Talk:Sturgeon/Archive 1

Coverage
There's some confusion about level of coverage. The article title is "sturgeon", which probably equates best with the family Acipenseridae. The lead and taxobox suggest that the genus Acipenser is covered; however the article goes on to mention fish in the genus Huso, so perhaps the subfamily Acipenserinae is meant. Gdr 16:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The article is rather misleading, as it mainly deals with the genus Acipenser (both text and taxobox), while the name "sturgeon" is used for *all* members of the family Acipenseridae. Either this article should be modifed so it covers the entire family, or the current content should be moved to Acipenser, with sturgeon instead being a redirect to the family. 212.10.84.33 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Sacred sturgeon
Are there any references to the "Sacred Sturgeon"? I cannot find any references elsewhere on any of its supposed names or scientific name. While the names of fish are often pretty silly, "supreme overlord sturgeon" seems to push the envelope. Anyone else think this was just jokingly added? -I am removing this entry, as there has been no response and I am completely unable to find any reference to it.

Size of Huso huso
Huso huso is the largest of all sturgeons and the largest fish which swims from the sea in freshwater, but it doesn´t reach lengths of 7m the longest specimens which were ever caught (and not only specimens from big-fish-stories which were said that somebody caught them) were a bit over 5m and in fact about 1200kg in weight. A hypothetical huso of 7m would have a weight of about 3tons or more.

Number of Genera of Sturgeon
Why do we keep saying that there are only two genera of sturgeons, Acipencer and Scaphirhynchus, even though the entry for Family Acipenceridae mentions Huso, and that there is information about a fourth genus, Pseudoscaphirhynchus?--Mr Fink 03:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)23 species

Update badly needed
This article is seriously out of date as it is based on the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. I have added a couple of short notes but much more could and should be said about the threats faced by sturgeon.John Hill 10:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. This is a terrible citation.  When else have we ever seen a 1911 encyclopedic citation as the primary reference? Tgm1024 16:38, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I also agree that an update is needed. This article claimes that Sturgeons don't inhait tropical regions, but we definatly have them here in South Florida! There also needs to be more info on the dangers of an attack.


 * "Dangers of an attack"- from a sturgeon??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.106.108.201 (talk) 21:56, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * "Attack" is the wrong word, but one used by newspaper writers to sensationalize their headlines/articles. Almost all species of sturgeon jump.  Hitting a 300 pound animal with sharp "bony" plates while travelling 30-40 miles per hour on a boat/jet ski can lead to serious injuries to the boater.  See some of the sourcing at Gulf sturgeon.  GRBerry 13:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup
Should be more structured and in conjunction with subset articles like White_sturgeon. Manasl 23:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Toxicology Update
I believe that there are also some toxicology reports pertaining to the preparation, cooking and consumption of the Sturgeon. If anyone has this information, is it possible to post this please? I feel this would be a very good and highly beneficial portion to add to the information already given. Cnj6768 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

uses?
since this is an article on an animal, wouldn't it make sense for "uses" to be last instead of first? i would think that most people coming to read about sturgeon want to know about how the animal lives, not what people use it for.


 * I added some more information on the biology and habitat of the sturgeon, and provide some references. I would suggest that the  "uses" section be seriously revised/expanded/developed - it seems pretty incoherent and disjointed and repetitive as it is.  no?  - Best, Eliezg (talk) 11:03, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

 * The article is rather misleading, as it mainly deals with the genus Acipenser (both text and taxobox), while the name "sturgeon" is used for *all* members of the family Acipenseridae. Either this article should be modifed so it covers the entire family, or the current content should be moved to Acipenser, with sturgeon instead being a redirect to the family. 212.10.84.33 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

