Talk:Cichlid

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good articleCichlid was one of the Natural sciences good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 4, 2007Good article nomineeListed
July 17, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
October 23, 2009Good article reassessmentDelisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Brackish?[edit]

Brackish? That's certainly not true of many of the cichlids I've known... which ones is this supposed to be about? -- OlofE

The only cichlids species in asia might be brackish. I think I remember something like this. One should look this up. It's, however, the rare exception. -- Doegi

OK, I looked that up, and seems there are some more, including some Cichlasomas. - Doegi
dang, that does ring a bell... wonder where I might have seen that... it's really a pain to try to remember something you read 20-25 years ago, hehe. Now... do some of the haplochromis or similar go into brackish water too? H burtoni for instance lives in anything up to well cooked stews it seems... maybe there are Tilapias that do? - OlofE 14:56 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What does Cichlids (Cichlidae) are a family or perciform mean? -- Zoe

Perciform means perch-like, nothing else. I think it's just a typo, but I'm not sure how to correct it. -- OlofE

In this case perciform means of the order Perciformes, and is being used to indicate their taxonomy. I've changed it accordingly. Much of the rest of the opening needs work. Besides being run-on, it for instance doesn't mention Asia, which is mentioned in the lists below.

Excellent. Asia not being mentioned isn't really that serious, is it... I mean it's what, 2 species out of how many hundred? OlofE 19:13 Apr 27, 2003 (UTC) Don't forget Iranocichla, that's another Asian species. And I don't think the number of species justifies missing them out.

Just a note to say, there is only realy 2 speices of cichlds you could truly call Brackish, but I cant recall them for the life of me. Most fish will tolarate, mabey even enjoy, some leval of salinity. Infact there are few it wont help, most notibly Coridoras and Plecosomus Catfish (although I have never had any problems adding a few spoons of medicanal salt, but i woulden't recomend it unles you are shaw you know what your doing).

Both oscar and JD are VERY common at least in parts of Europe. I was in a store yesterday that had both, and only about a dozen other south american species. It may vary a bit for different European countries but I certainly don't think it's a general truth that they are "rare" or anything. My experience are from Swedish stores and aquarists - don't know where they're supposed to be rare. I bred both when I was a kid, and they were always hard to sell because they were always in stock... - OlofE 14:19 31 May 2003 (UTC)

Well, sure you find them at stores, easily, at least in the better ones. Sometimes you even find them in the small aquaria corner of a big super market here as well, but they are sized 3-4 cm and going to be bought by people who like their look (especially oscars) and are going to keep then in 80-100 cm tanks which I treat as heavy cruelty to them, given the actual size of adults.
However, what I meant with 'rare' is, how many aquaria keepers do actually keep them? I personally don't like the phrase "Some notable cichlids are ...". What makes these 4 species so special (btw, I'd prefer using scientific names as primary reference in the actual article). A regular aquaria keeper won't be able to keep JD and Oscar anyways due to the size constraints. (and cichlid keeper that knows about them won't look this info up in a Wikipedia article ;-) )
If you define "notable" as in "you've probably seen this in a friend's tank or already kept them yourself", you should keep the angels (and maybe the discus, as those are rather well known even for non-aquarists), but I'd rather suggest listing Rams or Kribs here, as that is what the "common" owner has in his tank, and not the big SA cichlids. If you are going to list JD and Oscars because they are, well, your favourites, may I also add my Tropheus, and the next person his Malawi cichlids, ... ? - Doegi

"may I also add my " - Hell yeah! I've been wanting to do a proper outline of the family for ages but always stopped because I'd overdo it:-) Actually, I'd much rather write about the rift valley fish, as I haven't had a south american in my tanks for over two decades...
I'd prefer to have a group of southamericans (incl the ones listed), a tilapia group, a tanganyika group, Tropheus, mbuna, haps and at least one more generic african group, each group with one or two representatives. Or each group could have its own article but I sort of dislike that since most of them are not really known by name either as group or species - well, mbuna, blunthead and princess of burundi exempted. But there's lots of material here that I think is certainly intersting enough for inclusion in the pedia.
How about dropping the "notable" paragraph entirely and flesh out the following listing instead? (And the JD link goes to just an article about the man, not the fish iirc - not very good...)
Anyway - just add I say. OlofE 17:28 1 Jun 2003 (UTC)
what's a blunthead again? ;-) The listing with 2-3 representatives each is a great idea, I very much prefer this over the "notable" paragraph. - [[User::Doegi|Doegi]] Tue Jun 3 17:37:09 CEST 2003
Blunthead is Tropheus moorii in US parlance, unless I'm mistaken. Or is it bluntnose? Let's put together a neat list of nice, popular representatives and get this written up then:-) OlofE 14:56 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Here's an attempt at an overview to replace the "notable cichlids" passage and the current overview. I'm sloppy with scientific names here, cause this is how I learned them some decades ago... Some sort of plan for what species even deserve their own pages might be in order. I'm also convinced the rather unique endemic populations of lakes Malawi & Tanganyika deserve specific articles. Anyway, speak up and let's get this in place,

The main groups of cichlids kept in aquariums and some of the more common or characteristic species,

Does that make a decent coverage? If we could get some smallish images of the species listed, that would make a great introduction to cichlids, IMO.

And, some articles that need better integration (or creation); mouthbrooding, rift valley lakes, endemic, some comments about population evolution and diversity (re: T. moorii especially, but also the mouthbrooding monopoly of L Malawi). OlofE 17:37 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Starting from the "Cichlid" page, the list of genuses point to individual species and each in that list should point to an intervening page pointing to the genus - not a species. Additional species within that genus can then be added. For instance: In the "Cichlid" page list, there was no Labidochromus, yet - an "Electric Yellow" page identifying "Labidochromus caeruleus" exists but is sort of pointed to if you scroll all the way doen to the bottom of the "Cichlid" page. Many genus/specie names are in flux, but at least try to use scientific names rather than 'common' names as common name are very regional and change at the whim of a retail store's penchant to rename for advertising sake. ... BobK

Hey, the article has improved a lot. Great! I love it. User:Doegi 11:15 05.12.2004

Feeding habits[edit]

If someone could, I feel it would be useful to include some information on types of cichlids who’s feeding habits are not set by the species. I do not know enough about it, but do know that there are certain cichlids which are born ether to feed on algae, fish or mud, depending on what is abundant when they are born. As a unique behaviour of Cichlids I feel this would be of grate interest if anyone knows enough.

