no |
|||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
Is this ID correct? [[User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">J</font>]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|Kadavoor]] [[Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor|J]][[commons:Category:User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">e</font>]][[ commons:Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor|e]] 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
Is this ID correct? [[User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">J</font>]][[User talk:Jkadavoor|Kadavoor]] [[Special:Contributions/Jkadavoor|J]][[commons:Category:User:Jkadavoor|<font color="red">e</font>]][[ commons:Special:ListFiles/Jkadavoor|e]] 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
||
:No, those are yellow and blueback fusiliers, ''[[Caesio teres]]''. -- [[User:Yzx|Yzx]] ([[User talk:Yzx|talk]]) 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:11, 3 December 2013
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Manta ray
I just tried to link Manta ray to the Spanish project's Manta birostris article, but couldn't because that article is already linked to Giant oceanic manta ray. I don't know enough to know whether I'm just mistaken, or whether Manta and Giant oceanic manta should be merged, or what. Any help available? Thanks, Awien (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
- Giant oceanic manta ray should certainly not be merged into manta. The first is a species (Manta birostris), and the second is a genus (Manta, with two described species and a possible undescribed species; for details see Manta ray#Taxonomy and etymology). The problem is that the Spanish project still uses out-of-date taxonomy where only a single species is recognized. In time, they'll presumably update their project to follow current taxonomy. 62.107.217.140 (talk) 14:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
- OK, thanks for the explanation. Awien (talk) 17:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Missing topics page
I have updated Missing topics about Fish - Skysmith (talk) 09:13, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Lamprey genera
I've noticed a discrepancy in Wikipedia's coverage of lampreys. The Pacific lamprey is cited as Entosphenus tridentatus, which is in line with usage in a scholarly work I came across. However, the species is listed as a member of Lampetra in the template {{Petromyzontiformes}}. As a librarian, I work with Library of Congress Subject Headings, which prescribes Lampetra for Entosphenus as well as Eudontomyzon and Tetrapleurodon. It's very likely that LCSH is simply behind the times, and that Lampetra has been broken down, but if that is the case, our lamprey template is outdated as well. --BDD (talk) 21:50, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
- I believe most recent scholarship recognizes Entosphenus, Eudontomyzon, and Tetrapleurodon as valid genera. The template should be updated. -- Yzx (talk) 22:24, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
List of fish species that protect their young
I just created a new article List of fish species that protect their young and was curious if anyone knows of additional fish species that could be on that list. Their young being eggs or hatchlings. Dream Focus 21:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
Rainbow trout nominated for GA
I've been upgrading the Rainbow trout article for the last couple of weeks. Essentially it was very unbalanced with too much emphasis on steelhead, instead on the type species Oncorhynchus mykiss and associated subspecies. The Rainbow trout is a complex topic and I trust I've made sufficient changes to warrant Good Article status. Any suggestions or help from this project would be appreciated.--Mike Cline (talk) 02:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Is this ID correct? JKadavoor Jee 14:18, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
- No, those are yellow and blueback fusiliers, Caesio teres. -- Yzx (talk) 16:11, 3 December 2013 (UTC)