Talk:Teleost

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 August 2020 and 5 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Xyvi. Peer reviewers: Dkwillsey, Chase.anselmo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Elopomorpha date
The cladogram at Teleost shows a divergence date of 175 mya. That can't be right; nodes further in have earlier dates (e.g. 250 mya). Plantdrew (talk) 01:50, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Clearly the experts disagree, how could that ever happen. I've removed it for now. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:33, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Extant species?
The intro says that teleosts comprise 96% of all known fish species. Is that known extant species or ever-living species? As teleosts arose in the Triassic, well after the so-called Age of Fishes, it seems that it must be 96% of the living species, as the Devonian was long before the Triassic. Whatever the answer, this should be clarified. --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed, it is referring to extant species. I have found a source and clarified the lead and added the fact to the "Diversity" section. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Which is a subset of which?
Reading the first paragraph, one is led to think that ray-finned fish are higher up in the hierarchy than bony fish, i.e., that there are ray-finned species which don't have bones. That can't be right. Can someone have a look? Werner Vogel (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * It's correct. As always, the lead section summarizes the body of the article. Look at the phylogenetic tree in 'External relationships': it shows that Actinopterygii, the ray-finned fishes, includes the bichirs, the sturgeons, the gars, and the bowfins as well as the Teleostei. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:43, 3 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Yes, but lobe-finned fish have a skeleton of bone. That was my intended meaning. Cheers Werner Vogel (talk) 15:14, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Etymology is not a safe guide to phylogeny (or to much else). Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Being an amateur etymologist, who is usually careful when it comes to etymologies in language, I know that all too well, but walking into a well-known trap is unfortunately all too common, also for me. :-) Cheers Werner Vogel (talk) 15:48, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. It may be worth noting that 'Teleost' is from 1845, 'Actinopterygii' from 1885. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Doubts about a reference
I just changed the last name in the ref 79, but I see that it cannot possibly be the correct one, because the book cited (Wootton and Smith, 2014, Reproductive Biology of Teleost Fishes) is less than 500 pages long and the citation indicates pages 600-601.

Please, if the change I made is not correct, someone please revert me and indicate the correct reference.--Furado (talk) 09:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I think the reference is correct and the page number either wrong or from a different edition. The section on the anglerfish mentions "quasi-hermaphrodism" on p320 in the Google books preview, but there is insufficient to verify the point being made. The citation was introduced in this edit by who might still have access to the appropriate source. —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 10:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fixed page numbers. There's difference between web version and physical version. LittleJerry (talk) 00:08, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A good example of why Wikipedia is in good health after 20 years... Thanks.--Furado (talk) 07:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Fishes of the World
Can anyone explain why this article does not mention or cite Fishes of the World ? WikiProject:Fishes states that the 5th edition is the taxonomy to be followed in fish articles above the level of genus so it is strange that this is not even mentioned in the article. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Feel free to cite it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I do feel free to cite it. What I am asking is why it and its classification scheme are absent from the article? If the 5th edition of Fishes of the World is WikiProject Fishes go to source for Fish Taxonomy, at higher levels, then the taxonomy should be included in any taxonomic articles on fish. The editors of this article may have had a reason and to insert a whole taxonomic scheme in this article is a big job. I am also not able to draw cladograms or taxonomic trees, all I would be doing is inserting a list of taxa from that book. Quetzal1964 (talk) 16:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't think that back when we worked on it there was any knowledge of the statement over at the WikiProject, if indeed the statement had been made at that time. And it goes without saying that WikiProjects are at most advisory. As for choosing in 2023 to use a taxonomy dating back 7 years (and counting), I'm far from sure that it's even a good idea, certainly one that could be "open to debate". Best practice isn't to refer to an old taxonomy, but to the latest scientific knowledge. That would mean looking for a more recent phylogenetic tree (which I could do), not adding instantly-obsolete lists containing data conflicting with the illustrated trees. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I am not aware of anything newer than Betancur et al 2017 https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12862-017-0958-3 covering the whole fish classification. Catalog of Fishes does seem to deviate, somewhat, from that but I do not know if they are following a overall revision or whether they update according to individual papers and reviews on different groups. However, the consensus is still that 5 ed FotW, for all its faults, is the source for the project's taxonomy. It is the taxonomy I have been following in my edits of fish taxa. Quetzal1964 (talk) 17:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I suppose that for edits of the lesser spotted leaf-fish, it's a good idea to use a standard text even if oldish. Less so for articles on major groups. Looking at the tree again now, I'm not even sure I'd see a good reason to go down so many levels on one article anyway. If updating, I'd probably stop at the superorder level or even higher. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * The guideline to follow Nelson's FotW for the higher level classification was added in 2011 (with this edit), which was then the 2006 4th edition. This got updated to the 5th edition when that came out in 2016. Now it is seven years old I think it appropriate to revisit this and see if their is a change in consensus opinion. I don't know of a good alternative for the overall taxonomy including fossil taxa. For extant taxa, the Deepfin phylogenetic classification (version 4 in Betancur et al 2017) is a good alternative  and the possibility to switch the project guidance to this source has been discussed a number of times. I think the argument would be very strong if they came out with an updated one, although I note they have recently deleted their project site with links to the different versions. Apart fom Eschmeyer's CoF classification, another alternative is the Fish Tree of Life classification, which covers Actinopterygii and goes all the way down to species.  —  Jts1882 &#124; talk 07:41, 4 July 2023 (UTC)