Cichlid / Cichlidae[edit]

Why does the article Cichlidae redirect to Cichlid? Shouldn't it be the other way around? Isn't it better to redirect someone searching for an article on a "cichlid" to a more official, professional page about the family "cichlidae"? J. Finkelstein 05:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while since you asked your question, so I don't know if you got your answer yet, but the standard practice is to create the articles under the common name with a redirect from the scientific name, but only if the common name is unambiguous. Hope that helps. Neil916 01:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Genera[edit]

adding a list from fishbase.org

  • Having this list is very useful. But I wonder how complete or updated the list is. For example, the Heros genus (severum cichild and others) is not included this list, even though it has its own wikipedia article as well as data in fishbase.org --Melanochromis 17:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The list is very nearly complete and is reasonably up to date. Thanks for pointing out the omission of Heros I've added it. Is there any other genera absent? MidgleyDJ
bit embarassing really, I just noted who started both the list and the Heros_genus article. Doh! MidgleyDJ 20:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think your list is a great tool. I used it all the time. --Melanochromis 04:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good yes, great certainly not (from a standpoint of scientific accuracy). Cichlid genera are liable to change any time - especially in Pseudocrenilabrinae -, so the list brobably needs a complete review every few months. I certainly won't do that. But as the subfamillies have no articles yet... I think the list should be kept for the time being, but eventually it should be replaced with an explanation of the subfamilies and notable (and taxonomically stable...) genera therein. In any case, I changed the pseudo-exact genus number into something more vague. I think that some genera are already missing. What happened to Alcolapia, apparently the currently accepted name for the soda tilapiiids? They are not in Sarotherodon where they initially were placed after the split from Tilapia. Dysmorodrepanis 16:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is Heroina Kullander 1996 still valid? Dysmorodrepanis 16:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - malawi cichlids[edit]

I'd like to propose the material at Malawi Cichlid be merged with the main Cichlid page - which I think should be moved to Cichlidae. Thoughts?

Seems sensible, but I'd suggest a separate article on Cichlid speciation in the African Great Lakes or something would actually be very useful. It's the kind of topic that students, teachers, and hobbyists would all find useful. There's also plenty of accessible literature, such as The Cichlid Fishes: Nature's Grand Experiment in Evolution by George W. Barlow. So adding references should be straightforward. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cichlids as aquarium fish vs cichlids as a taxonomic grouping[edit]

I'd like to propose we keep all aquarium related matters under in the section regarding cichlids as aquarium fish. MidgleyDJ 07:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

commentry on fishbase[edit]

Editors (including: 69.232.73.33) -

I was wondering what our position was on commentry on external links. I think they need to be neutral and objective. I've been removing commentry on fishbase as I think it is unnecessary. I should stress, I have no vested interest in the fishbase site. I do think, though, that it is the most up-to-date taxonomy site.

Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 21:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wikipedia is not a website review. Links should be neutral, and left for the reader to investigate. Wikibofh(talk) 22:19, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my thoughts also on the issue Wikibofh. Thanks for the confirmation. MidgleyDJ 22:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to: 69.232.73.33[edit]

Wikipedia isnt a website review. Please stop reverting and adding commentry re: external links. MidgleyDJ 21:09, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

validity of Maylandia[edit]

Metriaclima is a junior synonym of Maylandia according to fishbase.org. Please do not remove Maylandia in favour of Metriaclima.

Discussion of this issue should probably be on the Maylandia page.

User: 69.232.73.33 has removed Maylandia twice and replaced it with Metriaclima.

Brackish water cichlids[edit]

There's some confusion on this issue on the main page and on this talk page. So, just to clear things up: yes, the overwhelming majority of cichlids live in freshwater. But no, there are rather more than just two Asian species of brackish water cichlids. There are species of cichlid that naturally occur in brackish water in Asia, Africa, and Central America. Of the Asian species, the two Etroplus species are well known, but Iranocichla can be added to the list, too. In Africa, species of Sarotherodon, Oreochromis, Tilapia, Pelviachromis, Hemichromis, and others naturally occur in more or less brackish waters. Sarotherodon melanotheron, for example, is largely confined to brackish waters. In Central America, species of Nandopsis and Vieja are common in brackish water, Vieja maculicauda, Nandopsis tetracanthus, and Nandopsis haitiensis in particular being able to tolerate up to fully marine conditions.

In aquaria and in aquaculture, a variety of cichlids have been maintained in brackish, even marine, conditions. The various tilapias in particular do well in salty water and this has allowed them to colonise brackish waters outside their natural range, for example in Florida. It also makes them versatile subjects for aquaculture in brackish pools and ponds, where other farmed fish, like carp, wouldn't work.

So, what needs to be stated in the article is that while cichlids are a freshwater fish family, many cichlids are notably salt-tolerant, and this has made them of particular interest to fish farmers and a particular problem for conservationists. It's important for this article to avoid being just about aquarium fish (and I say this as an aquarist!) and cover the breadth of adapation and biology of the group.

Cheers,

Neale Neale Monks 23:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, having personally seen Cichlasomine cichlids in Cancoon lagoon - they are remarkably adaptable animals. MidgleyDJ 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophores? (In the Diet section)[edit]

Is this a word? And if it is, does it mean what the Wikipedia editor who added it thinks it means? "Paedo-" means "relating to children" while "phore" would come from the Greek "pherein", which means "to bring" or "to carry". So a "paedophore" would be something that "carries children". Compare Ctenophore, comb jellies, whose name means "bears combs" rather than eats combs.

Now, a "paedovore" would be something that ate children (or baby cichlids, at least!) but a quick Google search doesn't reveal anything to suggest this word is used by the scientific community. So, is paedophore a made-up word used by cichlid keepers, a misspelling, or an actual word? Can someone clarify this for me? Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paedophagous? MidgleyDJ 00:06, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Made the change, plus a few others. Please, someone with cichlid know-how, can you check the examples given of dietary specialisations; I'm not much of a cichlid expert at all. Thanks! Neale Monks 18:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Created Paedophagy. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lepidophagy[edit]

We should probably have an article on scale eating (lepidophagy) also. MidgleyDJ 08:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done Lepidophagy created. MidgleyDJ 11:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Estimates of cichlid numbers.[edit]

Kullander 1998 suggests there are 1900 species of cichlid. Wondering if we have any revised estimates/counts for this family?

