sometimes seen for this species. See ICZN section 31.1 for an explanation of these spelling conventions.) Günther consistently uses the older convention (cf. Ophichthys kirkii for John Kirk and Petromyzon ayresii for William Orville Ayres) and indeed petersii is more popular than petersi in scholarly publication. Gdr 21:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done Gdr, I was certainly confused about that myself. Are all the links changed to Peters' or do we wait for a bot to do that? Billlion 21:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gnathonemus petersii mistakes
G. petersii have not ever been successfully used for water quality purposes. It's been studied, and it has not been found to be a reliable tool. Furthermore, the picture of G. petersii on the main page is not a G. petersii, it looks like a rume fish. Incidentally, I've been to the London Aquarium (where that picture is taken) and they mistakenly identify it as petersii.
 * Ok that is really interesting but we need a source for what you say. Remember WP:V we after verifiability rather than truth!Billlion 21:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

The Fish in the picture is actually Gnathonemus tamandua as far as I can tell.Cedric Hornung 10:29, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is really interesting and I am sure you know more about it than me. This is the only supposed G. petersii I have seen. But we will need some verifiable authoratitive source that the London Aquarium have mis-classified their fish. If it helps I also photographed the info sign above the tank. Perhaps as a start someone could write to them explaining why they think it is wrongly classified? Billlion 20:22, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * While the markings near the tail are very similar in both species, G. petersii has a fleshy appendage to the lower jaw. Gnathonemus tamandua has appendages on both lower and upper jaws, which makes it look like it has very elongated jaws, similar to the Tamandua (Tamandua tetradactyla), hence its species name. I have seen both fish live (I'm planning on keeping a group of G. petersii in one or two months). Once I do I'll make sure to make some pictures and upload something here. In the meantime, I'll dispatch an e-mail to the london aquarium. Let's see if/what they reply. The difference is also apparent if you compare the picture here to the fishbase entry. Cedric Hornung 20:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Cedric. Look forward to the photo and lets see what London Aquarium says. My picture is bad anyway. The fish really moved too fast to get a good shot. I will look over the video and check what you say about the appendage.Billlion 21:17, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just received an answer from the london aquarium. Fact of the matter is that they have four G. tamandua and one G. petersii in that tank. However due to lack of space, only information about the petersii was put up. That animal on the picture is one of the tamandua. If there are multiple pictures or a video, there's a chance you might have spotted the sole petersii as well. If you're interested, I could forward you the e-mail, or post the exact wording somewhere (here?). Cedric Hornung 11:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Well done and thanks. I looked over the other photos and video and all but one show only the G. tamandua I posted before. But one photo shows two identical. Since you have made contact Cedric, do you think you could ask them to post a picture of their G petersii on Wikipedia?Billlion 22:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional source

 * for the citation needed on the electrical sensing paragraph how's this?
 * http://sci-toys.com/scitoys/scitoys/biology/electric_fish/electric_fish.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.154.8.58 (talk) 06:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There is some bad info here
I have done tons of research and actually spoken to some researchers who are experts in mormyrid fishes as I am trying to breed dorsal band whales ant peters elephantnoses. These are incredibly intelligent fish who live in very large groups in nature and are capable of communicating with eachother via their electric organ. It is thought that one of the reasons they often do so poorly in aquaria is the fact that people think they should keep them alone. They are known to hunger strike out of loneliness. They, like many species of loach, should not be kept in pairs or trios because they will fight so they should be kept in schools of 5 or more. Keeping them alone is li ExistentialElation (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Aquiarology bias
This page looks like an aquariology forum page. Maybe it should me more oriented on the biology and ecology of the fish instead of the ways to keep it in captivity. TanguyLoïs (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2023 (UTC)