Talk:Australian lungfish

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Living fossils

I have replaced this article in the Category:Living fossils. The article was removed with the edit comment "see pertinent discussion", but there is no discussion at all about this on either this talk page or the category talk page, nor any hint of where such a "pertinent" discussion may have been held.

If a species that is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, extant vertebrate species - being identical to fossils over 100 million years old - does not qualify as a living fossil, then I don't know what does qualify. Nick Thorne talk 13:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry bout that. i put my rationale at the talk page for Category:Living fossils, but couldn't figure how to link to it correctly, and didn't do very well at pointing that out. :) didn't mean to step on any toes; i'd appreciate your leaving any input you may have on that topic, in fact. - Metanoid (talk, email) 13:48, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland Lungfish?

this is the only time, and only place, I've ever heard of this referred to as the Queensland lungfish. Why is this? Totnesmartin (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen, Gerald R. (2002). Freshwater Fished of Australia. Perth: Westen Australian Museum. p. 55. ISBN 0 7307 5486 3.
Merrick, John R.; Schmida, Gunther (1984). Australian freshwater fishes. Griffin Press Ltd. p. 47. ISBN 0 9591908 0 5.
"Australian Lungfish". Native Fish Australia. Retrieved 26 February 2009.
The two books use the name Queensland lungfish, the NFA web site lists Queensland lungfish as the first altenrative common name. - Nick Thorne talk 23:01, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's "first alternative common name" then? And two books. Is this the primary Australian English name? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those two books would generally be considered to be the most authoritative on the subject and they use the name as their primary one. I could list quite a lot of other references if I felt so inclined, but I do not. - Nick Thorne talk 14:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if they're the best books on it then leave it as it is. I've just never heard it called that - but then I don't live in Australia. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Growth and Development

It says that the fish are 250mm upon hatching, but that they obtain a length of 25cm (aka 250mm) by the end of six months. I am in no way an expert on this animal, but I'd imagine it does grow.

Fixed - Nick Thorne talk 23:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Development of the lung

In the chapter breathing:

A distinctive characteristic of the Queensland lungfish is the presence of a lung-like swim bladder. Modified into a vascularized air-breathing organ (...)

is WRONG. I learned (during editing of the German wiki) that the lung was the original organ! From this ancient lung, the Tetrapods further developped this organ for breathing, whereas later the Actinopterygii further developped this organ into a swimm bladder. --> The swim bladder developped from the lung, not vice versa! I have the literature G. Allen, Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia as well, but it is wrong at this point. -- Der Regenbogenfisch (talk) 07:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It does not really matter what the German Wiki says, what matters is what the sources say. If you have an authoritative source that contradicts Allen, then show us what it is and we can have a discussion about it, but Allen is rather authorative on Australian fish, and the book was published by the CSIRO and Western Australian Museum. - Nick Thorne talk 14:40, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for misunderstanding, I wanted to say that in the German Wiki are the respective sources in the article and in the discussion. Additionally you may look into the English wiki Swim bladder, chapter "Evolution" with its source no.5. (I know that Allen is an expert on Australian fish, but is he an expert in Evolutionary biology of fish? - (By the way, I am not, too)) -- Der Regenbogenfisch (talk) 18:06, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Culinary use?

Is it edible? I think a subsection about its culinary use would be a great improvement to this page.Zigzig20s (talk) 08:55, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just seen this. Queensland lungfish are a totally protected species. discussion about its culinary use is inappropriate. - Nick Thorne talk 23:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Queensland lungfish. 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 09:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queensland lungfish. 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) 22:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ceratodontiformes should not redirect here

Ceratodontiformes is an order with many other members than this species (such as the namesake Ceratodus), and should therefore be a separate article. FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This! The Australian Lungfish might be the only extant member in the order but it's not evem the sole taxon in its genus, much less so in its family and entire order. --Draco ignoramus sophomoricus (talk) 11:38, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Common name

Both fishbase and the Australian museum use Australian lungfish. That should be good enough fo wikipedia. - Nick Thorne talk 02:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 30 October 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 06:54, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Queensland lungfish → Australian lungfish – Both fishbase and the Australian museum use Australian lungfish as the common name for this species. Nick Thorne talk 02:21, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move - Looks to be the most common name since 194. As long as no other fishes have that common name. --Nessie (talk) 14:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is only one species of lungfish in Australia (ie Neoceratodus forsteri), so there are no other possible contenders for this common name. - Nick Thorne talk 03:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Conservation Status

The species box shows this species as endangered, but the text says that, while there is cause for concern, studies have not shown that it qualifies as endangered. Who is right? J S Ayer (talk) 03:27, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species currently lists the Queensland Lungfish as endangered CryolophosaurusEllioti (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_lungfish"