As the recent comment above points out, there were contradictions in the article as to what group the term "sturgeon" refers to. I edited the taxobox and the "Species" section to reflect all of the Aceipenserids as opposed to solely the genus Acipenser. I also eliminated the outdated Britannica 1911 taxonomy with great prejudice. Consequently, it seems that this article should be merged with Acipenseridae, since both articles now cover the exact same group of fish. I do not know the formal mechanism for proposing or effectuating a merge - perhaps someone can help? Arguments for this broadening of the term are that (a) the whole family has many of the same basic features associated with "sturgeon"-ness, (b) the "Scaphirhynchinae" are all commonly called sturgeon, (c) and the Beluga and Kaluga are very intimately associated with the main economic reason people are interested in sturgeon and it would be weird to have a general discussion that omits them. Thoughts? -- Eliezg (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Mergers are usually done via cut and paste (as opposed to moves, which should be done via the move function). In this case, I didn't see anything on the Acipenseridae which wasn't already in the Sturgeon article, so I made the former a redirect to the latter.  Cheers, -TeaDrinker (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that many of the foreign language links (at least Russian, German and French) still refer to genus Acipenser and should technically be changed. Meanwhile, the Portuguese page has cheerily referred to Acipenseridae all these months while the Finnish link appears to describe solelyA. sturio  It doesn't particularly bother me, but let it be noted.  Best, Eliezg (talk) 08:32, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Popular Culture
I erased the "Sturgeon in popular culture" section for all the standard Wikipedia-frowns-on-trivia and it-doesn't-contribute-to-the-topic reasons. If anyone feels strongly that they should be replaced, I grudgingly present them below. Cheers, Eliezg (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In the plot of Gordon Korman's MacDonald Hall books (especially in the third book, Beware the Fish) there are many references to this kind of fish: the headmaster of the school is called Mr. Sturgeon, and is nicknamed The Fish.
 * American funk-rock band Primus mention sturgeons in their songs entitled The Ol' Diamondback Sturgeon (from the album Pork Soda) and Fish On (from the album Sailing the Seas of Cheese). Les Claypool, bass player and frontman of Primus, is an avid fisherman and sings about his father catching a "hundred-pound sturgeon on twenty-pound test" in San Pablo Bay in Northern California. Also a fictionalized account of a fishing trip aimed at catching sturgeon is chronicled in his book South of the Pumphouse.
 * A sturgeon crashes on the Simpsons' car hood in "The Great Money Caper", triggering the events of the episode.
 * In the children's comedy book Captain Underpants, the back of the cover page displays the "Sturgeon General's Warning" that the book contains crude content.
 * A sturgeon is mentioned in "Under the Sea" from the Disney Film "The Little Mermaid"
 * Sturgeons have been cited as possible explanations for film of Loch Ness Monster-esque creatures, as their long length and slow movement could make a close-up shot of a sturgeon swimming past appear to be a very long fish.
 * In Tiny Toons, Babs stands by a "Surgeon's Lounge" where surgeons are taking a break. After putting a "T" to make "Sturgeon's Lounge", the surgeons already became sturgeons and Babs tells the viewer to make sure if they get the joke.

External Link
I erased the following external link that was added to the article: It was reinserted, and I removed it again. So it doesn't happen a third time, a discussion is in order. My reasons for removing it are primarily that it is a popular article geared towards sport fishermen on White sturgeon in the lower Columbia River, pivoting on an anecdote about a fisherman getting a heart-attack from from the incredible size of a fish. As such, it does not contribute to the subject of sturgeon writ large, though it might have a place in the white sturgeon article. Also the name was misleading - the white sturgeon is NOT the world's largest. The purpose of this article is to give an overview of the sturgeon family and a springboard for access to the species articles, not to be a clearinghouse for all mention of sturgeon in the media. Support removal. Eliezg (talk) 21:45, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * World's largest sturgeon -- from Field & Stream

WikiProject Food and drink Tagging
This article talk page was automatically added with WikiProject Food and drink banner as it falls under Category:Food or one of its subcategories. If you find this addition an error, Kindly undo the changes and update the inappropriate categories if needed. The bot was instructed to tagg these articles upon consenus from WikiProject Food and drink. You can find the related request for tagging here. Maximum caution and careful attention was done to avoid any wrongly tagging any categories, but mistakes may happen... If you have concerns, please inform the project members on the project talk page -- TinucherianBot (talk) 07:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.27.238 (talk) 18:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Cutting "Uses" section
I radically shortened and/or cut most of the "Uses" section, as it was a random mishmash partially derived from the 1911 Encyclopedia Brittanica and miscellaneous media/cultural stuff. I add the cut text below, for the record. - Eliezg (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In Russia, sturgeon fisheries are of immense value. Early in summer the fish migrate into the rivers or towards the shores of freshwater lakes in large shoals for breeding purposes. The ova are very small, and so numerous that one female has been calculated to produce about three million in one season. The ova of some species have been observed to hatch within very few days after exclusion. In sturgeons that have attained maturity their growth appears to be much slower, although continuing for many years. Frederick the Great placed a number of them in the Garder See Lake in Pomerania about 1780; some of these were found to be still alive in 1866. Professor von Baer also states, as the result of direct observations made in Russia, that the Hausen (Acipenser huso) attains an age of 100 years, but can live over 210 years.