Ref: Kullander, S.O., 1998. A phylogeny and classification of the South American Cichlidae (Teleostei: Perciformes).. p. 461-498. In: L.R. Malabarba, R.E. Reis, R.P. Vari, Z.M. Lucena and C.A.S. Lucena (eds.) Phylogeny and classification of neotropical fishes. Porto Alegre, Edipucrs. 603 p.

Cheers! MidgleyDJ 07:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should have added I ask this because User_talk:70.137.65.163 has been changing "It may include 2000 species" to "It includes 2000..." in the introduction. I am wondering if there is a reference to support this claim. MidgleyDJ 07:49, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If there is, I couldn't find any. The currently accepted figures range from 1200 (Fishbase) to 1900 (Kullander). The "2000 species" number seems to be mostly something aquarists throw about rather than an actual scientific estimate. So, for example, Paul Loiselle in The Cichlid Aquarium says their diversity "approaches two thousand". I think that "approaches" has gradually morphed into "around" and then "over". Cheers, Neale 08:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
The same user has returned making all the same old changes to this article. Again without references or discussion. I've reverted the changes. MidgleyDJ 08:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrids[edit]

I think there needs to be some mention of the fact that hybrid cichlids have been produced for various commerical reasons. Obviously, the most important of these are the tilapiine hybrids used in fish farming. I believe (but I'd need to check this) that in some places, e.g. China/Taiwan, hybrids are more commonly farmed than true species.

Then there are the aquarium ones. While I cannot begin to describe my dislike of these fish in a family-oriented site like this, I have to admit that they have been very popular and have commercial significance.

Thoughts? Neale Neale Monks 18:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to help Neale. Let me know what I can do. I think it would be a useful addition for the article. It might also be worth including some information on natural hybridisation in African rift lake cichlids. MidgleyDJ 21:41, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a start. Please expand. I know almost nothing about Rift Lake cichlids. Thanks! Neale Neale Monks 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]


References[edit]

I'd suggest that people add references using the standard format from now on, and if anyone knows what the original references (now moved to "Further reading") refer to, perhaps they can link them to the appropriate text. I have no idea what "The South African zoological society" refers to, if anything, and I'm pretty sure Barlow didn't write a book called "The Chiclid Fishes" (I fixed that!). Thanks, Neale Neale Monks 12:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done my best to move some of the references into the text. Please try your best to actually refer to a book or paper by its proper name and not one dimly dredged up from memory. The one about Malawi cichlids by Snoeks used a name with only a passing resemblance to the actual publication! If in doubt, search on Google and see if you can find the reference as you've written it. If not, then you've liked written it down incorrectly. Let's take some care with references and further reading, too. Some were badly written duplicates (the Barlow ones) others don't lead to anything (the SA Zoological Society one). Those have gone. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 08:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image in the taxobox - replace the angelfish?[edit]

I couldn't help but thinking that angelfish is probably not the best to represent the cichlids. May be picture of a cichla species might do a better job? I looked it up in the net and some people say cichla is the type genus of cichildae. So I proposed moving the angelfish picture to the gallery and replacing it with this one.

--Melanochromis 06:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Melanochromis, I'm ambivalent about the angelfish as well - but I'm not overly taken with the picture of the Cichla proposed either (it seems too small, relative to the picture size). What is the convention? Is it simply a good picture of a cichlid? If so, I think the angel fish is probably a better photo. Other thoughts? MidgleyDJ 09:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MidgleyDJ, I agree with you actually. My issue is that the angelfish is far from being representative of the cichlid family. On the other hand, the peacock bass which is supposedly the chosen representative (as it belongs to the type genus), doesn't have a good image available. Anyway, here's the cropped version of the original peacock bass image along with other image that I think makes a good representative picture of the family. Which one do you think should be in taxobox? --Melanochromis 10:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The cropped version of the Cichla is an improvement. On the other hand, the family Cichlidae is a very diverse one - as such, perhaps the angelfish does go someway to representing that diversity? User:Neale Monks has also been a significant contributer to this article, it might be wise to also ask for his advice, prior to the change? MidgleyDJ 20:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't have very strong feelings. While angelfish aren't representative, they are perhaps the best known cichlids in the English-speaking world, and hence a good way to connect with readers unfamiliar with the family. On the other hand, if you want a cichlid that is generalised and ecologically/commercially important, then one of the tilapias would be a better bet. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 16:43, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Since there're no strong supports for replacing the anglefish picture, I'll guess I'll just put this proposal on hold. --Melanochromis 15:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links - criteria and who gets to choose[edit]

Hello:

First, I would like to thank everyone who has made the Cichlid page accurate and informative. I would also like to thank Neale Monks for his thoughtful email reply and his encouragement to me to post here.

So as not to jump to any conclusions, I would like to ask two questions. What is the criteria for being listed in the External Links section? Second, who has the final say within the Cichlid page to make this decision. I have noted that in the past I was able to add a link to this page. This is no longer the case.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Respectfully,

Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC

Hi Eric -
Wikipedia has detailed policy for external links (see: Wikipedia:External_links). No one has final say - Wikipedia is a collaborative project - and all additions (or potential additons) and their discussion on here on the talk page are most welcome.
In general, it's much better to add content to the article than to add links. Links to cichlid hobbyists websites are generally inappropriate (see reasons @ Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided) as the information they contain would be better included in the article, under the relevant "in the aquarium" sections, (see the project pages: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fishes & Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aquarium_Fishes).
Hope this helps, David aka MidgleyDJ 09:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello David:
Thank you for taking the time to respond to my note.
Your response was not as helpful as I wished, but it's still appreciated. Your statement of "hobbyists websites are generally inappropriate" did not address my question of "What is the criteria for being listed in the External Links section?"
For example, www.cichlidae.com is listed as a External Link. It is a very good site and I respect the owner of the site. What criteria did it meet in order to be listed?
If this Wiki page is collaborative, why was I technically unable to add an External Link? Is this not the case, please correct me.
Thank you again!
Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC
--65.119.131.2 23:06, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric, I didnt add www.cichlidae.com to the list of links (at least I dont remember doing it). It probably doesnt contain information above and beyond what should be included in a "featured article" version of the cichlid article. It does, however, contain a number of unique resources - particularly those regarding habitats in central america. I'm unsure which link you added (that was removed) so I cant easily give you my opinion. I guess the point is there is many, many hobbyist websites - unless they contain something unique they should probably not be in the list (see WP:NOT a collection of links). I'll remove www.cichlidae.com from the list of links now, if anyone objects, we can discuss it further here or it can be returned. As before - it's much better to add content, rather than links, to articles. MidgleyDJ 23:31, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I just realised I didnt completely answer your question. re: which sites to avoid linking (see: Wikipedia:External_links & Wikipedia:External_links#Links_normally_to_be_avoided). Wikipedia is collaborative - if you have a link you think should be added -add it - and/or discuss it's addition here. MidgleyDJ 23:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eric, what I'd suggest would be to add new and relevant content to the web pages here, but adding references to those additions that linked to your web pages. If you look at the Cichlid page, you'll see the sort of thing for references 1 and 10, for example. This way, people can follow up the summary info on Wikipedia and read your articles if they're interested to learn more. If you want to help the Wikipedia project, this will certainly do that without upsetting anyone (I'd imagine). The problem for the Wikipedia editors "looking after" these pages is that for every one person wanting to add to the content of the Wikipedia article, there's two or three more who simply want to use the Wikipedia article as a link to their stuff, and have no interest at all in adding to the the Wikipedia project itself. A quick look at someone's contributions log shows who's helped add content and who's just there to add link spam. Wikipedia is not a tool to increase the exposure of a person's web site, and if that's what they're after, they're asking to be disappointed. In a perfect Wikipedia article, there really shouldn't be any external links, and everything should be in the references, just as you'd see reading a scholarly book or scientific article on the subject. In the real world of course, external links are useful if the article cannot cover the full depth of the subject concerned, but every external link needs to be judged and vetted on a case by case basis, using the criteria David's outlined above. Simply trying to turn the external links section into something akin to a Yahoo! category isn't going to happen.
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 06:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS. Looking over the contributions log of the person who was adding links for Cichlid-Forum.com is interesting. Among other things, they were deleting existing links, and changing the name of the web site so it would go up the the A-Z list! This is the kind of thing that stinks of link-spamming. [1]
Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 06:49, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hello Gents:

It's been some time since I responded to the above!

David, I do appreciate your kind response. I also appreciate that you did not have the subtle "back-handedness" in your response, as I saw from another member.

I understand your External Link explanation. It does make sense that you cannot judge its merit, as the link was removed. For your reference, it is Cichlid-Forum. I do believe it has many unique pieces of content that support the Wikipedia page on Cichlid. I think the maps (http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/cichlid_maps_list.php) are just one example. Please let me know if I should provide other examples.

Although www.Cichlid-Forum.com does have some very astute authors with distinguished backgrounds, I will admit that its main focus is that of the cichlid hobbyist. Because the genus as hugely popular with aquarists, I think we should not ignore the fact. Although there is a small section on the Wiki page in regards to this, I think the Cichlid-Forum link adds additional support.

Thank you again!

Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC --Ecichlid (talk) 07:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric -

I'm afraid I'm still not convinced cichlid-forum.com would make a suitable addition to the external links section of the Cichlid page under Wikipedia's WP:EL criteria. There is certainly some useful information on the website that could be incorporated into the Cichlid article, particularly the "In the aquarium" section, with referencing. That being said, cichlid-forum.com isnt a primary source of information (that is, the information for some material eg. the maps comes from elsewhere). So there's no reason not use the original sources in that case. Furthermore, allowing one hobbyist website opens the door to many, many others with equal claims of "validity". MidgleyDJ (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David:

Certainly Wikipedia's criteria for what is a suitable link is vague and open to interpretation. There are examples of other unrelated topics that contain links fly in the face of your interpretation. I think you can agree with this.

I am not trying to convince you of an addition of cichlid-forum.com. My original questions "What is the criteria for being listed in the External Links section?" Is what I was best trying to understand and you have answered this to a degree and "who has the final say within the Cichlid page to make this decision?" is obviously answered - Dr. David Midgley.

Could you explain why some of the cichlid maps contained on cichlid-forum.com.are not primary sources of information? A few are created by a site author with the input of Dr. Ad Konings. There are also numerous articles that are published nowhere else and contain observations from the authors themselves.

I think the hobbyist door you mentioned previously has already been opened. The Cichlid Room Companion is not managed by a person educated with an advanced degree in ichthyology or a related field (at least to my knowledge), although I do consider him as a great aquarist and his observation in the field is much appreciated by the hobby! I assume the content of the site itself must contain primary information that you consider relevant. Could you please point out some examples contained within that site?

Thanks again for your time. I really do appreciate it.


Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC --Ecichlid (talk) 04:38, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric -
I certainly don't get to choose. New versions of distribution maps, for example, can -- and would be -- useful inclusions in the Cichlid article. If you'd like to draw some up based on the literature they'd be most welcome here. This means that the maps at least arent enough to qualify cichlid-forum for inclusion (does that make sense?). Please keep in mind I've no issue with the cichlid-forum website -- but it's just that, a storehouse (albeit a good one) of hobbyist information. Other articles in Wikipedia having inappropriate links isn't a defence for adding them here, in fact, I'd encourage you to remove ANY external links where you think they do not qualify under WP:EL. Hope this helps to explain the position. Feel free to discuss this (or other issues) at the fish project home, where more editors can comment. MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eric, I just was having a look at cichlid-forum.com to see if I could find qualifying material and I note the the site is owned by Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC (of which you are the president). This may make your pushing for it to be included in the Cichlid article, a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It's worth reading over the guidelines. MidgleyDJ (talk) 21:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Hi David:

I read the guidelines you mentioned above and there is no conflict of interest. The purpose of me including my signature, since my original post, is that I don't choose to remain anonymous. That's not a conflict of interest. If you see one, be more specific or put your sly inference where it belongs - in the trash.

Is all that you could find in searching for primary material on www.Cichlid-Forum.com is that the site management is Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC? There are many more examples of primary material on www.Cichlid-Forum.com. How many more examples do you want? Why did you take the position that www.Cichlid-Forum.com was not worthy to be linked on this Cichlid page originally? Are you only now to look for "qualifying material".

