Talk:Tilapia as exotic species

Subsections
I suggest we split this up into tilapia as an invasive species in general, and then each country would get its own section (warranting enough info on tilapiines of course...we don't want this to read like a list). Shrumster 04:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This article is still in need of some work. I'd like to see plenty more references. That shouldn't be difficult, as this topic is quite widely studied, but it does need some help from someone familiar with the subject. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 10:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll see what I can do with it. Not sure if it counts as a WP:COI :), but I hate how tilapia (O. mossambicus, among others) have been released into every single major body of freshwater here in the Philippines. BTW, would it be good to merge this with the aquaculture article or something like that? Seems like the establishment of alien tilapia populations throughout the globe is inherrently linked to attempts to culture it? Shrumster 11:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I somewhat agree with the connection between aquaculture and conservation problems. However, in the US, tilapia were introduced for a variety of reasons including unwanted aquarium fishes and to control aquatic vegetation. They have also been introduced for sport fishing. In Australia, there is also a mix of reasons. But in Asia and Africa certainly, aquaculture has been the prime reason. Anyway, because the topic is complex, I'd suggest keeping Exotics and Aquaculture separate for now, and simply stress the connections where relevant. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 11:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Difference
I tagged the page for merging because the openning sentence identifies the subject as "Tilapiine cichlids". If the two articles are on different subjects, the intro needs to explicitly differentiate what the difference is. — Swpb talk contribs 13:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Both articles refer to tilapiine cichlids, specifically those treated colloquially as "tilapias" (though not limited to the genus Tilapia). The subjects are not identical, because many cases where tilapia have been introduced, e.g., in Florida, has been following on from unwanted aquarium specimens being dumped in the wild. Tilapia have also been introduced into various places to provide sport fishing, to eat aquatic weeds, and to eat mosquito larvae. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 14:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That doesn't settle the issue at all. The opening of this article reads "Tilapiine cichlids, often referred to as tilapias..." without identifying whether this article deals with tilapia as a taxon, or as a commercial grouping.  Same goes for Tilapia in aquaculture.  If this page and Tilapia in aquaculture refer to the taxon, please explain why they should be seperate from the taxon page Tilapiine cichlid.  If they refer to the commercial grouping, which seems to be the case, please explain why they should be seperate from the commercial grouping page Tilapia.  Neither would violate Article size. — Swpb talk contribs 18:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I think I see the confusion. I've re-written this article to clarify, and will go back and look at the aquaculture articles as well.
 * Right, to begin with, "tilapiine cichlids" are a taxonomic group including three genera commonly called tilapias (in the way there are groups of animals called "whales" or "sparrows"), namely Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, and Tilapia. But other genera belonging to the tilapiine cichlids group as well, such as Iranocichla and Pelmatochromis. These other genera are NEVER called tilapias and are not involved in aquaculture at all. Therefore the articles on Tilapiine cichlids and Tilapia in aquaculture are not and should not be joined together.
 * Now, the colloquial term "tilapia" is used to cover the fishes that are farmed AS WELL AS a bunch of species that are never farmed. So Oreochromis mossambicus is a big tilapia that is widely farmed and eaten, while Tilapia joka is a relatively small tilapia that may be caught in its native habitat but is not farmed and is of no interest to the aquaculture industry. So, while all Tilapia in aquaculture are tilapias, not all tilapias are Tilapia in aquaculture.
 * Finally, because the Tilapia in aquaculture are drawn from the genera Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, and Tilapia, the article Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, and Tilapia cannot be joined with the article on Tilapia (genus).
 * Does this make sense? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mostly, but I'm still not clear on how the fish covered in Tilapia as exotic species and Tilapia in aquaculture are a different set than that described in Tilapia, which is about neither the tribe nor the genus, but the colloquial usage. I apologize for being so dense. — Swpb talk contribs 21:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Because tilapias can be any species from the genera Oreochromis, Sarotherodon, and Tilapia, including species not farmed and not introduced outside their natural habitat. So the farmed/exotic species are certainly tilapias, but not all tilapias are farmed/exotic species. That this isn't clear means we do need to do some work on the articles. But merging them isn't the fix. Cheers, Neale —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Neale Monks (talk • contribs) 21:53, 29 January 2007 (UTC).

Tilapia don't eat teal
I came very close to just deleting the bit about the teal, because I simply don't believe it. I have a lot of experience with these fishes, and while they can certainly be invasive species, I do not believe they eat teal, even very young ones. Especially any of the Oreochromis spp. I did look for information about the Rennell Island Teal elsewhere on the web. There were several references to the Rennell Island Teal being driven to extinction by tilapia eating their young, but none had any reference to a reliable source, and all had nearly the same wording - a clear example of misinformation spreading. Most were wiki-type entries. I could believe that tilapia competed with the young for food, or muddied the water so that the teal could not find food, or eliminated vegetation that the teal needed to survive, or any number of other ways they could drive teal to extinction, but not that they eat teal. Tilapia are not large fish, and Oreochromis spp., with the minor exception of O. hornorum, hardly ever eat even small fish. They are generally filter feeders, and they also eat invertebrates. They are not agressive fishes that would go about eating ducks, even newly hatched ones. I simply cannot believe this is true. An extremely large Mossambique tilapia (O. mossambicus) would be about a kilogram (I have worked with these fish for years and never seen one that large, but they do, occasionally, apparently reach that size) and would not have a mouth big enough to engulf a duckling, and they do not have teeth to bite them apart, and they just don't have that kind of behavior anyway. I could not find any other information on the extinct species except one website that listed it as an extinct species. I am not an experienced wiki editor, so I am reluctant to overstep my bounds. But it was extremely difficult to hold myself back from cutting something that seems so patently false to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carptracker (talk • contribs) 03:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)