Talk:Tetra

binomial / common name discrepancies
Hi all - does anyone know if there is a rationale behind some of the binomial names being red-links while their common name pages exist (and vice versa)? If no one has strong opinions on this, I'll reconcile them with some redirects. Debivort 21:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Debivort - Wikipedia standard practice is to use the the common name over the scientific name. I often use the scientific (genus) name if the genus is small in preference as many of the common names are ambiguous. I think some of the common names eg: congo tetra, neon tetra, cardinal tetra are fairly standard - but there are some fish which have a number of common names (which vary by country) and so it might be better to use the binomial name in these cases. Hope this helps! MidgleyDJ 06:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It does help a bit, but my question primarily refers to cases such as Buenos Aires tetra Hyphessobrycon anisitsi in which the common name does not seem to be ambiguous, and yet the scientific name doesn't redirect to that article. Is there a rationale for this, or is it a missing link I could help with. FWIW, I think it was a mistake for Wikipedia to use common names as the primary article titles. Debivort 07:31, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Bot-generated content
A computerised algorithm has generated a version of this page using data obtained from AlgaeBase. You may be able to incorporate elements into the current article. Alternatively, it may be appropriate to create a new page at Tetra (alga). Anybot ( contact operator) 17:08, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Tetragonopetrus
The article says: "It is short for tetragonopterus, the former genus name of this group of fish...". Obviously there still is a genus in Characidae named Tetragonopterus. And as late as 2004 a new species was described, Tetragonopterus rarus, and according to Fishbase the genus still seems valid. The statement thus seems to be a bit incorrect...--Episcophagus (talk) 17:15, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I fixed it. The genus still exists, as you point out, but it now only applies to a small group of fish, not to all of the tetras. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:18, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the oldest genus in Characidae (hence the name) is obviously Charax which was described in 1777 by Giovanni Antonio Scopoli and also at least Serrasalmus (1803) predates Cuvier's Tetragonopterus(1816). So to be correct... "most of", perhaps? ;-) --Episcophagus (talk) 17:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's a very good point. I made it simply "many of", to fudge the issue even further. Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: ENGL-122
— Assignment last updated by Ashven20 (talk) 23:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)