Wikipedia's guidelines to links, as you cite above, is noted by them as "In a nutshell: Adding external links to an article can be a service to the reader, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article." Their exact words, not mine.

www.Cichlid-Forum.com is meritable, accessible and appropriate to an article on cichlids. Why the push back?

I'm getting a sense that the Ph.D.'s feel uncomfortable linking a site that is primarily a hobbyist website, as is Cichlidae.com, here. What you must consider is that the vast majority of people who visit the Cichlid article page here are hobbyists and therefore the link to www.Cichlid-Forum.com is meritable and appropriate.

Will you please reconsider and let a site that contains more cichlid information on the web than any other (primary and not) remain as link on the Wikipedia cichlid page? I think there are many hobbyists that would benefit.


Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC --Ecichlid (talk) 06:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eric -
Please don't attack me by suggesting I'm making "sly" suggestions. See WP:NPA. You have a conflict of interest which I simply note above.
As for the WP:COI violation it's clear on reading the guidelines that if you have a conflict of interest, and you do in this instance as the President of the Aquaworks (the company that owns the website you are trying to get added), you should avoid editing in this area. MidgleyDJ (talk) 08:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello David:

I did not "attack" you. This is not personal, I addressed your inference, not you.

Your argument above, at this point, is a technicality and also not true. The interests of Wikipedia have remained paramount (see WP:COI).

Again, www.Cichlid-Forum.com is meritable, accessible and appropriate to an article on cichlids. I made some very valid points above and you have chosen not to address them. At this point, should you not reply, I will take this no further here.

Eric Glab, President, Aquaworks Web Solutions, LLC --Ecichlid (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Eric -
For the record cichlid-forum is a great site for cichlid hobbyist. It does not, however, constitute a unique or verifiable (much of it, anyway) resource. In addition, I stress again it does not add anything to the article that would not be included in a featured version of the Cichlid article. Finally, cichlid-forum is just one of a number of large cichlid hobbyist sites on the web. This in itself does not qualify it for inclusion here on the Cichlid article. Why not add cichlid-forum to dmoz instead? Are you interested in contributing, other via the addition of this single links, to this article? Maps, for example, would be a good addition if appropriately licensed. MidgleyDJ (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Eric -- I just added a link to dmoz (see links to be considered under WP:EL). Cichlid-forum is currently listed on dmoz. I hope this satisfies your concerns that hobbyists can now find other hobbyist websites via the Cichlid article. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New genus?: Ivanacara[edit]

An anonymous user has added this genus to the article. I looked it up in fishbase and didn't find it. A quick search shows that this might have come from a very recently published book. The book itself seems to be a bit controversial, as some dwarf cichlid breeders point out. So, to be cautious, I have removed the genus from the article. It's probably too early to include the genus in the article at this moment. --Melanochromis 02:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which book is it in? MidgleyDJ 05:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's "Mergus Cichlid Atlas 2" by Dr. Uwe Römer. Two Nannacara species were reassigned into the newly created Ivanacara genus. It seems like some aquarists have doubts about the validity of the new assignment (see here and here). --Melanochromis 07:35, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like an odd place to describe a species to me. MidgleyDJ 12:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but not "illegal" by the ICZN rules. The key rule being: 8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record. It is merely a recommendation that Authors have a responsibility to ensure that new scientific names, nomenclatural acts, and information likely to affect nomenclature are made widely known. This responsibility is most easily discharged by publication in appropriate scientific journals or well-known monographic series... (Recommendation 8A). So provided other ichthyologists accept the name as valid (which might not happen wherever it is published) then the fact it was published in an "aquarium book" doesn't really metter. On the downside, it's a dumb place to publish a name, as most of the scientific community won't have this book in their libraries. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 19:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So the question is: Do we draw the list exclusively from FishBase? Or, do we accept new genera (not listed in fishbase) provided they have a reference? Thoughts? MidgleyDJ 23:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your question, I think Fishbase should be our standard reference. If there's a conflicting taxonomy from another reliable source that is important for the readers to know then it should be mentioned in the article. In this case, however, I'm not sure if the new classification in this book has been reviewed as valid by other scholars, so I don't think it's wise to put it in the article yet. --Melanochromis 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that the user adding this genus is the same user who repeatedly has ignored calls to discuss his/her changes on this article and Maylandia. He or she makes their changes in a vandalic fashion and to date has not discussed any of them. For this reason I've come to view their edits as largely vandalic and not in good faith or the collaborative nature of wikipedia. MidgleyDJ 18:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I think I begin to see how stubborn this anonymous user is. I know it is vandalism but I'm concerned someone might think I'm in a editing war with him if I keep undoing his addition without your support. So do we have a consensus here whether to include the genus in the article (for now)? --Melanochromis 20:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not certain but I'm fairly sure the FishProject guidelines suggest we use Fishbase.org as a list of accepted species. In saying that - if we have a new genus with an acceptable reference it seems slightly pedantic not too accept it. To be honest I'm unsure whether we should add or not. I'd be happy to be guided by Neale Monks on this issue. MidgleyDJ 20:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have got to admit that I'm not wild about using FishBase as the one and only benchmark for taxonomic nomenclature. For one thing, FishBase is derivative and based on literature research, and is not in itself peer-reviewed (as far as I know). There are also internal inconsistencies (e.g. the number of species listed on family descriptions [2] and then included on the lists of species [3]). So while FishBase is probably adequate for aquarium hobbyists and laypersons, it isn't acceptable for academic research, even at undergraduate level, at least not on its own. It is also important to remember that a scientific name exists as an entity, even if it is subsequently sunk into the synonomy of another taxon. Maylandia and Metriaclima are both scientific names that should be discussed, but the (current) majority view is that one is a straight synonym of the other. That may change in due course, so there's an argument for having a genus-level Wikipedia entry for both, describing their usage, but ensuring that the two do not contradict one another. Thus, Ivanacara should definitely have an entry, at the very least citing the type species, author, and relevant publication. The article should also say if this is commonly traded as a synonym of something else, or perhaps that the name has not been widely used yet. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think now we have some kind of consesus that Ivanacara should be mentioned. Here's what I propose
  • the genera section of this article should somehow mention Ivanacara with a remark of the source (since all other genera have a remark that they are from fishbase)
  • Ivanacara should get an article for itself
  • Nannacara article has to mention this split off of its two species to Ivanacara
Just wonder if anyone here has access to this book. Besides thie Ivanacara thing, there're supposed to be some changes to Apistogramma and other genera too. --Melanochromis 20:29, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside, our mystery editor continues to make his (he registered as User:Markfish) changes without any discussion or edit history summaries. I'm not sure there's much that can be done. They've certainly been asked on multiple occassions to participate. MidgleyDJ 23:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, when are we going have references from Dr. Uwe Römer new book? did anyone have access or see the book yet? Aside from the addition of Ivanacara, I heard there are other changes to other genera too. --Melanochromis 06:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Per above comments, I'm added a ref. needed in the article for this genus, Ivanacara, in the species list. RN1970 (talk) 07:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Few more tasks for the good article status[edit]

