Talk:Teleost/Archive 1

Behavior section
Added a section on mating and parental care behavior, with an emphasis on the evolution of parental care and relatively high occurrence of male parental care in teleosts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wenamy (talk • contribs) 02:51, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Redirect
Teleosts are by far the largest group in Actinopterygii and have some unique adaptations that are of particular interest; therefore I was bold and made this redirect into an article. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 00:08, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

First appeared in the Triassic, not Jurassic
The Marshall Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Animals lists two Triassic teleosts, Pholidophorus and Leptolepis, so I changed 'Jurassic' to 'Triassic'. Jerkov 20:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Since you have a copy of the book, can you please add the reference? The template cite book will be helpful. --Ginkgo100 talk · contribs 20:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Teleost rule?
"On the basis of biomass as well as of species count, teleosts are the typical vertebrates, and all other vertebrates are exceptions to the teleost rule." What does this sentence mean anyway? Can someone clarify it and back it up with more evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.16.64.11 (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the biomass part means that if you gathered up all the teleosts alive in the world today and weighed them against all the other vertebrate animal groups alive today, the teleosts would outweigh the next nearest contender. The species count claim means that there are more living species of teleost than there are of mammals, of birds, of reptiles, of amphibians, or of other types of fish. --arkuat (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

10,000 missing species?
According to the Actinopterygii article there are 30,000 species of ray-finned fishes, but this article claims only 20,000 for the Teleostei. Given that there only seem to be about 60 species in the Chondrostei and Holostei, there seems to be a large discrepancy here. --Graminophile (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

The Actinopterygii consist of Polypteriformes, Acipenseriformes, Lepisosteiformes, Amiiformes and Teleostei. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.102.246.128 (talk) 21:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

in simple terms
Does anyone find this article a bit jargon-laden? What distinguishes telostei from the other two "infraclasses"? Neopterygii are mentioned in the sidebar, but aren't in the text proper

"Nearly all living bony fishes are teleosts." according to the Actinopterygii article -- shouldn't that be here also?

"Systematics" -- is this term defined? Feldercarb (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

is there a particular reason the superorders are not in alphabetical order? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feldercarb (talk • contribs) 20:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Lead image
The lead image shows 4 fishes, of which 3 are in the Perciformes. It is an attractively colourful painting, but it fails to represent the diversity of the teleosts. Perhaps we could have an eel, a catfish, a pike, an opah and an anglerfish to represent the teleosts rather better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Expansion
There is an expansion going on with this article, which is a good idea as it is certainly overdue. However, what is happening so far seems to me a bit confused. I would have thought the teleost article should be focused quite sharply on what it is that makes teleosts stand out compared to other fish groups. Instead it seems heading in the direction of cobbling together all sorts of bobs and tails from other articles that apply quite generally to fish. If that is going to happen for teleosts, then for consistency the same should happen for Percomorphi, Sarcopterygii, Elasmobranchii, and so on. The articles will be endlessly duplicating material and obscuring the key points that distinguish the different taxa. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:09, 6 January 2016 (UTC)


 * We are focussing sharply on the teleosts, and what differentiates them from related groups. We are working hard to provide an overview of the great diversity of the group both externally and in terms of their physiology, and we appreciate that this must constitute a tour of their variety while bearing in mind their inherent 'family likeness'. The resulting description sections could not be copied-and-pasted to any other article as they would not fit any other group. As for the other groups you mention, of course they deserve expansion too, the only limiting factor being the number of teams of committed editors available to do the work. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:19, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In that case I would like to join in with you. Is there a case for renaming the article Teleost? --Epipelagic (talk) 19:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome to join us and we will be pleased to make use of your expertise. I have no particular view on whether the article should be renamed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, both EB and Merriam-Webster use Teleost, so the name is accepted in common usage. I've made the change. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:51, 11 January 2016 (UTC)


 * In regard to your interest in teleost reproduction, there is an interesting ongoing discussion here. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, if the r/K selection theory thoughts about how the teleosts expanded into chondrichthyan niches can be sourced, they'd be well worth including. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I'll add a few more things. Then I think its really for GA. LittleJerry (talk) 18:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Teleost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160202043706/http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/12/18882045/fish-2030-prospects-fisheries-aquaculture to http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/2013/12/18882045/fish-2030-prospects-fisheries-aquaculture

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)