Talk:Yellowtail amberjack

Merger_proposal
I propose that Yellowtail_kingfish and Yellowtail amberjack are merged, as the first one is not a real subspecie, but just a population of that specie, which is seperate only by some anglers. The main article is so poorly developed, that creating a sub article about Yellowtail_kingfish is not necessary : everything can be said (if sourced) on this article. I'm not good enought in english to do the job.--Lilyu (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No, i do not agree. The Yellowtail Kingfish is a Sub Species of the Yellowtail Amberjack and I see no reason why it should not have a seperate article. This is a major species in New Zealand (hence it being called the 'Kingfish' locally) and I suspect that it would be the most commonly caught gamefish in the country. A considerable number of people would look for the Yellowtail Kingfish specifically. (Naughtysnakey (talk) 22:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

I'm on the fence with this one. There still seems to be agreement that the species Seriola lalandi is dividable into three geographically AND genetically isolated subspecies; S. lalandi lalandi, S. lalandi dorsalis and S. lalandi aureovittata. However, most scientific publications ignore this division because of a lack of a definitive genetic study. Therefore there are many papers worldwide that describe biological and aquacultural aspects of Seriola lalandi. It would be up to the person who writes the article to decide which subspecies the author is referring to, which would almost be bordering on original research. So the question is, is it more beneficial to have one large, comprehensive article, or three information deficient (and possibly misapplied information) articles? If we do go with all three subspecies having individual articles, it appears they will be quite empty of peer-reviewed, quality information based on a preliminary search of the literature. The problem with popular gamefish articles is that if they are empty, they end up full of poorly written unreferenced fishing information, which is exactly whats happened in the case of S. lalandi lalandi (which reads like a "how to" article). By the way, if anyone knows of any studies that examine the relationship between ALL subspecies, i would like to know. A search of the literature only found one study that seemed to validate the Australian/NZ subspecies as different to the Asian subspecies. Kare Kare (talk) 09:53, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is not New Zealand's wikipedia, that fish can be caught nearly world wide. There is no scientific aknowledged sub-species, and the wikipedia article present informations from and for the whole word. Sourced information should be merged on this article about the specie, and Yellowtail_kingfish turned into a redirection. This sentence found in Yellowtail_kingfish, The yellowtail kingfish or southern kingfish, Seriola lalandi lalandi, is a subspecies of yellowtail amberjack is misinformation misleading readers.--Lilyu (talk) 01:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Split proposal
I believe these articles were merged absent sufficient discussion to gauge consensus adequately. This article describes two separate entities, whereas each article should only describe one entity to avoid confusion to readers. It is clear that the article describes disparate subspecies, and therefore there should be a disambiguation at this title, with separate articles describe separate subspecies. This page is completely the inverse of a disambiguation as it stands now. Intelligent  sium  21:21, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Read my response above for the merger; i now oppose any such re-splitting of the article. The reason is because the scientific literature does not distinguish between subspecies in nearly all papers i can find. So the problem is this; i find an article on Seriola lalandi with the study based in the Atlantic. Do i assume it is S.l. dorsalis and assign that information to the S.l. dorsalis article? That would be bordering on original research and apply to papers containing any mention of S. lalandi. I am in massive opposition to making this page a disambig page, as it is a species page. If there is consensus to split, this article should remain and detail the taxonomy and phylogenetic reasons for their being subspecies (but there is no such evidence for 3 genetically distinct subspecies). My biggest fear is that without being able to put peer reviewed scientific information into subspecies articles, they will end up like they were before - full of unreferenced horseshit information such as what size hook to catch them on. I really believe a single species article which has a section detailing the possibility of subspecies is the best way to go. Kare Kare (talk) 00:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Also note both Fishbase and ITIS, which the fishproject uses as its primary references for taxonomy do not mention subspecies, and fishbase actually lists them as invalid junior synonyms. The only way then i can see that there would be any reason to split this article is if a recent peer reviewed scientific paper can be found which clearly demonstrates the subspecifity of these three taxa using rigorous phylogenetic analysis. I have looked extensively and found none. Feel free to point me in the right direction though. Kare Kare (talk) 00:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Fish articles should use the FishBase classification, there's little else to it. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 20:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

For the moment the Seriola lalandi is a single species with no scientifically valid subspecies status. From my understanding, the division of S. lalandi into subspecies was a convenient separation for sports fisherman and fisheries managers, but lacked a biological basis. There is some genetic evidence that Japanese stocks are distinct from Australian and NZ stocks (Nugroho et al 1991, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/bsc/fis/2001/00000067/00000005/art00009), so there may be a reclassification in the future pending further genetic studies. For now I oppose the split proposal. I have added a link in the references to my recently launched website (http://www.microcosmofscience.com). I propose adding more biological information to this wiki entry, but only after there is consensus that the page should be re-written with single species status. Future retro (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)