Dear all editors who have been contributing to this wonderful article, I think it is almost ready to be nominated for Good Articles. So I'm going to do a few more tasks and then nominate it. Feel free to join in polishing the article. Here are what you can do:

  • Expand the "endangered cichlids" section and include citations for this section
  • Check existing references and add more if you can
  • Improve grammar and make sure the article is easy to read (I definitely need help as English is not my native language)
  • "cichlid as food fish" and "cichlid as gamefish" sections (or combined these two somehow). Done!
  • Get rid of red links, they don't look pretty. With exceptions of the genera section perhaps.
  • "Images of cichlids" section will have to be revised. Done!
The 12 pictures in this section have to be of high quality and include representations of food cichlids, game cichlids, aquarium cichlids, as well as well-known cichlids. I will also replace pictures that have red links. I apologize if the images you posted are going to be replaced, but they are already categorized and can be seen in the Main gallery anyway--Melanochromis 19:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy over the next two weeks to try and complete the listing of genera (by creating the relevant stubs). I've finished the first column. MidgleyDJ 23:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot Midgley. Gallery section revision done. --Melanochromis 05:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Cichlid as food and game fish" section created --Melanochromis 01:46, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent what time I have lately on oscar (fish) and Pelvicachromis pulcher, I've not yet had the chance to create more genera stubs, apologies. MidgleyDJ 02:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also shall we fix the reference list so each reference only appears once? MidgleyDJ 02:20, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok. I'll help creating the genera stubs too. And I agree we should do something with the references. Something like your oscar article would be really nice. By the way, I like what you did with that article. It's such a big improvement. --Melanochromis 11:26, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notes about the gallery section[edit]

Please do not add random pictures to the article gallery. Instead add category:cichlid images to your picture and it will be included in the main gallery should anyone click the "main article" link. The current gallery has been carefully selected to represent different aspects of the cichlids. There's a logic behind it, if you are curious to know, here's what they are:

  • image#1: popular pet fish (oscar)
  • image#2: popular game fish (peacock bass)
  • image#3: popular food/farm fish (Nile tilapia)
  • image#4: commercial aquarium trade
  • image#5: cichlid sexual dimorphism
  • image#6: cichlid sexual behavior
  • image#7: cichlid brood care
  • image#8: African cichlid (Lake Malawi)
  • image#9: African cichlid (Lake Tanganyika)
  • image#10: American cichlid (and also happens to be the northernmost cichlid species)
  • image#11: Dwarf cichlid
  • image#12: Popular hybrid

You should only replace these images with the ones that better represent the themes. For example, if you have a picture that display a better sexual behavior of cichild, then replace it with image#6. Also, provide a good caption with a link to an existing species/genus article (no red links). Sorry for the inconvenience but we are pushing this article for the good article status.

Regards, --Melanochromis 21:00, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GA feedback[edit]

Very nice! I suggest thinking of WP:FA once GA is obtained.

My only quibbles are:

  1. The placement of in-line references is inconsistent (before or after period at end of sentence), and some that have the reference after the period have a whitespace before and after the reference tag, which makes the reference float between sentences.
  2. The "Source: Froese, R." sentence at the beginning of the Genera section, can some of this be inlined or something? It sort of feels like someone forgot to put the "<ref>" tags around a reference (I know that's not the case, but it feels a bit like that).
Changed it to the fishbase reference. I think this works better. MidgleyDJ 21:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. A colleague recently showed me a molecular phylogeny cladeogram he was using for a comparative study. I didn't get the reference but there are some out there, and they'd go well in the Genera section. I don't think they're necessary for GA, but I'd like them for FA.

Pete.Hurd 18:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of things to do prior to going to featured article status[edit]

  • Add further references to diet section.
I'll try and finalise the section on diet. MidgleyDJ 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add information re: phylogeny.
  • Create "red" articles as required.
  • Another reproduction/brood care image? Replace jaguar cichlid image?

Anything else? MidgleyDJ 21:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A picture I always meant to get was one of my Geophagus steindachneri taking her brood into her mouth, never quite got around to it... I'll see if I can scare up some phylogeny references. Pete.Hurd 01:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll stick a potentially useful list of cichlid taxonomy papers below:
  • Stiassny 1991. Phylogenetic intrarelationships of the family Cichlidae: an overview. Pp. 1-35 in: Cichld Fishes: Behaviour, ecology and evolution (M.H.A. Keenleyside, Ed), Chapman and Hall, New York.
  • Streelman et al, 1998. Multilocus phylogeny of cichlid fishes (Pisces: Perciformes): evolutionary comparison of microsatellite and single-copy nuclear loci. Mol Biol Evol. 15:798–808.
  • Farias et al, 1999. Mitochondrial DNA phylogeny of the family cichlidae: monophyly and fast molecular evolution of the Neotropical assemblage. Journal of Molecular Evolution 48:703-711.
  • Farias et al, 2000. Total Evidence: Molecules, Morphology, and the Phylogenetics of Cichlid Fishes. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL ZOOLOGY (MOL DEV EVOL) 288:76–92.
  • Kocher 2004. Adaptive evolution and explosive speciation: the cichlid fish model. Nature Reviews Genetics 5: 288-298. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pete.Hurd (talk • contribs) 01:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My list of what the article needs prior to submission to FA: (in addition to the items listed above)

  • Significant copyediting, the article as a whole doesn't flow well and there are typos/grammar issues.
  • Too much jargon; Expand the article so it is easier to understand by a layperson. Examples: explain "pharyngeal bones/pharyngeal jaws/pharyngeal teeth", "no bony shelf below the orbit of the eye".
  • Eliminate lists, except, of course, the list of genera. Examples: brood care section, characteristics of cichlids.
  • A discussion of the evolutionary history.
  • Are there distinct regional differences in the genera? For example, what do the South American cichlids have in common vs. African cichlids, vs. Asian cichlids, etc.
  • Rewrite the lead section to conform with WP:LEAD.
  • Cleanup units of measure per WP:MOSNUM.
  • Discuss the fact that many species have been selectively bred for the aquarium trade to enhance certain characteristics, e.g. discus, angelfish, and that the fish that can be seen in the aquarium store can sometimes differ significantly from the "wild" form. Hybridization is discussed to some extent, but not selective breeding.
  • Cleanup consistency between U.S. English spellings (behavior) and British English spellings (behaviour), etc. The article is written in British English, and as such I'm not great at spotting examples of U.S. English because only British English words jump out at me.