 * In the United Kingdom, where as little as six are caught per year, sturgeon was included as a royal fish by an act of King Edward II, although it probably only rarely graces the royal table of the present period, or even that of the Lord Mayor of London, who can claim all sturgeons caught in the Thames above London Bridge. According to the law, any person who catches sturgeon must first offer them to the reigning monarch. Such an event took place in Wales in the Summer of 2004, which caused some confusion as protected species are not allowed to be sold, despite the fact that the Queen had given the fisherman permission to dispose of the fish "as he saw fit".


 * Where sturgeons are caught in large quantities, as on the rivers of southern Russia and on the great lakes of North America, their flesh is dried, smoked or salted. The ovaries, which are of large size, are prepared for caviar. They are beaten with switches, and then pressed through sieves, leaving the membranous and fibrous tissues in the sieve, whilst the eggs are collected in a tub. The quantity of salt added to them before they are finally packed varies with the season, scarcely any being used at the beginning of winter. Finally, one of the best sorts of isinglass is manufactured from the airbladder. After it has been carefully removed from the body, it is washed in hot water, and cut open in its whole length, to separate the inner membrane, which has a soft consistency, and contains 70% of gluten.

File:06 woa largestfwfish 300.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion
I own the copyright for the original image that was used, and provided a NON-EXCLUSIVE license to the USPS so they could do an artist's rendition of my image for use in the 2006 commemorative edition "Wonders Of America: Land Of Superlatives". Use of the image is non-commercial, educational, and the caption on the sturgeon page explains how that image came to be, therefore there are no copyright violations. I have the License Agreement with the USPS, and added the image to Wikipedia commons because I simply didn't know how to upload it to the actual sturgeon page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atsme (talk • contribs) 23:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC) 166.147.65.189 (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Atsme

For consideration - photographs and rare footage of pallid sturgeon in the wild, as well as important interviews, and much more.....
If the editors overseeing the sturgeon articles feel it would prove beneficial to the work, I can provide some rare photographs, and links to some excellent resource material which includes several video segments featuring underwater footage of sturgeon, some of which includes rare underwater footage of pallid sturgeon in the wild. There is also a segment documenting the actual landing of a pallid sturgeon on the Yellowstone River with close-ups of the fish while it is being weighed and tagged. It would probably be considered a COI if I personally added anything to the sturgeon articles, or uploaded the photos myself, so I am presenting it to the editors for consideration. An example of the segments include informative interviews as follows: (a) Mark Bain of Cornell University discussing Atlantic sturgeon. The interview is accompanied by footage of Atlantic sturgeon being landed, tagged, measured, etc.; (b) an informative interview about green sturgeon with Pat Foley, PhD, Evolutionary Genetics, & Conservation Biology at UC at Davis. The interview includes excellent close-ups of green sturgeon; (c) an informative interview with Boyd Kynard, Fisheries Research Biologist, regarding some of the successful recovery efforts of shortnose sturgeon which includes footage of field testing, tagging, artificial propagation, close ups of the fish, etc. (d) There's also a segment showing actual lake sturgeon spawning on the Wolf River, and much more. The segments are from the one-hour documentary, Sturgeon: Ancient Survivors of the Deep", to which I hold the original copyright. The documentary covers 7 of the 8 North American species of sturgeon. (The Alabama sturgeon was not included for two reasons: first, there were none in captivity at the time, and its designation as a species was yet to be finalized). Wiki editors can review some of the above segments in the Sturgeon Gallery at the Earthwave Society website. The full length one-hour documentary is also available for viewing on the EarthwaveSociety channel on YouTube.  I think inclusion of the photographs and reference links to the video segments will prove beneficial to the articles, especially considering most of the interviews in the documentary are with renowned researchers and fish biologists, some of whom helped write the books and did the research papers that are being referenced as some of Wikipedia's resources. I thank you for your time, and anxiously await your response.

