Talk:Piscivore

Do piscivores include animals that eat shellfish and other invertebrate marine life? (eg. squid, crabs, jellyfish)--ZayZayEM 02:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

No. Despite the word fish being used in some of the names of the animals and the use of the word fish in words for acquiring them (fishery, fishing) there creatures are not fish. A creature that specializes in eating molluscs would be called a molluscivore.Pbrower2a (talk) 07:19, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If an animal eats all sorts of shellfish, then it would be a "durophagus" animal.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:24, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Connection to pescatarians?
Seems like this article should connect to one on pescatarians, explaining similarities and difference(s)? Thoughts? - Sara FB (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Spinosauroids

I know this group's diet style very odd considering the fossils. So; my proposal about spinosauroids is some paragraph like this; Some animals, such as the spinosaurus and baryonyx,spinosauroids; are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates and\or land animals in addition to fish, while others, such as the Ornithocherius and pterodactyls, are strictly dependent on fish for food.

I also want to add Ornithocheirus to the extinct piscivores. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dredann (talk • contribs) 11:24, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Jaguar
The Wiki article on Jaguar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar does not describe it as a Piscivore, rather a more generalistic carnivore. I don't understand why Jaguar was cited specifically as an example of a piscivore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SquashEngineer (talk • contribs) 18:40, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The jaguar is cited in this article as an example of a carnivore that eats a significant amount of fish, to compare with other carnivores that specializes in fish-eating.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Edit War
, would it be at all possible if you could come to the talkpage and make a sensible argument for not including Baryonyx and Spinosaurus on this page, even though both dinosaurs are popularly perceived as being "fish-eating dinosaurs" and have reliable sources about evidence of their piscivorous nature? I mean, are you aware that waging a protracted edit war through an IP sock to delete SOURCED information you don't like won't convince anyone that you're correct?Mr Fink (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, if you're not willing to make an argument for your stance here in Wikipedia beyond edit-warring via IP socks, then I am not willing to allow you the luxury of whining at me about it in a different website.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I already have made an explaination and it was openly ignored, so I amwriting all of it again, look above the page for once ! - Spinosauroids

By your very own definition Some animals, such as the sea lion and alligator, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish; by this defined definition Spinosaurids are not piscivores. There's actual fossil evidence for this, you are the one acts ignorant towards the sources, such as the generalist carnivore Baryonyx, whose found with both iguanadon and fish scales, thus further proving it was not a psicivore, along with the fact there're minimum 3 spinosaurid species with generealistic dietary evidence. Here more evidence for you I hope you'll read them, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4734717 - http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/455/1/7 - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/8478211_Pterosaurs_as_part_of_a_spinosaur_diet https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703214 - http://osf.io/mjt95/

I am living on Turkey, wikipedia is banned in my current place of living, so... Not everyone is fortunate as much as you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.186.140 (talk) 08:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm not terribly sympathetic to excuses made after being harangued in addition to having to deal with your drive-by edit warring. Having said that, the qualifications applied to the list of recent piscivores are rigorously applied in order to keep it relatively short, i.e., to keep humans, domesticated dogs and domesticated cats off the list simply because they enjoy a store-bought fish dinner, and focused on specialists.  The qualifications are not as rigorously applied to the list of fossil piscivores because of a lack of evidence of them being exclusively fish-eaters: I mean the qualifications for that list are more "having adaptations seen as being piscivorous" and "being caught in the act of eating fish."  If we make an argument that Baryonyx, the most publicized fish-eating dinosaur, to be excluded from this list because there is evidence that it did not exclusively eat fish, despite its obvious piscivorous adaptations, then arguments could be made to exclude all of the fossil piscivores from the list.--Mr Fink (talk) 12:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I have no other choice, I either have use vpn or no access. No it doesn't, the piscivore in this category is going by the mostly dietary qualification, as the paragrapgh qualifies, ||Some animals, such as the sea lion and alligator, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates or land animals in addition to fish|| - This could be easily applied to extinct animals category as a paragrapgh and be cited above as such. I mean you could also choose ignore the fact that all the sources that do admit the fact that the open proof for generalist carnivore diet on the Baryonyx, as with the iguanadon fossil example. As it doesn't found exclusively with fish fossils. As we go with the definitons there's no exclusive proof for spinosaurus either, the pressure sensetive snout doesn't have been solidified. Althrought the different species of spinosaurids proven to shown carnivore behaviore as cited in my above comment's sources, should imply to spinosaurids as a whole. Again, this could be easily fixed with a paragraph just like page's entry paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.186.140 (talk) 11:59, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Then let us compose that paragraph here. That, and would an acceptable compromise for Baryonyx and Spinosaurus be to describe them as "semi-aquatic generalist predators," and then mention or discuss evidence found for them showing fish-eating behavior?--Mr Fink (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Generalist Predators is the most agreeable considering the direct evidence. The issue could be fixed as stating a paragrapgh like the one in the description above as the Some animals, such as the sea lion and alligator, are not completely piscivorous, often preying on aquatic invertebrates and land animals in addition to fish - Just write the same down the extinct section and replace the sea lion/alligator as Spinosauridae — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.140.186.140 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Should this article even exist?
It seems to me that it could be summed up in one statement. "Lots of animals eat fish." Should they all be considered together as one topic or group? Certainly science doesn't classify organisms like that. Or do I misunderstand something? 69.181.154.23 (talk) 01:41, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Are you aware that there are scientists and health practitioners, biologists and dieticians, who study different types of diets in humans and animals? Or that Wikipedia has a series articles devoted to different modes of carnivory and herbivory and feeding, i.e., durophagy, graminivore, or filter-feeding? Mr Fink (talk) 02:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)