Neil916 (Talk) 16:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and edit it now, but inline references go after punctuation, not before. MiltonT 16:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, we might try to get the type species of the type genus for the family picture in the taxobox; for Fish articles, it is preferable to have the type species. (See WP:FISH for more details on the Taxobox, including details such as a left-facing fish, etc.). MiltonT 17:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too long[edit]

The very well written and otherwise delectable article is too long, and should be considered for splitup, f.ex. the genera list could be placed on a separate page. Said: Rursus ☺ ★ 08:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taxonomy Additions[edit]

Since I've yet to learn how to convert references into footnotes, could someone give my additions to the Taxonomy section a once over and perform the requisite conversion? Only I thought it was apposite to include links to a couple of recent scientific papers highlighting some of the work being done in the field. Calilasseia 19:06, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

number of species (changed by IP's)[edit]

A number of IP's have been heavily involved in changing the number of species (from 1900 to 2200 species), despite clearly not fitting the references. Multiple requests for references have resulted in nothing. I've now warned the last, IP 71.138.49.121 (which probably is the same as the previous editor who've been involved in this), but, based on history, I suspect he'll continue, seeing that this goes back several months. Just something to keep an eye on. 212.10.89.251 (talk) 00:23, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just for the record, a new ref. which supports 1300-3000 species has been added. I haven't had the chance to actually check it yet, but have no reason to doubt its validity. RN1970 (talk) 04:31, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fishes is not a word (... yes it is)[edit]

Suspending public editing of the document until a specified date hardly seems like a measure in fighting vandalism but whatever. The reason for this section is that the very first sentence in the page for Cichlids is not proper English and makes use of Fishes which is not a word. Fish is an odd word that when used in plural does not change from the singular use of the word. The only thing that changes is the context it is used in.

singular - You may have one "fish" in each bucket.

plural - Have you ever seen a school of "fish"?

I propose a change to the text Fishes to Fish and the link should reflect this as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.95.13 (talk) 22:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • While fish versus fishes often confuse, they are both correct, but used in different situations. This is described in the intro of many - if not most - books dealing with fishes (yes, fishes). Alternatively, the explanation is availabel right here on wikipedia. A note on the protection of the page: It was only semi-protected. Such pages can still be modified by people with wikipedia accounts, and I can only welcome you to register (after all, it's completely free). RN1970 (talk) 06:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is very interesting but just the same the Webster’s dictionary(First published in 1806) as well as the Encyclopedia Britannica both do NOT have fishes listed as an English word meaning "aquatic vertebrates that are typically cold-blooded". The Britannica however does mention fishes but only in reference to the "Latin non English" word regarding the zodiacal constellation lying between Aries and Aquarius.

Being that both of these books are the most common used in public schools I think it trumps a wikipedia article don't you? The only confusion is that people continue to use it incorrectly. I originally made this suggestion due to the fact that I am a pet shop owner and had found the improper use of the word in a book that was sent to us for distribution to our customers. After getting together with another pet shop owner and discussing it we then decided to send the book back due to the improper use of the word because it is misleading and misinforming so once again I propose that this be changed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.95.13 (talk) 11:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Actually no. I'd - always - trust sources that actually specialize on the matter (e.g. the standard reference Fishes of the World) over general sources. If you disagree strongly with this, I can only recommend you start a discussion on this matter in Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes with a link back to these posts. RN1970 (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be the book I refer to. I am unsure if the author thought it would be cute or maybe skipped out on his English class but either way it is not grammatically correct. I will carry this over to the Fishes article later but do take note that the book in question was published first in 1976. A few sources you may wish to seek out other than those that I have already mentioned would be one of the following http://www.english-zone.com/spelling/plurals.html Georgia State University http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwesl/egw/crump.htm or take a look through one of the oldest known books to man. The bible. You will see many mentions of the word fish in regard to all fish of every kind but you will not see the reference to every kind of fish being written as fishes but only fish.

For the sake of this argument though it should be noted that nouns are words used as the name of a person, place, object, quality, animal or a collection of any of the aforementioned. George Bernard Shaw argued that the word fish could be spelled "ghoti" in English but that does not make it correct or proper English and even though Fishes could make it simpler to distinguish between the singular and plural use of the word the same could be said for ghoti and ghotis which would appear more suiting than fishes. This is exactly why the English language is so difficult. We have 3 or more words for every single meaning and the only reason is because we are not happy with the ones we were given and feel the urge to change, twist or add to what is already there so lets try to un-complicate it. The use of the word fish is fine for both plural and singular usage providing the rest of the sentence the word is used in is well formed and if it is not then it really does not matter if you use the word fish or fishes because it will be misunderstood anyway.