Regarding the question that was posed about the Primitive fishes template...
There is a discussion about deleting the template at. Your input is welcome.... Atsme 📞📧 06:08, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing - Short Nose Sturgeon
Acipenser brevirostrum

http://www.dec.ny.gov/animals/7025.html

http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fish/shortnosesturgeon.htm

Possible new article.

Dspark76 (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

COI
Per box at the top of this page, an editor has WP:SELFCITEd with regard to "earthwave". Those contribs need to be reviewed for NPOV and sourcing. Once the article is cleaned by an independent editor, the tag can be removed. If you do that, please leave a note here. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:56, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As soon as you remove all your edits from GMOs, Monsanto, drug-related articles, insecticide articles and the like, we'll discuss my retirement and the work I did back in 1995. Do you have any idea how ridiculous your claims are?   Atsme 📞📧 22:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard I won't be interacting with you further on this, except to reply at these various talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I admit I have a COI with sturgeon - I love the idea that the earth still has sturgeons and that both federal and state resource agencies are doing everything they possibly can to save the various species of sturgeons from extinction. Do whatever you need to do to my edit contributions as a result of that COI. Atsme 📞📧 03:30, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As an independent editor, I have reviewed the sources with alleged COI and found these to be NPOV and RS. I intend to remove the box. DrChrissy (talk) 11:43, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Sturgeon
Hello, I thought I ought to say hello and raise the matter of the sturgeon. From your marginalia, I get the impression that you deleted the section about some sturgeons posing a risk to humans because you think that that is a rare event. So did I, but after a some careful research, and much to my surprise, I learnt that this is not the case, and that the danger has been well known for a while and is material. That's why I made the entry. You have written nothing to indicate any concern that by having a paragraph on the risk that sturgeon can pose to people in some way threatens the sturgeon, but I get the feeling that one of the other contributors who immediately deleted this section may have felt that way. I love the sturgeon and am very much in favour of keeping the biosphere intact and fully populated by all species extant, but, counterintuitive as it is, the fact is that a great many secondary sources show that sturgeons are a material risk to human in some areas. That's why these few lines should remain in the entry - it's neutral pov, it's factual, and it's informative -- and it may just possibly save a human life, or a limb or two. I very much appreciate the effort and time you spend on Wikipedia, so I wanted to take some time myself to do you the courtesy of explaining this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtCelts1988 (talk • contribs) 23:00, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Bringing attention to the safety hazard posed by only one species in an article that covers the entire family seems overly specific. I mean, wouldn't a shorter summary be more appropriate coupled with a link to gulf sturgeon?--Mr Fink (talk) 23:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that that's how it works for sharks on Wikipedia. Of course I see your point. So would you be OK with this section being moved to Gulf Sturgeon then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CourtCelts1988 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ahem... this material is already in the article on Gulf sturgeon. See here. However, I think there is a place for a short general entry on jumping behaviour across the various sturgeon species. This discussion should be on Talk:Sturgeon, not here. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see there is another thread at User talk:CourtCelts1988! These threads would be better consolidated into one thread and moved to Talk:Sturgeon. --Epipelagic (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, since this information pertains specifically to the Gulf Sturgeon so far, it would be prudent to move the section to that page, as otherwise, the section may imply to the reader that all sturgeons, even sterlets, pose a crushing hazard to humans. Shark has a section on "hazard to humans" because, even though only a few of the 500+ extant shark species pose a hazard to humans, there is more than one offending species, whereas among sturgeons, so far, only the Gulf sturgeon is documented as posing a danger to humans.--Mr Fink (talk) 01:22, 7 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I may have a solution to this problem. I am a general biologist who finds the "leaping causing injuries" noteworthy in this article, but understand we need to avoid implying that all sturgeon are self-propelled flying missiles hell-bent on wiping out the human race.  The article does not have a section on "Behaviour".  In my opinion, every article on an animal should have such a section.  How about I start a "Behaviour" section.  This would include a description of leaping (which I believe all sturgeon do) and a single, carefully worded sentence (with a link) to the injurious nature shown by just a single species. DrChrissy (talk) 12:09, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.--Mr Fink (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I found a NY Times article on it that may be useful.  