  • Please do remember to sign your posts. The arguments you present still do not weigh heavily compared to the main authorities on this matter (the bible is arguably the single most important book in the world, but its relevance in this situation is limited). Notice also that I never did say fish is incorrect as plural of fish - just that the use in that form is limited. For completeness, I'll also add that you'll find fishes in its correct form is used widely (as anyone working with fishes will know), and I simply mentioned the previous source because it perhaps is the single most authoritative book published on this matter (and while the 1st edition was published in the 1970s, each new edition is fully updated compared to the previous, and the most recent is from 2006). Just check any major internet bookstore for specialist books with fishes in the title. A small sample: Fishes of the Tropical Eastern Pacific (Allen & Robertson, 1994), World Atlas of Marine Fishes (Kuiter & Debelius, 2006), Sea Fishes of Southern Australia (Hutchins & Swainston, 1986), Coral Reef Fishes. (Lieske & Myers, 1999), Marine Fishes of Tropical Australia and south-east Asia (Allen, 1997), Dr. Axelrod's Atlas of Freshwater Aquarium Fishes (Axelrod & Burgess, 1991), Handbook of European Freshwater Fishes (Kottelat & Freyhof, 2007), Freshwater Fishes in Britain - The Species and their Distribution (Harding et al., 2004), Fossil Fishes of Great Britain (Dineley & Metcalf, 1999), Reef and Shore Fishes of the South Pacific (Randall, 2005), The Physiology of Fishes (Evans & Claiborne, 2006), Fishes: An Introduction to Ichthyology (Moyle & Cech, 2003)... and I could continue. Comparably, you can check what probably is the single most authoritative source on the net: The Catalog of Fishes, or alternatively FishBase, which, despite its clear shortcomings, also ranges in the top for its completeness, with many of the world authorities taking part in that project. Comparably, while still of far less importance than the specific sources I mentioned earlier, you'll find fishes do feature in dictionaries, as this search reveals (even if only some of them get the several/one species distinction right). Regardless, this argument is absolutely fundamental to all fishes, not just cichlids. I can therefore only recommend that - as noted in my last post - you start a discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Fishes with a link back to these posts. I seriously doubt many will agree with you (as indeed evident by the name of the group), but that is the correct place for this discussion. RN1970 (talk) 22:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA Reassessment[edit]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Cichlid/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, listed below. I will check back in seven days. If these issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far.

  • There are at least three dead links.[4]
Taxonomy
  • This section needs reworking to avoid the external links in the "details can be found here" comments. External links should only appear in the external links section.
  • The last paragraph is rather vaguely attributed.
  • The citation style should be consistent throughout the article.
Range and habitat
  • "Chakrabarty concludes from his review of phylogenetic analyses that vicariance is the only explanation." Need to explain who Chakrabarty is.
Diet
  • The first paragraph, which contains the claim that "Cichlids are astonishingly diverse in terms of diet", needs to be cited. Who is astonished?
Images of cichlids
  • I'm unconvinced that this is an article that can justify the inclusion of an image gallery. I'd suggest replacing it with a link to Commons.

--Malleus Fatuorum 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As these issues remain unaddressed, this article has now been delisted. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Addition of information regarding cichlid speciation[edit]

I was thinking that, since cichlids provide us with such a rich example of speciation, we should include a little more information on this subject. Maybe even add in a new section heading addressing this directly? I have written a little on the subject below and was wondering what you all thought before doing any editing.

Cichlids provide scientists with a unique perspective of speciation, having become extremely diverse in the more recent geological past. It is widely believed that one of the contributing factors to their diversification are the various forms of prey processing displayed by cichlid pharyngeal jaw apparatus. These different jaw apparatus allow for a broad range of feeding strategies including: algae scraping, snail crushing, planktivores, piscivores, and insectivores.[1] Some cichlids can also show phenotypic plasticity in their pharyngeal jaws, which can also help lead to speciation. In response to different diets or food scarcity, members of the same species can display different jaw morphologies that are better suited to different feeding strategies. As species members begin to concentrate around different food sources and continue their life cycle, they most likely spawn with like individuals. This can reinforce the jaw morphology and given enough time, create new species.[2] This can happen through allopatric speciation, when they concentrate on different food sources in different areas, or possibly through sympatric speciation. This is one of the most interesting aspects of cichlid diversification, there exists a strong possibility that they can provide us with evidence of sympatric speciation. In a crater lake in Nicaragua called Lake Apoyo, there is a species of cichlid, Amphilophus zaliosus, that very may well have speciated through sympatric speciation. A. zaliosus, its sister species Amphilophus citrinellus, and the lake itself display many of the criteria needed for sympatric speciation.[3] Knisley.46 (talk) 05:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Albertson, R. C., J. A. Markert, P. D. Danley, and T. D. Kocher. 1999. Phylogeny of a rapidly evolving clade: The cichlid fishes of Lake Malawi, East Africa. PNAS. 96:5107-5110.
  2. ^ Muschick, M., M. Barluenga, W. Salzburger, and A. Meyer. 2011. Adaptive phenotypic plasticity in the Midas cichlid fish pharyngeal jaw and its relevance in adaptive radiation. BMC Evolutionary Biology. 11:116.
  3. ^ Barluenga, M., A. Meyer, M. Muschick, W. Salzburger, and K. N. Stolting. 2006. Sympatric speciation in Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fish. Nature. 439:719
I think that's a good idea. I'd welcome you being WP:BOLD, and adding it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 22:06, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cichlid. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cichlid. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:59, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

speciation section[edit]

Cichlid Phylogeny

Hi folks. I'm not an evolutionary biologist. However, I did once have cichlids in my aquarium and noticed this article which is open! I uploaded a slightly edited version of their figure 1. I think that there is now evidence for the statement in the speciation section "there exists a strong possibility that they can provide us with evidence of sympatric speciation.", but, again, I'm not an expert. Sooooo, I give you the figure and reference and hope that somebody else will edit the section. @Tryptofish and Knisley.46: DennisPietras (talk) 03:55, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DennisPietras: This is excellent source information; thank you very much for thinking of this! I've read the paper, and it does indeed indicate evolution from a common ancestry in the form of a hybrid swarm. On the other hand, it addresses only the cichlids of the African rift lakes, but not cichlids as a whole, so I will present it accordingly. I'll make the edits now. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Anglefish picture?[edit]

Why is there an anglefish picture on the cichlid page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silas Mayes (talk • contribs) 14:14, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The genus Pterophyllum is in the family Cichlidae. (They are closely related to Discus.) --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cichlid. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cichlid. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:52, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cichlinae[edit]

Please see the comment I have made on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Fishes and give comments. Thanks Quetzal1964 (talk) 07:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Cichlid aggressive behavior[edit]

Not a large enough topic that it requires its own article. Could easily be merged into the more comprehensive cichlid article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support strongly. There is absolutely no need for that standalone page. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Standalone page has not much material as of current state. Will fit in nicely to main article at the moment. --Xaiver0510 (talk) 03:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as article is orphan appearing to have no standalone notability. Redditaddict69 (talk) (contribs) 02:31, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I've gone ahead and done it since there was no opposition and the discussion has been open about two weeks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cichlid&oldid=1193936663"