In light of the COI allegations regarding Earthwave Society, an organization I founded and worked with as a volunteer, not too unlike the volunteer work I'm doing here at WP, the primary purpose for both being education.  There is an excellent documentary on Gulf sturgeon at  which shows (in slo-mo) a Gulf sturgeon leaping from the water @ 6:52 or so into the program.  In RL, I worked extensively with the USF&WS, and numerous other state and federal resource agencies, non-profits, and the like to help save these remarkable creatures from extinction.  There is an entire one-hour documentary at  that provides information about 7 species of North American sturgeons.  In fact, you can peruse the entire sight where you'll find other documentaries of similar genres where the focus is conservation and saving endangered species via public dissemination.   Most of the programs were produced back in the 90s, but not much has changed. Atsme 📞📧 16:12, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposed modification
, - please review the lead modifications I just made in my sandbox at User:Atsme/sandbox. Your input will be greatly appreciated. I would like to help get this article promoted to GA but there are a few aspects of it that need a tad bit of work. Once the lead has been corrected, I would like to work on a few areas in the body that need attention. Thank you in advance... --Atsme 📞📧 19:48, 19 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Seems generally okay to me. I've done a minor copyedit. I left the sentence about primitive fish alone, since we don't always agree on that issue. But you could perhaps link "primitive" to Primitive (phylogenetics) and make the point that "primitive" in this context does not mean that sturgeon are inferior or less advanced than other fishes, but merely that their basal design was so good that there hasn't been a need for much change in their morphology for nearly 200 million years (and that doesn't mean sturgeon might not have evolved significantly in other ways that don't require obvious morphological change). Perhaps you don't need to mention the four genera in the lead... it interrupts the flow of the lead paragraph. Some citations are missing, though that doesn't matter if they are cited later in the article. --Epipelagic (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Epipelagic - I'll be working on it as time permits and appreciate your collaboration. Atsme 📞📧 05:00, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I've made a few suggestions in the sandbox version and a few tweaks in the live version. I hope these help.  One phrase that is troubling me is "Although their evolution has been remarkably slow,...".  Is it evolution that is slow, or the rate of observeable changes that is slow?  Even if there are no changes in the genome (i.e. no changes in phylogeny), isn't this still evolution?  I'm really not sure about this.  Might need to contact experts for this? DrChrissy (talk) 13:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What is the plural of "Fish"
One fish, many fish. This is correct in English. Is "one fish, many fishes" correct in American? I ask, because I see both here, and I was wondering if any of my friends on this page would care to answer. Thanks. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 18:16, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * In either English English or American English, when there is only one species/type/variety/category of fish discussed, then "fish" is the preferred plural. When there are two or more distinct species/types/varieties/categories of fish being discussed, then "fishes" is the preferred plural.--Mr Fink (talk) 18:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * And then there is 27 species of fish. See  for further explanation. Atsme 📞📧 19:24, 20 September 2015 (UT)
 * Yup, I think Mr Fink is correct but you could phish for other answers. DrChrissy (talk) 22:03, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well I never. You learn a great deal here, knowledge sort of rubs off on you. My eyes still hurt when I see many fishes, but I can now refer to lots of fishes and even I will know that I meant more than one species. Thanks Mr Fink, Atsme and DrChrissy. -Roxy the dog™ (Resonate) 23:39, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * See fish or fishes --Epipelagic (talk) 00:36, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * The following is a good example of it in use: The term “fishes” on the other hand, is used to refer or describe the plural of different species of fish (more than one species of fish).  Notice how fish, not fishes, is used when the antecedent indicates that it's more than one species.  Atsme 📞📧 04:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Since all of the 27 species of sturgeon belong to one category (i.e., all members of Acipenseridae), "fish" as plural is appropriate.--Mr Fink (talk) 04:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Somebody Broke the Page
The intro part of the article is littered with "Expression Error". I'n not a coder or programmer but it looks like some formatting is wrong and it causing large 'ERROR's to appear. Theres also a verticle black line running down the article about a 1/4 of the way from the left.

Here's a Imgur hosted image of the errors in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.101.199.250 (talk) 17:39, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried to remove the "expression error," which appears to be some sort of booboo with the fossil range template.--Mr Fink (talk) 17:48, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks perfectly fine to me. DrChrissy (talk) 18:08, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I can't repeat the error. Do you s'pose it's an anomaly caused by a particular browser?  Atsme 📞📧 18:24, 17 November 2015 (UTC)